We are doomed from the start, if you expect everyone in the AERC to be
on the same wave length:-). I would add to the problem also an
unacceptable number of horses that require invasive treatment as a
result of an endurance competitions.
This would also need to be rolled into the goals.
But this is the textbook method of addressing problems and it's a good
start.
Truman
Bob Morris wrote:
OK Truman:
Let's outline this. First we need to state the problem so
every one is working on the same wave length. Next our goals
associated with the problem, then the objectives we need to
address!
Once we get this done then and only then can we examine the
solutions. Other wise we could all be so divergent that
nothing will result except chaos.
Here is a start on the outline:
Problem
1. AERC is experiencing an untimely increase of equine
fatalities associated with sanctioned endurance competition.
Goals
2. Minimize equine fatalities associated with endurance
competition.
Objectives
3. Reduce equine fatalities associated with endurance
competition by 50% with in ____years.
4. Educate equine owners/riders as to the most expedient
methods of reducing equine fatalities associated with
endurance competition.
Methods
5. Here is where we start with the ideas, concepts and such.
What do you think? If done this way when we are finished we
have a document ready for formal presentation that has
consensus and could be quite complete.
Bob
Bob Morris
Morris Endurance Enterprises
Boise, ID
-----Original Message-----
From: AERCMembersForum-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:AERCMembersForum-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
Truman Prevatt
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 5:48 PM
To: terre
Cc: bratcat91@xxxxxxxx; ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
AERCMembersForum@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Protecting....
In the old days down South we'd just take 'em out back and
shoot 'em.
That would probably work.
We need a system that kicks in when a horse dies to start
with. I'd say
an automatic protest. As far as treatments go, it's a little
more
subtle. I would, however, say the Vet committee review the
treatments
and refer those that need further consideration to the HWC
to further
investigate.
There I threw my fish on the table - take your shots. And
Angie, "take
'em back and shoot 'em" is not "Truman's rule." :-).
Truman
terre wrote:
At 04:08 PM 9/29/2003, Nancy Mitts wrote:
So, in addition to Truman's analogy in regards to
"Angie's rule", you
have to consider that variation in attitude/perception in
what may be
considered "serious treatment".
Also, think about the ramifications in dumping the
decision about
whether a rider should lose a whole season of points on
the head of
one vet. Even if the vet committee reviews it, it's
mainly the
judgement of the vet on the scene. And, I say one vet,
because at
small ride the other vet may be gone already. Some will
be more
reluctant to treat, others just to say no treatment was
that serious,
others will stick to the letter of the law and say the
points must
go. Some may even say it's not worth the hassle--they
