"Bridle Lame" (was: Pilot Study...)
k s swigart
From Pilot Study Addresses Effects of Rider Weight on Equine Performance:
> “While all the horses finished the study moving as well
> as when they started, the results showed a substantial
> temporary effect of rider weight as a proportion of horse weight,”
With the caveat that I have not read the actual study that these findings were reported from so cannot properly analyze the methodology use to make these statements…
One of the things that the results of this study suggest to me is that, from a horse welfare standpoint, the AERC does not adequately evaluate the soundness of horses at its events because it does not evaluate the soundness of horses under saddle.
It is fairly well understood in the veterinary community that in order to properly determine a horse’s lameness it should be evaluated at all gaits and both being ridden and not ridden. The temporary lameness while being ridden that is reported by this study is commonly referred to as a horse being “bridle lame” especially if it is lame when being ridden by one rider but not by another.
The report also states:
> The team also applied an ethogram Dyson developed* specifically to
> assess behavioural markers which could reflect pain in ridden horses.
> The scores which could reflect pain were significantly higher in the
> horses when ridden by the heavy and very heavy riders.
This finding suggests that at least some of the observed temporary lameness is caused by pain (and not just the horse altering its gait to accommodate a change in balance).
If I were the AERC and I were concerned about the welfare of horses being allowed to continue on the course, I would add an under saddle evaluation to the lameness exam at all vet checks. It is reasonable to assume that participants intend to ride their horses on the course; consequently, it is appropriate to require the horses to be sound when being ridden by the person who will be riding it if the horse is permitted to continue on the course. To do otherwise would be to allow horses to be subjected to pain while being ridden for miles and miles and hours and hours.
Personally, I consider this to be unconscionable.
The AERC’s current rule that horses need only be sound enough that their long-term soundness is not compromised clearly allows horses to be subjected to temporary pain, even if that pain is going to be sustained for hours.
During the course of the study:
> The researchers ultimately abandoned the riding tests
> for the heavy and very heavy riders, predominantly because
> of temporary horse lameness.
At least the people who conducted this study recognized that subjecting horses to pain, even if temporary, was unacceptable and stopped doing it. The AERC should recognize the same thing and add an under saddle evaluation to the vet check exams. If it does not, I consider this to be a good indication that the AERC does not care about keeping horses from being subjected to hours of pain, and that it considers it okay to do so just so long as it is temporary.
Endurance riding had a reputation in the wider horse community for horse abuse long before the Group 7 FEI riders started riding drugged horses to their deaths. Back in 2006 some friends of mine who ride dressage attended the WEG in Aachen. Being dressage riders, the WEC there was the first time they had seen an endurance ride. They reported to me that they were appalled by the willingness of so many endurance riders to ride obviously lame horses, and the willingness of the officials to let it continue. In all the other disciplines, a judge can disqualify a rider for lameness in their horse at any time. I consider it quite pathetic that the AERC only allows judges to disqualify unridden ones. Especially since there is now a study, performed for the purposes of better understanding horse welfare, showing that lameness and pain that manifests itself only while the horse is being ridden is very real.
Me? I never rode any of my horses that were lame while I was riding them at AERC rides, even if the vets told me that my horse was “within criteria” (i.e. not lame when trotted out and back in hand on a straight line), and often removed myself from the event (sometimes getting off and leading the horse miles to camp or the closest trailer ride). For like-minded people, an under saddle evaluation at AERC events would be absolutely no imposition. Conscientious and caring riders would be happy to have their horses evaluated in such a way. It is only those that want to be allowed to continue riding and subject their horses to hours and hours of pain that would object.
I am not suggesting that in hand lameness evaluations be replaced by an under saddle ones, but rather, that under saddle lameness evaluations be added to all vet checks at AERC rides. There are some lamenesses that can be masked by a rider.
kat
Orange County, Calif.
* The AERC may also want to consider investigating further the results of these (linked above) studies on evaluating pain based on facial expression and add this kind of evaluation to its vet checks. Anybody who is interested in horse welfare would be in favor of finding a way to remove horses in pain from the course, whether they are limping or not.
Kelly Ahearn-Wagner
Diane Trefethen
> What I can't imagine is riding a horse that is not 100% sound, even for a
> few miles, even if it's the last vet-check before the Tevis finish.
If I were at the last vet check at Tevis and my horse vetted through but
*I* thought my horse wasn't totally sound, assuming I had enough time, I
would hand-walk to the finish. It isn't going to make any difference to my
horse if he is walking around in a stall or being hand-walked down a trail.
Diane Trefethen
AERC #2691
Truman Prevatt
--
“The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the level of farce, and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.” Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate, Physics
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
>
> To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
>
> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ridecamp at Endurance.Net" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+u...@endurance.net.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RidecampRedistributed" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecampredistri...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Carla Richardson
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+unsubscribe@endurance.net
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ridecamp at Endurance.Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+unsubscribe@endurance.net.
k s swigart
Kelly said:
> I believe all AERC rides should require under-saddle
> trot-by evaluations like Dr. Nicholson mandates at the Duck rides.
I believe it too; and because Nicholson has been mandating it at multitudes of Duck rides for decades (my first experience with it was in 1993), there is plenty of evidence that such a mandate is logistically viable and would be quite simple to adopt.
There is no good reason not to do it. And plenty of reason to do it, as is evidenced by this statement:
> I have had to declare RO at 6 different AERC events on
> 3 different horses, all deemed perfectly sound at the
> in-hand trot-out. I could feel the lameness while riding.
