While
I accept your moral position regarding equine fatalities at endurance
competition I believe your stance "the first step to that is a policy that states equine deaths at endurance
rides are unacceptable" requires a furtherance of
interpretation. If these fatalities are unacceptable, what do you propose if it
does occur. If it is unacceptable, exactly what is the result if there is no
incentive to prevent such happenings. And in retrospect do you believe the
statement "equine deaths at endurance rides are
unacceptable" has any force behind
it?
Much more thought must
be given prior to such a declaration.
Bob
Bob Morris Morris Endurance Enterprises Boise, ID
-----Original Message----- From:
ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Truman
Prevatt Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:17 AM To:
Tiffany D'Virgilio Cc: Howard Bramhall; ridecamp Subject:
Re: [RC] New Poll up
Tiffany,
We don't know what
the mortality rate of the population of endurance horses is at home. Nor do we
really know what it is as a result of endurance rides. Some I respect tell me
the increase is not from some change in the sport but better reporting. I;ve
also heard vets I respect say the risk is going up. If it's better reporting
it could rise to 20, 50 or 100 - we just don't know. If we have better
reporting the risk is going up - how high could it get. We don't know.
My real issue with the AERC on is comes down to one simple fact. We
have a "zero tolerance" drug policy, but somehow we are willing to accept
deaths. If we can take the moral high ground on drug use, why do we not take
the moral high ground on endurance related deaths? Sure deaths will happen,
however, that does not mean we have to find that state of affairs acceptable
and not work toward the elimination of deaths from endurance rides. The sport
will not get safer unless we make the commitment to make it safer - the first
step to that is a policy that states equine deaths at endurance rides are
unacceptable and build education programs, research programs, vetting
standards etc. based on that policy.
One in 400 to 500 is getting right on up there - may not be
quite as bad as TB racing but when we start comparing ourselves to TB
racing to make us feel better about one in 4 to 5 hundred dying, I have to
agree that we are in deep trouble.
That would be .2%.
That is getting up there? Much less than 1%? What if in a certain year 10
horses die from a blown aorta? The fact is that it is very hard to quantify
the actual REASON a horse dies in many cases. I don't want any horses to die
because of an endurance ride, but horses die from weird stuff all the time.
Heidi is right on this one. If you want no horse deaths at all, there should
be no more endurance rides. Then you may have 10 endurance horses per year
die in their pastures. You are going to have deaths racing, doing endurance,
showing, doing gymkhana, eventing, etc.
Horses die, people die. S@#%
happens. Maybe I am just a realist after working in a hospital for over 13
years. I have seen crazy and unexplained deaths. I have seen children die
before their parents. You can't stop all death. And a poll or people
deciding how many deaths is unacceptable is not going to help. How many
horses out of 500 competition horses die each year at home? I'm willing to
be it is a sight over .2%.
It isn't that I think any deaths at rides
are unacceptable. It is just how do you arrive at an arbitrary number that
pleases everyone, and how can you say that the horse was killed by the ride
itself and not from existing medical problems that were a time bomb waiting
to go off? Len Bias dropped dead from heart failure playing basketball when
he was 18. Did basketball kill him> No, his faulty heart (cardiomyopathy)
that had gone on previously undetected did. Did working on John Ritter's
show kill him? No, a dissecting aorta did. Just because you die doing some
sort of pursuit does not mean the pursuit is what killed you. It takes
science to figure this out, not a poll. You can come up with a number all
you like, but I doubt it will help the situation. Seems like the vet
committee might be trained to decide this stuff better.
