I think we should all agree to disagree. Clearly there is a dichotomy
on this issue. Lines seem to have been drawn in the sand. It's getting
personal, disparaging remarks are being made. No one is going to change
anyone elses mind. It's time for the AERC BOD to step forth and do the
right thing. We will have to leave them to figure out what that is. I
am sure that each and every one of our board members will take a stand
for the best interest of the horse and our organization.
Truman
Howard Bramhall wrote:
Ten to twenty per cent is not as far fetched as you may think.
The horse does not have to be hooked up to an IV bottle for it to be in
trouble. Take a good look at our rides and their completion rates
before you go and say I'm totally whacked out here.
The thing is, we're not even getting accurate data on the number
of horses that are treated at AERC rides. Why? Because the
information is not being turned in like it should.
Let's take a look at the Pan Am rides held this year. 89
starters. One death. At the end of the day, 14 on IV. That's not
even counting the number of total pulls. Sure seems like ten to twenty
percent of those horses experienced some sort of problem that I'd would
say met the definition of "trouble." And, these are supposed to be our
best endurance mounts in the world!
Just this late summer to early fall: One horse died in Vermont
(metabolic); One horse died at the Pan AM ride (metabolic); Maggine's
horse at the National Championship Ride (metabolic and very close to
not surviving). Wasn't that like a six week period? Ya'll aren't upset
about all this? You don't think it's time for some changes? You've
got to be kidding me here! What on earth does it take?
I believe that what gets some
of us upset in this discussion is that a figure gets quoted and is
taken for documented fact. Like the ten fatalities now attributed to
metabolic problems. No one has ever established the facts or complete
cause of these fatalities experienced this year but I can feel assured
that they were not all metabolic. Yet this is what is being spread by
some accepted authorities. Just take Howard's "that ten to twenty
percent of our horses get into trouble at our rides." That figure has
no basis at all but will be bandied around for some time to come.
I still ask for a definitive
study of the proximate cause of our problem and to have it well defined
on line. I am willing to work with anyone who has all the facts to get
this in the open and to stop the speculative rumor mongering. If we can
get the facts we can intelligently promulgate mitigation methods. But
with out the facts we can do nothing worthwhile.
Heidi, no offense, but this "I've been doing it for 30 years and I know
more than the rest of you" is getting a little tiresome. I personally
don't care if you have 50 years or 1 year in Endurance...your opinion
is of no more value than any other member. One person, one vote,
majority rules, and your opinion doesn't count any more than mine or
anybody else. If you're not part of the "horse death" solution, you're
part of the problem.
In fact, IMHO, one of the problems with this organization is
that the people making the decisions have been doing that for too long.
Sometimes, as I found out with "30 years" in the corporate
world with IBM, longevity leads to stagnation.
Sorry...again, no offense, nothing personal....just had to
vent on this. :) (Lack of time in the saddle, I think....)
Jim, Sun of Dimanche+, and Mahada Magic
>And, I do believe your numbers are incredibly off. It isn't that
.001% of our members consistently do the wrong thing, it's that ten to
twenty percent of our horses get into trouble at our rides. Huh?? And where do YOUR numbers come from, Howard? Darn
sure not from anywhere I've been participating for the last 30+ years... Heidi
