Posted for Kathy Mayeda - Views on the BOD motions

[Michael Maul <mmaul@flash.net>]

Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:58:42 -0000
   From: "Kathy Mayeda" <kathy.mayeda@att.net>
Subject: BOD

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", 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