Re: RC: Re: ROC

[Lucie Hancock <lbhbhnck@ftc-i.net>]

I, too, am glad the ROC is back, and am bothered by negative attitudes. There
are so many details to see about in managing any ride, and lots of things
that don't look like they will ever be "right" that DO finally come together.
I want to just wait and see what is actually happening, and how the ride
comes together. I would like to ride the ROC, whether or not it gets sanctioning,
for my own personal reasons. I was born in Yavapai County and it would be
a marvelous homecoming. I understand the need for rules, but I think it's
too early to get bent out of shape over details. Now if I were a points chaser
I might be watching with more anxiety, but I believe it will all come together.
Lucie 

LSimoni197@aol.com wrote:
> I was so very happy to hear that the ROC was back, some of the very hard
> nosed attitudes bother me. 
> I am aware of other managers in my area who are having difficulty clearing
> details with park or wildlife lands administrators.  I would prefer that
> these rides be saved through understanding and cooperation from the Board
> of Directors. 
> We have lost so many rides due to manager burn out, or miles of trail closed
> to horse use, losing rides due to rigidness seems foolish. 
> We have more than just regulations, we have living people who serve on the
> Board of Directors who can review an application and make a judgment call.
>  I would hope that our Directors would review the application, even if it
> were late, and give due consideration to the situation.   
> Our sport depends on ride managers to put on the rides.  AERC is a body we
> created to serve our sport.  The founders did have the point of view that
> "Too Many Rules Get In The Way."  I believe this could be a situation of
> too many rules getting in the way. 
> Consider, what is the bottom line?   
> AERC as an organization is there to facilitate rides.  Not to say, you missed
> the date, so no ride. 
>   
> Lynge Simoni