> On 3 of these occasions, I was told, "Your horse is fine,
> you're just imagining it".
As this is a good indication that vets at AERC rides are not very good a recognizing lameness. In fact, I even went to a ride where the head vet boasted at the pre-ride meeting (and this is a direct quote) “I am not very good at seeing lameness.”
Every tool that the AERC can provide vets to help them with “seeing lameness” so that horses at AERC events are not subjected to hours and hours of pain is a good thing.
Years ago I remember reading an article in the Endurance News which was a report from a foreign rider who had come to the US to get a better understanding of how the AERC had so many high mileage horses. After observing many AERC rides this person was quoted as saying, “it is because you ride lame horses.” The AERC is renowned around the world for giving people prizes for riding lame horses.
It wouldn’t surprise me that if horses were honestly evaluated for lameness under saddle at AERC rides that at least one in ten of the horses that currently are given completion would be disqualified for being lame, many of them wouldn’t even be allowed to start. And that is a conservative estimate. Especially now that the AERC is going out of its way to attract novice horsemen who often don’t know how to recognize lameness in a horse they are riding (this is not unique to AERC riders, many novices do not know how to recognize lameness in a horse they are riding), and as is evidenced by Kelly’s experience above, might even get told that they are silly to stop riding because they are “imagining it.”
The AERC has plenty of evidence (even before this pilot study was done) that horses can appear sound when trotted straight out and back in hand, but are lame on a turn or under saddle; the AERC behaves as if it doesn’t know that the horses are going to be ridden and going to have to make turns. To allow such horses to go back out on the trail and be ridden long distances is abuse.
Most horses that finish AERC rides ARE sound under saddle; it is unfortunate that the AERC allows those that are not to continue to be ridden and to for their riders to get prizes for doing it.
kat
Orange County, Calif.
:|
Carla Richardson
--
Ed & Wendy Hauser
> Oh bull, I call bull on that statement that AERC allows lame horses to
> be ridden and receive prizes. Sounds like sour grapes to me.
>
I saw a vet convince a woman that the horse she thought was lame was
not. I next saw her ~2 miles from that vet check leading an obviously
(grade 3) lame horse back. Here in the MW the vets that we have are
much more competent. Perhaps because they get practice vetting CTR
horses where nits must be picked on lameness between 0 and 2. Another
difference (at least from the west 5 years ago, things may have changed)
is the switch to exit exams. Lots of horses show lame after the
adrenaline subsides over the hold.
By the way, I would welcome extra examination at a trot by as leaving a
check.
Ed
--
Ed & Wendy Hauser
5729 175th Ave.
Becker, MN 55308
Ed: 406.381.5527
Wendy: 406.544.2926
Carla Richardson
Joe Long
Joe Long aka ChipRider
720-416-6577
jl...@chiprider.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net
For more options, visit this group at---You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ridecamp at Endurance.Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+u...@endurance.net.
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RidecampRedistributed" group.
Carla Richardson
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+unsubscribe@endurance.net
For more options, visit this group at---You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ridecamp at Endurance.Net" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+unsubscribe@endurance.net.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RidecampRedistributed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecampredistributed+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
k s swigart
Carla said:
> Oh bull, I call bull on that statement that AERC allows
> lame horses to be ridden and receive prizes.
I know it is true for at least one person. _I_ have received prizes from the AERC for finishing with a lame horse. I didn’t ride the horse lame, because I got off ~5 miles before the finish, and told the vet at the finish line that my horse was lame. Imagine my surprise when I saw the ride results and it showed me having finished the ride. I called the AERC and tried to fix the results…twice; after which I gave up. I threw those awards away after they mailed them to me (no I didn’t go and collect them).
An under saddle soundness evaluation should be welcomed by all caring riders. And it should be welcomed by vets as well, as it would make it easier for them to identify the fitness of a horse to continue, especially for those vets who freely admit that have trouble seeing lameness (vet schools have done studies showing that many vets aren’t very good at seeing lameness).
If my horse can’t pass a soundness exam under saddle, it would be abusive to ride it long distances on the trail. The AERC’s current in hand soundness evaluation and criteria are inadequate to keep people from riding “bridle lame” horses. A horse that is only temporarily lame when under saddle is still a lame horse. A rule mandating an under saddle evaluation would HELP both riders and vets to better determine a horse’s fitness to continue.
There is no other horse riding discipline that I have seen (I confess I have not seen them all) that does not require the judges to immediately disqualify a horse that shows lame under saddle; whereas the AERC’s rule not only doesn’t require this, it doesn’t allow it. And yes, I have heard both foreigners and riders in other disciplines express their disgust at having witnessed endurance horses being ridden lame.
For decades Dave Nicholson has demonstrated that logistically adding an under saddle exam is quite simple.
kat
Orange County, Calif.
:|
Note: I also know of several high mileage horses that have received multiple awards from the AERC because their riders told me that they specifically sought out rides with vets that were known to be “lenient” with respect to soundness. And yes, I have winced when I have seen these horses being ridden at rides. However, that is not what I intend this discussion to be about. Those “lenient” vets are already violating the AERC’s rules; another rule for them to violate won’t change their leniency. It is about implementing a policy that will help caring and conscientious riders and vets avoid unnecessarily subjecting horses to pain.
