Re: RC: Re: Difference between LD and other distances

[Sue Brown <sbrown@wamedes.com>]

At 11:11 AM 10/16/00 -0400, BMcCrary27@aol.com wrote:
>I have a new perspective on mileage after last weekend........
>I entered a 50 miler, and due to an unfortunate turn of events (that is,
if I 
>HAD turned instead of going straight ahead, I wouldn't have missed the
proper 
>trail) I ended up at the finish line, without having gone through the vet 
>check with the one-hour hold.  In the end of it all, I did 38 miles instead 
>of 50.  Now here is the perspective......my horse DID that 38 miles, how
come 
>he doesn't get credit for it??  Because he did not complete the event he was 
>entered in, that's why.

How is this a different perspective on mileage?  I don't get the point and
how it relates to what has been written before?  Must be slow this
morning...haven't had my coffee yet. ;-)

>
>LD was, at one time, not even a part of the endurance riding program. At
some 
>point, it seemed like a good thing to add on, because it offered a chance to 
>introduce riders and horses to a sampling of that was yet to come....a full 
>50 mile (minimum) event, that being the DEFINITION, in the bylaws of AERC,
of 
>an endurance ride.  

No one was arguing with the definition of ENDURANCE.  And it has become
more than just a "Sampling", it is now a very active part of the organization.

>I think LDs are a wonderful tool.  

Agreed.  And they should be encouraged...the points mentioned recently are
not very encouraging.  I've mentioned the on-going discussion to several
people here who are not riding in this discipline and they were amazed that
the miles don't count for Total Lifetime Miles for the sanctioning
organization.  Their reaction -- "Why would anyone bother riding the lower
distance if the organization won't even count their miles when they're
helping support the organization?"  This is just the unanimous viewpoint in
my half-dozen rat study of people involved in other disciplines. ;-)

My young horse went 
>through three LDs before I was ready to take him into a 50 (and if I hadn't 
>made a grievous error in navigation, we would have finished it).  Then at 
>some point, LD riders became angry.  The rest of the endurance world was 
>"treating them as second class citizens".  They wanted recognition, so AERC 
>gave them their own division, recognition, awards, BCs, etc.  Now they're 
>angry again.  Now they want lifetime mileage, to be blended with the mileage 
>of (defined in bylaws, remember) endurance rides.  

Times change.  A huge bulk of AERC is funded by LD riders who show up at
all of the rides.  They pay their money to the organization and to the
rides, but their miles don't count towards the Lifetime Total ridden under
the umbrella of AERC.

Somewhere, a line must be 
>drawn, or sooner or later, we will all be doing pleasure rides and receiving 
>credit for them.  

This is not a serious comment, I hope! ;-)

>What about lifetime mileage for conditioning rides at home?

The issue was riding at a sanctioned ride, not conditioning rides at home.
Another comment that I hope was not said in seriousness...altho it is a bit
demeaning to LD riders who would just like to have the <sigh> miles they
pay for counted for their Lifetime Total.  Nothing more.
 
> The horse did the mileage, why not receive credit for it?  Because of the 
>bylaws definition of "an endurance ride", I should think.  There are many 
>structures in our society that define limits, and we need to abide by them.

And yes, we've changed laws in society as times have changed.  God forbid
we should still have some of the laws that are only known of now because
they make some travelling joke list!! <g>
  
>We have a division for LD rides; let's just live within its boundaries.
>So couldn't we stop arguing this point ad nauseum, please?

I've received a lot of support in regards to "miles ridden in a sanctioned
distance which was completed according to criteria set by the organization
should be counted in some kind of a total for the organization."  Doesn't
mean that they are NOW endurance miles, it just indicates the number of
miles the rider or horse has logged on and paid for in this organization.

For those of you who are so adamant that LD riders don't count their miles
ridden as actual miles ridden for the organization in a sanctioned ride
because they are "not really endurance miles", would you be willing to
subtract the first 25 miles of any other distance you might do since they
are also "not endurance miles"?

No one is asking for other changes or arguing the definition of Endurance
vs Limited Distance...just that miles ridden for an organization be counted
in the lifetime total, and not discounting them as if they were worth
nothing towards miles completed...and this is for distances that are
COMPLETED according to criteria, not just because you happened to ride a
bunch and get lost or not finish.  

And why is the only part quoted in my former posts the one that was said
TIC?  Why are we not actually addressing the issue itself?  (Except for the
"imagine that!  The LDers actually now want their miles in the Total
Lifetime Mileage column for the organization!")  Counting miles towards the
lifetime total would help in not rushing people into higher distances
before they are ready.  If someone rides a "sanctioned distance", are these
not miles ridden as a member of the organization?  Why should they NOT
count as Total Miles Ridden?  Perhaps the name or definition of the
organization should be changed to include or say something in regard to
Distance...since that's what it is about since it includes *both* LD and
Endurance.

Sue

-------
Sue Brown
Tyee Farm
ARICP Certified Riding Instructor
Recreational Riding and Dressage
Marysville, Wa. 
sbrown@wamedes.com