Home Shop Classified News, Stories Events Education Ridecamp Videos Cartoons AERC
Endurance.Net Home Ridecamp Archives
[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]

Re: [RC] [AERC-Members] New Discussion Subject - Howard Bramhall

And, this is a for real problem.  The competitive spirit that we humans do have.  I still fall under it's spell at rides.  One must know when to pull one's self out of the game, for the sake of the horse.
To compete, for that beloved top ten, everything must be going right, not one thing out of place.  And, if it isn't, for God's sake, you either must slow down or stop completely.  No award, BC, Top Ten, is worth jeopardizing your horse for.  NO AWARD, not even a T-Shirt!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Morris
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 10:49 AM
Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] New Discussion Subject

While all of Nancy's points are excellent there is one other point to consider. No matter the number of holds or the duration of the holds it is imperative the rider consider the condition of the horse. If additional non-mandated holds are required for a particular equine then those should be considered. The lack of a designated hold is not a mandate that the horse must continue to be in motion.
In my thoughts is the theme that the request for additional vet checks is simply a manner for the riders to have someone else FORCE them to rest as they, the riders, do not have the fortitude or discipline to do so on their own. The instillation of the competitive spirit overwhelms the welfare of the horse.
In a sense, the fewer the number of vet checks, the more responsibility the rider must assume. The more numerous the checks the faster the speed, as the rider mentally assumes the horse will get to rest more often.  One might consider, is it better to do say fifty miles in seven hours of steady riding, no stops mandated, or to do fifty miles in seven hours with three half hour holds or actually five and one half hours of actual riding and one and a half hours of rest time? Which is easier on the horse?  consumes the most energy? Which demands the more diligent rider?
Consider and then reply.

Bob Morris
Morris Endurance Enterprises
Boise, ID

-----Original Message-----
From: AERCMembersForum-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:AERCMembersForum-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Nancy Mitts
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 8:30 AM
To: renegade12@xxxxxxxx
Cc: AERCMembersForum@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] New Discussion Subject

So much depends on local weather conditions and trail lay-out & access. It wouldn't be a bad idea for AERC to RECOMMEND 2-3 holds in a fifty. I just don't see it being a mandatory 1 size fits all situation. 2 holds in a 50 "works" if there are 3 loops, or 2 good stopping points on a continuous trail. 3 holds "work" if there are 4 loops, although this can cause a time issue if they're very long. If there isn't a good location for a check---water, grazing or access for crews to bring feed & water, a good breeze, etc, I don't see any benefit for a horse to stand in a hot little hole in the woods just because it's at a certain mileage point.
And, while some might think it's great to force more rest periods on front runners, it also has an impact on those who choose to ride a conservative pace. I think we need to be cautious about instituting controls on the front end that speed up the back end.

--- On Mon 06/23, Randy H Eiland < renegade12@xxxxxxxx > wrote:

QUESTION TO DISCUSS: Do you think 2 vet checks per 50 miles works
and what do you think of the location of 17 miles - 34 miles for the vet

Can a Web portal forever change your life?
Win up to $25 Million on iWon - click here!