LD ballot issue (long)

[Terry Woolley Howe <cancer@inet1.inetworld.net>]

As a member of the board, I would like to give you some background on the
ballot issue regarding the changing of the definition of limited distance to
be any distance of 49 miles or less.  I am not speaking for the board, but
as a member that was there during the discussion of this issue.

There has been a concern over the years by AERC that some ride managers
circumvent the system by putting on 25 mile rides and calling them "24 mile
fun rides."  This happens--how frequently?  I don't know.  I do know that in
the west a recent ride was only sanctioned as a 50, but also offered a
limited distance ride.  When the ride manager was asked about this by her
sanctioning director, she got very angry and defensive and said that this
was a "24 1/2 mile fun ride" that had been put on for years.  But I saw the
entry and it was listed as a 50/25 mile ride. Up to this point, by doing
this the ride manager avoided the necessity of this ride following the
required guidelines that have been set up to protect the horse and establish
a level playing field so that a rider had recourse if they thought they were
not being treated fairly.  The riders in this fun ride were also denied any
rider or horse mileage credit.  It should be noted that this ride has been
sanctioned for next year as a 50 AND a 25.

I am not saying that non AERC sanctioned "fun rides" are not run with
safeguards for the horse in place.  But managers are not REQUIRED to have
them in place.  

It is not solely an issue of lost revenue to AERC when these rides are not
sanctioned. But there are two other major issues.  

The first, of course, is liability to AERC.  These non sanctioned rides are
held in conjunction with an AERC event.  If a horse, rider, or property is
hurt, AERC is still at risk for being sued. (I realize that this could also
happen at the sanctioned event, but a solid defense would be that all
safeguards had been in place.)

The other issue is perception.  The goal of AERC has always been to educate
not only the rider on important issues, such as safety, nutrition, riding,
but also to educate the public on the positive aspects of this sport.  If a
horse got seriously hurt at a non-sanctioned event because safe guards were
not in place, from the public's point of view--it still would have happened
at an endurance ride, regardless of whether it was sanctioned by AERC or not.

Ideally, these fun rides would be put on, but on a different day and not in
conjunction with an AERC event, which would eliminate the whole problem.

Also, if an individual attends a ride that is not sanctioned, not only do
they not receive mileage credit, but if they are treated unfairly, there is
no way to get that remedied.  Non-sanctioned events do not have aa protest
policy.

The concern that has been voiced on ridecamp that since there is no minimum
time, these would become 15 mile horse races, I don't feel that would
happen.  Since the finishing criteria has been adopted at my rides in San
Diego where riders have to reach criteria before a finishing time is given,
I have seen very few riders even troting across the finish because they know
they are just going to be stuck at the finish line longer trying to get
their horse down.  The majority of the riders are actually off their horses
leading them in.  How often do you see a rider racing into a vet check that
has a criteria check?

Those are the reasons why this would be beneficial to pass.  What are the
reasons why it should not pass?  From my perspective, these are the
negatives to this measure passing:

I think "fun rides" of 15-20 miles are good ways to introduce riders to this
sport.  If this were an AERC sanctioned event, AERC would require a $10
non-member fee, as well as a $3 per rider fee.  This would seriously impact
the fee structure required to put on these fun rides.

If it were a sanctioned event, horses would be required to have a pre-ride
vet exam, and a post exam, and at least one vet check during the ride.  Can
you see a vet check at 7 or 8 miles?  This would probably require geting the
services of another vet to handle all this.

As a AERC sanctioned event, ride management is required to provide a
completion award.  That is another cost that although may not be significant
(certificate "suitable for framing") but these are all costs which impact
the event.

While it may solve the problem if these fun rides were put on a different
day, that is usually not practical.  These are put on in conjunction with
the AERC event so that riders get to see the AERC ride, and also everything
is already in place (basecamp, marked trail, water, volunteers, vets, etc.).
To put them on as a sole event at a different time would not be financially
practical and the benefit of having vets there during the fun ride is an
important safeguard.

When you get right down to it,  many of the reasons for not passing this
measure revolve around the money drain this would create for a manager
putting on these fun rides.  But I think these are valid points.  If these
fun rides became so cost prohibitive (fees, vets, awards), then no one would
put them on.  And I think that in a way, having them in conjunction with a
AERC sanctioned event, is a safeguard.

I personally have voted against this measure.  I think safeguards need to be
in place for these fun rides, but I don't feel this is the way to do it.
But this is for each member to decide.  I do believe though that we have a
good limited distance program and that ride managers who try to avoid the
sanctioning fees by not sanctioning 25 mile rides are doing a disservice to
the riders.

I think the members need to realize that when the board votes on a by-law
change, (while some board members may be in favor of the issue) what they
are actually voting on is for the issue to be presented to the membership
for THEIR vote.  It is very similar to the petitions that I am asked to sign
at the supermarket.  I will sign ANY petition for any thing.  All I am
signing is that the matter be put on the ballot so it can be voted on.  At
the board meeting, I voted for this by-law change, and now as a member, I
get to vote whether I think this should be changed.  I have gotten the
impression that some of those on ridecamp feel that the board is "trying to
pull a fast one" about different issues that have been presented for a vote.
But with the exception of the two IRS changes which NEED to pass (they are
just paperwork housekeeping and have no impact on the membership), these
issues are presented to the membership for THEIR vote.  I think these issues
could have been presented a little more clearly and should have had a pro
and con explanation so that the members would have a better understanding of
each issue.  I think the important thing is that members vote and if they
have any questions about the ramifications of an issue, they can always call
their regional director.  Their telephone numbers are all listed in the
Endurance News.

Terry Woolley Howe
San Diego