Re: [RC] Horse/Rider History Books re: PULL CODES - DreamWeaver
At 11:28 AM 11/10/2002 -0800, you wrote:
Can anyone explain to me why RO-L and RO-M are not satisfactory to some
of the membership?
Because it give the stigma to somebody that now has a regular L or M (minus
the RO part in front of it) pull that they did not choose what was best for
their horse and had to be forced to do it.
This is just splitting hairs. Who cares who made the decision, this will
only make people look bad that don't have the RO in front of their name,
making it worse than it already is. Also, like I said, when it comes to
lameness a lot of it is subjective.
Now come on, if a horse is at a vet check and the vet says "your horse is
too lame to continue", and the rider says "okay I won't go on" -- whose
decision is that? Did the rider really make that decision? No they
didn't, they didn't have the choice, but you are going to have some vets
that will say that the rider RO's the L pull and others that will put it
down the other way. There won't be any consistency because there isn't any
now. Is the choice okay to be the riders if the horse is a grade 2? What
if it is bordering on a 3 and two vets each see it a different way? Yeah,
I am looking forward to spending more time waiting in vet lines while this
If somebody doesn't think so, then I urge them to go out and do a few rides
in three or more different AERC regions and then tell me what they think
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
If you are an AERC member - PLEASE VOTE in the Director at Large
and By Laws Elections.
- RE: [RC] Horse/Rider History Books re: PULL CODES, Bob Morris
- Re: [RC] Horse/Rider History Books re: PULL CODES, Charles
- Re: [RC] Horse/Rider History Books re: PULL CODES, Barbara McCrary