Re: [RC] Howard...what's your point? - Howard Bramhall
John, I'm all for the idea of having longer hold times. I think the
way we do that is to make the 12 hour limit on 50's and the 24 hour limit on
100's "ride" time and ride time only (does not include the hold time).
That way, any hold time does not count, so if you want to add longer and longer
times at the vet checks the rider's won't say, "Well, that gives us less
time out on the trail, so, we're against it." It's an idea whose time has
come and I would love to see it enacted. And, no more than 15 miles before
you at least have a "Stop and Go," where the heart-rate is checked, at the
minimum. This is the sort of change that will save horse's lives at our
rides.
I agree, it's not only newbies that are losing horses. That's what
scares the crap out of me! It can happen to anyone and, I mean
anyone. The fact that it happens to our best riders and our best horses is
what should wake us all up to the fact that we do need to make some changes
here.
I'm not saying that my idea of setting a prerequisite for 100 milers would
fix this problem. It's only a drop in the bucket. But, throw
that one in with the idea of more checks, longer hold times, less distance
traveled between checks, put it all together, and, man, if it doesn't improve
any of the death or serious metabolic problems that's occurring at our rides, I
would really be surprised. And, I really do believe distance traveled to a
ride is so important we need to focus on that one. Let's get the word out
that traveling 1000 miles to get to a ride and arriving the day before you
begin 100 miles on your horse is not really a good idea.
Maybe the answer is anytime you put a horse and rider combination in a
competitive situation you will have horse fatalities. Some might say that
no matter what we do, this is going to happen. They may even have a point but,
at least we would be able to say we put forth our best efforts to reduce the
numbers.
America is looking in my window right now asking me, "Are you typing
again? Nobody's listening to you, come out and play. Bet you can't
catch me." I've gotten a bit carried away lately, sitting around drinking
a beer or two, reflecting on life and endurance after turning the big 50,
letting my six horses run around in my front yard, knocking over trash cans and
acting like they can do what ever they want at Howard's house (it's always a
party). But, when you let them interact with you to the point where they
are a part of your life 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, I'm probably not the one
any of you should listen to when it comes to this topic. I may be
completely insane! BTW, I've taught Dance Line to crush beer cans with his
hoof so I can now fit more empty beer cans into the recycling bin
without them spilling out all over the place like they used to.
So, to answer John's question I guess my point is there should be some
reaction when a horse dies at an endurance ride. When more than 5 die in a
year, there should be some changes made. When that happens two or three
years in a row, some serious changes should be made. Hey, it's only my
opinion, horses seem to run things at my place so I'm probably not the right guy
to turn to with this sort of thing because if it were left to me everything
would be about the horse and the riders' interests would be a distant
second. Radical thought, I know.
cya,
Howard (six horses = 300 lbs of crap a day; geez, Howard, no wonder
you're so full of it)
I am always glad to read what Howard writes because the man
does not mince words. But...I think, Howard, is that you have
missed the obvious. It is not the newbie riders who are losing
horses! The one lost in Vermont last weekend was very tragic and
when I step back and take a look, it is the sport at fault. Calm
down, I love endurance and I think everyone is trying for the same
goal, the interest of the sport...but the fact remains that we need to
be protected from ourselves..and that goes for the horse too.
The only way I can see that happening is to have more holds.
More holds means more rest time for the horse, more opportunities for
the vets to evaluate the horse and less time on the trail to get into
trouble before it's caught. Loops of 20+ miles are simply too
long. The Pan Ams had three loops - 20-20-21 miles. The
Vermont ride had the first two loops - 18-21 miles. The horse gets
into a deficit but is willing to go on despite itself. By the time
the horse or rider recognizes that there is trouble, it can be too
late. No vet can be expected to pull a horse out of metabolic
trouble every time and I feel sorry for those vets that do everything in
their power but cannot save a horse. I feel even more for the rider
who can second guess themselves forever about what they missed in
their horse before it failed. I feel the most for the horse because
this is just a game we play and we invite them to join us although we
all fully understand the risks....they do not.
