Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

In a message dated 2/13/2003 8:25:44 PM Mountain Standard Time, bobmorris@xxxxxxxx writes:

> PLACE THE RESPONSIBILITY WHERE THE AERC RULES DIRECT THEM!
> The rider! Not the vet!
    Yeah, Bob, how does an organization "legislate" good ol' fashioned horsemanship?
    Perhaps, that's the real problem...I wish it weren't so. 
    That said, and knowing that skills and concerns of individual riders vary greatly, I can understand the need for the organization to try to find some procedure to "help" the rider be a better steward of his mount.
    Like alot of the "critieria" involved, pulse is only one, and in some cases, not always the better.
    Prior to leaving a vet check will the vet/ride management know how much water a horse drank, how much forage eaten, etc.?  No.
    So, the rider has to be "trusted" to care enough about their horse to communicate freely with the vet any concerns.
    That should be as basic as riding prudently when the trail dictates prudence.
    I'm not sure "legislating" is the answer.
    Perhaps Heidi is right, perhaps it's a "methodology"-thing.....something as simple as the vet check at the end of the hold period.
    But then, what about the horse who arrives at a check, pulses down, goes to the trailer and is in trouble right now?  Guess we're back to that old thing, the rider better recognize it and do something about it right now.
    Ultimately, it all comes back to the rider being responsible, at each moment during the ride, for their horse.
    And if a rider demonstrates time and time again that they are unable to do so without endangering their horse, the AERC has to step up and act like a governing body and do something about it.
    ---Frank Solano