Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Joe Long wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:28:57 -0500, "Howard Bramhall"
> <howard9732@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > There are some good guesses in there, Kat.  The thing is, I kind of disagree 
> > with your final conclusion.  I do think there are some excellent ideas out 
> > there that would help reduce the number of endurance related equine 
> > metabolic deaths.  I have a list:
> > 1)  The pacer/mentor program, for newbies, is an excellent idea.  This is 
> > how we pass on the valuable knowledge that our experienced riders have to 
> > give to others.
> As a voluntary program, I think this is a good idea, and one that is
> already being tried.  As a way to reduce equine fatalities is is
> probably useless, though.  And if it was mandatory, it would do little
> good while causing a lot of problems.
I don't recall Howard saying anything about it being "mandatory". Read
his post again. He was simply saying it is a good program and should be
encouraged. Useless, huh? Guess I was wasting my time mentoring all
those people....Hmmm...but none of them have killed a horse....
> > 2)  The "horse holiday" idea is another good one.  30 days is not a long 
> > period of time and if your horse is pulled at a ride, for metabolic reasons, 
> > that period of time is something a rider should do on their own anyway.
> Not so.  Some metabolic problems need more than 30 days off, some only
> need a few days.  For example, on my first trip to California (from
> Alabama) I made some feed and exercise mistakes, and Kahlil tied up
> during a training ride.  I had him treated by a vet, who happened to
> be the ride vet for the next California ride I wanted to to, which was
> coming up in just over a week.  We did some more bloodwork a couple of
> days before the ride, the numbers were back in normal range, the vet
> gave me approval to go (but watched him EXTRA close) and Kahlil
> completed that ride just fine.  An arbitrary 30-day "holiday" would
> have prevented us from doing a ride we'd trailered 2,000 miles to do.
IMHO, opinion you should not have done that ride.  If Kahlil had been MY
horse, I would have passed...no matter how far I trailered. His welfare
should have taken priority over your "ego". I ride in the SE where you
"came from". There are a few ride stories from the "old timers" down
here about you and Kahlil. I don't think your hands are "spotless" on
horse welfare. If those rides had taken place now, I think you would
have got pulled a few more times. Kahlil is a great horse....just how
great is demonstrated by the fact that he is still running around in the
pasture and not under it. I think Truman's "There but for the grace of
God go I" certainly applies to you.

