Some of My Ideas (was: A good indication...)

[k s swigart]

> From: Don and Pam Bowen bor...@cot.net

> So how long before your ideas are coherent?  I'd like to hear them.
> Did I ask that right? 

Since I have been asked.....

And after having read all the posts so far in the archives in response to my
original post about perhaps the AERC would be well served in thinking of the
different distances as being slightly different types of competition (which I
will call "events" to use Truman's word) rather than different levels of the
same event .

If we do this, then the institutionalization of "moving up" from one event to a
different one will, hopefully, go away. 

And to continue to compare it with human distance running events, SOME people
will enter a 5K run as a training event with the intent of later running longer
distances, and some people will continue to run the 5K forever and have neither
the intent nor the desire to ever run in a longer event.  Some of the people who
run the 5K forever with no intent of ever going longer distances will also RACE
quite successfully at this distance, to the extent that they can win an Olympic
medal by doing so.  And if they do, they are quite rightly considered world
class athletes even if 5K is the furthest they have ever competed at.

So, no, I do not think that the AERC should redefine its different distances as
different "levels" (starting with Beginner Novice and progressing to Advanced)
the way that eventing does.

Because Limited Distance and Endurance are already in the AERC's By-Laws (which
would be VERY difficult, and expensive, to change), I am going to go with those
words...and expand on them.

DISCLAIMER: The proposal I am about to make below is just some ideas that I have
had that I HOPE will address most of the concerns that I have heard people make,
just recently, and over the years.  They are not "this exact way is the best way
to do it down to the last detail" but rather expanding on the already existing
notion that LD and Endurance are not just different levels of the same sport
(that is why LD is NOT called "Novice" endurance, even if some people use it
that way).

So here goes.....

SANCTIONED DISTANCE: All AERC sanctioned events will be rounded to the nearest 5
miles (so yes, 47.5 will be rounded up to 50), this will address the concern
that trails of the exact distance cannot, logistically, be laid out at any
particular venue. "Within 2.5 miles on either side" ought to be something that
any ride manager can find suitable trail for.

The AERC will sanction the following different daily events:

LTR (Long Trail Ride): 5-20 miles (note that this will actually include measured
distances of 2.5 to 22.499999999999999 miles)--this is now what we call
Introductory Rides, but this does not take into account that some people may
just like this distance and never want to go any further. They may want to use
it as a place to experience the sport and see if they are interested in any of
the other events, or they may just want to come and camp and ride and help out
afterwards or whatever.

LD (Limited Distance): 25-35 miles (measured distances of 22.5 to 37.49 miles) -
no change from current definition.

MD (Mid Distance): 40-50 miles (measured distances of 37.5 to 52.49 miles) -
right now this is a HUGE hole in the AERC's sanctioning process.  It is a very
popular distance.  In fact, it may even be the most popular distance, which is
why many ride managers are hosting them anyway and just sanctioning them all as
50 mile rides no matter what their true mileage.

ED (Endurance Distance): 55 - 75 miles (measured distances of 52.5 to 77.49
miles)--this way, no "endurance" ride will be less than 50 miles long.

UD (Ultra Distance): 80-100 miles (measured distances of 77.5 to 102.5
miles)--it is at these distances where the historical completion rate starts to
drastically fall off, so clearly they are "riskier" to enter and ought to be
recognized as such.

PIONEER: Pioneer rides will be held at the MD distances only. This is no change
from what is currently done as, with possibly the exception of the Rocky
Mountain Ride, which is now defunct, I do not believe that any of the pioneer
rides that I have ever attended had a single day that was longer than 52.5
miles.  Ride managers that are hosting pioneer rides can hold other events at
the same venue, but these events will just be considered regular AERC rides, not
Pioneer rides.
 
The AERC will keep track of mileage for all the different Distance events, but
not for the LTRs (it may find that enough LTR riders participate and want their
mileage tracked that it should do this as well). LTRs will not be required to
have a vet check in the middle.
 
There will be no minimum time for any of the distances.  The maximum time for
any distance will be set by the ride manager, but cannot be less than 6 hours
for each 25 miles plus 1:15 for each 5 mile increment after that.  That way,
ride managers have to give riders at least 12 hours for a 50 mile ride, but, if
they think their trail warrants it and/or they are willing to staff the ride for
longer they can give riders more time to complete the course.  This maximum time
will have to be announced in advance of riders showing up at the ride, any
changes can only be made in the event of extreme weather conditions that could
not have been known in advance.  Ride managers ought to know how tough their
course is in advance...and whether they have the staff to man a longer
completion time.
 
