Ridecamp: [RC] Responses to Roger R

Roger,

See comments below  *****

Mike

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

*** the Board has certainly disscussed some of these issues 
at length - and decided not to make changes.  Your statement 
really sounds like "not dealt with" means that the result 
was not what you thought should happen. *********

We will never see the 2 VC rule or the 2 VET rule added to 
our rules.

*******I'm not in agreement that either should be added.  I 
think that the conditions determine this as well as 
economics.  The multidays I've participated in in the W seem 
to run well with only one VC.  And logistics/terrain may 
dictate that the ride would not be be held if 2 were 
required.  I don't see a safety issue with this.

And for a number of rides as well - economics is an issue. 
I don't think ride managers put on rides to make money but 
need to at least break even. For the AERC to require a ride 
with only 10 entries to have two vets would be unreasonable.

You can look at these issues as safety for the horse but in 
general statistics don't show this.  And we cannot make 
something 100% safe for every horse.  There's a point of 
diminishing returns on adding safety factors.  **********


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.

*****  This seems to be a problem with one individual - not 
a general issue.  I've seen retired vets, vet students, 
endurance vets w/o a license to practice in the state they 
are vetting a ride in - all who do well and contribute to a 
ride being put on. None of them have a license or a license 
in the state they are doing the ride in.

I certainly agree that a person w/o a license or a revoked 
license should never treat a horse at a ride. Nor should 
they be a head vet at a ride.  But the above group - 
excluding the one individual - should not be excluded from 
being part of the vet team at a ride.  *********


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.


***** This is often a training problem.  If the horse is too 
tired to trot - then they are not fit to continue.  OTOH - 
some horses are fine on the trail and don't see the point at 
the check.  Vets should be able to distinguish between a 
horse that's too tired to continue and one that's lazy.
Soundness and ability to continue are the criteria for me.  **

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.
*****  Nor should they be -  and unfortunately consistency 
is't there from vet to vet. Misapplication has an effect on 
the RM in that people will stop coming to their rides if a 
particular vet is used.  I know of some cases of this.  ***

 The consistency from vet to vet and ride to ride is not
there.

***  Even human doctors will give different views at times 
for the same symptoms.  Of course - what the vets do is 
pretty standard for our horses.  But there are different 
levels of knowledge in vets - and you would expect some to 
see things others would not.  Even a simple thing like gut 
sounds can vary from one vet to another.  In the CT region - 
one often used vet is always 1 letter lower than the other 
vets on the ride.  This is just his standard.

Unless you have a measurement - like temperature - then you 
will get variation from one vet to another.  And many of our 
criteria are somewhat subjective.

That's why one vet does BC - to get consistency.  We 
recognize the need for it there.  Or one group does all the 
BC horses.

That said - I'm certainly for consistency if we can get it.
I just don't know how to make it happen.  I'm certainly 
against differenct criteria being used from one horse to 
another by the same vet.  And if a RM gets enough complaints 
about a particular vet - they may not use them again. 
********************************************************


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.

****  I don't know how to make some of them objective enough 
to be useful from one region to another.  In a hot humid 
climate - panting might be allowed.  In a arid cool area - 
it could be significant. A strict requirement on CRI - 
exactly x beats rise and no more - would be objective but 
not necessarily a good fixed number.  It depends on the 
horse/the ambient conditions and should be just one of many 
indications to the vet as to whether the horse is fit to 
contine.

Recourse is telling the RM and voting by not coming to rides 
where that vet is listed as the head vet.  And also tell 
your directors.  If enough complaints pile up - then at 
least we know about it.

I do agree that riders are reluctant to "rock the boat" 
feeling that they will get poor treatment by that vet or 
others in the future if they complain.
***************

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?


***** No sport is perfect.  More horses die at home after 
rides than ever do at rides.  And horses certainly get 
treated.  This is a difficult sport and puts stresses on a 
horse that never happen in the pasture.  We put our horses 
at risk everytime we go to a ride.  We should do as much as 
_reasonably_ possible to make it safe for them and us.

Some are pure accidents.  Others are due to overiding 
through intent or ignorance.  We should work on correcting 
ignorance and for intent - try to get them out of the sport 
if possible.*********


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. ???

*****  I don't see this as a problem with a vetting/rules 
solution.  From your statement above - it seems that you 
agree that horses die under both easy and strict vetting 
protocols.  If this is the case - I don't see how to make a 
set of rules that would solve the problem.

The solutions I see are - better rider education for 
beginning endurance riders and vet awareness of "problem" 
riders.  This happened in at least one case at the last 
Tevis.  Member peer pressure is another.  At least one very 
visible person in the Bay area no longer participates in the 
sport due to peer pressure.

Again - that said - I support doing everything reasonable to 
make the sport safe for our horses.  But some will still die 
or be seriously injured.  *************

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.
***************************
*** Uniform procedures would be good to have and could help 
us defend our sport if it came to legal issues.  But in the 
discussion above - we've both agreed that horses die under 
easy and strict vetting protocols.  Bottom line for me is 
"can whatever we decide to do" reduce the fatality/injury 
rate significantly.  I'm not for changes that don't have 
significant effects. I am for changes that have significant 
returns.  I just don't know what they are.  Suggestions?
**************************

We do not have data or records to support the claims we 
provide for the
safety and care of the horse.

***** certainly true - especially those that die at home. 
We need to improve here.
***************

  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.

**** We should have and that's clearly needed to be made an 
important part of our records.  Given that it's a very 
emotional issue on the owners side and a possible 
detrimental one on the vets side - there are issues in 
reporting a fatality.  But note that even for human deaths - 
much more noticable - reasons for death in hospitals rarely 
give the complete picture on mistakes made. ****

 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.

*** agreed  ******

 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 think we should fix things that have a significant 
effect on injuries and fatalities.  *****

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.


*** I certainly hope this is not the case but given the 
causes groups of people take up - anything can happen.







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