Steve Rutter's DAL issue positions

AERC should be inclusive of and supportive of rides that embody our purpose -". . . the riding of horses over long distances. . . ". To me that includes international riding and FEI sanctioned rides. I see the present Board becoming more familiar with and supportive of FEI and international rides. I feel each rider should contribute to the costs of their ride, e.g.,higher entry fees for those riding longer distances and/or more expensive levels of competition such as FEI sanctioned rides. It is my understanding that new rules will make managing FEI rides easier and less costly to run in the future. I anticipate seeing more FEI qualifying rides available in the USA.

AERC is a sanctioning body and as such does not manage any rides. I feel AERC should provide a level playing field for all rides, with the ride management being responsible for the economics of their own ride. Therefore, I do not see AERC subsidizing any rides monetarily. If AERC felt it was in the best interest of the organization to promote certain rides, such as a National Championship Ride, I could support that, but not to the exclusion or detriment of any other ride.

Regarding the National Championship Ride, I feel there is no entirely fair way to name a National Champion. Certainly not all good riders can afford the time to go to a National Championship Ride. The National Championship goes now to the winner among those who show up. Qualifying for such a ride should be made more stringent. Basing the National Championship on points or some other criteria also has its limits. Again, economic considerations along with ride season variability and having been on differing trails are just some of the uneven factors. I observe that the vast majority of riders are in this sport for the trail, their horse and the opportunity to spend the day with their animal friend. "To Finish Is To Win"!

It is not a perfect world and some riders do expect more from their horse than the horse has to give some days. I think most of those few instances are due to ignorance rather than malice. Enforcing existing rules and stepping up rider education efforts should help this situation. I do not feel that the completion criteria is lax. The equine must be fit to continue, but it must be taken into account that they have just completed between 50 and 100 miles that day and are going to show the effects. I support the present rules for Endurance Rides and support more uniform compliance with the present rules. I support more uniform vetting of rides and practical, workable methods to achieve that.

Listing a rider's "pulled" status in EN serves several purposes, among which is not to simply embarrass the rider. It is to allow others to see the unsuccessful entries of horses and the reasons. It will have the effect, hopefully, of encouraging each of us to ride with the best interest of the horse in mind, both for any particular ride, and for the competing life of the horse. It is important to some to see those statistics when evaluating a prospective ride to attend. AERC is reporting rider successes and noncompletions in an objective manner. This should carry some credibility with animal rights groups who are scrutinizing our sport.

Regarding distances under 50 miles, I feel AERC needs to encourage and support these events. I am aware that some teams will never progress to endurance riding, just as some who do 50s will never ride 100s. But they will enjoy the trail and their mount for the day and that is really what this activity is about. When we give placing, even with the pulse criteria for finishing, we encourage some to race, which is more likely to be detrimental to the horse. LD was instituted to be a training forum for Endurance Rides and has evolved into an activity on its own merits. I support the present place it has in AERC, but do not presently advocate a BC award or mileage being added to Endurance miles. I feel that a rider participating in LD rides that wants to race their horse beyond reason and use the horse up quickly does not have the concept of "Endurance" in mind and should find another sport.

By California Corporation Code, the Board of Directors is legally responsible for the affairs and activities of the Conference. That having been said, I feel the Directors need to consider the will of the Members within the confines of what AERC was established to accomplish. The membership should vote on any matters affecting the purposes of AERC, the number of Directors on the Board and any change in the voting and other rights of the membership. The Board should set policy, obviously with membership input. I feel the Board should be able to amend the Bylaws on minor structural and procedural matters that do not affect the Members' rights. There are several ways the members can give input to the process: serving on committees, completing member surveys, direct communication with Directors and speaking directly to the Board at the Annual meeting.

[Date Prev]	[Date Next]	[Thread Prev]	[Thread Next]
[Date Index]	[Thread Index]	[Author Index]	[Subject Index]