Re: Ride Cancellations & 94 dollar question

["Joe Long" <jlong@mti.net>]

On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:58:48 -0700, "Mary K. Krauss"
<kraussberner@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>The principle of the thing.  In a democratic society ruled by law, those
>who are overruled need to live with it--not get their pride up and cancel
>events.  I know how hard these managers work (I do similar work), but they
>need to rise to their commitments and hurdle their pride. Patricia (whom I
>do not know) is doing what she needs to do.  She is not making them cancel
>their rides--heck, they know she's not even planning to be there!  Pride is
>ugly when misplaced....

Those who are overruled must accept the ruling, but no one is forced
to put on a ride.  If a ride manager feels that they cannot live with
the ruling, their only recourse is to not have the ride.  As a former
ride manager myself I know how difficult that decision is, but
sometimes it is the only acceptable course.

I hope that the Board promptly takes whatever action is necessary to
allow ride managers to ban horses that they have cause to believe
present a danger to riders and other horses.  

Now, no ride manager should be able to say "no stallions at my ride"
(or no mares, or no geldings!).  I campaigned a stallion for a while
in the Southeast, and not once did he present a risk to any person or
horse.  But when any individual horse has a record of kicking or
biting or otherwise endangering others, then I believe ride managers
*must* have the authority to ban that horse from future rides.  It
isn't enough to say "as soon as he does something bad at the ride,
disqualify him."  By then it's too late ... another innocent horse or
rider is injured.

If people will not take responsiblity for their own horses, ride
managers must have the authority to protect their participants.

-- 

Joe Long
jlong@mti.net
http://www.mti.net     Business
http://www.rnbw.com    Personal