Re: Redwood Emp letter to AERC

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated 98-11-28 19:00:50 EST, tobytrot@bigfoot.com writes:

<< Seven (count 'em) rides in the northern part of BC have elected not to
 AERC sanction in 1999. >>

Sadly, I think this is the direction that AERC is pushing the sport at
present.  I am a long-time member of AERC, and feel strongly that the best
thing for the sport is to encourage ALL rides to be sanctioned and under the
umbrella of a set of rules requiring veterinary monitoring, etc.  However, I
feel that our BoD is being very short-sighted and pushing many out of the nest
with some of the recent policies.  Are we killing the goose that lays the
golden egg by making the financial burden for maintaining the organization be
borne by fewer and fewer?  We have had sanctioned LD's with three of our four
one-day rides in past years (no, we DON'T have a non-sanctioned LD with the
other one--we simply found that LD's weren't attended sufficiently in November
to bother, so dropped the LD altogether at our late ride several years ago).
In 1998, we had 26 on our Surrabu Memorial LD, 51 on our Sunriver Classic LD,
and 24 on our Paulina Peak LD, for a total ridership of 101.  We will be
dropping our LD's in 1999, and going with IAHA-sanctioned CTR's
instead--assuming we would have gotten the same ridership in 1999, that
represents a loss to AERC of $303 in rider fees, $101 in drug fees, and $15 in
sanction fees ($5 per ride for an additional distance), or a total reduction
of $419, give or take a little.  Sure, it isn't much, but when you combine it
with 5 rides lost altogether in Washington (yes, there will be some new ones,
but I think there would likely be new ones anyway), 7 in Canada as per Terre's
letter--well, where does it end?  Perhaps others are concerned, too--it was
certainly refreshing to see so many new faces running for the director-at-
large positions.

Heidi Smith, DVM--Sagehill Arabians (Oregon)