|
I promised myself that I would keep my mouth shut
when this thread started again, but feel obligated to reassert my position of
last?? year.
The present system is not at all useful as a way to
gather data. Arguing as to the placement of a few RO pulls obscures the
real issue.
The desire is to collect data that can be analyzed
and used to improve our sport. The present system does not produce any
useful data. It has been argued that it is a start, and any data is better
than none. Any data is not necessarily better than none. It can be
used as an excuse for not collecting good data, it costs money without producing
any benefit. While the present data collection is low cost, it is not
free. At the minimum someone at the AERC office is paid to enter
it.
First, lets look at the potential benefits if the
data were to be collected properly with the proper codes used. At the end
of the collection period one would know that some horses were pulled lame, some
metabolic, and some because the rider could/would not go on. I suspect
that most of the pulls would be lame, with lesser numbers of metabolic.
Big deal. One could look at data from any year and see that, even if
slight gait abnormalities or horses not feeling right were allowed to be rider
option. I also suspect that this will not change in the future.
Horses will always develop gait abnormalities and get into difficulties.
The results will just not be useful. By useful I mean giving hints as to
where research, education, or veting standards should be changed. Since
the USA (thankgoodness) does not have a required record book for each horse, it
will not even provide guidance for a Vet at a ride to help a rider learn better
how to manage his horse.
Secondly, lets look at what could be accomplished
if pull codes were expanded and vets put more information on the
cards.
If each vet had to give each pulled horse the same
type of exam that is given to CTR horses some useful information possibly could
be obtained. The grade lame, the most likely leg giving the trouble would
be available. I the case of metabolic pulls a grade of metabolic
difficulty could be assigned. Coding could also differentiate colic from
thumps etc. The number of miles before pull would also be
available.
This data collected for a few years might yield
useful information, but after an initial period its usefulness would drop.
We would know which legs go lame, but not what clinical condition existed.
We would know a bit about how severe the metabolic difficulties were, but not
which therapies worked best.
There is not time for a ride vet to do a clinical
workup on each lame horse. Metabolics likewise will not usually be worked
up. With few exceptions, ride vets can not do even basic blood work.
They just treat symptoms, stabilize the patient and recommend transport to
hospital if indicated.
Another thing missing is an evaluation of the ride
conditions. What was the temperature? What was the dew point?
Was it raining or snowing? How many feet of
altitude gain or loss was there on the trail? What was the footing?
These things could either be measured or estimated
on a scale, but would require time and money. I am aware that the vet
report has places for the vet to write things, but I doubt this information is
being used. Naritive evaluations can be scored to give statistically
useful data, but this is expensive and not often done. If I am wrong,
would someone on the Vet committee please explain what is being done now to get
useful statistically valid information from vet reports.
My conclusion is that the present system does not
produce useful data, and that an extension that reported on each ride, horse and
rider is unlikely to produce really good quantitative information after a few
initial years of operation.
However, I do have a suggestion that perhaps would
help the welfare of our horses. Unfortunately, it will cost money out of
rider's pockets and thus not be particularly popular.
I propose that a fee (Say $2.00 per starting
rider.) be imposed. This money be used to hire vets to go to randomly
selected rides with a full truck. Their equipment to include scales,
x-ray, ultra sound, and blood machines. Their sole job at rides would be,
in addition to weighing all horses before, during and after the ride, to workup
all pulled horses as carefully as they could. They would also carefully
record temp, humidity, precipitation etc. Scales to rate trail conditions
would need to be developed. The ratings would be supplied by the ride
manager and interviews with participants. Total gain and loss in altitude
would be calculated from topo maps of the trail. After the ride the owners
of each pulled horse would be contacted and details of further treatment and
outcome collected.
Properly analyzed a wealth of information could be
obtained. Since the rides were randomly selected, the results would apply
to all riders not just elite, or not just to the unique conditions of a given
ride.
I have no idea how much money per ride would be
required, how much money a given charge would generate, or how many rides per
year would have to be monitored to get good results in a reasonable period of
time. I suspect, that the amount of money I proposed above would not be
nearly enough to do a good job. Like everything it comes down to
money. Do we really love our horses enough to put our money where our
mouths are?? Do we love them $2/ride, $20/ride or $0.02 per
ride?
Ed.
PS. While I am not a vet or biologist I just
retired after 34 years as an industrial scientest. I beleive that I have
some knowlege as to the time, money, and trouble required to collect data that
is actually useful and worthy of analysis.
| 