Just a reminder that Ride Over the Rainbow is coming up soon!  If you enter
before the 19th of June you don't have to pay an extra $15!  AND if anyone
is doing the 100 I must have you entry fee in my hand by June 25th.  I need
5 paid entries before I can put on this distance!
Come and play with Rainbows!!


Barbara Holmes-Balmer
Ride Manager, Ride Over the Rainbow
July 3rd, 2004
(250)768-8206
www.img.net/erabc

Next weekend is the last chance you will have to get your/horse's name on
the Tribute Trail Map for Ride Over the Rainbow.  Come on all you
multi-dayers!  Pay tribute to those guys that carry you over hill and dale
for miles and miles!
A bit of history for those who don't know..................
It all started with Rainbow socks!  My mother used to knit Rainbow Sox for
me to use as awards at the ride.  When she died in 1997 some members of
ERABC thought it would be nice to name a part of the trail after her and
put up a plaque in her name.  From that idea grew the Rainbow Tribute
Trail.  Buy a mile of trail for $60 and have beautiful wooden plaque hung
at base camp during the Rainbow ride and a permanent sign posted on the
trail marking the mile of your choice!
As well as paying Tribute these signs have the added benefit of letting
riders know where they are on the trail.
Our horse trails were, and continue to be developed by a small group of
people who wished to hold an endurance ride over lovely trails which we
wanted to share and keep)!  This trail system, named Ride Over the Rainbow
is a permanently marked registered trail system which includes about 85
miles of game and cow trail, old forest road, a minimal amount of old
gravel road and a meadow from which the trails loop.
Check out our web site (www.img.net/erabc) for a request form and
photos.  Get your chosen name on the map now!


Barbara Holmes-Balmer
Ride Manager, Ride Over the Rainbow
July 3rd, 2004
(250)768-8206
www.img.net/erabc

testing

tvh

Thanks Merry! There are a lot of nice features about the Yahoo Groups
site. As moderator of the Forum my life gets significantly better. The
tools for managing the list are very straight forward and subscribers
can take care of many of their own issues without having to wait on me.

Enjoy!

Mike J.

   _____

From: Merry Wicklund [mailto:palouselady@...]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 8:45 AM
To: AERCMembersForum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AERCMembersForum] Re: Welcome to the new home of the AERC
Members Forum!


Good job Mike!!!  Very smooth transition to Yahoo.  I really like
the Yahoo groups and belong to several.  Everyone needs to check out
the group functions listed on the left side of the group page.  We
can post photos and files.  The CHAT is easy to set up and what is
more fun than a LIVE chat?  If anyone wants to chat, just post a
message with the date and time and see who shows up.  Also the
MEMBERS contains a list of everyone in the group. I have filled out
my profile, have y'all?

Yahoo's IM (Instant Messenger)is also fun to use, in addition to
text, it has voice and webcam.  You need a Yahoo nickname and its ez
to set up.  Check it out.  My nick is palouselady.

Don't let your sneakers leak..............Merry


--- In AERCMembersForum@yahoogroups.com, "jaffemr" <mjaffe@m...>
wrote:
> Team,
>
> We've officially moved to our new home here at Yahoo Groups.
Things
> work pretty much the same as they did at our old location.
>
> The basics that you need to know are:
>
>    Post message: AERCMembersForum@yahoogroups.com
>    Subscribe: AERCMembersForum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>    Unsubscribe: AERCMembersForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>    List owner: AERCMembersForum-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Our new home page can be found at:
>
>     groups.yahoo.com/group/AERCMembersForum/
>
> The digests here on Yahoo Groups are very good. If you or someone
> you know have been holding out for a quality Digest, the wait is
> over.
>
> Please help me spread the word about our new location.
>
> Thanks for your continued support of the AERC Members Forum!
>
> Mike Jaffe



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here
<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12947pbfe/M=298184.5022502.6152625.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705893628:HM/EXP=1086443265/A=2164330/R=0/SIG=11eamf8g4/*http://
www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60183350>

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=298184.5022502.6152625.3001176/D=group
s/S=:HM/A=2164330/rand=481480259>

   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links


* To visit your group on the web, go to:
	 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AERCMembersForum/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
	 AERCMembersForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:AERCMembersForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe
>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Good job Mike!!!  Very smooth transition to Yahoo.  I really like
the Yahoo groups and belong to several.  Everyone needs to check out
the group functions listed on the left side of the group page.  We
can post photos and files.  The CHAT is easy to set up and what is
more fun than a LIVE chat?  If anyone wants to chat, just post a
message with the date and time and see who shows up.  Also the
MEMBERS contains a list of everyone in the group. I have filled out
my profile, have y'all?

