Re: Fwd: Questions for Director at Large Candidates

["Truman Prevatt, PhD" <truman.prevatt@netsrq.com>]

Note:
Of course when I responded I hit "reply" instead of "reply all" and
ridecamp was left off. I have edited my original reply to Kim (to be a
bit less verbose) and sent it on to ridecamp

Response:

Allow me to address these questions below. The first set concerns the
role of AERC in international competition. AERC International was set up
as a
semi autonomous committee within AERC to promote and deal with
international
endurance and the various organizations involved, AHSA, USET and FEI. It
was
decided when AERC International was established that it would be
financially self sufficient.

There was a $10 dues to AERC International, which I have paid for the
past 6 or 7 years. By the numbers of people that belong to AERC
International (less than 5% of the membership of AERC), I believe the
original decision is correct and the AERC should not use general funds
from the membership at large to support international.

Now with that being said I will address the questions.

KimFue@aol.com wrote:

>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Bob and other candidates,
>     Just a few questions on your position on some of the recent issues that
> face AERC.  It would be great to clarify your position on these as it would
> help me to make a decision in voting for Director at Large.
>
> FEI Competition:
> 1. What role do you feel AERC should play in supporting International
> competition?

While I do not believe that funds from the membership at large (unless
they voted to do so) should be used to support international, I do feel
strongly that the AERC has to take a more active role than in the past.
There are many riders - still a small minority - but AERC members the
same who do want the
opportunity to participate in international endurance riding. My view is
that the AERC must take a stronger role in directing the efforts of AERC
international. I also feel that it behooves the AERC and AERC
International to actively seek sponsorship for our international riders.
This is one way the cost can be defrayed
while not using member dues.


>
> 2. In your opinion, do you feel the present board supports riders who wish to
> compete in FEI competitions?

It seems to be divided on this issue.


>
> 3. Do you think that AERC should encourage ride managers to hold dual
> sanctioned rides (FEI/AERC) and if so please explain how this position would
> benefit riders that wish to compete only on the local level.  If not, how
> would AERC riders who wish to compete at the FEI level qualify?

First I believe that the AERC should work with the FEI to arrive at a
compromise.  Again I do not feel that International should be subsidized
by the membership. And again if sponsorship could be found to cover the
cost then that would be a start to a solution.

I think in general the AERC has had a laissez-faire approach to ride
mangers. I do see this continuing. I do not think AERC can push Rm.'s to
sanction
rides FEI if there is a chance they will lose money.

>
> 4. Do you think ride managers who hold dual sanctioned rides should be
> compensated by AERC for the extra expense at hiring FEI officials etc.?
>

I do not belive that general membership funds should be used to
subsidize international. Two years ago the AERC was almost broke. We are
better
now but there still isn't a lot of money in the bank at the end of the
day,
especially considering the fact we are not paying a salary for executive
director currently. I feel that a better approach is to work the issues
with FEI so there isn't the added cost.

>
> MISC.
> 1. Do you support listing pulls in Endurance News?

I see nothing wrong with it. However, I don't have a preconceived notion
on this and would be open to listen to logical arguments against it.

>
> 2. Do you feel, in general, that completion criteria at most rides you attend
> is too lax?

In the SE we are lucky enough to have the Southeast Endurance Riders
Association (SERA).  All rides in the SE are AERC and SERA sanctioned.
SERA over the years has brought a standardization to SE rides not seen
in many other
regions.  The vetting in the SE is very consistent from ride to ride and
vet to
vet and the completions criteria is consistent and is not lax.

I've also ridden in rides in the NE, Central, MW and Mountain regions
and have not noticed what I would call lax completion criteria. Duane
Barnett has been talking about consistent vetting in his columns. I
think we need to work
toward this. Not just completion criteria, but across the board. 

>
> 3. What percentage of endurance riders do you feel over ride their horses?

It's actually probably pretty small. I've never tried to quantify it.
There are a few but just a few.


>
> 4. Do you feel that there are enough rules in place to ensure the safety of
> horses competing in endurance events?  If not, what are some ideas/rules that
> you would support to safeguard the health of endurance horses?

Yes I think we do a good job and I don't feel that there are any
rules that would better protect the horse that aren't already
there.

>
> 5.  In your opinion, what is the purpose of Limited Distance rides?  Should
> LD be treated as any other distance with a winner, BC and the miles to count
> towards the total lifetime mileage of the horse?

Ten years ago SERA took on the LD issue. The SE seems to be the LD
region where all rides (except for one because of space) have an LD and
where it is usual for there to be more LD's than 50's on any given day. 
The 60 pulse to finish was
developed to protect the horses. That has been a SERA rule for over 10
years and the AERC adopted it. Four years ago we (SERA board) decided to
standardize BC
scoring for LD. This again has become the AERC standard. If you talk to
people who do LD you will find as many answers to the "purpose" as you
will people doing them. Like endurance riding in general, where people
have many different reasons for doing endurance; people have many
different reasons for doing LD.

At this time I do not feel that the LD miles should count as endurance.
Most I've talked with are happy to have their own awards program.

If this changes or my preception is incorrect, then I would consider
rethinking the issue.

>
> 6. What type of National Championship Ride (if any) would you support?

The one we have now needs some work and some time. I think the concept
is a good one. Along with the yearly qualifying, I would like to see a
life time horse qualification. 

We need to give it time. It is in Kentucky this year and I think it will
draw a more riders than it did in NM for no other reason than this will
open it up to a lot riders who couldn't manage the time necessary to
travel to NM to compete and back home. The 2001 ride site is within a
fairly easy
drive to a large number of riders. We need to give it time and work out
the bugs as we go.

>
> 7. What types of issues do you feel should be voted on by the entire AERC
> membership?
>

Clearly any bylaw changes. I feel that on major issues, such as
expenditure of large amounts of money, board members should poll the
membership to get their input. 

Truman Prevatt
Candidate for Director-at-Large