BONUS POINTS*: There will be miles and bonus points for each of the events.  The
AERC will give out year-end regional awards for all the events separately (so,
it may have to rethink the number of weight divisions if it doesn't want to be
giving out multitudes of awards, or it may want to consider giving out just
first and second place...that would be my choice).  It will probably want
to give out awards for "overall" high-point too--much the way that horse shows
offer "high point" awards to horses that compete in multiple disciplines.

 
Some of the National Awards will probably have to be rethought with respect to
exactly how they should be awarded.
 
Bonus points for the LD event will be based on how close the rider is to the
"optimum time" that is set for the ride, with completion time being determined
by when the horse meets criteria. And this time is set entirely at the
discretion of each individual ride manager (so ride managers that want to host
LD races can do so by setting the optimum time to 1 minute, that way the fastest
finisher "wins" that ride, whereas ride managers who don't want to host races
can set the optimum time to whatever time they deem appropriate for their
terrain, or whatever).  The "time" points for BC for the LD division will be
calculated based on this optimum time, not fastest time (but it will still be
the fastest time if the ride manager wants it to be and sets the optimum time
low enough).
 
Bonus points for the MD events will be based on the fastest completion time with
the completion time being determined by when the horse meets criteria, or it
could be determined by crossing the finish line...it is possible to see how this
works out in practice.
 
Bonus points for the ED and UD events will be based on the fastest completion
time with the completion time being determined by when the horse crosses the
finish line (no different from what is currently done).
 
BEST CONDITION:  Reduce the "time" factor of the Best Condition scoring to 100
points rather than 200, and make it so it is figured by dividing the time of the
winner into the time of the other finishers rather than the number of minutes
away.  This makes it so the time is less of a factor and also makes it so it
doesn't matter what the distance of the ride is as it will be the "percentage" a
person is away from the winner rather than the number of minutes.**

 
Though most people don't realize it, ride managers ARE under the current rules
allowed to let any number of horses, as long as it is at least the first 10
finishers, stand for Best Condition, so if, for example, a ride manager of an LD
(or any other distance for that matter) wants to allow all the finishers to
stand for Best Condition they can do so as long as they have the required staff
to do so.
 
LIFETIME MILEAGE: Horses and riders will accumulate lifetime mileage for any
miles that they have completed "fit to continue" even if they did not complete
the whole ride that was entered..eg. if they enter the 100 miler and don't
finish the entire course (for whatever reason), they will get the miles up to
the last vet check where they were deemed fit to continue.  These will be
lifetime mileage credit only and "completion only" miles and will not count
towards any year end awards.  The purpose of this is to encourage people who are
risk averse (which is just about everybody) to "try" the longer distances
without having to risk that they or their horses will get no credit at all for
their efforts. 

 
Personally, I consider it a mistake that the AERC currently gives less mileage
credit to a horse that successfully completes 75 miles of a 100 mile ride than
it does to a horse that finishes 25 miles of an LD.  It is this one policy of
the AERC, I think, that actively discourages people from trying the longer
distances.  One need only see that participation in two fifty mile rides on
consecutive days on the same horse is a rapidly growing activity, but the 2 day
100 is all but dead.  The only difference between these two events is the
"credit" the AERC gives for completing the first half of the ride.
 
I don't see any reason not to combine all of the divisions into the lifetime
mileage of a horse and/or rider.
 
Of all of these proposals, I think adding the MD event is the most important.  I
do believe it to be the most popular distance and the one that most people want
to participate at, which is why some ride managers are offering them anyway and
that the AERC is currently looking the other way while ride managers do so, even
though it is against the rules.
 
I also see absolutely no harm in lengthening the time allowed at the ride
manager's discretion, as I think this is the other reason that some ride
managers are offering short courses that "ride like a 50."
 
Virtually none of these proposed changes will require ride managers to do things
any differently than they are currently doing.  The biggest difference will be
requiring the reporting of how far a rider went fit to continue even if they
didn't finish. 

 
It will require some changes to the system that tracks and calculates things.
 
If people want to ask me privately for the reasons I think making these changes
would be beneficial to the AERC, they are welcome to do so, but going into those
details here without risking being misunderstood and inadvertently offending
somebody is too much trouble.
 
kat
Orange County, Calif.
 
*I have an idea of a different way for bonus points to be calculated which will
take away the "unfairness" of the current system that makes it much easier to
earn bonus points at smaller rides, but I will address that separately because
a) it is rather complicated, and b) it is a slightly different discussion.
 
** The weight factor in BC evaluation should be reduced as well as the current
weight factor demonstrably confers an unfair advantage on heavier riders, but
this is a COMPLETELY different discussion and one I don't want to address at
this time.

