Re: [RC] 60 to 30 minute rule...please stay informed.! - Elizabeth Walker
On Oct 22, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Lisa Salas wrote:
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??
Your question is the reason Tevis had the after-completion check. In their experience, it sometimes took between 1 - 2 hours for something to manifest.
I think there are lots of reasons horses crash, and they do it in their own time frame. At the last ride I attended (did P&Rs), we had a horse crash (with colic) at Vet Check 3. The way the course was laid out, the horse left VC3, did about a 10 mile loop, came *back* into VC 3 for a 5 minute hold, then left for the final 5 miles back to camp.
Well - this horse came in, *passed* the vet check (56 in 30 minutes) and went out on the 10 mile loop. When it came in for the 5 minute hold, it walked into the check, and immediately went down (colic - no gut sounds at all). So - with this single example - even a very strict 56 criteria in 30 minutes was not enough to catch this problem brewing, nor did the rest of the parameter checks catch it.
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."
<snip>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.
I can't agree with you. No - I don't like freeloaders. IMO, everyone should have their horse insured for major medical, which includes colic surgery. Cost is around $500 a year. Is that going to happen - nope. Some horses (older than 18, etc.) can't be insured, either. I would still support a fund to help riders whose financial situation doesn't allow them to opt for surgical intervention when their horse is in trouble at a ride.
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.
I must have missed this part. Here I agree with you. Those should be separate sections, with separate releases.
<snip>
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."
They can only do that if the rules are set up to require a minimum body score.
<snip>
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...
Nope. The vets can only pull a horse if it fails the criteria set out in the rules. If the horse somehow manages to meet the criteria, the vet can only *recommend* pulling the horse. If I'm wrong on that, someone please jump in.