Truman Prevatt
Ed & Wendy Hauser
> Sorry, but MW vets are great, just as all the other regions' vets.
some were great. As I related, I did experience the incompetent vet at
the famous ride. At the time the experience related plus what I
observed convinced me that at that particular ride I was on my own
protecting my horse. I must not be the only rider who suspects some
vets because this thread started from the assertion that a large number
of lame horses are being given completions and continued with a story
about a foreign rider who also thought the same thing.
Carla Richardson
Firedancefarms
From: Carla Richardson <richards...@gmail.com>
To: Ridecamp <Ride...@endurance.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: [RC] RE: "Bridle Lame"
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ridecamp at Endurance.Net" group.
k s swigart
Truman said:
> I remember more than one per [sic] ride talk given by Dane Frazer
> who would always repeat the AERC lameness rule and discuss
> why it was the way it was.
I would be very interested to hear what was the content of that discussion on why the AERC lameness rule is the way it is.
None of the reasons that I have ever heard sat very well with me. Including this one:
> a vet only sees your horse for a couple minutes at a
> check and a vet no matter how good does not know
> your horse
Since it sounds like an admission that he knows the current rule is inadequate.
I think it worthwhile, for the sake of the welfare of horses, to have a discussion as to whether the rule can be improved. I contend that it can, and to do so would be quite simple. The AERC could just change the rule to include an under saddle evaluation and to codify that horses ridden at AERC rides have to be sound when ridden. Especially now that there has been a pilot study conducted by an organization investigating the welfare of competition horses showing that horses can be made temporarily lame by their riders.
Will it still be possible for unscrupulous riders to use a powerful anesthetic (which is what ice is) to trick ride vets into thinking their horse is sound even when it isn’t? Yes. There is little the AERC can do about unscrupulous rider who knowingly rides a lame horse while hiding it from the officials.
But it might make it easier, if nothing else, for ride vets to stop encouraging riders that they should continue riding a horse that the rider thinks is lame because the rider is “just imaging it.”
I cannot count the number of times when I have pulled my own horse from the competition while being encouraged by the vet to continue riding it because (and here is a direct quote from one of them on one occasion), “Your horse looks better than any other horse that has come through here so far.” A horse that winced and dropped her hip a good four inches when I got on and that resisted and then dropped onto her shoulder when I asked her to turn. She looked “really good” trotting out in hand on the straightaway though.
If there had been a required under saddle evaluation as part of the vet check, hopefully, the vet would have seen it and stopped trying to convince me to keep riding my horse. Instead of what actually happened, which was that the vet did see it (when I pointed it out to him) and dismissed it as irrelevant (possibly because he had read the rule that horses only need to be sound on the straight away in hand to be considered fit to continue and the horse’s bad steps were only temporary) and tried to convince me that it was irrelevant. I chose to ignore that vet and removed myself from the event despite the vet’s advice to the contrary.
Participants in AERC rides (like most horse owners) are conditioned to respect the advice of vets. The AERC needs to accept that riders are strongly inclined to rely on that advice, sometimes even against their better judgement, especially if the vet is trying to convince the rider that the rider’s judgement is flawed. Horses at AERC rides would benefit from vets at AERC rides* being told that sound under saddle IS a requirement and have them stop trying to convince riders that it isn’t.
One of the consequences of the AERC’s current policy is to train both riders and vets that horses don’t need to be sound under saddle just so long as they can trot out sound in hand. This may explain why outsiders who see an endurance ride for the first time make the observation, “You ride lame horses.”
kat
Orange County, Calif.
:|
* FWIW: I also know of some vets who will not act as ride vets at endurance rides because they believe the AERC’s veterinary criteria are inadequate to protect the welfare of horses. And I have also been at a ride where, while standing in line, I heard an experienced ride vet convince a first time ride vet that the horse he was seeing wasn’t “lame enough” to be pulled from the ride. I never saw that vet at another ride.
Truman Prevatt
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." - Mark Twain
On Mar 23, 2018, at 12:26, k s swigart <kat...@att.net> wrote:Truman said:> I remember more than one per [sic] ride talk given by Dane Frazer
> who would always repeat the AERC lameness rule and discuss
> why it was the way it was.I would be very interested to hear what was the content of that discussion on why the AERC lameness rule is the way it is.
None of the reasons that I have ever heard sat very well with me. Including this one:
> a vet only sees your horse for a couple minutes at a
> check and a vet no matter how good does not know
> your horse
Since it sounds like an admission that he knows the current rule is inadequate.
Ed & Wendy Hauser
horses only need to be sound on the straight away
One possible rule change to help vets would be to adopt the UMECRA CTR trot out procedure. Horses are observed trotting away, then on a left circle, then on a right circle, and finally returning to the vet.
Lynn White
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+unsubscribe@endurance.net
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ridecamp at Endurance.Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+unsubscribe@endurance.net.
Ed & Wendy Hauser
> the option to look at a horse for either lameness or metabolic issues
> before they leave.
gut sounds improving with rest and food is exactly why MW vets have been
switching to exit exams. I heartily endorse such a change.
Diane Trefethen
> Oh bull, I call bull on that statement that AERC allows lame horses to be
> ridden and receive prizes.
I know you are a knowledgeable and caring rider so I would like you to look
at this statement as objectively as possible. Are you truly willing to
accept the consequences of your statement which are that you are calling
the people who make this claim, liars?
