Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

I'm going to summarize your post, or  will probably get too long and  
get bounced.  :)

I agree with a lot of what you said, but there are a few parts I  
still disagree with.

I agree that a cavalier attitude should not be fostered.  I don't  
necessarily think that the "kinder and gentler AERC" does that.  I  
also agree that humans have the ability to overlook minor problems if  
it messes up what they want to do.  I certainly agree that if my  
horse gets sick, for whatever reason, it is my responsibility to see  
that he gets the treatment he needs.

On Sep 18, 2007, at 10:25 AM, Truman Prevatt wrote:
> 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.

I will definitely agree with you here, and I think that here is where  
there is room for improvement.  I would like to see some followup and/ 
or tracking on every horse treated at a ride, for whatever reason.   
This would give, I think, a lot of benefits:
   -- AERC gets more data on the various possible causes for  
treatment.  I think that this would give more data than just looking  
at the fatalities.
   -- Trends or repeated patterns can be identified, like the rider  
you were referring to.  This gives AERC a chance to talk to the  
rider, and hopefully educate them on alternative practices.  :)  It  
can also provide the basis for disciplinary action in the case of a  
rider that has a clear pattern of requiring treatment for their horse 
(s).
   -- An impartial followup can serve as a wakeup call for riders  
that ignored minor problems, that then became major problems.  It can  
also serve as an educational tool for a rider that was trying their  
best, but is perhaps not up to speed on better ways to manage their  
horse.

As far as I know, as long as your horse doesn't die, and no protest  
is lodged, there is no followup if your horse requires treatment.   
There is no history taken and kept, no vet report besides a simple  
summary of numbers of horses treated.  I think AERC is missing out on  
a lot of potentially valuable information by not having treatment  
reports.  So are the riders.  Things can get muddled if you are  
worried about your horse.  Having a treatment report that gives the  
information you know, the treatment given, and any treatment /  
management recommendations from the vet would be a big help, I think.

Note -- I don't think the treatment report should be primarily as a  
disciplinary device.  I think it would be very useful as an  
informational and educational device that could help with additional  
research into the causes of metabolic or lameness problems.

> 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." I

... snip ...
> I see the article in questions sending the wrong message.
>
> Truman
I think I kind of see what you are getting at.  Let's try three types  
of hypothetical riders:  a) one that is going to beat themselves up  
for missing something if their horse needs treatment, but will get  
that treatment as soon as they see there is a problem, b) one that is  
driven mostly by concern for their reputation and/or ego, so is  
likely to try and minimize any problems until it becomes very evident  
that there is one, and c) one that is new to endurance, wants to do  
the right thing, but doesn't want to be considered 'dumb', perhaps.

I don't think the AERC article applies to type A -- they are going to  
do their best for their horse, to the best of their ability.

I am afraid it won't have much effect on type B:  they are being  
driven by other concerns than the welfare of their horse, and  
hopefully their number is small.

I think it will be VERY helpful for type C --  and if it encourages  
them to check something with a vet when they aren't quite sure they  
have a problem or not, then I think the article can be counted as a  
success.



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

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!!

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