Home Shop Classified News, Stories Events Education Ridecamp Videos Cartoons AERC
Endurance.Net Home Ridecamp Archives
ridecamp@endurance.net
[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]

Re: [RC] 60 to 30 minute rule...please stay informed.! - Lisa Salas - Elizabeth Walker

Lisa, you have a point as to the contradiction of some of the statements, and I would be interested in seeing it cleared up.  However, I'll give my own take on it -- it isn't a numbers game.  It is the situation of a vet trying to treat a horse in dire trouble, in the field, with inadequate resources, and an owner who would be more than happy to have the horse seen at a hospital, but who can't quite afford it.  The fact that most of them *don't* die says a lot for the efforts of the ride vets.  

You are focusing on the fatalities.  I would be much more interested in seeing statistics on the number of horses who were treated at the ride venue, and which were *not* taken to an equine hospital, but which - in the treating vet's opinion - *should have been*.


On Oct 22, 2009, at 7:36 PM, Lisa Salas wrote:



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lisa Salas <oddfarm@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: [RC] 60 to 30 minute rule...please stay informed.! - Lisa Salas
To: Barbara White <barbdoug2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


I said PAYING for it is not research. If it is going to take the suffereing of many more, and according to AERC it is a trickle, there will be an awful lot of money collected.  Barbara, it's not just about the horse. How about the financial situation you could be putting the owner in? What is wrong with letting the owner make thier own choice to treat or not to. How much more does AERC need to know? WHC says most deaths were unpreventable and not from overriding. They tell the membership that the death rate is so low it's not worth getting worked up over, and then they want to collect money to research something not worth getting worked up over. The vet committee wants to make changes to the finish that contradict their reasoning for it. 

Money isn't going to fix that. 


On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Barbara White <barbdoug2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paying for the treatment of a horse is not research and it will not prevent other horses from needing treatment or dying. 

Lisa Salas, the odd fArm


I have to disagree with this.  Everytime a horse is treated, the success or failure of the treatment teaches us more about what works or doesn't.  When a horse dies and the vets don't understand why, a necropsy often reveals the answer.  When a horse fails to respond to treatment and needs surgery, the surgery usually indicates what was unseen before.  Our historical statistics show that most horses needing treatment were not being raced.  Often the horse passes all vet checks, including the finish, and then deteriorates.  There is a lot we still do not know, and it will probably take the suffering of many more horses before we figure it out.
 
It's hard for  griefstricken owners to authorize a necropsy, but I believe it is in the best interests of all of our horses to do so.  The AERC has a fund to help with those expenses.
 
I am willing to spend $3.00 a ride for an insurance fund.  While some may abuse this, many more owners and horses will be grateful that someone helped to make a difference when they were in trouble.  What's wrong with being a sport that puts its money where its mouth is when speaking of humane treatment for our partners?  They give us so much; we should not expect them to give us the untimate if collectively we can help a few of them.
 
Barbara




Replies
[RC] 60 to 30 minute rule...please stay informed.! - Lisa Salas, Lisa Salas
Re: [RC] 60 to 30 minute rule...please stay informed.! - Lisa Salas, Barbara White
Fwd: [RC] 60 to 30 minute rule...please stay informed.! - Lisa Salas, Lisa Salas