Some more "questions for the DAL nomination"

[Michael Maul <Michael.Maul@nsc.com>]

Recently Kim F. posted a set of questions on Ridecamp.  Others like Bob Morris
Mike T. and Truman commented on them.

One comment I saw in Steve Rutters note today is "I don't want to list a lot of 
"positions" on issues I might have, because I feel strongly that the Board 
must be a deliberative group, and if all the Directors come into the room 
with fixed ideas and positions"...

My feeling is that for the process of mediation to work - each of us should start 
with something to contrbute in the way of views, insights from our experience,
and through the discussion - work to come up with something better than the 
starting points.  The key point is that we must be willing to gather input
from the members - as well as the other BOD members - and be flexible rather
than "fixed" in how we look at our future.

Given that - what follows are my starting points on some of the questions.
And I hope to learn from members and other BOD input during the process of
addressing some of these points.

Mike

*************** my comments lead with *****

> 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:*********   I have been a member 
of AERC international for several years and supported it mostly with my dues
up to this point. I am learning more about it now.

> 1. What role do you feel AERC should play in supporting International
> competition?
*******  The AERC should be involved in the selection and support of our
international team - as well as clarifying what the selection rules are
for this team with the FEI. I don't feel general membership funds should 
be used to support international - the funds need to come from USET and the 
international group or sponsorships. We need to take a more active role 
than we have to this point. I believe it is right for the AERC to support 
fund raising events  and to assist in getting sponsorships for our team.

> 2. In your opinion, do you feel the present board supports riders who wish to
> compete in FEI competitions? **** some appear to - others do not.  I believe
it is difficult to accomplish much with this division on the Board.

> 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?

****** I believe our team needs to practice/train under conditions or rules 
that they will encounter at the world competitions.  This means that the team needs
rides under those rules or something close.  On the other hand - a RM should not 
lose money on a ride due to dual sanctioning.
We need to work on a solution that helps both the RM and the competitor.
I think we need to work with the FEI to come up with our own selection
rules rather than automatically taking the ones FEI imposes.
This can help the cost issue.
I don't like first prize of $50K putting extraordinary pressures to win on
a rider.  I believe that if USET pays a rider/horse costs to get to the 
competition that the team should sign over the cash prizes to USET.

> 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.?

Not unless it comes from funds that AERC international raised for this. It
should not come out of general funds.

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

Yes - and on-line too.  I feel that we need to make sure they are accurate
though and I would like to see all Rider Options have the horse vetted
as well.

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

**** In the west and CT regions where I have done most of my rides -with some in NE- 
I feel the completion criteria has been fair - and generally enforced well.
What I do see sometimes is vets who are new to the sport not having a clear
understanding of the criteria for endurance and LD.  More education for 
vets just starting in endurance would help.

> 3. What percentage of endurance riders do you feel over ride their horses?
****  A small portion of the riders - either not understanding what is
happening to their horses or being over competitive - will do this.  
Continued education on what can happen with vets helping watch for those being
over competitive is one way to address this. 

> 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?

***** I don't believe in additional rules unless there is a clear loophole
and competitors are taking advantage of it to the horses impairment. For the 
most part - there are rules that can be used if the vet or ride manager needs
to.  Better use of our present rules would be my first choice with additional
rules only if clearly needed. Rider and new vet education would be my first choices
One rule that might be considered is whether under 5 year old horses should
be able to do successive multiday LD rides or could only do every other day.

> 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?

***** I believe LD can be both a training aid for a portion of our membership
and a goal for others.  It certainly provides a place to start young horses,
new riders or recovering horses in the sport.  It may also be a legitimate goal
for others whose personal health or time restrictions make 50s and 100s
difficult. The CT and SE regions have excellent LD programs which have a winner,
top ten and a BC.  Time to reach criteria is the finish.  I believe these are
good programs and satisfy the goals of an increasing portion of our membership.
I support awards for milage but don't think the national LD BC awards mean much
w/o more uniform support of the rides in all regions. My personal feeling is 
that LD miles should remain separate from those of 50s and greater.

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

I think the National Championship is one way of meeting the goals for a 
portion of our members.  If the support continues to grow - then we should 
continue promoting it.  There may be a better format but I would look for 
views on this from all the membership before suggesting changes.

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

*** changes in the bylaws has to be by the general membership.  On almost all other
issues -  you really have to depend on the quality of the director you elect.
These people should be knowledgable about the sport, what is imortant to 
the members - and have the safety of our horses in mind.  So few members
really vote on issues that an informed BOD can be better than an organized minority
on some questions.  With the increased use of the internet - members have a much
better forum to make their views known to the BOD.  I also strongly believe that 
issues the BOD will address in the two yearly meetings should be publicized if 
possible before the meeting so that membership input can be obtained. BOD members
should make a significant attempt to get member input before important issues are 
voted on.

Mike Maul
AERC #8941


******************************