Ridecamp: Re[2]: [RC] Protecting Horses / vet checks

Bob  Good points - but -- look at NATRC  MOST all the pulse checks
there is NO vet  - Now of course that is 'just' a CTR and they may or
may not be stressed as much as a hi profile fast running 'race'  but
its done all the time.

Now back to the horse that does crash - the majority of the times a
horse starts to get colicky at a VC there is normally a significant
amount of time from   the point where  the horse begins to show distress to the
point  major veterinary treatment is applied. Even in the SE we want
to wait an amount of time to see if the horse will work out of the
problem.
In the very rare situation where a horse goes down hard at one of
these Pulse Check Points  (PCP)   hehehe   - the horse could be loaded
fast and brought back to camp. It would have to be setup for these
PCP to insure a truck and trailer was on site ready to roll.
The other option would be to get the vet there, a REAL problem for
the one-vet- rides. Sort of why we REALLY want to enforce the two vet
rule - but that is not done at ALL rides.
Problem associated with ONE vet is the same - he would have to stop
vetting the ride and work on the sick horse  - no matter the
situation.

I would not be claiming the horse is fit-to-continue, the PCP would
say the horse failed to meet the pulse parameter and would be 'pulled'
at a standard VC no matter what the vet decided, the failed pulse
within the  30 minutes parameter can not or should not ever be over-ruled
by a vet.
This 'pull' is not based on a veterinary exam - but a hard number
verifiable by any qualified pulse taker. It is not a veterinary
decision. Its objective - right - a fixed hard number.

Now the horse must be examined by a vet upon arrival back  at camp.
But the pull was was based on a real number and not an opinion or
exam.

I still content we could use this protocol instead of a second VC -
which we both know is  a 'never gone to happen deal'  just as the 2 vet
rule, there will rides where this will never happen and AERC will never
make it happen.

Would you prefer to let the one vet - one vc protocol at rides
continue based on your suggestion of a horse that is stopped MIGHT
crash hard.  An extreme possibility.  The probability is that horse
might just survive at this hold  but if continued on would 'really' crash hard at
the end.  ( this assumes the VC was at mid point 25 miles and the PCP
would be at say 40 miles)

I would take the chance.. and cover the odds as best I could.

Roger R

BM> OK Roger:

BM> Try this argument; we seldom see problems on the trail. No,
BM> I am not saying we do not have problems on the trail but
BM> they are of the minority. The problems seem to occur when
BM> the horse is in the process of descending from the
BM> adrenaline high they have been running on.

BM> So, you get to the pulse stop and 10 minutes into the stop
BM> your horse shows signs of having a problem. NO VET! SICK
BM> HORSE! MANAGEMENT IN TROUBLE!

BM> If you have the control you must have the support for that
BM> control.

BM> Now, in a regular stop with a vet in attendance you ALWAYS
BM> have the second opinion of a professional when there is a
BM> question about pulse. There have been times I have had to
BM> resort to this second opinion in order to continue on in the
BM> ride. Non-Vets do not have the experience to make the go-no
BM> go decisions. How many thousand horses have I pulsed over
BM> the years? But I still do not have the experience/authority
BM> to say a horse is not fit to continue.

BM> Bob

BM> Bob Morris
BM> Morris Endurance Enterprises
BM> Boise, ID



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
 Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=