The vets are AERC’s official defense against sending lame horses out on the
trail. If AERC makes it difficult for the vets to pull lame horses or even
just suggests that they not pull questionable horses, then the AERC *does*
allow lame horses to be ridden. So the first thing to ask is, “Does this
happen? Are the rules regarding the pulling of horses written in such a way
as to make it more difficult for a vet to identify and/or pull a lame
horse? Are the guidelines vets are told to use inadequate? Are there BETTER
methods they could use?” The answer here is yes. Rule 6.2.1.4 states,
“There will be no gait aberration that is consistently observable under all
circumstances that results in pain or threatens immediate athletic
performance.” This rule shows that AERC is aware that some horses under
some circumstances may be too lame to continue but wishes to allow such
horses to continue anyway. The key word in this rule is “all”. For a
control judge to eliminate an equine for a “gait aberration”, aka a
lameness, that equine should show the lameness in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, not
just some of the time. So if a horse is “sound” at a trot out in hand but
lame in a trot out under saddle, using AERC’s own rule, that horse should
not be eliminated for being lame. As to the guidelines, AERC suggests only
a straight trot out in hand. However, a better method has been employed in
Best Condition judging for over half a century. Trot in circles, both left
and right. So vets have known that to judge if a horse is “off” requires
observing the horse being trotted on a circle. Given the above, I think it
would be more accurate to say, “AERC allows lame horses to be ridden” than
to say “AERC does not allow lame horses to be ridden”. Granted, that is
only my opinion but what all of this shows is that if there can be
legitimate disagreement as to whether AERC allows lame horses to be ridden,
then it is not “bull” to make that claim.
And if the claim may have validity, then the issue deserves serious review.
Diane Trefethen
AERC #2691
Carla Richardson
Diane Trefethen
> So what is the answer then? Are RM's to hire an extra vet to catch that
> tiny percentage of riders that knowingly or ignorantly ride a lame horse
> back out on the trail?
>
vets at each vet check, snarfing up the entry monies with their fees. So if
Kat’s contention is true, that Dave Nicholson has been using exit exams for
decades, then my conclusion is that this can be done without adding more vets.
One of the biggest complaints I have about pretty much everything we see in
decision-making in our world today is that the vast majority of people do
not know the difference between a bad plan and a good plan executed badly.
Just like “you can’t fix stupid”, you can’t “fix a bad plan”. However, you
CAN fix “uneducated” and you CAN fix it when you do something using poor
methodology. In order to fix a mess, you MUST figure out which is true. Was
the idea too flawed to work or was the work done too poorly for the plan to
succeed? Usually, the plan and/or its creator get the blame because it is
MUCH EASIER to identify them than to figure out what went wrong.
Diane Trefethen
AERC #2691
Diane Trefethen
> I am calling them "mistaken in their observations," because I think the
> vets have not only a more knowledgeable understanding, they are also less
> likely to be swayed by gossip or personal bias.
>
I'd like their assessment of the superior MORAL fiber of vets. Are they so
much more pure than we, the unwashed masses?
I happily concede that they are more knowledgeable than we.
Diane Trefethen
AERC #2691
k s swigart
Lynn said:
> So what is the answer then? Are RM's to hire an extra vet to
> catch that tiny percentage of riders that knowingly or ignorantly
> ride a lame horse back out on the trail?
ALL of the AERC’s rules that allow vets to pull horses from the ride are to keep riders that knowingly or ignorantly ride horses that are deemed unfit to continue. That is the only reason that vets even need to be able to actually disqualify riders.
It is true that most riders, even if only advised by a vet, would remove themselves from the ride; and as we have seen, some of them will actually remove themselves from the ride even if the vet advises them to continue; however the AERC has rule 6 to require vets to disqualify horses that do not meet criteria, even if their riders wouldn’t remove themselves (i.e. those that are either unscrupulous or ignorant).
The reason the AERC has vet checks at all is to keep riders from knowingly or ignorantly going back out on the trail with an unfit horse. If there were no such people, there would be no reason to even have the vets (the “Control Judges” that is, not any treatment vets).
There are lots of ignorant riders at AERC rides; myself included; the learning curve for long distance riding can be quite steep; I have often relied upon the expertise of the vets to help me evaluate the condition of my horse at a ride.
This is especially true of less experienced riders, and since the AERC has absolutely no qualifications with respect to the people it is inviting to its events. The AERC does not have any requirements with regard to any level of expertise for entry into virtually any of its rides. Some of those people are bound to be ignorant.
So yeah, I think the control judges at AERC rides that ride managers hire should be required to evaluate the soundness of the horses under saddle and disqualify the horses that are not sound under saddle. Just as they are required to evaluate their soundness in hand, and their metabolic fitness and disqualify them if they don’t meet those criteria. The AERC should no more leave the “sound under saddle” evaluation up to riders than it does HR or any of the other “minimum” criteria.
There is plenty of evidence that vets can easily miss “unsound under saddle” in the straight out and back in hand evaluation that is currently done at most rides. If the rider misses it too (or ignores it), then the horses will be subjected to unnecessary pain.
kat
Orange County, Calif.
:|
Lynn White
Diane Trefethen
> Personally, and as a ride manager I'd rather the vets spend time going
> over horses hands-on as opposed to spending time watching riders trot them
> out from the saddle.
or so with the usual exam and then when a horse is ready to leave, have it
do a trot out under saddle (~20 secs)?
> On ALL the multi-day rides I've been on the vets watched the riders
> from previous days trot out as the horses were leaving at the ride start.
horses leaving a vet check one by one. Unless a horse was so lame or
metabolically compromised that it could barely move at all, the vets would
be unlikely to notice a horse that was just a little off, especially if
that horse was not trotting.
