LD Rules; response to response!

[terre <tobytrot@bigfoot.com>]

OK, Here's my response to Randy's response to me!


>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:

Hi, Randy,
I think you are right about us never agreeing but hey, that's what makes horse races!

>>
>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".

Yes, and possibly that's another issue of member dissatisfation that needs attention!


>I do think most LD Riders want to be a part of AERC, want to 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.

Then why not let them choose?  my argument is against mandatory sanctioning.
>
>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.

OK, we almost agree on this one--except that I think this is a GOOD thing! In the old days, BS (Before Sanctioning) we used to have a lot of fun with our short rides.  One time (sort of a trail preservation/PR thing) we had a couple of Backcountry Horsemen take packhorses through a 25.  (The packhorses had to pass all the vet checks, etc, and meet all criteria.  Not only did they complete, they weren't last!).  Another time, we let a young mother with 2 small kids take one kid through the first half of the ride, and the other kid through the second (the kids had 1 pony between them, and the family only had a 2 horse trailer, and both kids wanted to ride).  The pony passed the vet check fine, we collected 1 junior entry, officially called the first kid a RO pull but let the pony go out with the second kid; the kids didn't get any kind of completion, but we did give them prizes, they had fun and the Mom got through.  Can't do that kind of thing now, though, can we?  Why not let the marketplace "choose" what kind of rides they want--riders will go to the rides they like, and where they like the rules, and not the ones they don't.  What is so wrong with that (always excepting any form of horse abuse, and I think we can trust the RMs and vets for that)?  
>
>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.

I don't think it will happen either (Thank God!).  I just think it is more likely with the new proposal than without!

>**************************************
><	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 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. 

OK, but you didn't say those things in the paragraph that began with reference to them.  This is like a grammar lesson thing!

>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 members 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 me.

We keep coming back to this. It is our fundamental point of difference, I think.  You are looking for ways to pay for the service, I am looking for ways to eliminate it.  Everything keeps getting blamed on the computer--I don't know; don't keep the records of non-members.  Charge them big bucks to retrieve them.  Something different than charging for an unsolicited and largely unnecessary service.  There has to be an alternative.
BTW, I don't think the membersip adequately understands or appreciates the superhuman job the then-Board did in saving this organization from, literally, financial ruin a few years ago.  While I am not happy with some of what had to be done, or the consequences down the road, I cannot fault you guys for doing what had to be done at the time.
>*************************************** 
>********************************************
>If I offended you I apologize I certainly did not intend that to be an
>insult...

You didn't--I'm not that easily offended.

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!!! 4) and some
>had joined at their first ride and decided it was not the sport for them.

and some have stated (EN) they are not renewing because they can't afford it.

> 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? 

Majority vote will control it.  If the majority of the members are LD....

>*******************************************
><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......
>*********************************************
>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.

I agree with your first statement, and thank you for your efforts!
However (you knew there'd be a however, right?) I am sure by the time they attend the ride, entrants are prepared to pay the fees, and know what they are.  I am saying you don't know how many people never come because they think the fees are too high. As to the paperwork--I am a ride manager too.  "Nightmare" is too strong; however (again with the however!) I frequently have people show up, people who I have known for years, who assure me they are a paid up member but forgot their cards.  What am I supposed to do, call them a liar? So I accept their entry, and then get informed by the office that they haven't paid (obviously part of your 800!) and have to chase them down.  Embarassing for both of us.  Puts the RM/rider in a "confrontational" place at ride entry time.  Hate it! 
>
>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.

OK, this is the crux of the matter!  My belief is that AERC DEFINES endurance as "at least 50 miles", and DEFINES LD as 25-35--that's what the by-law change is about.  This is not a matter of perspectives!  It is black and white! (at least until those danged majority LD riders vote to change it! <joke> )  And I further have always felt that the "endurance" organization should not be involved in "non-endurance" events--but that's old news. (BTW, I'm, a 100-miler, and I sure think the 50 I did last Saturday was Endurance!)


>Personally, I don't want LD to be a different organization.

Is AERC International a different organization? (that really is a question, not sarcasm).  I'm just talking about autonomous "sub-organizations", I guess, for these two "special interest" factions of our membership.

They don't
>offend me, 

me, either!

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.

I don't want to tell them they CAN'T be, I just don't want to tell them they HAVE to be, or else!

Terre