The Equine Welfare Reform Package

At the AERC convention in March, the Welfare of the Horse Committee presented a proposal to improve equine welfare in endurance.

The proposal reads as follows (from the AERC website):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Motion

1. Initial triage and treatment availability at all rides, including intravenous fluid therapy.

2. Thirty minutes to meet recovery pulse at the finish line, with exceptions where needed for rides
with finish lines far away from final checkpoints.

3. Recovery pulse rate at the finish lowered from 68 bpm to 64 (or less) bpm.

4. Horses must be six years of age to start a 100 mile ride.

5. Horses shall have Body Condition Scores of no less than 3.0 and no greater than 8.0 to start an
endurance ride.

6. Exams on all equines by a control judge before they leave the ride site, but no sooner than two
hours from when they cross the finish line.

7. Standardized control judge ride cards should be used nationally, with sections added for BCS
scores and graphs for each quadrant of the gastrointestinal examinations.

8. Rides should have at least one hold on distances of 25 miles or greater.

9. Rides should have at least two control judges, one of whom is able to provide treatment as
required by number 1 in this proposed motion, with exceptions where needed for wilderness rides.

Background, analysis and benefit

Other than the Drug Rule Policy, AERC has not had major substantive rule changes specifically relating to equine welfare since the 1990s. Our current rules are outdated and not protective enough as pertains to equine welfare. In addition stronger guidelines are needed for the inexperienced or novice rider, owner and/or veterinarian, who do not have the years, or even decades, of knowledge on how to safely complete an endurance ride. Improved, standardized veterinary control and
treatment from coast to coast will result in better quality control on a national level and across Canada. Stronger welfare measures will demonstrate our sincerity and desire to provide for a safe, humane and respectful environment for our horses to compete in that specifically aims at reducing “avoidable suffering,” and not just focusing on reducing overall fatalities. The standard has been raised worldwide on what the public perceives is acceptable treatment for horses competing in sporting events. AERC needs to look beyond preventing just death and destruction and consider what we can do as an organization, day to day during our endurance rides, to make competitions even safer, fairer and more comfortable for our horses.

-------------------------------------------------

 Well, now.

These are all laudable goals, and I support the changes in general. However, I feel it must be pointed out it is clear the changes are being pursued out of a need to Do Something. There is no evidence any of these changes will make a dent in the number of pulls and treatments at rides. We just feel the need to change the rules in order to look like we're forward thinking.

I don't have a problem with this, generally speaking. Honestly these rule changes are laudable, even if they don't change a thing. In the current issue of Endurance News, the Vice President's message includes a suggestion we need to make these changes because riders see horses getting treated and find it traumatic. I suppose those things happen, and I have certainly seen a horse crash. I wouldn't call the experience traumatic. Additionally, looking back on those treatments, I don't see how any of them would have been prevented by any of these rules.

From everything I've read and heard, this is a feel good measure which won't harm anything. Some things I would do a little differently than this list suggests, and there are a couple I would scotch.

Here are my positions on the changes:

1. Initial triage and treatment availability at all rides, including intravenous fluid therapy.

I have seen horses requiring treatment during a ride. I have never seen that treatment unavailable. This rule is fine, I don't think it changes anything, and I'm just a little surprised we feel we need to lay it out.

2. Thirty minutes to meet recovery pulse at the finish line, with exceptions where needed for rides
with finish lines far away from final checkpoints.

I'd like to know the definition of "far away." Never have I been to a ride where the finish line was more than a ten minute walk back to camp. And it's the managers of those rides who, when this was first proposed, objected the most strenuously to this change. I don't see how a ten minute walk back to camp should be considered anything less than part of the recovery. I would have this as a firm change, rather than "with exceptions."

3. Recovery pulse rate at the finish lowered from 68 bpm to 64 (or less) bpm.

I think 64 is just fine. I wouldn't drop it any lower than that. There are conditions under which I wouldn't want to see 60 as the recovery, and I really don't want to see 56. I also would like to see 56 as the bottom, as there is a point of diminishing returns, and I think that's it.

4. Horses must be six years of age to start a 100 mile ride.

Although it's been done, I don't know how you get a horse ready, both physically and mentally, for a 100 mile ride before it's at least six. More like seven.

5. Horses shall have Body Condition Scores of no less than 3.0 and no greater than 8.0 to start an
endurance ride.

I find myself a little conflicted on this one. My daughter's horse, Tahoe, went to his first ride a little on the thin side. Enough so I was pulled aside and had this pointed out to me. I knew he was thin. I also knew we'd had him for over six months, and despite everything I and the vet could do, he hadn't appreciably gained weight. He was better than he was when we got him. We took him to the ride because we had discovered he ate better when he had the right amount of work. Indeed, all the weight we'd finally managed to put on him had been after we started conditioning him for his first LD. By the time he went to his second ride, he'd put on an additional 50 pounds, and while that didn't make him normal weight, he wasn't as painfully thin as he had been. He would never put on enough weight to look normal, and I doubt he would ever have passed this standard. I think this standard is good, but knowing there are horses that will never achieve a "normal" body weight, it makes me a little sad.

6. Exams on all equines by a control judge before they leave the ride site, but no sooner than two
hours from when they cross the finish line.

The idea here is to make sure all the horses are fine before they go home. I understand the motivation. I'm sure there are horses that have crashed after leaving. I don't know if we know how many or how common it is. I really don't know how I feel about this one. I do know I'll be annoyed if I have to drag Hoss's head out of his food two hours after we've finished in order to haul him back to the vet, and he'll be annoyed, too.

7. Standardized control judge ride cards should be used nationally, with sections added for BCS
scores and graphs for each quadrant of the gastrointestinal examinations.

Yeah, I don't really see the advantage of this one. Maybe it's because I've done the XP rides, where you fill out a vet card, preprinted all As on the parameters, and toss it in the box, where it is never seen again. Once vet cards are used, they're given back to the riders or end up in a box somewhere collecting dust or are discarded. So this particular change doesn't improve data collection or aide in any way in research. I don't see it making a difference.

8. Rides should have at least one hold on distances of 25 miles or greater.

I suppose this is a good change. The only time I've ever seen a 25 mile ride lack a hold was at an XP ride where the Duck just hung out about halfway through the course and checked over those horses before sending them on their way. He did it that way because there was no way to get the LD horses and the 50 mile horses to a common vet check; the midway vet check for the 50 was back at camp. Under the circumstances, and knowing how the Duck feels about personal responsibility, I doubt this change could possibly make him happy. Since I find myself wanting the Duck to be happy, I don't want this change to happen.

9. Rides should have at least two control judges, one of whom is able to provide treatment as
required by number 1 in this proposed motion, with exceptions where needed for wilderness rides.

This is another of those changes I'm ambivalent about. I can't recall more than one ride with only one vet, and that one was fewer than 20 entrants, and all vet checks back in camp. And I'm not even sure I'm remembering correctly, and there may have been a second vet. I'm not sure. Like the requirement for veterinary treatment, this seems more like requiring something which is already effectively in place than making a necessary change.