RE: [RC] [AERC-Members] New Discussion Subject - Bob Morris
And as a supplement to Howard's comments;
The ability to fail is what makes the success that much sweeter.
Bob
Bob Morris Morris Endurance Enterprises Boise, ID
-----Original Message----- From:
ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Howard
Bramhall Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 9:14 AM To:
ridecamp Subject: Re: [RC] [AERC-Members] New Discussion
Subject
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!!!!
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
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
Randy, 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 checks?
Can a Web portal forever change
your life? Win up to $25 Million on iWon - click here!