> I've been doing this sport since 2001 with lots and lots of out-vet checks
> and watched horses coming in and going out. Not once have I observed a
> horse that was off going out.
doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
> What I have observed more than once were horses totally sound but on the
> cusp of having metabolic issues.
observed more than once were horses that looked totally sound but then a
while later they had metabolic issues.”
> You can have a ride where the emphasis is on the metabolics or you
> can have a ride where the vet spends all his time looking at horses
> trotting out.
riding since 1986 and I do not remember ever seeing a vet do just a
metabolic exam OR just several trot outs. They do it all.
When a ride with only one or two vets gets hit with sick horses, it
presents a problem for everyone, not just the RM. Nevertheless, the bulk of
riders, including the hot shoes, are pretty gracious about waiting when
someone’s horse is in trouble. It would be nice to have those waits
subtracted from total ride time but until our technology improves, that
isn’t likely to happen and it certainly hasn’t been a regular happening in
the past. I do not think you can equate when the vet(s) can’t vet the ride
due to sick horses, where it can take hours to get the ride back on track,
with having a vet observe an exit trot out under saddle at each vet check
which take about 30 seconds. 30 seconds times 25 horses times 3 out checks
total about 37 minutes for the whole ride. No RM needs to hire an extra vet
for 37 extra minutes worth of vetting.
Lynn, I think that you don’t like this idea and so see only the problems,
the downside. I think if you consider it from the horse’s point of view,
you might soften your opinion. As to making trot outs under saddle a rule,
that is putting the cart before the horse. First, we should select some
rides to test the protocol to find the kinks, iron them out, AND compile
statistics on the percentage of horses that passed the original vet exam
who failed the exit exam. Next, if the protocol looked promising, we could
suggest to the Veterinary Committee that this test be added to all rides
but on a voluntary basis. Lastly, if/after the protocol had proven to be a
valuable tool, THEN we might put it in the rules.
Diane Trefethen
AERC #2691
k s swigart
Truman said:
> I remember more than one per [sic] ride talk given by Dane Frazer
> who would always repeat the AERC lameness rule and discuss
> why it was the way it was.
And I said:
> I would be very interested to hear what was the content of that
> discussion on why the AERC lameness rule is the way it is.
>
> None of the reasons that I have ever heard sat very well with me.
And Truman responded:
> I am sure that someone on the vet committee could address
> why it is the way it is.
Actually, I wasn’t asking for somebody on the vet committee to address it, I was asking Truman to share with us the content of what Dan Frazer always repeated.
Some of the things that I have heard about the laxness* of the AERC’s soundness requirements include (and here is a direct quote from one head vet) “We’re just going to ride them, we aren’t going to buy them.”
And (this one that was published in the Endurance News), “Lame horses don’t die.” So it isn’t all that important to stop people from riding lame horses???? Note that this is just a variation of Lynn’s:
> You can have a ride where the emphasis is on the metabolics
> or you can have a ride where the vet spends all his time looking
> at horses trotting out.
Neither of these sits very well with me.
If Truman or somebody else has heard a different rationale than this, I would be interested in hearing it.
kat
Orange County, Calif.
:|
* The current AERC Control Judge’s Handbook allows horses that are Grade 2 lame to be started and ridden on the course. (See https://aaep.org/horsehealth/lameness-exams-evaluating-lame-horse “Grade 2: Lameness is difficult to observe at a walk or when trotting in a straight line but consistently apparent under certain circumstances (e.g. weight-carrying, circling, inclines, hard surface, etc.).”) And vets need only “consider” pulling a horse (i.e. they aren’t required to) if the athletic future of the horse is threatened**.
It is reasonable to assume that if a horse goes back out on the trail at an AERC ride, that the horse will be subjected to most if not all of the above mentioned “certain circumstances (e.g. weight-carrying, circling, inclines, hard surface, etc.)” A horse that is Grade 2 lame is probably Grade 2 lame because something hurts. Consequently, to continue to ride Grade 2 horses for miles and miles is to subject the horse to pain that, by definition, it wouldn’t be feeling if you weren’t doing those certain things, and therefore it is cruel. Yet the AERC’s rules and Control Judge’s Handbook allow it.
Me? I have seen plenty of people riding Grade 2 lame horses at AERC events. Nowhere close to the majority, but certainly plenty. My own experience is that by the time a horse is observably limping at all, it probably is already in quite a bit of pain. I know that that is true of myself. I have to be in quite a lot of pain before I start limping.
Truman Prevatt
“Fear not the path of Truth for the lack of People walking on it.” Robert F. Kennedy
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ridecamp at Endurance.Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+u...@endurance.net.--
Ed & Wendy Hauser
> Watching 5-50 horses in a shotgun start is NOT the same as evaluating
> horses leaving a vet check one by one
that all horses go by single file at a trot. Seemed to work either on
the trail or at the start.
Ed & Wendy Hauser
e (and here is a direct quote from one head vet) “We’re just going to ride them, we aren’t going to buy them.”
Let's not distort things for the sake of argument. You are not seriously proposing that a complete pre-purchase exam, which, at least with vets I have used, can include flex tests, ultra sound exam, and x-rays, be done at and during endurance rides?
Lynn White
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+unsubscribe@endurance.net
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ridecamp at Endurance.Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+unsubscribe@endurance.net.