[Buddy]

Institutionalization of moving up from one event to another implies we
have all been denied free thinking that that prevents us from moving
up or out..... AERC provides members and those not members to enter a
longer distance ride that they would, not normally ride, on given day
in some form of completion..... that they have entered an endurance
ride.. Why make that so complicated with the EXACT miles rode on a
given day? IN a an AERC ride..........
On May 20, 1:12 pm, k s swigart <kats...@att.net> wrote:
> > From: Don and Pam Bowen bori...@cot.net

[David Lewis]

Very nice, Kat!! I like it!

Couple of thoughts: I don't know if this is the case for other regions, but for the NW region, many rides offer the "Trail Ride", which can consist of multiple distances and usually ranges between 10 and 18 miles. This is not sanctioned by AERC so points are not currently tracked. This means that these are generally inexpensive for a rider to attend and get the endurance experience with vetting, ride camp, trail, etc. but without having too much of the cost involved.

If AERC *were* to sanction these distances, I'd be a little hesitant to impose much if any fee on this distance as it can be a small way for ride managers to help compensate for costs of rides, and keeping the price low means more people can be persuaded to participate.

Overall, I really like the ideas you have proposed.

I think one thing a lot of us need to keep in mind is that the goal of AERC should be to help bring more riders into the sport of endurance, and continue to educate them. And in doing so, we are seeing a lot of people who just like to compete at certain distances, the Olympic track analogy is an excellent one. Some people use the shorter distances to train and move up, others like to excel in those shorter distances and prefer to stay and compete in those distances.

Kat, if you don't mind, I'd like to share your thoughts on the AERC Facebook Group?

-- David

Redmond, WA

--
--
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

[Lynn White]

Too complicated,  sorry.  The beauty and attraction of AERC is that it's simple:  Riders are responsible for their horses.  One just can't fix stupid with more rules, and all it really does is cause more headaches for RM and make our sport more like how it's done over seas.  If you want to attract people to endurance keep the rules clear and simple and eliminate as many "levels" as you can. New riders will figure out how to optimize their horses with the vet check as the great equalizer.   This is what originally attracted me to endurance in the first place. If I went to a ride and saw all the rules and regulations regarding "classes" I'd probably never return. 

[k s swigart]

Lynn said about my proposal:

 

> Too complicated,  sorry.  The beauty and attraction of AERC is that it's simple:

 

In what way, other than adding permission to sanction rides of the measured distance between 37.5 and 49.9 miles is my proposal any more complicated than what the AERC already does?  Currently, ride managers are sanctioning these measured distances as 50 miles, but doing so IS against the AERC's current rules.  There is nothing in my proposal that says ride managers cannot continue to break the rules in this way if they want to.  It just makes it so they don't HAVE to break the rules if they want to hold rides of these lengths.

 

> and all it really does is cause more headaches for RM

 

I what way, other than requiring ride managers to report to the AERC how far a horse and rider completed "fit to continue" before not finishing a ride (which information most ride managers already have and some of them already publish) does my proposal cause more headaches for ride managers? As a ride manager myself, I can tell you that having to report this information along with all the other information that I already have to report to the AERC wouldn't cause ME any headaches.

 

> If I went to a ride and saw all the rules and regulations

> regarding "classes" I'd probably never return

 

You mean if you went to a ride a discovered that the ride offered different distances you would never go back to that or any other AERC ride? 

 

As near as I can tell, the only ride in the 2013 AERC calendar that meets this description is Tevis, which (if I check her ride record) Lynn has never attended; although she has attended rides that offer multi-distances, pioneer rides, and FEI co-sanctioned rides all of which offer different "classes."  Granted, one can attend any of these events without knowing the rules and regulations regarding the different "classes" offered, but there is nothing in my proposal that says participants cannot continue to attend events without knowing all the rules and regulations regarding "classes" if they aren't interested.

 

The AERC already has different "classes" for different distances: Introductory, LD, 50-70 miles (for regular bonus points), 75-95 miles (for bonus points with a 1.25 multiplier) and 100 miles (for bonus points with a multiplier of 1.5).

 

Maybe Lynn and Jody are right and it is all these different "classes" that are driving participants away, and if the AERC simplified things by offering only Endurance rides of 50 miles or more that all the people who go to their first ride, find all the different ride distances and "never return" would come back.

 

I can put together that proposal as well.

 

kat

Orange County, Calif.

