Re: [RC] Here is to hoping it is not - Sandy Adams
Read what I said - I said - IF MORE RIDES - not new rides - went this way, a huge number of us are priced right out of the market. By virtue of the PRICE of this KIND of ride - nothing to do with offering NEW rides wherever. The point that Kat misses is that when existing rides OR venues (since one of the other two GRD rides is in fact an FEI sanctioned ride) turn over "operations as it were to the needs of FEI, the ride/venue/event is somewhat less attractive to "AERC ONLY" (sorry - that is just laughable to me) riders. If in addition the prices follow the lead in anyway the track that this one has - even "just this once" once or twice a year, it ultimately has an effect on "AERC ONLY" riders. Even if we were forced to pay the STANDARD "going rate" that FEI riders pay rather than the $500 for a 50 milers, but possibly "only" $250-300 as some FEI riders have indicated they pay, the dampening effects on "AERC ONLY" riders will likely be notable. As I said, and only an echo of someone else's comment - perhaps it is time for FEI to manage and sponsor their OWN events under the eye of USEF which would be most appropriate. What I read below is focused primarily around what FEI needs and how it "helps" AERC riders. AERC has had a solid history up until present without the "help" of FEI, and I mean that strictly in a historic way. Clearly, FEI needs us far more than we need them. What I have gotten privately from people who don't want to get demeaned or slammed on this list is that the FEE is a huge concern, and after that, the PRECEDENT they fear being set in terms of specialty rides catering to FEI and what that might mean to limited venue resources, especially here in Southern Cal, where we lose trails year after year to both tree huggers and motocross riders, not to mention occasional natural disasters etc. The people who have concerns are trying to look forward which is wise way to look. Failing to plan is planning to fail. Also, I am told and AGREE -as much as many of us are happy for those who choose to compete internationally and are behind them - if it comes down to a choice between the large majority of "AERC ONLY" riders having facility and opportunity to ride )not to mention money) we choose us. It is not our job to make qualifying or competition easier or more affordable for them. Simple.
As an aside, I was bothered at a ride not too far past when I was forced to work with the FEI pulse box to vet system. The RMs just decided to stream line the vetting process so all of us "AERC ONLY" riders had to vet through like the FEI riders. As a rider who does not have crew - more than I THINK 5 times in 15 years - i was not allowed to take my horse to get a drink or food etc - and when I TRIED, I was told to get back in line if I did not want to be DQ'ed and BTW< strip your saddle off your horse (and ostensibly, apparently, drop it in the dust, since I have nowhere to put it.).
Some say FEI doesn't affect us. Really?
Kat, NEW RIDES that do not EVER take precedent over existing rides and their availability of trails are no problem, though still as an international qualifying event, is best under the auspices of USEF, but most people see which way the wind SEEMS to be blowing - too chummy a relationship with FEI, between outsourced drug testing for all those AERC only horses who are being drugged apparently, and the fee of THIS ride - which many fear will take root. I still do not understand why, if FEI does not need or affect AERC, they DON'T separate and offer their own events.
Off to ride before the rain hits - I hear we may get a dusting of snow! LOVE to ride in snow - if only a dusting. No sleigh.
On Nov 18, 2009, at 9:14 AM, k s swigart wrote:
Sandy said:
In the end, most rider, while glad that FEI riders get
to do their thing too, are not interested in losing riding
opportunities to provide this. If, as Kat promotes, it would
be good if more rides went this way, a huge number of us
are priced right out of the sport.
But...but...but, this ride is a NEW ride that is specifically designed NOT to impact the existing rides in the same area at around the same time.
And f there are MORE new rides like this one that will cater to the needs of the few people who need them, then existing ride managers of the rides that non-FEI riders do attend won't be pressured to dual sanction their rides. And they may actually get MORE entries because this ride exists.
Let me use this ride as an example:
Let's say that local Southern California FEI rider Joe needs to take his FEI aspirant horse Mickey to a CEI* in order to start the horse up the qualification levels that are now required by the FEI.
If the AERC refused to sanction it and the GRD Special didn't exist, then Joe would have to spend thousands of dollars in gas money and two weeks of his time taking his horse to, say, Florida to do a CEI* there. After he gets back, he is totally hammered from the exhausting trip, virtually broke from paying the gas money, and Mickey has to recover not only from doing a 50 mile ride, but also a 3000+ trailer ride.
In this scenario, there is no way in hell that Joe is going to take Mickey to, say, 20 Mule Team the following month. Or if Joe has any other horses, he won't be taking any of them to the non-FEI rides at Warner Springs or Fire Mountain or Bar H because he will be on the road to or from Florida at that time. And he won't be taking any of those other horses to 20 Mule Team either, because he is exhasted and broke from his trip to Florida.
In this scenario, other non-FEI local endurance rides will miss out on any entries that Joe might have made if he hadn't had to spend the time and money to go to Florida to do a 50 mile ride. And he may not ever be taking any of his horses to any local, non-FEI rides because his resources are limited, and the resources required to do the FEI rides, what with all the travel required, is so HUGE he can't afford to do both.
Whereas, with the option, instead, of taking Mickey to the GRD Special to do the 50 mile ride, he can stay in Southern California, attend other local non-FEI rides, and support the local AERC rides as well.
Therefore, if there were MORE local FEI rides, even if they are "specials" that cost $500 to enter, as long as they don't take non-FEI riders away from the existing local rides (which at $500 to enter they won't), then EVERYBODY is better off. Joe, because he both gets his qualifications AND he can afford to ride non-FEI rides as well; existing local ride managers because the "special" rides aren't going to take away any of their non-FEI riders and they might get Joe to show up as well; and existing local riders because the existing rides still exist and there is no need for the existing ride managers to dual-sanction them.
Sandy's mistake is in thinking that if the AERC lets new ride managers put on FEI rides with $500 entry fees to appeal to the market segment that thinks this is a good deal (compared with driving to Florida), that somehow all the existing ride managers (who are better off by not having a segment of their potential entries on the road to an from Florida) will start dual-sanctioning their rides and charging $500 entry fees as well???
But, in acutality, this "special" ride is specifically designed to keep existing ride managers from having to do this. Existing ride managers can continue to cater to the non-FEI rider only.
The GRD Special isn't converting an existing ride into an unaffordable one, it is creating a new ride. And I contend that if more such NEW rides were created to serve the FEI aspirant riders locally, that all the other existing local rides and riders would be better off.
