Re: Dog Rules

["Barbara McCrary" <bigcreekranch@cruzio.com>]

A RM simply doesn't have the time and energy to go around camp enforcing dog
rules.  If the infraction is "in your face", then it can be dealt with.  But
when people bring dogs to the ride, try to keep them on the QT, how in
heavens name can a RM be expected to have the time to deal with this??

Barbara

----- Original Message -----
From: <guest@endurance.net>
To: <ridecamp@endurance.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 9:15 AM
Subject: RC: Dog Rules


> K S SWIGART   katswig@earthlink.net
> Steve Shaw said:
>
> > I would like to have some support from the AERC.
>
> and
>
> > I believe that AERC sanctioned rides should have a policy about dogs.
>
> Since different venues for endurance rides
> (by nature of the property owners of the venue)
> have different requirements about dogs, I think
> that a specific AERC policy about dogs is
> inappropriate.  I am of the opinion that ride
> managers should be allowed to make their own
> rules about dogs at their rides.  And these rules,
> just like any other rules (other than the AERC
> ones) that ride managers decide to have at their
> rides, should be published and explained to the
> participants.
>
> The support that the AERC should then give to
> ride managers is support in disqualifying anybody
> who breaks the rules (just like they would for any
> other ride rule) were a disqualified person to protest,
> and support in sanctioning any ride manager who makes
> added rules but then doesn't enforce them (just as it
> would were a disgruntled participant to protest the ride
> for not enforcing any of the other rules).
>
> Then, ride managers could have whatever policy regarding
> dogs that they think appropriate for their venue and their
> clientele; and riders could choose rides that have dog
> policies that they can live with.
>
> The real problem is that nobody enforces the rules about
> dogs at their own rides. But I would be willing to wager
> that were somebody to get disqualified for having their
> dog running loose in camp when it is against the ride rule,
> and the AERC were to back up the ride manager for doing
> this, that the "the rules don't apply to my dog" attitude
> would go away REALLY quickly.
>
> ..and riders who want to let their dogs run loose can then
> go to rides that don't have rules about loose dogs.
>
> Ride managers can decide for themselves which riders they
> want to cater to, and how they want to do so.
>
> So, Steve, if you want to run your ride requiring all dogs
> to be restrained (you had better define exactly what you
> mean by restrained) and you don't want dogs at your vet
> checks; just make the rules.
>
> And then enforce them by disqualifying anybody who breaks
> them.  The AERC rules already exist that will support you
> for doing this.
>
> Whether riders will support you for doing this by continuing
> to come to your ride is another question.  Probably some will
> and some won't (which is as it should be, there is no reason
> that every AERC ride in the country should cater to one set
> of preferences with regards to dog rules).
>
> kat
> Orange County, Calif.
>
> p.s.  The AERC cannot act, of course, unless somebody files a
> protest...so maybe I will take a page out of the book of Bob
> Morris and state:  I will file a protest against any ride
> manager who makes rules about dogs at their ride, and then
> doesn't enforce them when an infraction is brought to their
> attention. :)
>
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
> Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>