:|

 

 

[Lynn White]

AERC is after all just a sport.   It's supposed to be fun.  You did such a good check on the records to find that I've never done Tevis.  Tell me then, is just doing the Tevis your only litmus test to see if someone is really a true "endurance rider"?  Unless I get enough $$ to buy a new pick-up and a substantial raise and time off from work, Tevis is out...the thought of sharing a hot dusty trail with 200+ other riders is not by cup of tea anyways.    Kat, if you go and really check the records, perhaps you will find that I did actually manage a ride or two.  The mileage for my loops was on average 0.1 of a mile off for every 15 miles that was traveled. I took it very seriously.  I also put on a 75-mile ride which was a huge mistake because a rider got a little too overzealous and a horse almost died.  So don't go telling me I don't' know what I am talking about. 

I didn't like the FEI co-sanctioned rides.  I didn't like the rules and I didn't like the arrogance of the FEI officials. But when there is a ride 100-miles from my home I'm going to it.   If you look at those rides you will notice that those rides are no longer  co-sanctioned.  Gee, I wonder why. Would I travel 200+ mile to do a co-sanctioned ride?  Only if the trail was worth it!  

The biggest complaint I hear from riders is that they don't like short loops in and out of camp.  Sometimes a RM has to shorten or lengthen total mileage to get to the desired mileage without having 4 loops in and out of camp for a 50.  If you think you are being cheated on mileage don't go to a ride.

I never said to over simplify AERC.  We already have two classes:  LD and endurance. The points thing is something that is handled by AERC.   This is enough.  So please, by all means, keep right on checking my record.  You will find that this weekend I'll be doing two LD's.  I'm starting a new horse and I think LD's are great for that.  I can't wait to ride with people that I wouldn't be able to visit with if I just stuck to "Endurance miles."

As far as your "fit to continue" proposal goes.  A rider should enter a ride that they believe their horse can finish in it's entirety.  It's a big step to do a 75 or 100 for the first time.  I was  pulled at the finish of my first 80-mile ride and got 0 miles for it...and rightly so.  I over-rode my horse and didn't deserve diddly squat.  Bit I did walk away with some big lessons. 

Cheers,

Lynn

[Sandra Adams]

This email struck me, because, after all, if AERC does not manage to set aside the boastfulness of the really "great" competitors, who, by virtue of money or time or luck or no kids or whatever the combination is that sets the stage for such success, AERC will continue to lose members and riders. I am a little put off by anyone checking my ride record then using it to talk down to me. I agree here that the FEI co-sanctioned rides just do not work for me and frankly, a lot of people. If we are to encourage ridership from both long time and AGING members :) as well as newbies who perhaps know next to nothing about horses to begin with, it is imperative that we try to be supportive and teaching, not separatist and condescending. It IS after all, just a sport, and frankly, one that probably 99.9% of the world's population either doesn't KNWO about or doesn't CARE about, so aside from feeling great about completing whatever distance we choose on a particular day, we need to get over ourselves, collectively and individually. Just ride. 

--
--
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 "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/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Sandy Adams

Deep Sands Arabians

www.garyadamsbooks.com

Home of Salazar SF

"The Gentleman Stallion"

[Diane Trefethen]

In response to Kat's suggestions regarding Endurance Events, Lynn said, "If I

went to a ride and saw all the rules and regulations regarding 'classes' I'd

probably never return."

Then Kat responded, "You mean if you went to a ride a discovered that the ride

offered different distances you would never go back to that or any other AERC
ride? As near as I can tell, the only ride in the 2013 AERC calendar that meets
this description is Tevis, which (if I check her ride record) Lynn has never
attended; although she has attended rides that offer multi-distances, pioneer

rides, and FEI co-sanctioned rides all of which offer different 'classes.' "

And lastly, Lynn wrote, "AERC is after all just a sport. It's supposed to be

fun. You did such a good check on the records to find that I've never done
Tevis. Tell me then, is just doing the Tevis your only litmus test to see if
someone is really a true 'endurance rider'?"

Lynn's is the kind of reaction that drives me crazy. I do not know Lynn but I
can see clearly that she is the kind of person who is always on the lookout for
getting her feelings hurt. I always assume people are reasonably intelligent
(maybe that's where I go wrong) but assuming she is, then what other reason is
there for her to misinterpret Kat's Tevis comments? Kat wasn't saying Tevis was
HER litmus test; she was saying Tevis fit LYNN's litmus test.

Now I will grant that you COULD interpret Kat's response as a subtle suggestion
that Lynn is a hypocrite because Lynn SAYS she won't go to rides that offer
"classes" when she does and does NOT go to the one ride that doesn't offer
"classes." But even there, since Kat's criticism is valid, I would think the
answer for Lynn is either stop patronizing rides that offer "classes" or retract
her statement about not ever returning to those that do.

