LD Rules

[terre <tobytrot@bigfoot.com>]

	May I respond to your response?  You wrote:
..."The Limited Distance Mileage Program began February 26, 1984 and 41 LDM
rides were sanctioned in 1984.  In 1985 117 LDM Rides were sanctioned. 
The intent was for them to be mandatory, but the wording of the rule had
some loopholes, so some were and some were not sanctioned.   AERC was
recording the results of the rides, keeping records on who rode in the
rides, and providing the same basic services regardless of the distance
you rode, except the 50 milers and up (paid up members of AERC) were
underwriting the expenses of the LMD Program and its riders.  The current
LD Program was beefed up for two reasons,  
1 )  AERC is keeping their records, the public views them as "AERC
Events" , even when they were not sanctioned by AERC (remember Catoosa?)
and if they are not sanctioned, then AERC has no way to control the
quality and fairness across the board, and 2) Yes, economics and good
business dictates that AERC should be compensated for keeping the
records, advertising (EN Calendar), and all the other benefits provided
by AERC."

	My point is that many LD riders don't want their points kept; that is why
when sanctioning wasn't mandatory, some did not sanction.  You are charging
them for a service they never asked for and don't want.
	The "quality and fairness" can be safely trusted to the same ride managers
and veterinarians who are controlling the endurance ride.  These people
have ethical and professional standards of their own; they are not about to
condone the abuse of horses in an LD ride just because AERC isn't
"controlling" it.
	Your reference to Catoosa is an argument for MY side--that tragedy is more
likely to be repeated if this new proposal passes than otherwise.  Catoosa
was originally sanctioned; sanctioning was pulled when ride management
decided to have no vet checks.  At least eleven horses died in the
resulting race.  The second day this thread was running, there was mention
of "avoiding" the sanctioning of Pleasure rides by holding them on a
separate day from the endurance event.  Therefore, no vets.  And possibly
another Catoosa--a situation that will not arise as long as these short
rides are held concurrently with sanctioned endurance rides.

 	"2) Yes, economics and good business dictates that AERC should be
compensated for keeping the records, advertising (EN Calendar), and all the
other benefits provided by AERC."

	I would agree, if those benefits were voluntarily purchased.
 you further wrote:
"The policy DOES have everything to do with fairness of competition,
fundamental quality of the rides, and MOST ESPECIALLY the welfare of
horses!  I believe many Ride Managers put on "fun" rides of 10 to 15
miles for the legitimate purpose of introducing endurance on a very
introductory, "preschool level", but I think some Ride Managers have
determined they can put on a "24 mile" fun ride, charge $35.00 to $45.00
and not pay a sanctioning fee nor a recording fee to AERC.  AERC offers a
National and now a Regional program for LD, LD has a National Sponsor,
and the LD Riders do want to be a part of AERC.  Endurance is on a trail
of growth, we are going to be getting much more Public Awareness from our
new national advertising campaign, membership programs, etc.  AERC is not
a "club", we are a national organization, and that requires a bigger more
mature view of ourselves.  AERC is inclusive, not "exclusive"!"

	While this paragraph sounds good (sort of), you begin with "fairness,
quality, welfare..", and then all you talk about in the rest of the
paragraph is, yes, money!  Entry fees and AERC expenses.  I do not wish to
appear to be "condemning" the board for trying to generate revenue,
increase membership etc.  I know this to be one of your many
responsibilities, and that you are all working very hard and with honorable
intentions to do the best job possible for the organization.  I just feel
that, to some extent, the effort to increase funding for AERC has become an
end in itself, instead of a means to an end--the furthering of Endurance
Riding.

You, again:
"This reflects a slow or no growth mentality.  The Bylaws vote will
determine what distances will be included as LD..all you need do is vote
and the majority will decide.  However, to fear that LD riders will take
over endurance....I don't belive this will happen.  Some will always ride
LD, that is what they enjoy and want, but most will end up riding 50's or
a combination of LD and 50's and some will gravitate to longer distances."

	Is this one of those situations where you can't disagree with anyone who
is a different race, religion, or gender without being called prejudiced?
In this case, disagreement with any idea the board comes up with means you
are resistant to change?  Well, I am--when it is a change for the worse.
As to LD riders controlling AERC......Now if I have this right--first of
all, 800+ former AERC members "forgot" to renew their memberships, then you
state in EN that most of the "growth" is in LD, with little increase in
Endurance numbers, and then you replied to a post of Heidi's that
membership is at an all time high.  Logic leads me to conclude that many of
these members are LD, no?  Additionally, we now have (I agree!) a really
great sponsorship program from Sundowner subsidizing NEW memberships--and
there will predicably be more new LD riders starting each year than new
Endurance riders.  As you say, the majority vote will decide, now and in
the future.  But you don't think LD will end up controlling the
organization?  That's reassuring.

Finally, you wrote:
"I was proven wrong on the "non member fee", it has not ended up being a
nightmare of paperwork nor has it stopped anyone from entering a ride."

	How do you know it hasn't stopped "anyone" from entering a ride?  How do
you know other ride managers don't find the paperwork a nightmare?
	I am not "anti-LD" at all--if fact I think mandatory sanctioning treats LD
(and now potentially "fun") riders unfairly, by forcing them to pay fees to
an "endurance" organization when they are not riding endurance.  So here is
a counter proposal (in an effort to offer something other than criticism of
the hard-working and ever-suffering Board!):
	Why not give LD their own "association" like AERC
International--voluntary, self-supporting, and self-governing?  Their fees
go to support LD awards, and they vote on LD issues--always subject to AERC
rules and principles.  Just one alternative......

	Wow, I think this was longer (and intenser) than the first one!

Terre

<