Yahoo's IM (Instant Messenger)is also fun to use, in addition to
text, it has voice and webcam.  You need a Yahoo nickname and its ez
to set up.  Check it out.  My nick is palouselady.

Don't let your sneakers leak..............Merry


--- In AERCMembersForum@yahoogroups.com, "jaffemr" <mjaffe@m...>
wrote:
> Team,
>
> We've officially moved to our new home here at Yahoo Groups.
Things
> work pretty much the same as they did at our old location.
>
> The basics that you need to know are:
>
>    Post message: AERCMembersForum@yahoogroups.com
>    Subscribe: AERCMembersForum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>    Unsubscribe: AERCMembersForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>    List owner: AERCMembersForum-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Our new home page can be found at:
>
>     groups.yahoo.com/group/AERCMembersForum/
>
> The digests here on Yahoo Groups are very good. If you or someone
> you know have been holding out for a quality Digest, the wait is
> over.
>
> Please help me spread the word about our new location.
>
> Thanks for your continued support of the AERC Members Forum!
>
> Mike Jaffe

Team,

We've officially moved to our new home here at Yahoo Groups. Things
work pretty much the same as they did at our old location.

The basics that you need to know are:

    Post message: AERCMembersForum@yahoogroups.com
    Subscribe: AERCMembersForum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
    Unsubscribe: AERCMembersForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    List owner: AERCMembersForum-owner@yahoogroups.com

Our new home page can be found at:

     groups.yahoo.com/group/AERCMembersForum/

The digests here on Yahoo Groups are very good. If you or someone
you know have been holding out for a quality Digest, the wait is
over.

Please help me spread the word about our new location.

Thanks for your continued support of the AERC Members Forum!

Mike Jaffe

Posted for Jerry Fruth.

*****************************
MONTANANS FOR MULTIPLE USE NEWS RELEASE MAY 5, 2004

Editors: Please consider the following information for use in current news or op
ed features.

Contacts: Fred Hodgeboom, President 406-837-1363, or 406-250-4006; Gary E. Hall,
Vice President 406-881-2345; Clarence Taber, Board of Directors 406-892-3722

www.mtmultipleuse.org.

REQUEST FOR INJUCTION FILED

Montanans For Multiple Use (MFMU) and thirteen co-plaintiffs* today filed a
motion with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia asking
the Court to issue a preliminary injunction which would, if granted, prohibit
the United States Forest Service from:

Closing, blocking, disturbing, or otherwise interfering with any roads, trails,
or other rights-of-way which is owned by private parties or by public entities
other than the United States Forest Service within the Flathead National Forest
or in any other National Forest.

Closing, blocking, disturbing, or otherwise interfering with any road, trail, or
other right-of-way within the Flathead National Forest or any National Forest
the closure of which is required or authorized by any of the Amendments which
are alleged in the Complaint as having cumulatively have resulted in a de facto
Plan revision without compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements
for such revisions including, without limitation, those authorized and/or
required by the "Regional" Amendments, Amendment 19, and any subsequent
amendment;

Adopting or processing further amendments to the existing Flathead National
Forest Plan prior to revision of the Plan as required by law, proposing any
further proposed amendments to the existing Flathead National Forest Plan prior
to the adoption of a revision of the Plan as required by law, adopting or
processing any further amendments in any National Forest in which a revision
pursuant to the NFMA is due or overdue, and implementing any Amendment to any
National Forest Plan adopted after fifteen years has passed from the time the
original Plan or last Plan revision was adopted; and

Further implementing or enforcing the "Regional Amendments", Amendments 19 and
24, and any amendment adopted from 1994 forward.

In addition, the motion asked the Court for an order imposing on the Defendants
a schedule for the prompt and expeditious development and implementation of a
Forest Plan Revision for the Flathead National Forest pursuant to the National
Forest Management Act. This order, if granted, would specifically direct the
defendants to comply with and take, forthwith, the actions mandated by NFMA
(16USC1604.(5) and 36 C.F.R. § 219.9) within a specified period.

