Nowhere
do I see in writing - in either the rules, the new bylaws or the old bylaws
- that states the AERC has the charter to manage the economics of endurance
riding. Granted there is a need to coordinate rides to spread them out and
if a ride has a national interest like the NC, some of the 5 day rides (but
I doubt very few of the three day rides really do have a national interest
), the ROC, etc. this needs to be done with a national view, but this is
for the benefit of the riders. By managing the sanctioning of the rides the
same way Pizza Hut dictates the distribution of it's franchises is not necessarily
in the best interest of the rider. Over regulation such as this will stifle
growth instead of stimulate it. A ride is popular because the riders make
it popular. A ride is not popular because the riders don't support.
It is for the riders to determine which rides make it. It is not for the
AERC to decide which rides the rider will have.
As far as three day rides go, I don't really see anything broke here - so
why tinker with it.
Truman
Annie George wrote:
Oh Randy PALLEEEASE!
This may be fine if it was not the glaringly obvious goal of Motion #4 to
eliminate certain new rides that personally bother you. I am very suspicious
of someone who is trying so hard to change something that has no problems,
and doesn't bother anyone but you, into something that could, as has been
so clearly pointed out, present so many new and as yet unforeseen problems.
The riders should have the option of doing 3 day rides that are close to
home, if they so choose. Not be forced to travel 1000 miles because of the
personal agenda of a few. And if SW riders would rather drive 1000 miles
to attend a ride rather that do one next door, they should have that option.
If I were considering opening a Pizza Parlor I would certainly come to you
for advice. But, the fact is that some rides just do not survive, for various
reasons. I just don't think you can continue to blame Cuyama XP for this
years Renegade low #'s. In a private post to me a few days ago you pointed
out that Ft.Stanton had a good turn out because it was not in any conflict
with any other rides. Could it be that Ft Stanton was more of a success
because >1) allot of riders had gotten over some of the personality disputes
that are well documented and well known in the SW?? >2) that Ft Stanton is
in really pretty country.?? >3) that it is a new ride. ?? >4) that
it is in summer, when people have more time for such rides. ?? >5)better
weather, >6) not in the wind and blowing sand for 5 days.?? >7) Last
March the country was still pretty deep in economic shock from 9/11.?? >
8) By the time Ft Stanton came around people were out and about again. >9)
There are allot of people in California. I know that allot of riders were
turned away from Cuyama because of limited base camp room. Did they come
on out to Renegade? No. They went home. Could any of these things possibly
have anything to do with Cuyama XP or Ft.Stanton's success and Renegades
not so great turn out. I personally am against any change in the way rides
are sanctioned. But I would suggest that at the very LEAST, all the questions
and possibilities should be clearly outlined BEFORE any such change take
place. And that all existing rides be grandfathered in regardless of their
age. And that this be set aside for a considerable length of time, till all
the reasons, ramifications, and possibilities can be thoroughly explored
and clearly answered. I say all this in the hope that ALL the BOD members
will take this very serious, and not jump to pass something that I feel is
considerably more serious than it may seem on the surface. Annie G.