[k s swigart]

Lynn said:

> The biggest complaint I hear from riders is that they don't like short
> loops in and out of camp.  Sometimes a RM has to shorten or
> lengthen total mileage to get to the desired mileage without having
> 4 loops in and out of camp for a 50.

I completely agree with this statement. Sometimes the trail that the riders and
ride managers would like best for a particular venue is going to be less than 50
miles.  This is why I suggested that the AERC change its rules to allow ride
managers to sanction rides that are more than 37.5, but less than 50 miles.

If it is what is best for the riders, the ride managers, and the venue, then why
not?  The AERC lets ride managers sanction rides of any other distance from 0 to
150...just not 37.5 miles to 49.99 miles.

And what is even more ironic about this, is that that is the distance that is
the most popular, at least it is in all the regions I have ridden in.

kat
Orange County, Calif.

[Lynn White]

Hun, Kat brought up Tevis and did all the record checking.  She obviously has lots of spare time to look up my piddly-ass records and making sure everyone else knows. I don't worry/care about what other riders do.  What's this crap about "feelings" anyways?  So do you try to practice telepathy in your spare time?  Keep on trying, you need lots of practice.

[merri melde]

I'm not following this thread, nor really any thread when it gets snarky unless of course *I* am the snarky one, in which case I read it over and over, but "piddly-ass" caught my eye because it amused me, and I do have to announce, Lynne and her piddly ass little pony, which happens to be the cutest thing ever, came to the 3-day Owyhee Fandango and rode a 25 (I think it was his first) while getting exposed to the new environment of a ridecamp with lots of people and horses coming and going, camping, dinner bells ringing, etc, and they both had a great time. Most everybody else riding did too!

and now please excuse me while I go ride.

--
www.endurance.net/merri
www.TheEquestrianVagabond.com

--
 
 
 

[Becky/Sue Burkheart]

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:55 PM, k s swigart <kat...@att.net> wrote:

If it is what is best for the riders, the ride managers, and the venue, then why
not?  The AERC lets ride managers sanction rides of any other distance from 0 to
150...just not 37.5 miles to 49.99 miles.

And what is even more ironic about this, is that that is the distance that is
the most popular, at least it is in all the regions I have ridden in.

but when this was brought in under the LD umbrella a few years ago, people got so upset that it all had to be changed back.  People want their 50 miles credit for their 40 mile rides. :(

I agree with Kat.  sanction the correct mileage and give credit for that, wherever it falls.

Becky Burkheart
BeckyBurkheart.com ~ Gritty, sensual mythology, dark fantasy & science fiction ~ (Stay updated!)

[stephanie teeter]

There's a hole between 35 and 50 miles. Wouldn't it be simple to just call the ride whatever mileage it is and have that be ok? Measure a 40 mile trail and call it a 40 mile ride and adjust points accordingly? I understand the '50 miles is endurance' concept, but it sort of falls in the world of ideology rather than practicality for some rides and ride managers. I've always leaned more toward practicality! AERC sort of patched in the Limited Distance thing, and it's left some gaps. It doesn't have to be actual divisions or classes - just ride the miles and get the credit/points for the miles ridden.

Steph

(heresy!)

[Becky/Sue Burkheart]

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM, stephanie teeter <steph....@gmail.com> wrote:

There's a hole between 35 and 50 miles. Wouldn't it be simple to just call the ride whatever mileage it is and have that be ok? Measure a 40 mile trail and call it a 40 mile ride and adjust points accordingly? I understand the '50 miles is endurance' concept, but it sort of falls in the world of ideology rather than practicality for some rides and ride managers. I've always leaned more toward practicality! AERC sort of patched in the Limited Distance thing, and it's left some gaps. It doesn't have to be actual divisions or classes - just ride the miles and get the credit/points for the miles ridden.

What was the melt-down that got it changed back when we did that a few years ago? I can't remember the details.  I think it's the best answer for the trails mileage issue.

[stephanie teeter]

Many years ago we (the Board of Directors) voted to define LD as 0 - 49 miles at the Thursday meeting. Basically any distance under 50. 

Then at the Sunday meeting we voted to change it back. (not the BoD's finest moment :)

I actually thought then, and still do, that it was not such a bad idea!

Steph

[ll cole]

I wholeheartedly disagree.
 
If we are to adopt a program that does not differentiate 50 miles and more as endurance, then the organization should no longer be the American Endurance Ride Conference. Maybe we should become the American Distance Riding Conference or the American Trail Riders Conference. I don't have a problem with that. Fifty miles or more is endurance and we shouldn't whittle it down to be all inclusive or make riders feel good or because some Ride Managers are cutting corners or cheating their riders.
 