I would add one more thing to this proposal. If the rider has three
metabaolic pulls in one year, (not necessarily on the same horse), the
RIDER is suspended for a year.
> > 3)  Less distance between vet checks.  That one is a no brainer.  If a horse 
> > travels in our sport more than 20 miles before seeing a vet, we are just 
> > asking for trouble.
> Absolutely false, as the experience of many multiday rides vetted and
> managed by our most knowledgable and experienced people has
> demonstrated.  Also, some of our finest 100-mile rides have the first
> vet check more than 20 miles from the start, without problems.
Again, your opinion, means exactly the same as Howard's and mine. IMHO,
the multiday rides are not "raced" in the same manner, so that is not a
valid comparison. And some of our "finest 100-mile rides" DO have
problems and horses DO die. You have done enough rides to know that many
riders have NO control over their horse during the first loop of a ride.
They simply park their horse behind the rider in front, whoever that
might be, and "hang on". I've seen it many times. This can result in a
horse being in a deficit by the first Vet Check. Having an early vet
check can prevent this by giving the horse...and the rider..the
opportunity to relax and "start over". I am more concerned about having
a vet check EARLY...in the first 10-15 miles...than I am about how MANY
there are in a ride. It also gives the Vet an "early look" at the
horses.
> It is possible to have vet checks too far apart, of course, and that
> has contributed to problems on some high-profile rides.  But once
> again, there is no arbitrary number that is "right" for all
> circumstances.
So why do we have ANY Vet Checks? Let's just let the rider have at it,
eliminate the Vets, and everybody is responsible for their own horse.
That's what you're advocating. Experience varies widely among riders.
Too many vet checks is certainly better than too few....unless you don't
give a damn. For example, what good does it do to lower the pulse
recovery to 15 minutes if you only have to meet it ONE time in 50 miles? 
> > 4)  We should develop a tier system (novice, intermediate, beginners) for 
> > both riders and horses.  A rider should not be allowed to go and do the 
> > TEvis ride, for example, without some prior completions and proven ability 
> > with a horse.
> Argghhhh!!!!!!! -- the worst idea I've seen anyone put forth on this
> discussion.  Many people have repeatedly explained why to you, but you
> don't listen to anything that doesn't fit your preconcieved ideas.
Argghhhh?????  Tevis is already doing that. The National Championship is
doing that. Seems you're out of touch. The OBJECTIVE of the mentor
system, which you advocate, is to pass along experience. Heh,
Heh...you're a great one to be talking about "preconcieved ideas"!
<grin>
> > And, speaking of Tevis, if a ride is not forthcoming with the required 
> > information that the manager must pass on to AERC (which includes horse 
> > deaths and metabolic treatment) that ride should lose AERC sanctioning.  We 
> > are pussy footing around with Tevis because, it seems to me, we need them 
> > more than they need us.
> And once again you show your ignorance of the history of this sport
> that you want to remake.
The HISTORY of this sport is irrelevant with regard to this issue....and
is at times embarassing, especially when AERC sanctions a ride such as
the debacle at PANAM. IMHO, you are so steeped in the past you are
willing to sacrifice the future...AND our horses...because of
"tradition". The first rule of life is "evolve or die".
> > 5) Dr. Mackay-Smith has some valid ideas and reducing the time allowed for a 
> > horse to meet the required pulse (and this number should be lower, also) 
> > would require the rider to change their mindset if they plan on hot hoofing 
> > it at a ride.
> His proposals merit a trial, and may be effective, although I suspect
> simply lowering the allowed time to recover for everyone would be more
> effective.
Hmmm...that's what they do....read the proposal....it applies to
EVERYONE...with the same results. If you don't recover in 15 minutes,
you get mileage only.
> > 6)  All AERC vets should have a valid license when practicing at an 
> > endurance ride.
> Ridiculous.  Treatment vets, yes, the law requires it.  Control vets
> absolutely do not need to be licensed practicioners, for example, a
> faculty member of a vet school is just fine.  I'd sure rather have an
> unlicensed faculty member who understands endurance rides and
> endurance horses, than a fully licensed dog & cat vet who hasn't seen
> a horse in six months.
OK...then how do you "qualify" those "faculty members"? How do you know
that they "understand endurance rides and endurance horses"? Can't
believe you said that. We have WAY too many horses dying and you want to
allow "faculty members" with unknown qualifications to decide if horses
are "fit to continue"? Besides, unlike SERA, AERC does not require
"Treatment Vets", which as I understand it, could mean that there were
NO "real Vets" at the ride. GIMME a BREAK!
> > 7)  Horse log books should be a requirement.   I recently received an AERA 
> > horse log book and will go into detail of it's contents in another post.
> I like this idea, Kahlil had a log book and passport when he did FEI
> and I liked it.  I doubt that it will be any help in preventing equine
> fatalities, but it has other advantages.  As we need to carry Coggins
> tests and often health certificates to rides anyway, a log book is not
> a burdensome thing to implement.  In fact, I found it a nice place to
> keep all those other papers!
Gee, I'm glad you like something. Howard, make a note! Why don't you use
your past experience on the board, your ride experience, and your past
contributions to horse welfare to get the board do this? I'm fer it!
> > I disagree with Kat's final conclusion in her post.  She's correct that we 
> > cannot stop horses from dying at our rides totally, but, I really do believe 
> > we can reduce their numbers.  Using any of the ideas I've listed above 
> > certainly won't increase their numbers and, unless we ever get the courage 
> > and say this is worth a try, make an attempt on our part, for the horse, 
> > we'll never really know if it would have changed a thing.
> I believe we can do better, and that we must continue to work to do
> better.  However, I do not believe any or all of the proposals you
> have above (with the possible exception of Matthew's proposal) would
> save even one horse.  You don't address a problem by throwing lots of
> ill-conceived rules at it, to see if anything works.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you think it is
ill-conceived doesn't mean it is. In a discussion this past weekend, I
understand Dr. Ridgeway even got some "death threats" over his
proposals. History sometimes can be enlightening.
> > The basic thought behind some of those ideas is that the new rider will soon 
> > realize this sport is not a walk in the park.  We teach them everything they 
> > need to know before they attempt their first 100 miler.  We put them, and 
> > their horse, through a program that enforces the belief that the horse must 
> > be put ahead of any personal goals or achievements in the sport.  And, the 
> > fact, that they both have to earn the right to be called an endurance rider 
> > and an endurance horse (like the horse cares what you call him).
> Most riders already know that endurance rides are not a walk in the
> park, and those that don't learn it pretty quickly.  Teaching people
> "everything they need to know" isn't as simple as you seem to think,
> especially when you try to force it on them.
No, teaching people everything they need to know is not easy, which is
why we need some new rules to protect the horses while their riders
learn...AND some new rules to discourage people who should know better
from overriding their horses to "win".
> > I realize we have some of those words stating how much we care about our 
> > horses in writing, somewhere, but, the fact of the matter is we need to 
> > reinforce those statements with actions.
> And you continue in your delusion that we have not been doing that.
It's not a delusion.....it's a FACT. The evidence is obvious to the most
casual observer. Unfortunately, some can't see the forest for the trees.
AERC continues to "hide" the seriousness of the issue by not keeping the
membership informed.
> > but, I sure would like to see our metabolic death totals come close to their 
> > numbers.
> And what evidence can you present that they are not, already?
Geeze...this statement doesn't even deserve a rebuttal, so I won't.
> > Take a real good look at some of the ideas floating around concerning this 
> > topic before you totally discount them.
> > I'm convinced we can do better.
> So am I, but not with the half-baked panaceas you keep pushing.
Nor with the arrogant "tunnel vision" you seem to have. How about a
"laundry list" of proposals from you similar to Howard's or can we just
sum in up simply under "no new rules"?  

Jim, Sun of Dimanche+, and Mahada Magic


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=