And where is it the evidence it is better reporting? Do we know any
better how many horses die three days after at home? I doubt it very
seriously. I would hope that even in the dark ages 5 years ago when a
horse died at a ride it would have been reported. If not the
organization doesn't deserve to exist.
When you have a low probability event (such as a horse death) and the
numbers doubles for two years over the long term average in a row while
the number of starts only goes up by a few percent, that is a dead on
sign that something might be amiss.
How many years are we going to have to see these numbers untill we can
get rid of the "shit happens" excause and start to get serious about
solving it.
Truman
Heidi Smith wrote:
On the other hand,
the growth in deaths over the past few years in the AERC is much greater
than the growth in starts
I'm still looking for proof that this is a valid statement. I know there
have been years in the past when we've had as many or more deaths than we
see now. And Truman, you know enough about statistics to know that when
you are dealing with a VERY low number of anything, a difference of one or
two looks HUGE but really is not very significant. Never mind the fact that
as others have pointed out, our reporting has been spotty in the past, and
not all vets have followed up and added the ones that went home and
died--which with quicker intervention, you've changed how those are
reported.
Heidi