There needs to be some integrity on the part of Ride Managers and Riders when it comes to these rides. Its quite annoying to put on rides that are actually the distances advertised to have folks show up and bitch about the trail being too long when I know the distances are as close as one can get. Yes, its a lot of work to accurately measure a course but it can be done. I don't have the answer on how to deal with trails that are not the correct distance. We're all a part of the problem if we don't step up and try to correct it. Maybe if you're certain a part or loop of a trail is short or long you need to volunteer to verify the mileage for a Ride Manager. Volunteers are always appreciated!! Its not AERC's responsibility to verify trail mileage, its ours.
 
As far as keeping the sport alive and attracting more competitors, I think the Intro Rides are a good idea and I see some participation in Central Region. I think the outreach at the seasonal Horse Expos, like Paul Sidio has done for OCER for several years, is great. But we have to face the fact that this is not a sport that will be appealing to everyone that owns a horse. There is a significant investment in time to bring a horse and rider to the point that they can successfully and safely complete, compete and enjoy it. For me, that's where the reward lies.
 
Let's not devolve or water down "endurance riding" in the quest for the dollar or because we're too lazy to do the work.
 
Barry Cole,  Kansas
 

Come join us on the Ozark Trail Endurance Rides: Real Endurance on a Real Trail!
The Ozark Trail 75/100, April 27, 2013 & The Hillbilly Shuffle 25/50 Endurance Ride, September 14-15, 2013
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OzarkTrailEnduranceRides/
 
Yes, they are 25/50/75/100 miles long or as close as is humanly possible to measure.

 

---

Subject: Re: [RC] Some of My Ideas (was: A good indication...)
From: steph....@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:08:30 -0600
CC: kat...@att.net; ride...@endurance.net
To: b.sue.b...@gmail.com

[Dawn Carrie]

Amen Barry! 

 

We do need more members and more riders.  But I draw the line at getting them at the expense of the intregity of the sport.  There is enough problem now with integrity - RMs setting up short rides to make riders happy, and riders who lack the integrity to even acknowledge that rules are being broken when this (and more) is done.   :(  Let's maintain (and please - improve!!) integrity, and continue to build upon things that can bring us new members. 

 

Intro rides do work.  Mentors...I'm glad to see that we are placing more emphasis on them.  But let's do even more.  Go the extra mile...find those who are willing to mentor newbies at each ride.  And especially those who are willing to mentor those wanting to move up in distances.  Work to link mentors and new members for conditioning as riding buddies.  Etc. 

 

Dawn Carrie - Texas

[stephanie teeter]

>>
 
Let's not devolve or water down "endurance riding" in the quest for the dollar or because we're too lazy to do the work. 
 
Barry Cole,  Kansas
 

>>

Respectfully, it's not simply a quest for the dollar. It's a quest for survival of the sport - if ride managers cannot afford to host rides because the attendance is too low, they will stop hosting rides. In areas with low population centers this will be even more pronounced.  I could not afford to host rides w/o the shorter distance riders. I don't know if offering 40 mile rides would make a difference, probably not - but those of us that are looking for ways to keep the sport alive (keep people riding) are not just looking at the $$ aspect. Just project out 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. Current members are aging, there are fewer trails available, horse culture in general is shrinking. We need to keep thinking/wondering about how to keep this sport solvent. Currently the only way I can offer 50's and 100's is because of the income from the 25's. (and to a lesser extent, Trail Riders). 

The only thing that says 'endurance is 50 miles' is our writing it in the rule book as such. Rules can be changed. Concepts can be altered. 

All I know for sure is that this is a fantastic sport - and we need to start looking at the future, and figure out ways to keep on.

Think outside the box a little?

Steph

[ll cole]

I don't think its "thinking outside the box" to suggest we change the foundation upon which this sport was conceived. Anyone that's ever heard of endurance riding usually knows those crazy people go out and ride 50 miles in a day. Endurance riding has a long standing accepted and well known definition. Its what has set us apart from Competitive Trail Riding, NATRC and Mounted Orienteering. We need to preserve what we are and do a better job of marketing that or we need to create a new organization to support a different variation of distance riding.
 
As it is, there is nothing to keep a Ride Manager from putting on a 40 mile ride if that's what you think the solution might be. The problem is, some riders think they are not receiving equal recognition for riding a distance that is less than 50 miles, endurance. Every year it comes around, this year in a somewhat new variation, but it still boils down to a real or perceived slight someone feels they are experiencing. This year we just happen to be saying short trails are a culprit so we should change the sport to address it so that everyone is doing the same thing. Riding 10 miles of a 10 mile ride is not the same as riding the same 10 miles of a 50/75/100 mile ride. Same goes for 40 miles of a 40 mile ride.
 
