LD Rule change--Long (and intense!)

[terre <tobytrot@bigfoot.com>]

I think it is necessary to give some thought to the philosophy behind the BOD's decision to propose these changes.  Years ago, AERC had a Limited Distance program.  Participation was voluntary and one of the rules was that no prizes could be given for placing--these were training rides for completion only.  The program was only moderately popular; more in some regions than in others.  Then came a time when AERC was in serious need of an influx of funds, and fast.  The solution that BOD came up with was the mandatory sanctioning of all LD Rides (defined as 25 miles and up).  The non-member charge was also instituted at this time, with LD specifically exempt.  In order to make the program more "saleable" to the membership, the rule against placings was dropped, changing the rides from "completion" to "races".  Various rationalizations were given to explain the need for mandatory sanctioning, but the truth was AERC desperately needed the money raised by this program.
There were a number of people, then and now, who were strongly opposed to the whole idea.  If AERC defines "endurance" as "at least 50 miles", we felt they had no business messing with rides that fell outside their self-defined mandate.  Rather than comply with a policy we opposed (a policy that had nothing to do with fairness of competition, or the welfare of horses), a significant number of Ride Managers opted to put on LD rides of less than 25 miles, so as to fall outside the mandatory sanctioning rule.  Their motivation for doing was was largely to keep LD entry fees down; in the several years this has been in effect, these RMs have not been indundated with riders clamoring for sanctioning.  Clearly, then, the riders that these RMs are trying to serve, prefer lower entry fees to sanctioning.
This year, there was mention in an number of Board Meetings minutes of what to do about unsanctioned LD rides.  At the same time, there has been discussion in various formats about "LD riders being the future of the sport, and what can be done to encourage them to join AERC".  The by-law change proposal before us is their answer.
This begs two questions: 1)with the mandatory sanctioning of first LD rides, and now pleasure rides, how far are we prepared to compromise the original principles and ideals of the sport purely to generate revenue?  If the aggressive campaign to recruit LD riders as AERC members is successful, they will eventually consititute the majority, since more people are capable of riding 25 (or 10) miles than 50.  At this point the sport of  "endurance" (50 miles and up) will be controlled by people who do not participate in it.  Is this what the Board has in mind, long term? Note the ease with which non-competitve 25 mile training rides became races.  I say "we" in the first sentence because this is not something the Board is doing to or for us; this is our decision. Having said that, I come to 2)when the Board recognizes that a significant number of members are not happy with a program (as proved by non-participation), are they properly serving the people who elected them by trying to coerce compliance?  Is this what you call "responsive to membership wishes".  To put it another way, if this program is working so well, why does it have to be mandatory?
This is all about money.  The Board has a DUTY to do all it can to try to achieve a positive cash flow within the organization.  They are trying their best to do that, by coming up with ideas like the above.  They see the LD riders as a previously unmilked cash-cow, and they are running in with buckets!  However, I believe the original move to mandatory sanctioning of LD races started the organization down a wrong road.  I think the sanctioning of the 25s should be voluntary; anything less than 25 should not be touched.  While it is nice to think that democracy works, and a vote at the AGM will do the right thing, I have misgivings.  Randy Eiland, of all people, should remember from "leading the charge against the non-member fee" that all of the people who vote are already members.  It is seldom hard to get people to agree to somebody else paying the bills!