Re: RC: Re: CRI

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/20/00 11:27:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, Tivers@aol.com 
writes:

<< It's a sport, and "stuff happens" in a sport, but 
 when the stuff  happens, it is the rider who has the vested interest in the 
 animal, not the vet. In this day of the government "protecting us from 
 ourselves", I am always suspicious of the underlying motives of the 
 self-appointed morality police--particularly those risking nothing in the 
 sport. >>

1)  The vets would not be there if riders did not want them there.  It's a 
free country, folks can join AERC or not, folks can elect directors to do 
away with vets at rides if they so choose.  Furthermore, they can go out and 
start rides that are not AERC rides and are not under veterinary control.  
How many of you riders out there DO NOT WANT the input of the ride vets, 
imperfect as we may be?  Show of cyber hands??

2)  A great number of us ride vets are also riders, and fully appreciate how 
focused we can get in competition.  I don't think there is a rider out there 
(if they are honest with themselves and if they have ridden very long) that 
can't think of a time when they knew, in their souls, that the horse should 
not go on but when it has taken a gentle suggetion from a ride vet to point 
out the obvious.

3)  Most ride vets (including myself) try hard NOT to act like ride police.  
I've kept track over the years, and I have "had" to pull, so far, a grand 
total of only 8 riders.  ALL the rest of them that have pulled at rides where 
I have vetted have pulled themselves after a frank discussion of how their 
horses are doing--sometimes including having someone else trot their horse so 
they can view it.  Most of us (and most under whom I've ridden) make 
suggestions about what they might do (or not do) if it were their horse.  You 
are right--this is a sharp bunch of riders, and they KNOW when their horses 
have problems.  They use the ride vets as sounding boards, and decisions to 
pull are virtually always mutual.  We do not "govern" these people--we try to 
help them do the best they can with their horses.

4)  As far as being suspicious about underlying motives--you bet, I'm ALWAYS 
suspicious of those with underlying motives, especially (as in Whitney's 
quote) when they have things to sell and resort to trying to further their 
agenda by becoming their own brand of "morality police" by belittling others 
and applying double standards to "science" and debate.

Heidi