I agree that the horse culture is shrinking so it is probably inevitable that our numbers will too. You say its not about dollars but then you say Ride Managers will not be able to afford to put on rides. That's about dollars. Maybe, we as Ride Managers need to tighten our belts a little. Maybe the "No Frills" rides are the wave of the future. Maybe we should, as Tevis does, let the riders pay for their awards if they want them. Maybe cut out the parties if the riders in your area need some cost relief. I know in Central Region most dinners are potluck and at some rides I've eaten better than at many restaurants!! Maybe some of our less attended rides won't survive. That sucks but I struggle to deal with the finances every year and continue on.
 
As far as short rides go, we all need to step up and address the problem and I hope its not as widespread as this thread has made it seem. As far as promoting AERC goes, I think we're struggling our way through it and making some progress in a floundering economy. I think we've got a good thing going through some tough times but Endurance Riders persevere. Let's tweak things a little, be innovative and tighten our belts, but not change the foundation of this sport we enjoy.

 
Barry Cole,  Kansas
 
 
 


Come join us on the Ozark Trail Endurance Rides: Real Endurance on a Real Trail!
The Ozark Trail 75/100, April 27, 2013 & The Hillbilly Shuffle 25/50 Endurance Ride, September 14-15, 2013
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OzarkTrailEnduranceRides/

 

---

From: steph....@gmail.com

Subject: Re: [RC] Some of My Ideas (was: A good indication...)

Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 11:23:36 -0600
To: ride...@endurance.net

[stephanie teeter]

Nobody has suggested replacing anything. Simply adding more options for those that want "a-bit-longish-but-not-too-hard rides" so that the ones that want the long hard rides can continue to have the opportunity to do so.

XP Rides (Dave Nicholson) has adapted by offering distances under 50 miles as 'club rides' so people can ride what they want, or so that he can offer non-competitive (AERC) rides through wilderness and parks that have restrictions. Dave's a smart guy with vision, and I don't think he's trying to dumb down the sport. He's just trying to keep his rides alive and continue to offer the opportunity for people to ride through spectacular country.

Joe - the last ride you did - was your attitude "I'm going to ride 50+ miles or nothing" ? Or was it "I want to go ride my horse a long distance on a safe and marked trail" ?

Steph

On May 29, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Joe Long <jl...@chiprider.com> wrote:

> Why does this sound like "We have to destroy the village in order to save it?"
>
> If the sport of ENDURANCE riding cannot survive without becoming something less than endurance riding, then I would say that it does not deserve to survive, and will go the way of other sports that have fallen out of favor. Maybe it could be replaced with "a-bit-longish-but-not-too-hard rides." Sure, you could shorten the rides and still CALL it endurance, but calling a daisy a rose does not change it into one.
>
> As a former ride manager I fully understand the economic necessity of the LD rides and riders for survival of the overall event. I have no problem with that.
>
> If we ever change the definition of an endurance ride, IMO it should be to INCREASE the minimum distance to 100 kilometers (60 miles). And it would sure help if we could find a way to assure that rides are actually their sanctioned distance.
>

[Joe Long]

On May 29, 2013, at 12:42 PM, stephanie teeter wrote:

> Nobody has suggested replacing anything. Simply adding more options for those that want "a-bit-longish-but-not-too-hard rides" so that the ones that want the long hard rides can continue to have the opportunity to do so.

There are already venues for shorter trail rides. LD currently offers 25 to 35 miles, do you really believe that adding 40 or 45 mile rides is going to save endurance riding? We already have the perennial demands from some LD riders to get the same recognition as the people who ride endurance rides -- do you not think the demands to count 40 or 45 mile rides as "endurance' would not be even stronger?

>
> XP Rides (Dave Nicholson) has adapted by offering distances under 50 miles as 'club rides' so people can ride what they want, or so that he can offer non-competitive (AERC) rides through wilderness and parks that have restrictions. Dave's a smart guy with vision, and I don't think he's trying to dumb down the sport. He's just trying to keep his rides alive and continue to offer the opportunity for people to ride through spectacular country.

That's good, by why does the AERC need to add another category, knowing that the pressures to count it as endurance will follow?

> Joe - the last ride you did - was your attitude "I'm going to ride 50+ miles or nothing" ? Or was it "I want to go ride my horse a long distance on a safe and marked trail" ?

I start the ride knowing that I will either complete the distance that I signed up for, or I will get nothing. A well-marked, reasonably safe trail is part of what makes a good endurance ride, but if you don't finish it with an unharmed horse, you have not achieved your goal. That's always been a core part of what we do: we set ourselves a tough but achievable goal, then do our best to achieve it. That's where real satisfaction comes from, not from awards or our name in a magazine. Most of all, we don't ask that the goalpost be moved closer for us to make it easier.

