BOD motions

[guest@endurance.net]

Kathy Mayeda kathy.mayeda@att.net
I applaud Mike for letting us take the opportunity to voice our opinions
before the BOD meeting.  I have only been a member a couple of years and
have been a little lost as to how the AERC BOD works (or doesn't work) but
I think this is a step in the right direction.

1. Yes, the membership should be informed as to what the Board is
discussing. Duh.
2. Pull codes - why not.
3. Ohmigawd.  I do not believe that this is that harmful to the NC.  The
NC is asking for monies for prizes, so there must be a way to recoup it.
AERC cannot have open purse strings for everything without having
something to offset it.  I'd rather not have the NC be subsidized at all,
but if it is to be subsidized, I really, really believe that $20 is not
too much to ask of a rider.  I mean, if it was truly a National
Championship - $20 is not barely half a tank of gas.  A West Coast
competitor would be spending many times that for gas money alone to
compete in the NC in Kentucky, and if NC is in West ditto for an East
Coast competitor.  A $20 extra would not make or break that decision.  Now
how many riders were there from West of the Mississippi?
5. and 7.  Seems like a responsible way to handle business.
6.  Don't know enough.

8. Trails - I am all for trails preservation. I do have trouble with some
of the rhetoric surrounding it.  The problem is not necessarily the
"greenies" as one director is all hot about, but LAND DEVELOPMENT is also
a major player in the loss of our trails.  I do not believe that we should
be administering funds for "research" to fight the "greenies". AERC could
be involved with gathering and disbursing information about trails
preservation and organzations; and increase member involvement in trails
preservation issues, but leave it at that. I would not want that $1 a
mandatory fee through ride entry fees.

I strongly believe that the issue of trails preservation belongs to the
groups that specialize in trails preservation.  AERC should support them.
But I do not believe that AERC should focus time and resources to
administer such funds for trails preservation.  From what I understand
from my little exposure to how AERC was run in the past, we need to clean
up our house first and focus on keeping AERC a viable ENDURANCE
organization.  If we start focussing our funds and administrative
resources too much on trail issues, there would be much hard feelings
about the way the funds are disbursed, and therefore be a divisive force
within the AERC organization, more so than already apparently exists.  We
do not need that.

This is totally aside from other issues with regards to ride management
views, of which I will defer to their viewpoints.

9.  Trail advocate award?  I have no problem with the award.  The monetary
issue is minor in comparison to others.  I am not sure that the process of
selection would be entirely fair, though.

10. and 11.  Whatever the vets want!  They're our friends.

12. Yes!  Does this include the "dogs" issue, too?

13. I had a hard time deciphering what the wording meant, but if it means
that AERC and AERA is joining forces for discussion with FEI regarding
certain rules, I am all for it.  As for discussions with regards to it
becoming an Olympic sport, another country is obviously driving the issue.
It would be a shame for us as Americans to not compete in endurance in the
Olympics just because we were not proactive in the development of
endurance as an international sport.

14.  Reword to include all horses entered in any AERC event.

15.  Yes, yes, yes.

16. Yes.

17. These qualifications are a joke.  I qualified when I had only 200 AERC
miles.  I do not think that I should be National Championship material
with such little mileage and experience.  The 1000 miles seems better!

18. No. There are many rides that are able to give nice awards without
taxing the AERC fund.  I am not particularly excited about the NC in it's
current format at all.  The way it reads to me right now is that it
benefits mostly the Heavyweights in the geographical proximity to where
the NC is being held, and not for the general endurance population.

The Pan Ams had better participation from across the nation than the NC.
And I know the Pan Am competitors from our region and know that they do
not consider themselves the "elite" but are competitors that work hard and
have to do considerable planning and cooperative efforts in order to
compete.

The 50 mile NC was nice, but I just think it's just another ride, because
it would be pretty much the same caliber of rider that I compete with at
every ride anyway.  Not of a higher championship caliber.

19.  No conflict in my mind I can see.
20. No.
21. I would like to see a veterinary confirmation after the RO, otherwise
these codes would be useless.  I do believe that many conditions may pop
up after a passing a vet check.  It would be very interesting to see how
this really tracks out.  Like at Swanton they had a exit CRI at the one
lunch stop I was crewing at and were pulling questionable horses after the
one hour hold even after passing the initial incoming vet check.  Maybe if
a particular ride had a history of RO-M or -L, it would give the vets some
indication that they should be performing an exit CRI or exam at that
particular ride.  Just in case a rider wasn't paying attention.
22. Seems fine by me, but what do I know?

Kathy Mayeda
AERC Member # I forgot