 |
Re: [Fwd: Re: [RC] New Poll up] - Jim HollandJohn Teeter wrote: > One person, one vote, majority rules, and your opinion doesn't count any more than mine or anybody else. OT: AERC doesn't work that way. Representative (rather than direct) Democracy. So your vote counts a little less than Mine (b/c SE is a little smaller than NW) and we both count about twice as much as someone in PS and half as much as someone in SW. Plus, the only people that vote on anything are elected board members (minus the one elected board member who happens to be president) (and one of the NW regional directors happen to be pres, then my voting power is cut in half:(. So trying to hook people expressing opinions to votes is not to relevant. On the other hand, I value different peoples opinions differently, as do you:) Hmmm...I wasn't referring to "votes" from that perspective. I was referring to "votes" from an "opinion" standpoint. IMHO, Heidi's "opinion" carries no more weight than that of anyone else. As someone once said (probably heard in the Corps) "Opinions are like as**ho***...everybody has one. Certainly experience, age, wisdom, etc. are a factor. However, those factors are only SOME of the things to consider when you evaluate the value of an "opinion". I've known many individuals who have been "horsin'" for years that I would not let pick up my horses poop. I also know concerned, concientious, caring individuals who have been involved in horses only a few years and have done their "homework" who are welcome anytime. Experience is relative. If a day goes by and you don't learn something new, consider it a waste. There are Doctors with many years "experience" that get their license revoked. "Experience" and "years in practice" does NOT mean you are a great "Doctor" or have the patient's best interest at heart. I value EVERYONE'S opinion, and everyone's right to express it....just don't like couching it in terms of "experience and longevity" as the only justification. That doesn't impress me unless I know you personally. I learned in the corporate world that "experience" means only that you have been "involved" with whatever project it is...doesn't mean you know anything about it. > If you're not part of the "horse death" solution, you're part of the problem. Part of the horse death solution is for each member to actively participate in the appropriate management of their mounts before, during, and after competition. Every member that does the right thing IS part of the ongoing solution. Agreed....but that has been tried....ain't working....good theory, but even with DUI laws, we still have drunks driving. Time to move on. There are a large number of (potential) further refinements to that base solution which might be explored (and very few of these have been discussed). I'm always open to suggestions....especially if it will benefit our horses. Have you signed Matthew's proposal? If not, would be interested in knowing why you DON'T support it. IMO, excessively applying labels or categories which paint this as black-or-white re: a single solution de jour is a distraction. We have (in AERC): * the Committee for the Welfare of the Horse * the VET committee evolving their Equine Fatality Reporting procedures * all vets and RMs sending in Treatment reports to the office (of course, we don't yet know what happens to them after they are submitted), * proposed modifications to the (currently not required!!) gate-to-hold protocol * the education committee (et.all) producing a new riders handbook * real data analysis underway to help with myth.vs.real evaluation * more use of the Protest and Grievance mechanism and * your own work (through your regional group) concerning training and conditioning education. All the voices add to the cacophony through which the sport will evolve forward. But, because the rider is alone with their mount for 80%-90% of the time of competition, ALL administrative constraints will be after-the-fact-oversight and much to large grained to fully address the problem. ONLY the rider is there 100% of the time and ONLY the rider should be held responsible in the end. Good stuff. Again agreed, but not enough....tell me where in the rules AERC holds the "rider responsible" and metes out appropriate justice.....Sorry, John, just ain't happening, IMHO. My be "implied" but not happening. Consider a solution which says that if the rider fails to ride appropriately, then they will simply be DQd. Use all the criteria which have evolved (including the one currently under discussion), but in the end, if the Vet (or RM or P&R person) determines that the rider should have pulled their mount but didn't, then they are DQd. In other words, ALL pulls should be RO (the vet should NEVER have to pull a horse and if they do have to, then it is a DQ not a pull). A DQ is the result of a rider not doing the right thing. Any RO is a rider doing the right thing (after MAYBE having done the wrong thing). Great! What is "appropriate"? Specifics? Way too vague. Matthew put his proposal in writing....give me this "proposal" in writing and I will be HAPPY to evaluate it, and give you my "opinion" for what it's worth. Matthew's proposal is easily implemented and has little impact on Endurance as we know it. KISS....Keep It Simple..works for me. Any rider that consistently DQs is in jeopardy of being restricted from competitions (i.e denied entry for cause as is allowed in the current rules). > one of the problems with this organization is that the people making the decisions have been doing > that for too long. That is likely true, the positive effects of longevity (continuity and historical perspective), are very like more than offset by an inability to accept change in an unbiased way coupled with long bred parochial world views. Agreed! Jim, Sun of Dimanche+, and Mahada Magic johnt (btw: on the particular issue of the modification of the pulse criteria measurement, It seems to me that it may affect the slow down of riders who have a pending problem. Not all problems will be noticed, (for example, Adios at the PanAm would not have been effected by this rule as he pulsed down within the suggested 15 min interval). I think in conjunction with extending the hold time, requiring an exit CRI, and removing the hold times from the overall competition time should also be integrated into the solution...) Adios was a special case...grapevine has it that he was saved once....but I agree with that as well. Again, let's keep it simple....the more "stuff" you add, the harder it is to get ANYTHING done. Congress is a perfect example. Matthew's proposal is simple, has the least impact, and "won't hurt, might help". What say we try it? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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 Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|