Re: RC: LD, curse or benefit?

[Jim Holland <lanconn@tds.net>]

>So, let's say we have a person (okay, me...) who loves the idea of an organized >sport that promotes good horsemanship, is
>conducted with professionalism, has a safe and sane *mildly* competitive >environment, who enjoys the comraderie of
>skilled, dedicated horse folks AND who is a person who will NEVER do more than 30 >miles. Is this person not welcome at
>AERC by those of you who are so negative about LD? There is no CTR in my part of >the country. Does that mean I have no
>opportunity to ride in such an environment? 

Terry...

IMHO, this IS what LD should be.  The greatest value of LD, in addition
to providing financial support for rides is not to train new horses,
bring back injured ones, etc., but to get RIDERS started in Endurance.
From people like you come our future Endurance Riders.  I've heard it
before... "Can't conceive of riding 50 miles" or "How does anyone right
100 miles?"  But somehow, it just happens.  I've seen it many times.
There is always the challenge to move up waiting like a carrot just
dangling there! <grin>  You don't need to start a horse doing 25's. You
can start a horse with 50's.  I did....no big deal.  Odds are, when the
circumtances are just right, you probably will do a 50....then you're
hooked forever.

I DO think there need to be some changes....evolution would be a better
word. I am a supporter of LD, not opposed to awards in LD, but I am not
sure that an award structure for rides that is the same (Top Ten, BC,
etc) as Endurance is the right thing for our sport.  However, I don't
believe radical changes are appropriate here.  "Tweaking" this and
having all the rides do it the same way would be a start. I really like
Lynne Glazer's way of handling it.

Jim and Sun of Dimanche