MFMU 4/5/04 news release, p.2/3

The filing of this motion became necessary because of an approaching fire season
which will expose the public to a substantial health and safety risk and
because, notwithstanding the filing of the lawsuit by the MFMU and the other
plaintiffs, the defendants continue to process a continuous stream of
significant Amendments across the country. This ongoing process has misled the
public by disguising the frequent amendments as insignificant while diverting
resources from the revision process, and committing the defendants to policy
directions that should be reviewed in an integrated, comprehensive planning
process specified by law.

As a result of experiencing the systematic and unwavering implementation of this
process over the years, MFMU believes the Forest Service has long had a plan in
place to implement most of the provisions of their Orwellian vision of a Forest
Plan that manages people rather than natural resources.

By adopting frequent, piecemeal amendments, the changes desired by defendants
are put in place incrementally over time while the defendants avoid the
integrated comprehensive and open public process required by federal statutes.
This piecemeal approach also disguises from the public the fact that the final
product is a revised outdated Plan that is carried over into the revision
process as "Current Direction". Current Direction is the benchmark to which all
other alternatives are compared in the revision evaluation process. With a large
percentage of the changes the Forest Service wants already incorporated into
"Current Direction", it makes additional changes appear less drastic and less
costly to the public and to Congress, when in fact the vast trade off of public
benefits has already been made without the disclosures required by law.

MFMU has tried to stop this process for years by filing comments and
administrative appeals warning the Forest Service of illegal and cumulative
nature of their actions. Some of the actions appealed include Flathead Forest
Amendment 19, Regional Foresters OHV Amendment, Spotted Beetle road
obliteration, Moose road obliteration, Kootenai Lolo and IPNF Motorized Access
Management, and will include Flathead National Forest Snowmobile Amendment 24
when issued. In addition to revising the existing Forest Plan with cumulative
piecemeal amendments, these actions required site-specific changes to the long
term land use plan by obliterating roads in the suitable timber base in
furtherance of some unspecified new roadless management and "wilderness" vision
which violates the timber management requirements of federal law, and escapes
the limitations on designation of roadless and wilderness areas in federal law.

The elimination of roads and other actions in the amendments have cumulatively
resulted in increased fire hazards, increased probability of catastrophic fires,
increased fire fighting costs, increased risk and probability of damage to
natural resources, loss of critical timber industry jobs and infastructure, and
loss of private property and human lives. Many communities and families who have
lost their loved ones, and thousands of individuals have already suffered
economically and in quality of life because the Forest Service failed to assess
the cumulative effects of each amendment, and purposely ignored numerous laws
while at the same time refusing to implement a good faith effort to revise
forest plans as required by law.

MFMU 4/5/2004 news release, p. 3/3

Our assessment of this process was confirmed and documented by the Forest
Service when the "Proposed Action" for revision of the Bitterroot, Flathead, and
Lolo National Forest was released in January, 2004. MFMU’s critique of that
document along with the complete request for Preliminary Injunction and
supporting Declarations are available on the MFMU website:
www.mtmultipleuse.org.

As a result of the significant adverse effects of the implementation of these
illegal amendments, we are asking the Court to order the Forest Service to stop
processing additional amendments and to stop implementation of illegal
amendments on all National Forests while the Forest Plans due or overdue for
revision are revised in good faith.

Jim Hurst, President Owens and Hurst Lumber Company, Eureka, MT said "For too
long the Forest Service has used forest plan amendments to deny a multitude of
American citizens access to our National Forests. Grizzly bears and other causes
have been given precedence over our Senior Citizens, the disabled, the average
Joe, and resource starved wood products firms. The past actions of the Forest
Service must be challenged, unfortunately it appears the only way to do that is
through the Courts."

*Co-plaintiffs: Flathead County, Sanders County, Owens and Hurst Lumber Co.,
Flathead Business and Industry Association, Senator Jerry O’Neil, Representative
George Everett, Leland J. Moore, Lelands Honda, Montanans For Property Rights,
Capital Trail Vehicle Association, Flathead Snowmobile Association, Northwest
Montana Gold Prospectors, and North American Wolf Watch.

