Check it Out!
In a message dated 6/25/01 4:01:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Are we seeing more treatments because owners and vets don't want to
> take any chances... Maybe we are treating more as we are actually
> more aware and cautious. Keeping the ball rolling...
This is most likely quite true. We treat on the side of caution, for the
horse. And, maybe, most of them would be fine, without the IV. It's just
the fastest and safest way to hydrate a horse who needs fluids.
I think that some ridecampers might be overreacting to a few posts, and want
to fix the problems mentioned with one rude rider in Malibu and a possible
dead horse from that NASTR ride (has anyone acutally validated this rumor
yet?). Personally, I don't think AERC is broken; and it it's not broken we
don't need to try and fix it. Trying to fix something that's already working
usually makes it worse. Just ask my lawnmower, that used to run before I
tried to make it run better. It's now in 50 different pieces, scattered
throughout my garage, where I used to park my truck.
Most vets I've seen in the Southeast will not be persuaded to let a horse
continue by an argumentative rider. I've seen just the opposite happen. A
friend of mine started questioning the vet, when the vet said her horse was
lame. The moment she got in his face about it the vet upgraded the degree of
lameness and her horse got pulled. If she would have kept her mouth shut she
would have been allowed to continue. Kind of like the coach arguing with the
umpire at a ballgame. "You're out of here." haha.
Our system seems to work quite well. Sometimes a rider, ride manager, or
even a vet can muck things up; but this is unusual; not the norm. Even I
have learned not to argue with the vets; and if I can make this adjustment to
my anti-authority personality, anyone can. I don't question their decision
with my horse's status anymore and, if they pull us, I thank them for
letting me get a beer and take a nap earlier than planned (the expression on
some of their faces, when I say this to them, is priceless). If in doubt,
pull us out.
One of the many differences, for me, concering FEI and AERC (you knew I ws
gonna slip this in somewhere), is that most FEI riders are there to compete,
and to compete seriously. Their training is serious and their event is
serious. And they don't call it an endurance run; they call it a race. Cause
that's what an FEI ride is.
AERC is not like that. With AERC you have an option. You can race, and I
don't think we should try and eliminate this option, but most riders just
want to complete, and those riders make it a run. Sure, we have our serious
competitors, and they usually will top ten. And the super riders, with their
super horses, will enter FEI sanctioned rides at every opportunity. This is
called life, and life is competition. The cream always floats to the top,
My point is (do you have one here?) that adding more rules because of a few
inexperienced riders who race, when they should be just "running," is silly.
The process will thin them out soon enough. They'll get pulled early, people
will get in their face about their behavior (I really believe in this one),
and they will either leave the sport or find another way to abuse their
horse. And life will go on.
AERC has come a long way. The stories I've heard about the "good ole days"
were not so good for the horse. The sport lost a lot of them back then; the
numbers were high. We've learned from that. And I think we've learned quite
a bit. We have decided to put this spotlight on ourself, and it's a good
thing to do so. If our sport does enter the Olympic World, that spotlight
will be much brighter, indeed.
Like I said, I'm not all that worried about other animal rights groups. We
are the animal rights group, as far as endurance horses are concerned. We
are already policing ourselves quite well. Read a few of the protests in
Endurance News. It tells you how we're doing. I don't think any more rules
will improve that; let's just enforce the ones on the books now.
Howard (book em, Dano)
Check it Out!
Back to TOC