Carla Richardson
Diane,All it takes is one hot-shoe jerk to make your life miserable for weeks after a ride if they believe you screwed up an AERC rule or recommendation and they want those points for whatever. Waiting for vetting is big on their list of complaints. I had one rider who made me not want to ever be a RM again EVER. All I can say about that rider is this: WHAT A ^&%$@*(.As a RM I want a safe event for everyone and I don't believe the trot-outs are a good value when it comes to what we have the vets do. Perhaps someone can demonstrate the value of these mounted trot-outs via test rides, but I'm not willing to volunteer my ride for that.New rules and regulations usually mean more costs handed down to the participants. Many riders in my area are working class and don't have a lot of disposable income. So I want to keep costs down to attract them. My point is that I don't want to see new rules unless someone can reasonabley demonstrate that the rule has value and is not just put in there to make someone feel good and fuzzy.Cheers,Lynn
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Ed & Wendy Hauser <ra...@sisuwest.us> wrote:
--On 3/26/2018 10:32 PM, k s swigart wrote:
e (and here is a direct quote from one head vet) “We’re just going to ride them, we aren’t going to buy them.”Let's not distort things for the sake of argument. You are not seriously proposing that a complete pre-purchase exam, which, at least with vets I have used, can include flex tests, ultra sound exam, and x-rays, be done at and during endurance rides?
Ed
-- Ed & Wendy Hauser 5729 175th Ave. Becker, MN 55308 Ed: 406.381.5527 Wendy: 406.544.2926
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ridecamp at Endurance.Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+u...@endurance.net.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ridecamp at Endurance.Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+u...@endurance.net.
Betty and Ken Wolgram
Diane Trefethen
> The rides I have attended where vets watch trot by's the vets insist that
> all horses go by single file at a trot.
out on the trail are asked to go single file past the vets, at a trot,
sometimes being ridden, often in hand.
We are talking about a TROT OUT with the rider in the saddle where each
horse at a vet check or preride exam is asked to trot out 50-100 feet and
trot back.
Diane Trefethen
AERC #2691
Diane Trefethen
> Let's not distort things for the sake of argument. You are not seriously
> proposing that a complete pre-purchase exam, which, at least with vets I
> have used, can include flex tests, ultra sound exam, and x-rays, be done at
> and during endurance rides?
Kat was NOT proposing any such thing.
Diane Trefethen
AERC #2691
Diane Trefethen
> All it takes is one hot-shoe jerk to make your life miserable for weeks
> after a ride if they believe you screwed up an AERC rule or recommendation
> and they want those points for whatever.
improbable that A CONTROL JUDGE telling a rider leaving a vet check to do
so in the saddle at a trot for 100 feet is going to result in any blowback
on you.
> As a RM I want a safe event for everyone and I don't believe the trot-outs
> are a good value when it comes to what we have the vets do.
opinion, just like my believing the trot-outs would be a good value is only
an opinion.
> Perhaps someone can demonstrate the value of these mounted trot-outs via
> test rides, but I'm not willing to volunteer my ride for that.
thing where the vet takes a horse’s pulse, the horse trots out, waits a
minute and the vet retakes the pulse? What a stupendous waste of time, right?
> New rules and regulations usually mean more costs handed down to the
> participants.
minutes to observe 25 horses trot out 3 times. During a ride, most vets
spend a lot more than 40 minutes just waiting for riders to come in. You
know that and I know that and anyone who’s ever been a vet secretary knows
that. That extra 40 minutes would not require another vet.
> My point is that I don't want to see new rules unless someone can
> reasonabley demonstrate that the rule has value and is not just put in
> there to make someone feel good and fuzzy.
suggested procedure “has value” if it is never tested?
Diane Trefethen
AERC #2691
Carla Richardson
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ridecamp at Endurance.Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+u...@endurance.net.
Er...@fleetfootfarm.com
Are you suggesting that riders completely tack up their horse, (before or after the exam?) so they can trot under saddle for a maximum of 200 feet at the pre-ride vet in? Also, who waits when all the vets are busy examining horses at the vet check, and someone is leaving? The horses that the vets are examining, or the rider who is ready to go back on trail, but needs to do a trot out? This is where sometimes seconds do count. While this maybe looks good on paper, me thinks it would suck in implementation.
Thanx Eric
Eric Rueter
Fleet Foot Farm
11045 Friendsville Road
Lenoir City, TN 37772
865.986.5966(H)
865.599.3594(C)
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Trefethen <tr...@wakerobinranch.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 2:50 PM
To: ride...@endurance.net
Subject: Re: [RC] RE: "Bridle Lame"
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ridecamp at Endurance.Net" group.
Lynn White
Ed & Wendy Hauser
> t Kat was NOT proposing any such thing.
justifying the present vet lameness standard by saying that we (the
vets) are not doing a pre-purchase exam just making sure the horses are
in condition to be ridden.
Yes, I think I know what Kat is proposing, but her quote does not
support that suggestion.
Truman Prevatt
“Fear not the path of Truth for the lack of People walking on it.” Robert F. Kennedy
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ridecamp at Endurance.Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+u...@endurance.net.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RidecampRedistributed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecampredistri...@googlegroups.com.
Truman Prevatt
Diane Trefethen
addressed *if* AERC decided that a trot out while being ridden would be a
valuable addition to the veterinary protocols at endurance rides. However,
those points are not the core of the issue RIGHT NOW which is, are we and
should we be riding horses that appear borderline Grade 2 lame in a
standard trot out, so are allowed to continue, but who are really Grade 2
to Grade 3 lame and perhaps should be withdrawn from the competition?
