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

Re: [RC] re: what's wrong with square one? - Michelle Aquilino

Yes, when we are talking specifics, technical names, record-keeping, and awards.? When I explain what endurance riding is to people in trying to explain the sport, I differentiate between limited distance rides and endurance rides.? But when I am just talking to friends, family, or am at a public trail ride and seeing who is around who I can ride with (for example), I describe my riding as "endurance", as a style, a type of riding, what I "do".? I am not proposing to change the bylaws or how records are kept in the system, etc.? I am merely stating my opinion that everyone should loosen up a little bit (dodges bullets).? My stating "me and my horse do endurance" is not a statement made in the court of law.? If people inquire more, I will clarify that she has not done a full endurance ride yet, only limited distance.? But non-endurance people are not really familiar with the different technical terms involved in the AERC and what each means.? So I take the easy route and just use the term "endurance".

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:22 PM, marybenstover <merryben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You wrote:? I just think that the term "endurance" should not necessarily be limited to numbers.

The people that founded the AERC defined endurance as 50 miles or more.? To change that we would have to do an expensive bylaws change.? Another thing that no one seems to consider is that some of these very same people are still riding endurance?and think the definition of "endurance" is just fine the way it is...........................mb

"Don't breed or buy while shelter animals die"

[RC] re: what's wrong with square one?, Michelle Aquilino
Re: [RC] re: what's wrong with square one?, marybenstover