Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

I did finally find the Research Committee News on line discussing how the change is going to work.    

The way I understand it is, that vets want to at least check a HR or do a CRI within a half an hour but still give the rider the rest of the hour to present their horse. Some have argued that is not enough time to bring the pulse down for a heavy horse. Well, Dr. Sleeper  says that "The best science today confirms that normal horses consistently recover to a heart rate of 64 bpm in less than 15 minutes post exercise." I am not a scientist, but from my experience with Arabs, that is true.?

Here is what I don't understand. Again, from my observation, most riders do vet in within a half hour. The pulse area is set up so that as soon as the horse pulses down, you go right to the vet. At least here in the SE anyway. So, if we are talking about "eventual endurance related fatalities" that are not found within the hour, maybe it is because the horses are being seen TOO EARLY! (like I said here in the SE most horses I would say DO see the vet within the first 1/2 hour)

They also said that horses with the least amount of endurance experience appear to be at greatest risk. Again, my observation is that it is the RIDER with no experience even on a seasoned endurance horse that screws up. Also, it is cited that 1/3 of the fatalities could be argued as non-endurance specific.

So really, what are we looking at here? They have stated that "there is inadequate identification of horses in dire trouble at the finish when using a 60 minute period for hr recovery." So to me, that means it took LONGER than 60 minutes to identify problems. Not less than 60 minutes. Am I not understanding that correctly?? Or are they saying that they saw the horses within the 30 minutes and then the horse crashed after the hour had passed? Again, that to me would mean that we need to see the horses later, rather than sooner. Or maybe, just maybe, those who "artificially" cool their horses, (ice up the rear or gallons of cold water dumped on them) may be presenting horses that are not able to be accurately diagnosed? The horse is showing a "false" recovery only to crash later. Kind of like when a person gets whacked on the head and says, "I'm O.K." only to suffer seizures later and possibly go into a coma.

So here is something I did not see discussed on the members forum. It was stated that, "In 25 % of the fatalities, referral to secondary care facilities was declined or recommended surgery was declined. In one notable case, a horse with a large colon displacement was euthanized even though the surgeon quoted an 80% positive prognosis with surgery."

I wasn't there and I am not a vet, but I am very aware that ANY abdominal surgery does not usually come with an 80% positive prognosis but it will come with a high price tag. Horses were not meant to be cut in the belly. But, here is the kicker to that! "A fee of $3 per rider per ride would raise approximately $70,000 per year." This would pay up to "$5000 for advanced care after charges exceeded $1500... details to be clarified." This means, those riders who are paying the extra money are paying for those who can't or won't pay the extra medical expense WHICH IS THEIR CHOICE. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am SICK TO DEATH of paying for those who can't or won't. Pet owners all over the world make medical decisions based on finances. If someone can't or won't pay for their horse's medical expenses, let it go at that. DO NOT make the membership pay for it.

The committee asks,"Are these differences statistically significant?" This task force is asking AERC to "fund more rigorous statistical analysis of this already summarized and tabulated fatality data." What? According to the WHC, there is "no glaring reason why most of these horses died." We have a small number of fatalities, who either died from something unpreventable or couldn't be diagnosed and AERC wants to fund a "rigorous statistical analysis" and have members pay for other members vet bills. Really?

I have no problem with stricter criteria. But I DO have a problem with paying for somebody elses surgery for their horse or a necropsy. I can no longer support AERC but if members have to pay $3.00 extra per ride, day members may end up paying $5.00 or more per ride for this fee. Neither sum, is good for anybody. Members or not.

So then I read the rules committee is looking into who signed the release form and who didn't and why. WELLLLL, the release form isn't just about liability, but giving away a members right to refuse pictures for use of advertisement, and to allow AERC access to medical records should something happen to your horse at a ride. I understand the thought process behind accessing medical records, but that should be an OPTION!!! Not included with the liability form. AND, if I don't have the funds for a necropsy, I don't expect my fellow riders to foot the bill. That is just one other horse we can't study. But really, does it matter when many of the horses that pass away from being at a ride are dying from things that are out of our control anyway??

I do hope you all stay on top of this. I am all for welfare of the horse. I am all for eliminating equine deaths, but I don't want to pay for the some idiot's vet bills who rode the crap out of their horse or who knew that horse had no business doing the ride anyway. Again, the welfare committee in this report stated, "For any single year, the deaths are so infrequent that it is impossible to identify trends."

Again I ask, why the change? Why does AERC expect anything to change after collecting the $70,000 or so per year for "possible" surgeries or other medical services? I don't understand this at all.

The vet committee is looking to add body score to the riders cards. I am glad to hear that but I do hope they use it as well. In other words, I hope that if a horse is presented with a body score of 3 or 4 and is signed up for a 100 miler, the vets won't be afraid to say, "No, not today. Come back when the horse has some reserve."

My personal thoughts are, that while I don't want any horses dying at rides, according to the welfare committee, most deaths could not be avoided or prevented. So, I would hate to see the members pay for more research. I don't think AERC needs more rules, research or more money from the members. AERC has quality and competent vets at every ride.?I think all that is needed is a backbone and a little common sense.

Dear Vets, if something doesn't look right, feel right, sound right or sit right with you, say something. You see the same riders at the rides and I am sure you notice new riders. Yes, I know we have new riders meetings but sometimes that isn't enough.?I would think that if a vet felt a horse was just too tired to finish, that would be enough to pull the rider without changing or manipulating the rules in any way. The vet can attempt to educate the rider but if that doesn't work...

I read somewhere that AERC wants a system where riders can report other riders who may be overriding or abusing their horses to the HWC. Why wait for some one to call it in? They can do that now, and it's not happening. I am sure there is some way the "recording" program for mileage and points can red flag a rider who has multiple pulls or treatments within any given year. Then someone from the welfare committee can call that rider and discuss it.

Sigh... it doesn't have to be so difficult or cost members more money.

Lisa Salas, the oDD FARM