Home Current News News Archive Shop/Advertise Ridecamp Classified Events Learn/AERC
Endurance.Net Home Ridecamp Archives
ridecamp@endurance.net
[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]

Re: [RC] [AERCMembersForum] Future AERC Directions - Was 100 Mile One Day Rides - Joe Long

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:16:16 -0400, Truman Prevatt <tprevatt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

rides2far@xxxxxxxx wrote:

I ask...*why* did we want to be the biggest group? Because we can say we
are the biggest? 

Angie, you go girl!!!!  I believe everything you wrote in your post was right on
the money.

...
There is a critical mass(and I don't think we are there yet) required 
for the AERC to be effective. Political - governmental and otherwise - 
listen to numbers. If you represent 500 people, they will ignore you. 
The AERC needs numbers to have political clout to address the trails 
issues.

There is another way to get political clout:  form alliances with other
organizations that have common interests.

In the AERC if riders are doing endurance rides, they they should be 
welcome. It's not that anyone is talking about growth that is not 
endurance riders. 

That's the problem, Truman, they ARE!!!!!!  Good God, adding "fun rides" to the
AERC?  With awards and mileage programs for them that would inevitably follow
(and demands for more "respect")? The AERC already has a large portion of its
membership riding only LD rides, and look at some of the internecine strife
that's caused.   I don't want to lose our organization by dilution.

LD rides are legitimate distance rides and satisfying to many people (so are
many kinds of trail rides).  They are not endurance rides, though, which the
AERC exists to serve.  There has always been a danger from including LD rides
within AERC that someday the "tail would wag the dog," and soliciting not only
more LD growth but growth from ever-shorter rides would only guarantee that this
would happen. 

The deciding reason the AERC brought LD rides "into the fold" was to assure
proper protection of the LD horses at AERC sanctioned events, growing the
membership was a secondary purpose (and IMO not sufficient).  Good things have
come from including the LD rides, but problems have come from it too.  IMO
further growth of the AERC from LD and "fun riders" would be seriously bad for
the AERC and the sport of endurance riding.

Anyone that wants to do endurance should be welcome, 
be it 5000 or 15000. 

Yes, "to do endurance."  If the AERC can grow to 15,000 members riding endurance
rides, great.  If 10,000 of those members are doing only LD and "fun rides" it
would be a disaster.

The up side to larger numbers is the ability of the 
AERC to be a player in defending our trails for use for endurance rides. 
Ask Jerry Fruth if he would rather have a 3000 membership or a 15,000 
membership behind him when it comes to getting the attention of national 
land managers.

If that was the whole story.  It is not.  Please, let's look to building
alliances and consortiums with other equine trail users for the political
activities, and keep the AERC the American ENDURANCE Ride Conference.

Let me close by saying that if I have offended any LD riders, my aplogies for
the offense, but IMO this is far to critical an issue for the AERC and the sport
of endurance riding to not speak up.

-- 

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!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=