This discussion started with a post from The Horse. The Animal Health
Trust's Centre for Equine Studies, Newmarket, UK, conducted a study on the
relationship between weight of riders and temporary lameness in the horses
they ride. The conclusion in that study was that yes, there was a definite
link. More research needs to be done but none of it is likely to impact the
rules of any horse disciplines as the focus is on matching horse to rider,
not protecting horses from their riders.
OUR discussion began when Kat started a new subject line, “"Bridle Lame"
(was: Pilot Study...)”, and posted this comment, “One of the things that
the results of this study suggest to me is that, from a horse welfare
standpoint, the AERC does not adequately evaluate the soundness of horses
at its events because it does not evaluate the soundness of horses under
saddle.” I had never seen that thought put so directly. It makes sense. ANY
time a horse suffers pain from being ridden, whether because the rider is
too heavy or because the physical structures of the horse are in a state of
gradual compromise, it would clearly be in the best interest of the horse
to stop riding it.
So what are we discussing here, right now? We are discussing how to
implement a “Rule” that doesn’t exist, convenience of RM’s, inconvenience
to riders, cost to enter rides, necessity of extra vets, how difficult
implementing any new test for pain would be, and we don’t need no stinkin’
new rules. What about the horse? Why aren’t we focusing on whether a horse
is in pain, how we might detect it, and what we can do about it? I wonder
if we are afraid to face this issue because if we decide that yes, we need
to do something, our whole endurance world will change. I don’t believe we
really think it’s okay to do endurance on a horse that is just a little
lame but by debating points that are currently irrelevant, it looks like we
are trying to avoid facing the fact that we might have to change how we vet
horses. So instead we focus on things that might never happen, allowing us
to ignore this “threat” and maintain the status quo, possibly at our
horses’ expense.
Diane Trefethen
AERC #2691
k s swigart
Ed said:
> You are not seriously proposing that a complete
> pre-purchase exam, which, at least with vets I have
> used, can include flex tests, ultra sound exam, and
> x-rays, be done at and during endurance rides?
No, I am not proposing that a complete pre-purchase exam be done at and during endurance rides. I have only proposed that horses be evaluated under saddle (I have never suggested flex tests, ultra sound or x-rays). By asking this, Ed is being equally as disingenuous as the vet who gave the explanation that we aren’t going to buy them as a reason for the laxness of the AERC’s rule.
The AERC’s rule says that horses that are Grade 2 lame can be considered fit to continue*. Giving “we’re just going to ride them, we aren’t going to buy them” as a reason for allowing this is an inadequate explanation for not doing an under saddle evaluation. It is a reason for not doing flex tests, ultra sound exams and x-rays, but not for not doing an under saddle evaluation.
After all we ARE going to ride them, and this vet acknowledged that in the explanation; so it’s not like vets don’t know that they are allowing people to ride lame horses (Grade 2 lame IS lame). I would think, most people who are interested in the welfare of horses at rides would consider determining whether horses are in pain while being ridden is an essential evaluation. Especially now that there has been a study performed (the report on the results of this study is what provoked this topic) by a group interested specifically in promoting the welfare of competition horses suggesting that horses can show lameness while being ridden that cannot be observed when the horses are not ridden.
And yet, few control judges at AERC rides are ever even given the opportunity to evaluate a horse under saddle, so they wouldn’t know if a horse were in pain under saddle or not. Having had the need to hire vets for AERC rides, I know that there are some vets who are not okay with the laxness of the AERC’s lameness evaluation procedures, and telling them that most riders wouldn’t ride their horse lame even if the vets and the rules allow it doesn’t change their minds.
Yes, it is true that most riders wouldn’t ride their lame horses even if the vets and rules do allow it; but some riders do. Some because they are not astute enough to recognize that the horse is lame and the vet hasn’t even seen the horse ridden to be able to educate them, some because they figure they aren’t doing any damage to their horse if they do (after all, the vets and the rules that are there to protect the welfare of horses says that it’s okay, so it must be okay), and some because they don’t care as long as they get a completion.
NONE of the AERC’s veterinary criteria are in place to keep people who know how to evaluate their own horses and don’t want to abuse them from continuing in a ride. They are there for the people who don’t know how to evaluate their own horses well enough, or for those that would ride an unfit horse anyway. The very existence of the post ride check demonstrates that the AERC knows that some people would ride their horse into the ground if given the opportunity even if most of them won’t.
The current lameness criteria allows some riders the opportunity to ride a lame horse, even if most of them won’t.
Lisa Salas
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+unsubscribe@endurance.net
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ridecamp at Endurance.Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+unsubscribe@endurance.net.
Ed & Wendy Hauser
a few times vets watched the start of a ride and you had to ride single file so they could see the horses move out.
This was routinely done at multiday rides at Steph's. A great idea.
If we were to want to implement such a thing at most rides it could reasonably be done by:
- Change vet exam to exit exam.
- Riders present their horses about 10 minutes before their out
time, tacked up, with a loose girth or cinch.
- At the end of the exam, they are given their card, and tighten their girth.
- Then they mount and trot off to the timer to record their out
time.
One of the things implicit in this discussion is how much of a "gait abnormality" do we want to allow horses to exhibit before, during, and after a ride. Having participated in UMECRA Competitive* rides where a horse can loose 20 gait points and still be Grade 1, I don't think requiring a "completely sound horse" is either desirable of possible. Almost no horses can go 25-50 miles and not loose at least a few gait points at a Competitive ride.
Ed
*I often use "CTR", only because this is sort of understood by folk who do not compete in UMECRAville. Competitive rides do not judge "horsemanship". They are like having a ride at a fixed speed and then judging a BC at the end. If you are interested the exact rules are on: www.umecra.com
Ed & Wendy Hauser
5729 175th Ave.
