 |
Re: [RC] It's not "All about You" - Joe LongOn Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:30:34 -0400, "oddfarm" <jsalas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Let me clarify some comments on my last post. I never said endurance was cruel. But I AM all for the what's best for the horse. For those of you who love to pick apart a post, if you read any of my past posts you would see that. But that's just it ... you seem to think that only YOUR way is "best for the horse." As if the rest of us who don't share your views on the best way to do things don't care what's best for the horse. Some of us have been down the trail a mile or two, and seen different rides in different parts of the country -- and have learned from that. I don't care if you race, race barefoot, or ride naked using a treeless saddle. Just make sure that your horse is taken care of, that's all. Not one person here has suggested anything less. ... I never dreamed someone would have a problem with loops even if it meant that was the only way to keep horses safe. And by that I meant making sure the horses could at least see a vet a soon as possible if there was a problem instead of waiting on the trail for help. It's that "if" that is the issue. If you get into trouble ten miles into a 20-mile loop you are ten miles from a vet, the same as if you get into trouble ten miles along a 20-mile leg of a point-to-point ride. Loops do not necessarily provide any greater safety. They can actually be LESS safe, as they give some riders a false sense of security that can lead to riding closer to the edge. Did you know that the rides with the fewest horses having problems are the point-to-point multi-day rides, like the ones Dave Nicholson puts on? Often with only one vet check in 50 miles? I was mistaken. How tough can you be if you can't take a little suffering, I guess. It's remarks like that that drive these discussions down. Maybe the horse does know better about what they want to do, rather than us being the responsible ones. I don't know. So here again you imply that those whose opinions differ are irresponsible. And you think we're being hard on you? I did say, "Now I am NOT saying we ask too much of our equine partners on a challenging ride. If the HORSE is well PREPARED for the task at hand, all should go well. But if something does go wrong, and the other safeguards are not in place then that is just plain cruel to the HORSE. Wouldn't you agree?" Apparently, some don't. I don't get that. The safeguards are our responsibility alone. The horse will just go. Because you set up a "have you stopped beating your wife" kind of question. You define what is safe, and then suggest that if we don't agree that we don't care about the horse's welfare. I spend most of my time on the AERC Board working to improve the safeguards in our sport for the welfare of our horses. The "fit to continue" criteria to complete a ride was the last major piece I worked on (believe it or not, in the "old days" you still completed even if your horse dropped dead ten feet after crossing the finish line). But I recognize that while some risks can be ameliorated, some are inherent in what we do. I would never dream of legislating the greatest rides out of existence because they can't be made as "safe" as some people would like. I never said don't ride, don't take risks, stay in a arena leave your horse alone. I am pretty sure I didn't. All I was trying to say, is that trails can be beautiful, challenging, tough and remote. That doesn't mean it can't be safe as well. Just because WE like it, doesn't necessarily mean it is in the best interests of the HORSE. A ride like the Big Horn is never going to have the amenities, convenience, or high completion rates of rides in more populated and easier terrain. Nevertheless, I believe it is one of the very best rides our sport has had, anywhere, anytime. And it is not unsafe if the rider is prudent. The bottom line is that an irresponsible rider can destroy a horse on any trail, and a concientious rider can get a horse safely through the toughest ride. I certainly never said I was the only one who cared. Obviously, more riders than not take very good care of their horses no matter what the conditions. That's good. Being tough and being smart, don't always go hand and hand. Obviously. Meaning? I was merely trying to support the idea that just because it was, doesn't mean it was good. It doesn't mean it was bad, either. Lisa Salas, The Odd fARm I'm done, I'm hitt'n the bottle.;) -- Joe Long jlong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.chiprider.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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|