Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Let me tell you my big problem with the new "kinder and gentler AERC." 
When I first started this sport, there was a rider that seemed to have 
her horse hooked up way too often. One day at a ride I walked past her 
at a vet check and her horse stretched and peed brown and her comment 
was something like, " well looks like I better go get you some fluids 
old boy." It was a very cavalier attitude - one that in my opinion the 
AERC should not be fostering. Clearly the attitude is not something I 
think we should promote.

While problems do sneak up on you - humans also have the ability to 
overlook minor problems when it could cause a changed plan. For example 
- "he had a mild gas colic two weeks ago but he should be okay and I 
really want to go to the Bo Diddley Memorial ride next weekend. I'm sure 
he will be okay. Maybe yes, maybe no. But clearly other factors have 
entered the equation. That's fine if they are balanced. But are they 
always?

There is also a difference in "doing something wrong" and making a 
mistake by missing something that might have been caught and I think 
that is the crux of the issue at hand. A rider can make a mistake but 
not "do something wrong." However, it will not matter to the horse if he 
is sick because there was a mistake or because he "did something wrong." 
Clearly the rider I referred to above might have made a mistake - the 
first time but what about the second, third....?

You are right a sick horse at a ride is none of anyone's business at the 
ride except the vets and the rider and owner (if different) because at 
that point the horse needs treatment. However, the fact there was a sick 
horse at and AERC ride is the business of the AERC and the AERC should 
be very proactive trying to determine what lead to the horse being sick 
and what could have been done to prevent it. That is what horse welfare 
is all about. Part of that equation is being willing to establish 
responsibility and if necessary accountability.

And yes if my horse gets sick - it is my responsibility. The rule is 
very clear: "...but the competitor is ultimately responsible for self 
and mount before, during and after an endurance ride." It is my 
responsibility independent of the fact that it might not be "my fault" - 
that is I did not intentionally over ride him. At least IMO 
responsibility becomes fault if there are multiple times that my horse 
gets sick for whatever reason - even if the reasons is a simple as the 
horse is not cut out to do the sport.

The basic issue I have with the article in question is - it seems to be 
one step toward the attitude "well looks like I better go get you some 
fluids old boy." It almost smacks of the "let's make it okay so we don't 
bruise the self esteem of the riders that they need to have their horse 
treated." If you horse needs treatment "...the competitor is ultimately 
responsible for self and mount before, during and after an endurance 
ride." If they don't get treatment the rider is not living up to his 
responsibility to both the AERC and his horse. IMO the AERC should not 
be in the self esteem business - they should not be in the business of 
worrying about bruised self esteem nor should they be in the business of 
worrying about "how bad the rider feels." Just think about how bad the 
horse feels. If they want to address the issue that horses that need 
treatment need to get it - it should be addressed as the welfare of the 
horse is the rider's responsibility and if the horse needs treatment it 
is the riders responsibility to get the horse treatment. Living up to 
that responsibility is what is important.

When I tried to kill my horse did I fell bad - you are damn right I did. 
However, bruised self esteem was the last thing on my mind when I ran 
for the vet or when I delivered him to UF at 2:30 AM. My only worry was 
him recovering - which he did fairly quickly. IMO - and this might not 
be popular - a rider that would even allow the issue of bruised self 
esteem over a perceived "stigma" of treatment get in the way of seeking 
treatment for a horse really is not mature enough to be riding endurance 
because they have not recognized the responsibility they have to their 
horse or as it says, ".... the competitor is ultimately responsible for 
self and mount before, during and after an endurance ride."

I see the article in questions sending the wrong message.

Truman


Beth Walker wrote:
> I'm probably going to regret jumping into this issue, but I disagree. 
> Horses can get sick, colic, or get hurt at any time. Sometimes, in 
> retrospect, you can say: yes, I missed something - it was there, but I 
> missed it at the time. In those cases, hopefully you learn something 
> and don't repeat the error. However, sometimes there really wasn't any 
> indication that there was a problem. I don't see the sense in saying 
> "you should have caught it, seen it, or been clairvoyant" when there 
> were no indications that anything was wrong.
>
> I don't think that, if I am at a ride and see a horse hooked up to 
> IVs, I have any business assuming that the rider did something wrong, 
> or overrode the horse, or deliberately ignored a problem when I have 
> absolutely no information about the situation. The determination of 
> whether the rider was in error should be between the rider, the vet 
> and ride management.


--

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how 
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong” Richard 
Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics


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

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!!

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