Submitted by: Fred D. Hodgeboom, President Montanans For Multiple Use

Please add me to your list. Hope Lundquist wwho20@...     Thanks
Hope

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Team,

Late tonight, Thursday, I'm going to flip the switch to move us to our new home
at Yahoo Groups. As much as Mike Maul and I have tried to do everything possible
to avoid any interruptions to the list, I'm sure we'll have a glitch or two.

My goal is to set you up on the new list in the same way as you were set up on
the old one. If you received emails there, you'll receive emails on the new one.
If you received the digest there, you'll receive digest on the new one. If you
have a Yahoo account you can make adjustments to your own subscription. If you
don't send an email to me at AERCMembersForum-owner@yahoogroups.com and I'll
change things for you.

If you haven't already asked to be subscribed to the Members Forum at Yahoo
Groups please use one of the two methods below so that we don't lose track of
you.

Method 1
You can sign up for a Yahoo account and get the benefit of self-administering
your subscription to the Members Forum and any other Yahoo lists you're on. To
do this start out at groups.yahoo.com and look for "Sign-Up." Afterwards you
should be able to add the AERC Members Forum to your account.

Method 2
You can simply send an email to the Members Forum requesting you be added. The
address is AERCMembersForum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. You will not be able to
change features of your subscription yourself but will have all of other the
benefits of the list.

I appreciate your support of the AERC Members Forum!

Mike Jaffe

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AERC-Members-Digest]
Date: Wed,  2 Jun 2004 04:18:16 -0700
From: AERCMembersForum-owner@... (List Server)

===================================================

Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 08:21:04 -0500
From: Michael Maul <mmaul@...>
Subject: [AERC-Members] Online AERC Point Standings updated

New point standings have been posted at
     http://www.doublejoy.com/erol/Points/default.asp

Rides prior to May 1 that are not included are:

Mar 14, 2004 Sand Hills Stampede II
    Patsy Gowen (8371) phone:803-329-0077
email:FireFoxRun@...

Mar 20, 2004 Bar H Boogie I & II
    Lynne Glazer (14580) phone:909-947-0775
email:anyone@...

Apr 17, 2004 Grizzly Mountain
    Linda L. Tribby (6305) phone:541-475-6199
email:ltribby@...

Apr 17, 2004 Shine and Shine Only IV
    Becky Grand Hart (1917) phone:408-997-0814
email:randomrio@...

Apr 24, 2004 AHDRA I/Region 11 Endurance Championship
    Joyce Mocilan (11018) phone:309-829-5125
email:endurance@...

Apr 24, 2004 Antelope Island
    MJ Jackson (2892) phone:801-254-4347
email:sundownr@...

Apr 24, 2004 Sonora Classic
    Anne Neary (M21118) phone:250-497-6026 email:nearyta@...

Apr 25, 2004 Aprilfest
    Fred R. Buchanan (M22729) phone:519-323-3146
email:fredbuchanan@...



===================================================

Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Could not find AERC Forum
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 08:36:19 -0500
From: "Mike Jaffe" <mjaffe@...>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C447DD.6C06E9B9
Content-Type: text/plain;
	 charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Tom,
=20
I don't think I have it listed in the public directory side
of Yahoo
yet. You can find the site at
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/AERCMembersForum/.
=20
Mike J.

    _____ =20

From: AERCMembersForum-owner@...
[mailto:AERCMembersForum-owner@...] On Behalf Of
Tom Dean
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 9:35 AM
To: AERCMembersForum@...
Subject: [AERC-Members] Could not find AERC Forum


I did a search of Yahoo Groups and they do not show an "AERC
MEMBERS
FORUM"????
=20
Thanks,
=20
Tom Dean
=20
The more I learn, the less I know.
=20


===================================================

From: "Christopher Scott Sansom" <sansom@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 22:02:04 -0700
Hello all,
I normally just lurk, reading a few posts after it gets to
dark to ride.
But I think it is time I put my two cents in.
I believe it is good the list discusses all the issues it
does.   However, I
read a lot of personal attacks in the posts over the last
couple of weeks.
This I disagree with.   As I see it ( my opinion) Roger,
Randy, and all the
other people involved on the Fort Stanton project are out
doing something to
promote our sport/good reputation.   Not many of us stop
riding, or typing,
and actually go volunteer to do "work" to promote our sport.
    So post your
opinion but please remember if you beat up the volunteers
they won't be back
for the next event.   And then YOU will need to become the
volunteer.