Becker, MN 55308
Ed: (406) 381-5527
Wendy: (406) 544-2926
Er...@fleetfootfarm.com
Ed –
Splitting hairs, I know. But I believe UMECRA has a spot on their score card for “manners”. IMHO a horse’s manners are reflective of the handler’s horsemanship, so technically UMECRA CTR does judge horsemanship. As do almost if not all of the 8-10 other “major” CTR sanctioning bodies.
Thanx Eric
Eric Rueter
Fleet Foot Farm
11045 Friendsville Road
Lenoir City, TN 37772
865.986.5966(H)
865.599.3594(C)
From: Ed & Wendy Hauser <ra...@sisuwest.us>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 12:22 PM
To: ride...@endurance.net
Subject: Re: [RC] RE: "Bridle Lame"
On 3/28/2018 10:53 AM, Lisa Salas wrote:
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ridecamp at Endurance.Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+u...@endurance.net.
Ed & Wendy Hauser
s”. IMHO a horse’s manners are reflective of the handler’s horsemanship, so technically UMECRA CTR does judge horsemanship. As do almost if not all of the 8-10 other “major” CTR sanctioning bodies.
The manners box is only used when a horse does something really
bad like trying to bite the vet or rearing up to avoid the
mandatory gum exam. I would guess that you would have to watch a
number of rides before you saw a manners point deducted. I
believe that the points for "horsemanship" used by some other
sanctioning bodies go much deeper into the training of the horse
i. e. how clean, how well clipped, how tied etc.
The pdf with current rules is located under "rules" on http://www.umecra.com/membership.html . See competitive rule 2 d about horsemanship.
-- Ed & Wendy Hauser 5729 175th Ave. Becker, MN 55308 Ed: 406.381.5527 Wendy: 406.544.2926
Er...@fleetfootfarm.com
Meant to add that my reply was “tongue in cheek”.
Thanx Eric
Eric Rueter
Fleet Foot Farm
11045 Friendsville Road
Lenoir City, TN 37772
865.986.5966(H)
865.599.3594(C)
From: Ed & Wendy Hauser <ra...@sisuwest.us>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 9:27 AM
To: ride...@endurance.net
Subject: Re: [RC] RE: "Bridle Lame"
On 3/28/2018 11:40 AM, er...@fleetfootfarm.com wrote:
--
Ed & Wendy Hauser
Meant to add that my reply was “tongue in cheek”.
The reason I answered as I did is that the non-UMECRAville
followers of Ridecamp persistently confuse the rules of
Competitive Rides with CTR especially NATRC. One must understand
the differences which are major.
Jacinta
Carla Richardson
Jacinta
Karen Everhart
Carla Richardson
Ed & Wendy Hauser
> I have ridden NATRC. My horse and I hated it. What is CTR?
have their own versions with various rules.
Jacinta
k s swigart
Carla said:
> I do not think we need any more rules at all.
Just to clarify matters on this subject.
With regard to the “bridle lame” subject, I have not suggested that the AERC implement “any more rules,” I have suggested that an existing rule that purports to be in place for the purpose of protecting the welfare of horses be revised to allow vets the opportunity to do just that, protect the welfare of the horses being ridden at AERC events.
The existing rule does not provide vets the opportunity to evaluate horses while being ridden even though (among other things):
a) the AERC knows damned well that after having their horses evaluated at a vet check and being deemed fit to continue, that participants ARE going to ride their horses.
b) the AERC knows damned well that some horses can show lameness while being ridden that is not observable when not being ridden.
c) the AERC ought to know that some of this lameness that is observable only while being ridden is caused by pain.
I suspect that the existing rule was crafted in the way that it was deliberately to allow some riders to continue to ride their horses while those horses are in pain because a little bit of pain is okay just so long as it is temporary and, after all, lame horses don’t die*.
IF the AERC were concerned about horses at their events not being subjected to unnecessary pain, the AERC would be eager to revise its lameness rules in order to enable the officials at the event who are there solely for the purpose of ensuring horse welfare to more easily identify horses whose pain is caused by, and/or only observable when, being ridden and to disqualify those for whom this is true.
The existing rule does not.
The AERC’s existing rule regarding lameness evaluation and criteria allows horses to be ridden while in pain. It is ASTOUNDING to me that anybody would advocate this, and I would have thought that everybody who is concerned about the welfare of horses would be eager to rectify something that allows some horses to be abused in this way at AERC events.
Especially since it DOESN’T require making a new rule, all it requires is revising the existing one to make it more effective for identifying and disqualifying horses in pain while being ridden.
Furthermore, the existing rule discourages participation by vets who think such an evaluation is necessary for protecting the welfare of horses. Because of this “self-selection” pressure, it is hardly surprising that the AERC is populated by a lot of vets who are okay with letting some people ride lame horses.
kat
Orange County, Calif.
* Truman stated in his earlier post that Dane Frazer often explained at pre-ride meetings that the AERC lameness rule was carefully crafted suggesting that its outcomes are deliberate. Including the outcome of allowing some people to ride lame horses. Especially since Truman also reported him saying, in essence, “so if you don’t want to ride a lame horse you are going to have to stop yourself because the vets aren’t going to because we don’t see them for long enough or evaluate them carefully enough to be able to do that.” In fact, because the rule is designed to NOT evaluate ridden horses, most of the vets won’t even know if any horse is lame while being ridden.