- To: bod@aerc.org
- Subject: BOD: Fw: Fw: DAL Issues-Response
- From: renegade12@juno.com
- Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:30:33 -0600
- Old-Return-Path: <renegade12@juno.com>
- Reply-To: bod@aerc.org
- Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
- Resent-From: bod@aerc.org
- Resent-Message-ID: <6Gqti.A.ftF.wWK55@seahorse.fsr.com>
- Resent-Sender: bod-request@aerc.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Rittenhouse-vmaxept" <roger@vmaxept.com>
To: "RideCamp" <ridecamp@endurance.net>; <aerc@foothill.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 7:13 PM
Subject: DAL Issues-Response
> AERC
>
> BOD DAL ISSUES
>
> A few questions have been asked of the members running for the DAL
> position on the AERC BOD.
>
> FEI ISSUES
> AERC has the AERC INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE to manage and control the
> endurance competition at the FEI level. This committee is not like the
> other committees of AERC. They are a separate self managed origination
> loosely coupled to the BOD by the AERC-INT Chair. The BOD does not
> intervene in the management, decisions or procedures established by
this
> group. The BOD should only offer advice as needed. The financial cost
of
> doing business is within the budget of AERC-INT. There is no AERC
> general funds used to support the AERC-INT efforts.
> AERC through the AERC-INT should support this level of competition.
> Insuring the association with FEI type events does not impact the
> standard US ride formats.
> AERC has no responsibility to provide support or direction to riders or
> ride management related to participation or sanctioning of rides under
> FEI level of competition. That function is within the responsibility of
> the AERC-INT organization. Ride management has the option to offer an
> FEI ride along with the standard AERC ride. There should be no impact
on
> the local ride format. I see no difference between a dual sanctioning
> of AERC and IAHA rides. The FEI riders must conform to the few unique
> rules of FEI.
> No compensation to AERC ride managers should come from AERC. The only
> support for the FEI event should come from AERC-INT and the rider entry
> fee.
>
> MISC ISSUES
>
> 1. I have no problems with the publication of rider DNF status in
> Endurance News. It is not to censure a rider but to show that we
> complete a very high percentage of riders and the process of veterinary
> control does work. Riders who withdraw under RO, must vet out. The
> policy is in place for this procedure. I do not believe this places
some
> undue stigma or targets riders that do not finish.
> 2. Completion Criteria is acceptable as established. We need to insure
> adherence to the policies.
> 3. I believe there is and always will be a very small percentage of
> riders who over extend the abilities of their horse during competition.
> The problem exists at all levels. The strict adherence to the 'fit-to
> continue polices' will reduce the occurrence of these instances.
> 4. We have enough rules, just enforce them. One of my serious issues I
> have with the current vet procedures and lack of following the polices
> is the 'assisted' trot out, both at the VC and the finish. I have
> observed this situation many times at rides. The issue is that of
> hazing, chasing, cropping or just plain forcing a tried horse to trot
> By this I mean NO ONE should aid the rider in the performance of the
> trot out. No one should chase - clap or throw stuff at the horse, run
> along aside, or do anything to make the trot. The rider should have the
> horse trained to trot on command. If the horse is too tired to trot
> without the use of outside assistance then he may not be fit to
> continue. I have seen a number of vets run behind a horse to get him
> trot as well as other crew members running along side to make the horse
> trot. This includes riders 'tapping' the horse with a crop every step
of
> the way, and when they stop tapping the horse stops. Horses are asked
to
> trot at the finish and they take 10 steps and stop. That is considered
a
> completion? The veterinary polices are in place to prevent this. The
> vets and ride management must just put them in practice. If we have a
> 125 ft trot lane then all horses must trot down and back, under their
> own will and ability. The ride should cue and encourage the horse to
> trot but no whipping hazing or pulling dragging should be tolerated. I
> have seen this done and it is just too inappropriate and not within the
> policies of the sport. I would not be very proud of my self if my horse
> had to be presented that way to gain a completion. Horses that are
shown
> under this method are not fit to continue. I guess you note this is a
> real issue with me.
