 |
Re: [RC] Just Guessing - Joe LongOn Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:28:57 -0500, "Howard Bramhall" <howard9732@xxxxxxx> wrote: There are some good guesses in there, Kat. The thing is, I kind of disagree with your final conclusion. I do think there are some excellent ideas out there that would help reduce the number of endurance related equine metabolic deaths. I have a list: 1) The pacer/mentor program, for newbies, is an excellent idea. This is how we pass on the valuable knowledge that our experienced riders have to give to others. As a voluntary program, I think this is a good idea, and one that is already being tried. As a way to reduce equine fatalities is is probably useless, though. And if it was mandatory, it would do little good while causing a lot of problems. 2) The "horse holiday" idea is another good one. 30 days is not a long period of time and if your horse is pulled at a ride, for metabolic reasons, that period of time is something a rider should do on their own anyway. Not so. Some metabolic problems need more than 30 days off, some only need a few days. For example, on my first trip to California (from Alabama) I made some feed and exercise mistakes, and Kahlil tied up during a training ride. I had him treated by a vet, who happened to be the ride vet for the next California ride I wanted to to, which was coming up in just over a week. We did some more bloodwork a couple of days before the ride, the numbers were back in normal range, the vet gave me approval to go (but watched him EXTRA close) and Kahlil completed that ride just fine. An arbitrary 30-day "holiday" would have prevented us from doing a ride we'd trailered 2,000 miles to do. And that's the problem with arbitrary rules like that: they do not, and can not, take all of the circumstances into account. 3) Less distance between vet checks. That one is a no brainer. If a horse travels in our sport more than 20 miles before seeing a vet, we are just asking for trouble. Absolutely false, as the experience of many multiday rides vetted and managed by our most knowledgable and experienced people has demonstrated. Also, some of our finest 100-mile rides have the first vet check more than 20 miles from the start, without problems. It is possible to have vet checks too far apart, of course, and that has contributed to problems on some high-profile rides. But once again, there is no arbitrary number that is "right" for all circumstances. 4) We should develop a tier system (novice, intermediate, beginners) for both riders and horses. A rider should not be allowed to go and do the TEvis ride, for example, without some prior completions and proven ability with a horse. Argghhhh!!!!!!! -- the worst idea I've seen anyone put forth on this discussion. Many people have repeatedly explained why to you, but you don't listen to anything that doesn't fit your preconcieved ideas. And, speaking of Tevis, if a ride is not forthcoming with the required information that the manager must pass on to AERC (which includes horse deaths and metabolic treatment) that ride should lose AERC sanctioning. We are pussy footing around with Tevis because, it seems to me, we need them more than they need us. And once again you show your ignorance of the history of this sport that you want to remake. 5) Dr. Mackay-Smith has some valid ideas and reducing the time allowed for a horse to meet the required pulse (and this number should be lower, also) would require the rider to change their mindset if they plan on hot hoofing it at a ride. His proposals merit a trial, and may be effective, although I suspect simply lowering the allowed time to recover for everyone would be more effective. 6) All AERC vets should have a valid license when practicing at an endurance ride. Ridiculous. Treatment vets, yes, the law requires it. Control vets absolutely do not need to be licensed practicioners, for example, a faculty member of a vet school is just fine. I'd sure rather have an unlicensed faculty member who understands endurance rides and endurance horses, than a fully licensed dog & cat vet who hasn't seen a horse in six months. 7) Horse log books should be a requirement. I recently received an AERA horse log book and will go into detail of it's contents in another post. I like this idea, Kahlil had a log book and passport when he did FEI and I liked it. I doubt that it will be any help in preventing equine fatalities, but it has other advantages. As we need to carry Coggins tests and often health certificates to rides anyway, a log book is not a burdensome thing to implement. In fact, I found it a nice place to keep all those other papers! I disagree with Kat's final conclusion in her post. She's correct that we cannot stop horses from dying at our rides totally, but, I really do believe we can reduce their numbers. Using any of the ideas I've listed above certainly won't increase their numbers and, unless we ever get the courage and say this is worth a try, make an attempt on our part, for the horse, we'll never really know if it would have changed a thing. I believe we can do better, and that we must continue to work to do better. However, I do not believe any or all of the proposals you have above (with the possible exception of Matthew's proposal) would save even one horse. You don't address a problem by throwing lots of ill-conceived rules at it, to see if anything works. The basic thought behind some of those ideas is that the new rider will soon realize this sport is not a walk in the park. We teach them everything they need to know before they attempt their first 100 miler. We put them, and their horse, through a program that enforces the belief that the horse must be put ahead of any personal goals or achievements in the sport. And, the fact, that they both have to earn the right to be called an endurance rider and an endurance horse (like the horse cares what you call him). Most riders already know that endurance rides are not a walk in the park, and those that don't learn it pretty quickly. Teaching people "everything they need to know" isn't as simple as you seem to think, especially when you try to force it on them. I realize we have some of those words stating how much we care about our horses in writing, somewhere, but, the fact of the matter is we need to reinforce those statements with actions. And you continue in your delusion that we have not been doing that. I don't want to see endurance become Competitive Trail, You sure had me fooled. but, I sure would like to see our metabolic death totals come close to their numbers. And what evidence can you present that they are not, already? Take a real good look at some of the ideas floating around concerning this topic before you totally discount them. I have. See above. I'm convinced we can do better. So am I, but not with the half-baked panaceas you keep pushing. -- Joe Long jlong@xxxxxxxx http://www.rnbw.com =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|