PNER Newsletter

[jlong@mti.net (Joe Long)]

I was recently forwarded two articles from the PNER newsletter that are rather
alarming.

These articles made some rather defamatory allegations about a vet/ride manager
without giving the ride manager an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
It also characterized the allegations as fact when the facts are actually in
dispute.  For example, the claim that the vet/ride manager was no longer
licensed to practice veterinary medicine in Oregon, when she claims to have
documentation showing otherwise.

As the good folks in the Southeast can tell you, I don't think much of such
one-sided treatment.  Our endurance newsletters should not be used to give only
one side of the story and slander ride managers without their having a chance to
defend themselves IN THE SAME ISSUE.

There were clear errors of fact in the articles.  It was alleged that this vet
broke AERC rules by vetting a ride while unlicensed.  Putting aside the fact
that the license issue is in dispute, there is no requirement in the AERC rules
that a ride vet be licensed in the jurisdiction where the ride is held -- or in
any jurisdiction.  Many of our best ride vets, at our finest rides, are
researchers or academics who do not hold a current license to practice.

There were other allegations apparently made to support the decision to take the
Sunriver ride away from one management and give it to another.  The claim was
made that the AERC has no obligation to sanction any ride, it can refuse to
sanction a ride for any reason.  This is not true.  Just as a restuarant can put
up all the signs it wants saying "We have the right to refuse service to anyone"
they in fact have no such right, they have to have a valid reason.  I'm not a
lawyer and I can't say what legal obligations the AERC has on sanctioning rides,
but IMO we have an ethical obligation to sanction rides unless the Director can
show cause for non-sanction.

If such cause exists, the AERC can of course decline sanction.  But if the AERC
decides to not sanction an existing ride, they have NO RIGHT to give that ride
to someone else without the original ride manager's consent.  A number of years
back Courtney Hart asked the Board to address the issue of "Who owns a ride?"
Ride ownership often is not clear, especially when there have been mutliple
managers, but AIR the general consensus was that the person who founded and
developed the ride "owns" the ride unless she passes it along to someone else.
A different ride under a different manager and a different name could, of
course, be sanctioned at the same location.  But to just award a ride to a new
managment without the consent of the old management is IMO no different from
someone taking my horse out of my pasture and giving it to someone else because
"they will make better use of it."

The say "what goes around comes around."  The new managers to whom the Sunriver
was given were unable to cope with adverse trail and weather conditions and
canceled the ride, while the original managers would have just
relocated/rerouted and the ride would have gone on.  Ah, well.

To sum up, this kind of mudslinging has no place in our newsletters -- but if
allegations of wrongdoing are made, the accused MUST have a fair chance to rebut
the allegations.  This should be offered in the SAME issue that the allegations
are made; a month or two later doesn't cut it.

-- 

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


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=