|
I'm going to venture into psychology again, not
that I'm a psychologist, a psychology expert, nor do I play one on
TV.
This is based on what I've read on ridecamp, and
how I've seen people behave in the outside world.
I always had the impression, (based on what I've
read and skimmed here) that a ride code carried some sort of stigma, either for
the horse or the rider. The impression I got is that having a horse pulled
as RO means that the rider took it out either because the rider had a problem
(the casserole at the pre-ride potluck I hear about) or because of concern for
the horse. On the otherhand, having a horse go lame, or a metabolic
breakdown seems to carry a stigma. Lameness or metabolic problems
seems to imply that the rider wasn't careful and even hints that the
rider abused the horse. (NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING THE RIDER ABUSED THE HORSE
IN REALITY). The unspoken message I've picked up is that if the rider was
more careful the horse wouldn't have gotten hurt.
Charles
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 8:53
AM
Subject: RE: [RC] Horse/Rider History
Books re: PULL CODES
...
We
were starting out asking the simple basics of the cause of the horse being
eliminated from the ride. Was the basic cause related to two categories?
First, the Horse or the Rider? Then when that is determined, if the cause was
the horse, the question became Lame or Metabolic? End of questions!
Simple was it not? Two little simple questions answerable by one word in
each instance. Hardly takes much thought. But we cannot get those answers
because people, for some unknown reason cannot, will not, do not want to,
answer with one of those choices, Again, Was the basic cause
horse or rider. If horse, was the basic cause lameness of
metabolic.
Now, you tell me why the membership cannot conform with such a
simple thing.
Bob
Bob Morris
Morris Endurance Enterprises
Boise, ID
If a horse, when assigned a Horse I.D.
Number by the AERC, was also issued a Ride History Book to track that
particular horse's ride history/performance. Perhaps, as an
organization we would then have relevant data on our horses.
"Relevant" in that the welfare of the horse could be monitored, assisted,
documented.
At the end of a ride, the Head Vet and
Ride Manager would transcribe the results of that particular rides, that
particular horse.
Such as, WIN A WATERBOTTLE 100
MILER
"HORSE X Overall: A-
No gait aberrations, no metabolic
issues
signed: Head
Vet
HORSE finished_____ out of
_______starters.
signed: Ride Manager
Then, that book would have to be
presented at that horse's next ride. The pre-ride Vet could "focus" a
bit more attention to a previously "documented" issue. (I know, I
know, do we really want this...I'd say, do really want to do something with
pull codes or not?)
If said Horse shows up at ride
after ride with the same "issues", as an organization, the AERC would have
to have an avenue available to help that horse.
I
strongly believe that an endurance horse is the responsibility of the
rider...I also believe that the AERC needs to be able to DOCUMENT its
concern for the welfare of the horses who are used in this
sport.
I think we, the community of endurance riders
who make up the AERC, need to either "put up" or "shut
up".
If I'm wrong, I know you will tell me so...do not
hesitate to do just that...I'd like to "focus" this conversation a bit
more.
Unless it is just
"conversation".
Frank.
|
