Ridecamp: RE: [RC] More Thoughts

Margie:

As you are now doubt aware, I have been active in Endurance
for a number of years. I have served on the BoD and run for
the BoD as at-large and regional director.

I have often commented on line as well as directly too the
Directors. Seldom have I ever received an answer let alone
an acknowledgement that I had tried to make contact. Yes,
there are two or three who will answer but, in my
experience, the preponderance of our Directors appear to
ignore any contact by the membership.

Bob

Bob Morris
Morris Endurance Enterprises
Boise, ID

-----Original Message-----
From: ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Margie
Burton
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 10:25 AM
To: ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [RC] More Thoughts


You must be aware that not all board members are on
ridecamp.  I rejoined to
keep up with what the BOD ridecamp members are saying but
have found it
impossible to read everything...in fact, when I get home
from a few days
away I just delete everything that says RC.  Not because I
don't enjoy the
posts, I do, just not enough time to catch up.  So, if
you're not getting
feedback from BOD members here maybe:
They aren't on or
They don't find this is the site to post AERC board
comments.
I have just joined the board but have found most board
members care deeply
about this sport;  I can honestly say that even though I
seem to disagree
with many of them as much or more than I agree!  Even those
I consider dear
friends. :)
Margie
(PS~I even deleted the unread post from Howard causing all
the flack
lately!!)

-----Original Message-----
From: ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Roger
Rittenhouse
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 10:53 AM
To: ridecamp
Subject: [RC] More Thoughts- and those going away

FROM   Roger Rittenhouse     roger@xxxxxxxxxxx
Well too bad so many are going away. When this list gets so
bad  at
times - I just stop posting - but I read.

I have found out some great ENDURANCE related information.
Applied it
and asked questions to find out answers. I dont always get
the
response I prefer, but any response is better then NONE.

Such has been the case with the posts I have made this week.

I have a LARGE amount of private posts, MOST positive with
reports of
many of the same issues I addressed. Sure wish they were
public.

I may cut and paste a few of the comments.  You would be
quite
surprised about some situation we have. More issues were
addressed
then I defined.

I have noted MORE response from the riders about these
issues then I
received from the closed BOD list. In fact as we have seen 2
BOD
members jump in on the discussion. AND I might add provided
a good sound
position for or against my suggestions.

MOST of the time I bring up issues such as I have presented
here on
RC to the BOD and they are are ignored. go figure?


The only way to either improve our sport or to accept it as
is,
 is to discuss issues. To pretend all is just perfect is
blind sided.
Do many issues need fixing NO - but some do need to be
addressed and
adjusted.

Sadly though I see very little hot items ever being
addressed by the
AERC BOD or many members either.
No one wants to go into harms way and step out and take a
stand or
MOST importantly take on those in charge.
That was the MAIN point made by most of my private posts
from riders, they
are
truly concerned about repercussions if they spoke up.

The issues   I addressed will never be dealt with by the
BOD.

We will never see the 2 VC rule or the 2 VET rule added to
our rules.
Or another I left out - the vet license issue. That is vets
without a
license to practice,  vetting a ride, and maybe treating a
horse.

Never will the issues of hazing be addressed, since one HAS
to make
the horse TROT for evaluation. That one just LOOKS bad to
see a rider
wacking a horse on every stride and pulling on the rope. It
is a
public display of what 'someone' may call abuse.

Vetting policy and standards will never be hard coded. Not
to restrict
vetting process, but to prevent the current changes or
misapplication MANY
see in the
process. The consistency from vet to vet and ride to ride is
not
there.
The standards are far to variable and left up to the free
form
interpretation by the vet in charge, and there is no
recourse for the
riders.  (In spite of some comments - I have NOT been a
victim of those
actions)

Since we dont have horses dying  all over the place and
large numbers
of horses are not being treated, then we dont have any
problems.
Right?
Well, in fact horses are dying and horses get treated at
many rides.

The data, as in public information, is not provided for all
to review.

Horses have problems and die under both vetting protocols -
that
is; the easy going vetting style we have in some regions to
the strict hard
line
process we see at other rides. It does not prevent a horse
from being
damaged or as some would call it abused.
Therefore the call to codify the vetting process and
protocol is
unfounded. ???

Since we choose to assume we do NOT have ANY problems within
AERC
either with our rules or vet polices then we can just let it
be -
until some one outside AERC requires us to take action.

Eventually rules will forced on us weather they prevent
horse problems
or NOT. It is  HOW it looks to 'others'  By that I mean
codified
vetting protocol and procedures.

We do not have data or records to support the claims we
provide for the
safety and care of the horse.  Read on - COMPLETION
percentages are
NOT the issue.
We do not have data or reports to offer
to a review group, that details  the treatments and or death
of horses over
the
past 5 years or more.
 The 'rights' groups do not want to see the completion
data, they want to see the  DNF -treatment and death
reports, AND what
we are doing to prevent that problem.  At the very least -
LOOK like
we are doing something.

Remember the bashing from last year with the new rider -
with the
horse that died?
Has anyone seen any changes to address that?  Many demands
were made
from this list. The rider is still running(racing) - I
think?

 Well horses dont die often and our percentage is lower then
others and we
do have very good
treatment methods to fix damaged horses, so there is no
issue here. ?

It is all based on the premise 'it ant broke dont fix it'

So we do nothing  for now.

I just happen to think we should 'fix' issues that are not
really
broken but 'look' a bit cracked. The perception is to the
public and groups
that would shut us down.

I suspect within     5 years we will be running our rides
under
a system very close to the Australian process, log books,
chips,
graded events with performance levels and tests to move
up..outside
intervention and review..rider censure and so on.
Control  will be placed on us from outside.

 Roger Rittenhouse



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-=-=
 Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net,
http://www.endurance.net.
 Information, Policy, Disclaimer:
http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-=-=



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-=-=
 Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net,
http://www.endurance.net.
 Information, Policy, Disclaimer:
http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-=-=



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
 Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=