Ridecamp: Re: [RC] [RC] Very young riders in AERC rides

On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:02:55 -0700, "Barbara McCrary"
<bigcreekranch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>I'm a person who believes that it would be very difficult, if not
>impossible, to force a 5 year old to ride 100 miles if he weren't really
>gung-ho for it himself.  

As I noted, preschool children are "gung-ho" for many things that are
dangerous or harmful to them.  They don't have the judgement to
understand the risks.

>I also believe that since the Lewis family is not
>abusing, beating, or otherwise mistreating this child, 

I'm sure the Lewis family believes that they are not abusing the
child.  Nevertheless, I believe 100% that the child is being abused.
Sorry.

>then for the rest of us, it's NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.  

But is is very much our business.  Would you say that it is none of
our business if a rider rides a three-year-old horse on the Swanton
Pacific?  Why are children any less deserving of our protection than
horses?  No one has even tried to answer that.

>Besides, I hardly see this as an the
>beginning of an epidemic. One 5-year old child in the entire USA, and such a
>flap is being created????  

That was essentially the position the Junior Committee took.  Now we
have had another 5-year-old on a 100 mile ride.  Several other people
have written about taking 5 and 6 year olds on rides.  As has often
been said about horse deaths, even one is one too many.  Besides, if
so few people want to take toddlers on rides, why is a rule
restricting it a problem?

>My husband's grandfather came across the plains
>from Iowa as a 9-year old in 1868, and probably walked most of it.  There
>were lots of dangers then.  Did that make the parents abusive and
>inconsiderate?  

Different times, different circumstances -- and they weren't doing it
just for fun.

>I think nowadays society tends to protect people, children
>and adults alike, to such an extreme that we've lost a lot of our ability to
>cope with the REAL emergencies in life.  We love to judge others and are so
>sure we know better, don't we?  BTW, I can be just as guilty of this as the
>next person.

On this, I pretty much agree with you.  I cringe every time I hear
some politician say we need this or that law "for the children."  That
doesn't mean all rules protecting children are bad -- we have a rule
requiring junior riders to wear helmets, and that's a Good Thing.  The
potential for injury or damage to toddlers from riding 50 miles or
more is so great that I believe we have a real responsibilty to see
that it never happens on an AERC sanctioned event.





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

 If you are an AERC member - PLEASE VOTE in the upcoming By-Laws 
 Election!!!! (it takes 2/3rds to tango!!)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=