Fw: Re: LD Rules*Response again

[renegade12@juno.com (Randy H Eiland)]

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: renegade12@juno.com
To: tobytrot@bigfoot.com
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 09:52:08 -0600
Subject: Re: LD Rules
Message-ID: <19980922.095605.-1022161.32.renegade12@juno.com>
Full-Name: Randy H Eiland
X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Terre,

Although we will probably never agree on this issue, I will respond to
your recent message so you at least know where I am coming from, and most
likely the majority of the Board:
You Wrote:

<
	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.>
***********************************************************
My Response:

I may agree with you that most LD Riders don't care about points, but
neither do most AERC members who are not our "hot shot Top Ten riders". 
I do think most LD Riders want to be a part of AERC, be treated on an
equal basis as AERC Members, want to know the standards at each ride will
be similar, although not exact...and want to know that if irregularities
occur at a ride they can be addressed at a higher level than the Ride
Manager.

As to quality and fairness, I absolutely believe most Ride Managers have
integrity and are doing their best to run quality and fair events. 
However, if it were left up to individual Ride Managers, some rides would
be operated just like a 50 or 100...1st horse to finish wins if it meets
AERC criteria of fit to continue..some rides will operate on a very
controlled basis of 60 pulse (or maybe lower) for a completion.  Some
will give placings on finish and some on pulse, and some may not give any
placings.  Without sanctioning, the LD Rides would be left to the
discretion of RM's and many would not be a very good introduction to AERC
or its rules.

Your Catoosa argument is not valid in my mind.  The logistics of putting
on a ride are not conducive to putting on a "fun ride" the following day.
 It just won't happen except for Heidi Smith who is a Vet, and I don't
think Heidi will really do it...too tired as a RM to do another "small
potatoes ride' the following day with a very limited number of
entries..just not worth the time.
**************************************
You Wrote:
<	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.>
*****************************
I Responded:
I beg to differ...fairness, quality, welfare are integral parts of the
Board thinking.  Fairness across the country to insure that the LD Rides
are conducted on a "level playing field" when it comes to rules,
controls, and conduct.  Quality insures that the rides operate on at
least a basic level of rules and conduct that follows the AERC Rules and
is the same across the Regions of AERC.   Welfare includes Vet Checks
that insure horses are protected and riders are confident they will have
a Vet Check, similar criteria for completion,  and fair treatment. 

Money is a concern for sure.  AERC offers, whether they want it or not,
basic fundamental services that are paid by our dues and fees.  Some of
the services are provided for LD Rides and even non members are recorded
in the results, preserved in our AERC computer and records, listed in EN.
 You and I pay for non member services, with no choice as there is no way
to eliminate the non member..the man hours required are still an expense
paid by you and .************************************* 
You Wrote:
<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 predictably 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.
********************************************
My Response:
If I offended you I apologize I certainly did not intend that to be an
insult...however, I do believe that line of thinking is  a "no growth
-slow growth" philosophy.  I will give you the facts on the 800+...1)
some were Vet Memberships who only joined because they were working a
ride; 2) many were long time members who did not realize they had not
joined (believe it or not, AERC is not their highest priority) and
renewed as soon as they were notified; 3)  quite a few were actually Ride
Managers who had not rejoined for the same reason as #2 ; 3) a few
actually are Chairs of AERC Committees and had not renewed!!!  for the
same reason as #2; 4) some joined at their first ride and decided it was
not the sport for them.  The problem occurred when AERC, in an effort to
save money at a time when we desperately needed to, put the renewal forms
in the EN rather than sending each member a renewal form...many did not
even see it in the EN.  So, between May 15 and June 15, we had about 250
renewals from our notice to them, and now have increased our AERC
membership by 1,200+/- from the May 15th date.  Yes, many are LD Riders,
but regardless of the distance, they are all AERC Members.

As to control, NO I don't think LD will control AERC.  I think AERC
Members will control the organization....Do 100's control it?  Do 50's
control it?  Do Multi Day Rides control it?  This is an organization that
offers something for everyone...the member decides what he or she wants
to do in the sport, and AERC has something to offer them.  Again,
Inclusive not Exclusive!!
*******************************************
Terre Wrote:

<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......
*********************************************
Randy's Response:

I doubt there is anyone on the Board that spends more time on the phone
talking to people across the Regions, more time on e'mail discussing
issues, more face to face time with members from all the Regions of AERC
because I put on so many rides that attract riders from all over.  So,
when I state an opinion in general, it usually has a strong fundamental
base in facts.  Ride Entries are up, I have never had a rider show up and
refuse to enter because of the non member fee..most join, in fact.  I
speak from personal experience that it is not a nightmare of paperwork. 

You and I may not define LD as "endurance", but they think it is and they
have a right to do so because LD is defined in our AERC Bylaws, which
were voted on and approved by AERC Members.  100 milers don't think 50
miles is an endurance ride.  Multi Day Riders don't think the one day
riders have a clue as to what real endurance is.  You see, we all have
different perspectives and goals.  Yours may be different than mine,
shoot...my wife's are different than mine, but we are all still FAMILY. 
Personally, I don't want LD to be a different organization.  They don't
offend me, they are generally interested and respectful, for the most
part they have goals to increase their distance, and they DO WANT TO BE A
PART AND PARCEL OF AERC!!  and far be it from me to tell them, "No, you
can't be a part of AERC".  That sound counter productive to me.

Randy Eiland

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]