 |
Re: [RC] [RC] Just Guessing - Joe LongMy reply to this post of Jim Holland's was rejected for being too long. My apologies for the length, but this is a critically important issue and we can't leave it in the hands of the uninformed. So I'm splitting my reply into two posts. This is Part One. On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:14:29 -0500, Jim Holland <lanconn@xxxxxxx> wrote: Joe Long wrote: On 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. I don't recall Howard saying anything about it being "mandatory". Read his post again. He was simply saying it is a good program and should be encouraged. Useless, huh? Guess I was wasting my time mentoring all those people....Hmmm...but none of them have killed a horse.... In this post, no, but in other posts I believe he has called for a mandatory program. If he is actually proposing a voluntary program, note that not only do I support that, I'm officially involved (with an AERC Committee) in developing and promoting one. Are you suggesting that those riders you mentored would have killed a horse, had you not mentored them? Have you told them this? How did they take it? 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. IMHO, opinion you should not have done that ride. If Kahlil had been MY horse, I would have passed...no matter how far I trailered. His welfare should have taken priority over your "ego". His welfare was the top priority ... I did the ride because I was confident that he could safely do it. It was, in fact, the fourth day of a four-day historic multi-day (The first Capitol-to-Capitol), and I passed on starting the first three days and only rode the last day, which was the easiest trail. I ride in the SE where you "came from". There are a few ride stories from the "old timers" down here about you and Kahlil. I don't think your hands are "spotless" on horse welfare. If those rides had taken place now, I think you would have got pulled a few more times. You're right, my hands are not spotless, as I've often related here ... although Kahlil was never in life-threatening difficulty in his life. BTW, had the fixed-hold rides of the "old days" been vet-gate rides, I would have paced accordingly, and probably gotten pulled LESS. Kahlil is a great horse....just how great is demonstrated by the fact that he is still running around in the pasture and not under it. I think Truman's "There but for the grace of God go I" certainly applies to you. It isn't Truman's "There but for the grace of God go I." Many of us, including me, have been saying that for years. And of course it applies to me, as it does to every endurance rider. No one appreciates more than I how lucky I am that Kahlil is such a tough and resilient horse. I've given him the credit for a long time now. But here again, we see you resorting to scurrilous ad hominem attacks on people who don't buy into your proposals. I would add one more thing to this proposal. If the rider has three metabaolic pulls in one year, (not necessarily on the same horse), the RIDER is suspended for a year. Another arbitrary, no-discretion rule. Not one that would have affected me direcly, BTW. But another panacea for which you have provided ZERO evidence that it would help any horse. Now, having an appropriate committee review any rider who has TWO metabolic pulls in a ride season, with authority to suspend said rider, that might be a good approach. That's worth considering, IMO. 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. Again, your opinion, means exactly the same as Howard's and mine. No, Jim, my opinion means more than yours and Howards. Because I've been there, and walked the walk. I have both the theoretical knowledge and down-the-trail experience to know what I'm talking about. And because I serve on AERC committees that are actually working on these things. But then, I guess you think the football opinion of the fan with the cheese on his head means exactly the same as the opinions of the coaches, or those guys on the field with the striped shirts. IMHO, the multiday rides are not "raced" in the same manner, so that is not a valid comparison. It is absolutely valid to the mistaken claim that "If a horse travels in our sport more than 20 miles before seeing a vet, we are just asking for trouble." Generally speaking, it's best that a horse not go more than about 15 miles between vet checks ... but there are exceptions, such as the first leg of some 100's and some multiday rides. Now, you might ask yourself what it is about the multidays that results in fewer horses in trouble, despite fewer vet checks, and how we can apply that knowledge to improve safety in all rides. And some of our "finest 100-mile rides" DO have problems and horses DO die. Non sequitor. You have done enough rides to know that many riders have NO control over their horse during the first loop of a ride. This is not generally seen on those challenging 100-mile rides that have the first vet check over 20 miles out. I might add that a rider who cannot control his horse in the first loop of a ride has no business riding any endurance ride, but especially not a 100. They simply park their horse behind the rider in front, whoever that might be, and "hang on". And that is foolish. I've seen it many times. Howard? Or yourself? This can result in a horse being in a deficit by the first Vet Check. And whose fault is that? Clue: he's the one on top. Having an early vet check can prevent this by giving the horse...and the rider..the opportunity to relax and "start over". I am more concerned about having a vet check EARLY...in the first 10-15 miles...than I am about how MANY there are in a ride. It also gives the Vet an "early look" at the horses. Good ride vets and ride managers consider many factors in placing and timing vet checks, including the availability of accessible points on the trail. Having a vet check too early on a 100-mile ride can be a waste of limited resources that can be better used later in the ride. In that case, the early check doesn't help the horses, it harms them. 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. So why do we have ANY Vet Checks? Let's just let the rider have at it, eliminate the Vets, and everybody is responsible for their own horse. That's what you're advocating. No, it is not, that's just another example of your attacking when you don't have a logical rebuttal. It's foolish and transparent. Experience varies widely among riders. Too many vet checks is certainly better than too few....unless you don't give a damn. That isn't necessarily so -- what would you think about a 100 mile ride with twenty vet checks, ten one-hour holds and ten 30-minute holds? You'd only allow the horses nine hours of riding time to complete the 100 miles! I'd rather have the *optimum* number and length of vet checks for that trail, under those weather conditions, that day. For example, what good does it do to lower the pulse recovery to 15 minutes if you only have to meet it ONE time in 50 miles? On some multidays, that's enough, as their experience has demonstrated. 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. Argghhhh????? Tevis is already doing that. That's news to me. What qualification do you have to meet to ride the Tevis? The National Championship is doing that. That's a Championship ride ... a special category, like the Race of Champions. Apples and oranges, you know. Seems you're out of touch. The OBJECTIVE of the mentor system, which you advocate, is to pass along experience. Heh, Heh...you're a great one to be talking about "preconcieved ideas"! <grin> Yes, a fine objective. One that IMO does not benefit from placing arbitrary restrictions on how a horse or rider may progress in our sport. <Part Two to follow> -- 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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|