 |
Re: [RC] [RC] Ridecamp post - frank solanoHi Evelyn,
I wish I knew the answers, or even ONE answer, to the questions you've posed.
I think they're very interesting questions.
You ask if perhaps a lesser distance (than 100 miles) might significantly reduce pulls, deaths, etc.
I guess, based on what has or hasn't happened in AERC policy, the distance ridden doesn't matter. I imagine if it did, the AERC would have recognized some kind of pattern and shared it with the members.
The correlation of data, i.e., lamenesses, metabolic issues, co-incidental colics, deaths, IV Fluid Replacement treatments due to bad luck, bad riding, bad (whatever) seems something which has been difficult to correlate with any degree of accuracy.
I don't know how your questions can authoritatively be answered short of a program by which relevant information can be gathered, submitted, assessed and (eventutally) disseminated to the participants and (especially) people interested in venturing into the world of Endurance Racing/Riding for the first time.
Personally, I know a horse can die just outside my bedroom window with no endurance saddle on. Some say endurance horse deaths are a result of things other than being involved in endurance races/rides, that it's just "bad luck". Some endurance horses die because of rider incompetence. Some die because they find themselves in a moment where their own natural instincts take over and, unable to quiet their fear, the horse dies.
I guess trying minimize the chances of bad things happening is the only way to go. How that's done is something, I'd hope (in a sport all about "personal responsibility") each of us will be able to fathom.
Frank
On 4/4/07, Evelyn Allen <totaleclipse2007@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If the welfare of the horse is truly foremost in everyone's (or almost everyone's) minds, and if the 100-mile events cause by far the most stress on the horse and the most pulls for whatever reason, and more importantly the most likelihood of horse deaths (which is what I seem to recall reading many times), then maybe the problem lies with the fact that 100-miles is not really a great distance for horses to travel safely? Does it have to be 100-miles? Is perhaps a lesser distance where the probability of pulls, deaths, etc. is significantly reduced, not also something that should be looked at? I'm sure not a popular thought, but nonetheless....
|