>
> Steph
>
> On May 29, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Joe Long <jl...@chiprider.com> wrote:
>
>> Why does this sound like "We have to destroy the village in order to save it?"
>>
>> If the sport of ENDURANCE riding cannot survive without becoming something less than endurance riding, then I would say that it does not deserve to survive, and will go the way of other sports that have fallen out of favor. Maybe it could be replaced with "a-bit-longish-but-not-too-hard rides." Sure, you could shorten the rides and still CALL it endurance, but calling a daisy a rose does not change it into one.
>>
>> As a former ride manager I fully understand the economic necessity of the LD rides and riders for survival of the overall event. I have no problem with that.
>>
>> If we ever change the definition of an endurance ride, IMO it should be to INCREASE the minimum distance to 100 kilometers (60 miles). And it would sure help if we could find a way to assure that rides are actually their sanctioned distance.
>>
>

[Maryben Stover]

I seem to remember that it was changed because we did not want 4 year old horses going 49 miles.



..........mb

 

---

From: steph....@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RC] Some of My Ideas (was: A good indication...)

Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 10:11:21 -0600
To: ride...@endurance.net

[Diane Trefethen]

Yes there is a hole in distances 35-50 miles and I agree with Kat that the hole
can be filled by fiat by the Board, no By-Laws change necessary since the Bylaws
do not address that hole AT ALL. Just create Middle Rides or Middle Distance,
MD, Rides and offer to add the miles for those rides to LD miles or track them
separately.

I agree with Barry and disagree with Steph about measuring "a 40 mile trail and
call it a 40 mile ride and adjust points accordingly." I'm pragmatic but not to
the point of sacrificing principles just because they are inconvenient. There is
a difference in how a horse handles a short ride vs a longer one. There is ample
evidence to indicate that the break point is around 40-45 miles.

Regarding getting a 50 mile course to actually BE 50 miles, Barry said, "Yes,
its a lot of work to accurately measure a course but it can be done." Although
there may be venues where an RM knows there are only 45 miles of usable trail,
that does NOT mean that the RM's only choice is to put on a 45 mile ride and
call it a 50. IF there really are short rides, that is IF THERE ARE, there is no
reason why an RM could not add a 5% out and back over the first loop to make a
45 mile ride into a 50.

[Joe Long]

I omitted cc'ing the list on this one, trying again:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Joe Long <jl...@chiprider.com>

Date: May 29, 2013 11:59:54 AM MDT

To: steph....@gmail.com

Subject: Re: [RC] Some of My Ideas (was: A good indication...)

Why does this sound like "We have to destroy the village in order to save it?"

If the sport of ENDURANCE riding cannot survive without becoming something less than endurance riding, then I would say that it does not deserve to survive, and will go the way of other sports that have fallen out of favor.  Maybe it could be replaced with "a-bit-longish-but-not-too-hard rides."  Sure, you could shorten the rides and still CALL it endurance, but calling a daisy a rose does not change it into one.

As a former ride manager I fully understand the economic necessity of the LD rides and riders for survival of the overall event.  I have no problem with that.  

If we ever change the definition of an endurance ride, IMO it should be to INCREASE the minimum distance to 100 kilometers (60 miles).  And it would sure help if we could find a way to assure that rides are actually their sanctioned distance.

On May 29, 2013, at 11:23 AM, stephanie teeter wrote:

>>
 
Let's not devolve or water down "endurance riding" in the quest for the dollar or because we're too lazy to do the work. 
 
Barry Cole,  Kansas
 

>>

Respectfully, it's not simply a quest for the dollar. It's a quest for survival of the sport - if ride managers cannot afford to host rides because the attendance is too low, they will stop hosting rides. In areas with low population centers this will be even more pronounced.  I could not afford to host rides w/o the shorter distance riders. I don't know if offering 40 mile rides would make a difference, probably not - but those of us that are looking for ways to keep the sport alive (keep people riding) are not just looking at the $$ aspect. Just project out 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. Current members are aging, there are fewer trails available, horse culture in general is shrinking. We need to keep thinking/wondering about how to keep this sport solvent. Currently the only way I can offer 50's and 100's is because of the income from the 25's. (and to a lesser extent, Trail Riders). 

The only thing that says 'endurance is 50 miles' is our writing it in the rule book as such. Rules can be changed. Concepts can be altered. 

All I know for sure is that this is a fantastic sport - and we need to start looking at the future, and figure out ways to keep on.

Think outside the box a little?

Steph