Re: Ummm,, I'm confused

["Linda Hedgpeth" <lth@thegrid.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: <guest@endurance.net>
To: <ridecamp@endurance.net>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 6:47 AM
Subject: RC: Ummm,, I'm confused


> A.P. AmandaPerez@ureach.com
> please forgive this newbie lurker question... I am not an endurance rider
yet... hope to be one day tho...  have been reading ridercamp archives and
the debate about little boy made me wonder: if its up to the parents to
decide how old is old enough, why have age limits for horses?  shouldn't
that be up to the horses owners?
>
> Just Wondering
>

And . . . . . .if it's up to the parents, why have a helmet rule for
Juniors?  There are probably parents out there that wouldn't require their
kids to wear helmets if not for the AERC "rule".  Why the mandatory sponsor
rule?  There are folks that say, "No more rules", yet we have many rules
governing horse health, drugs and safety.  Why ? . . . . . . to protect the
horse from the rider?  The same rider that may also be a parent?   Look at
the early history of the sport.  How many horses were ridden to death before
we had "rules" in place to protect them?

Until Comstock, I never imagined that I would see a baby being ponied on an
endurance ride and down a potentially dangerous, steep, and rocky hill.  The
general consensus seems fine with it, so I guess we can all look forward to
more toddlers out there next season.  Perhaps someone has a 2 1/2 yr old
that wants to do endurance.

Linda Hedgpeth
Janesville, CA
lth@thegrid.net