 |
RE: [RC] Ridecamp post - heidi
Evelyn, one of the things that has come out of the reviews of horse
deaths at rides is that there isn't any one distance that is "safer" than any other distance with regard to risk of death at rides.
As for pull rates, I'm not convinced that increased pulls necessarily
mean that there is more damage to horses at a given distance--quite the contrary, I'd rather see a high pull rate and healthy horses than a low pull rate and horses having problems post-ride. On a 100-miler, there are twice as many opportunities for a misstep, twice as many miles to find that something just isn't quite right, and twice as many opportunities for a rider to have problems as well. It is frustrating, after all of the efforts by many to post about removing the stigma of being pulled, etc., to have a high pull rate automatically construed as meaning that there was more risk to the horses. The whole goal of pulling is to do so before any significant damage is done. Granted, that isn't always the case--but the majority of pulled horses go on to compete at a later date, which indicates that whatever circumstance necessitated the pull didn't leave lasting damage.
I am far more concerned by riders who keep re-entering rides and have
closely-spaced consecutive pulls--which means that they didn't allow the horse the benefit of having stopped "in time" so that rest and healing can occur. That isn't a function of distance--that is a function of common sense, or more precisely, lack of it. People riding 100s are actually MORE apt (in my experience) to space their rides out appropriately for their horse.
No equine sport is without risk, and ours certainly is no exception. But we need to continue to remind ourselves to remember that pulls for the most part are a GOOD thing, and not something to criticize.
Heidi
|