>
> 5. LD was established as a training format to develop horses for higher
> level of competition. However, the venue is now its own level of
> competition. Personally I do not agree with the current LD program of
> horse placing or BC award. Since the program is in place and it does
> appear to work well, I recommend no changes to the program EXCEPT
> rider/horse miles. Since this form of competition has been accepted as
a
> form of 'endurance riding' and since the rides are sanctioned by AERC,
> and riders pay membership, they should be able to receive the credit
for
> mileage. I would support a change to the LD award program to INCLUDE
ALL
> LD miles in the total lifetime mileage of the horse and rider. I would
> NOT support the use of LD points in the overall endurance award
program.
> The LD competition award recognition program is working well.
>
> 6. NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. I fully support a one time head to head
> National Championship type of event. I believe this is the only venue
> that is fair. Trailer races and point chasing is not the answer. The
> current program is under development. It IS working. We need to make
> small fine tuning adjustments each year. We need to look at the
> qualification criteria each year and adjust the requirements as the
ride
> grows. This ride after only 2 years, is accepted by more riders each
> year. We need to let the program develop. This type of competition is
> not for everyone, nor can everyone compete. It is a step up from the
> standard local backyard endurance format. It offers those who desire a
> Championship race, a chance to race it out with riders with
> approximately the same level of performance. The weight division format
> is the BEST method for this event. It offers a level of competition
> based on the accepted weight division protocol. I commend Randy and the
> original developers of this concept for taking the lead in establishing
> this type of an event. I see this getting better each year. The ride
> here in the east next Oct will be the best ever. As sponsorship
programs
> grow, we will get the funds to make the ride better. I believe this
ride
> can become the major event it should be. The ROC WAS our AERC National
> Championship. It was the ride to do. Let this current format develop
and
> this ride will be the same. I would be pleased to work on the NC Ride
> Committee.
>
>
> 7. VOTING ISSUE. The BOD has the responsibility to govern and manage
the
> AERC. We have to make decisions related to the general running of the
> business, both financial and legal. All issues are not part of the
> general memberships concern - nor should they be. There are issues
which
> impact the business only. The issue of the protest process and drug
> testing are NOT part of the general membership consent. I also see
> veterinary criteria as decision made outside the consent of the
> membership. As a governing body we have the responsibility to provide
> you the members with complete accounting of our actions pertaining to
> the management of the business. We provide this information by BOD
> Minutes and position papers presented in EN. However, the members must
> have a voice in the polices, procedures and protocols that directly
> impact the competitions. How the rides are run, scored, vetting-
> procedures (not criteria), and the over all rules of competition. When
> possible all these type of issues should be brought to the membership.
> This is accomplished by EN and the BOD taking issues back to the
regions
> for comment. The board members should address these issues at rides.
The
> process of implementing these type of changes may require the board to
> propose the issues at one BOD meeting then vote at the next meeting. As
> with all governments, we are elected because you the membership believe
> we have the best interest of the population in the forefront of all
> decisions. You entrust us to do the right thing, in this case run the
> business according to proper and generally accepted business and
> accounts practices, to provide proper support for riders- awards and
> record keeping, and to insure the welfare of the horses. If you do not
> agree with the positions of the board members, it is your job to vote
> for others that will best represent the consensus of the whole
> membership.
>
>
> I trust I have responded in an appropriate matter on these issues. I
> will do my best to promote the positions of the members. If some of the
> points are clear or you do not understand my position, please email,
> call or write.
>
> I am not sure if this can be published in the latest issue of EN. I
will
> post to Ridecamp. Of course RC is NOT AERC as it only addresses a small
> portion of the membership.
>
> Respectfully submitted
> Roger Rittenhouse, Candidate DAL
> AERC 8263
>
>
>
> Randy- I am sure all the BOD are NOT on Rc, would you please fwd this
to
> the list.
>
> I appreciate the vote of support from
> Donna Synder Smith and
> Maryben Stover
>