So go ride your horses more and your keyboards less.

Scott Sansom
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Teeter" <johnt@...>
To: <KimFue@...>
Cc: "aerc List" <AERCMembersForum@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict


> Kim,
>
> It was pointed out to me that the RM of the ride which uses the project
site cast a vote with respect to the project. In my opinion,
a conflict of
interest was involved. It seemed important enough that a
discussion occur
amongst the members to establish the proper precedence.
>
> When I asked the original question on the members list, I didn't
specifically say who was in conflict (only referencing the
sw directors) and
that anyone in conflict should have not have voted on the
issue. I also
think there has been a long term effort behind the scenes to
make that
particular ride site the permanent home of the AERC
championship event and I
mentioned that as well.
>
> I didn't specifically say who was in conflict on the vote. He is a sw
director and the manager of the ride. The other sw director
sanctions the
rides held at that site and has used that site in the past
for his rides as
well. From my perspective, it is difficult to tell the
difference between
these two individuals. They have passed rides back and forth
between them
quite frequently over the past years. They tend to act as
one in matters
concerning AERC. Nothing particularly wrong with that except
that it becomes
a bit difficult to pin down the details at times. It becomes
difficult to
tell one from the other at a distance.
>
> But in this case, only the RM is in conflict. He should not have voted
either for or against this issue. AERC should encourage
clarity in this area
and discourage the establishment of president which
justifies conflicted
actions.
>
> Finally, I suggested that ride venues which support higher participation
levels might be worthy of AERC trails infrastructure grants
as well. It was
mentioned later in the discussion that the two example
rides, Biltmore and
Tevis, have not requested grant funds from AERC. To that
issue, I suggest
that AERC should become more proactive in the grants
solicitation process.
Identify those venues which it wishes to fund and work with
the interested
parties to establish the projects which are suitable.
>
> It is too bad that the non-RM was called into question, but reputations
have a way of inducing bias.
>
> ride well:)
>
> jt.
>
> note: as to the conflict statements on file with the AERC. These are to be
updated annually I think? In the case of the one shown on
this list, the
activity of Ride Management was mentioned as an area of
conflict.
>
> ==== original post ====
>
>
> It was pointed out to me that there is a conflict of interest within the
southwest region directors concerning the recent vote to
allocate additional
AERC funds to the improvements of the Fort Stanton ride site.
>
> At the very least, the ride manager of the Fort Stanton event should have
abstained from this vote to avoid the conflict. Possibly the
ride vet(s)
should also have abstained? Is it a conflict of interest for
the Ride
Manager to have voted to allocate these funds?
>
> More broadly, the total allocated funds from AERC for this one ride site
seems very high as compared to the number of riders (@60
last year) who
attend the ride.
>
> This is phase 4 of the project(s), what funds did AERC provide for phases
1-3??), are future phases anticipated?
>
> Is AERC really building the future permanent home of the AERC (US+CA)
National Championship Event?
>
> MikeJ, do you know the total $s AERC has provided for Fort Stanton
improvement? Do you feel these to be in line with the level
of AERC usage of
the venue? (just to contrast, Biltmore just hosted 200+ AERC
members w/o any
support from AERC for trails maintenance). Tevis will host
200+ w/o any AERC
grants support. etc.
>
> johnt
>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-
-= Discussion List Archives:
http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
=-
-= Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:
AERCMembersForum-moderator@...
=-
-= Rules of Usage: http://www.goldhill.com/members/rules.html
=-
-= Disclaimer of liability:
http://www.goldhill.com/members/liability.html
=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

New point standings have been posted at
    http://www.doublejoy.com/erol/Points/default.asp

Rides prior to May 1 that are not included are:

Mar 14, 2004 Sand Hills Stampede II
   Patsy Gowen (8371) phone:803-329-0077
email:FireFoxRun@...

Mar 20, 2004 Bar H Boogie I & II
   Lynne Glazer (14580) phone:909-947-0775
email:anyone@...

Apr 17, 2004 Grizzly Mountain
   Linda L. Tribby (6305) phone:541-475-6199
email:ltribby@...

Apr 17, 2004 Shine and Shine Only IV
   Becky Grand Hart (1917) phone:408-997-0814
email:randomrio@...

Apr 24, 2004 AHDRA I/Region 11 Endurance Championship
   Joyce Mocilan (11018) phone:309-829-5125
email:endurance@...

Apr 24, 2004 Antelope Island
   MJ Jackson (2892) phone:801-254-4347
email:sundownr@...

Apr 24, 2004 Sonora Classic
   Anne Neary (M21118) phone:250-497-6026 email:nearyta@...

Apr 25, 2004 Aprilfest
   Fred R. Buchanan (M22729) phone:519-323-3146
email:fredbuchanan@...

The BLM Press Release for AERC/Roger Taylor prestigious Take
Pride in America Award is in the Recent News section of AERC
Online at

http://www.aerc.org/

Mike

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AERC-Members-Digest]
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 04:25:59 -0700
From: AERCMembersForum-owner@... (List Server)

===================================================

Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 08:22:34 -0600
From: John Teeter <johnt@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Kim,

It was pointed out to me that the RM of the ride which uses
the project site cast a vote with respect to the project. In
my opinion, a conflict of interest was involved. It seemed
important enough that a discussion occur amongst the members
to establish the proper precedence.

When I asked the original question on the members list, I
didn't specifically say who was in conflict (only
referencing the sw directors) and that anyone in conflict
should have not have voted on the issue. I also think there
has been a long term effort behind the scenes to make that
particular ride site the permanent home of the AERC
championship event and I mentioned that as well.

I didn't specifically say who was in conflict on the vote.
He is a sw director and the manager of the ride. The other
sw director sanctions the rides held at that site and has
used that site in the past for his rides as well. From my
perspective, it is difficult to tell the difference between
these two individuals. They have passed rides back and forth
between them quite frequently over the past years. They tend
to act as one in matters concerning AERC. Nothing
particularly wrong with that except that it becomes a bit
difficult to pin down the details at times. It becomes
difficult to tell one from the other at a distance.

But in this case, only the RM is in conflict. He should not
have voted either for or against this issue. AERC should
encourage clarity in this area and discourage the
establishment of president which justifies conflicted actions.

Finally, I suggested that ride venues which support higher
participation levels might be worthy of AERC trails
infrastructure grants as well. It was mentioned later in the
discussion that the two example rides, Biltmore and Tevis,
have not requested grant funds from AERC. To that issue, I
suggest that AERC should become more proactive in the grants
solicitation process. Identify those venues which it wishes
to fund and work with the interested parties to establish
the projects which are suitable.

It is too bad that the non-RM was called into question, but
reputations have a way of inducing bias.

ride well:)

jt.

note: as to the conflict statements on file with the AERC.
These are to be updated annually I think? In the case of the
one shown on this list, the activity of Ride Management was
mentioned as an area of conflict.

==== original post ====


It was pointed out to me that there is a conflict of
interest within the southwest region directors concerning
the recent vote to allocate additional AERC funds to the
improvements of the Fort Stanton ride site.

At the very least, the ride manager of the Fort Stanton
event should have abstained from this vote to avoid the
conflict. Possibly the ride vet(s) should also have
abstained? Is it a conflict of interest for the Ride Manager
to have voted to allocate these funds?

More broadly, the total allocated funds from AERC for this
one ride site seems very high as compared to the number of
riders (@60 last year) who attend the ride.

This is phase 4 of the project(s), what funds did AERC
provide for phases 1-3??), are future phases anticipated?

Is AERC really building the future permanent home of the
AERC (US+CA) National Championship Event?

MikeJ, do you know the total $s AERC has provided for Fort
Stanton improvement? Do you feel these to be in line with
the level of AERC usage of the venue? (just to contrast,
Biltmore just hosted 200+ AERC members w/o any support from
AERC for trails maintenance). Tevis will host 200+ w/o any
AERC grants support. etc.

johnt



===================================================

From: "Jerry Fruth" <jerryfruth@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 10:15:46 -0500
John:
The ride management at the Tevis and the Biltmore know my
telephone number and e-mail address.  I'm not about to go around
knocking on doors looking for folks that want some of our money.
The grant process is a competitive process.  Those who choose to
come to the table with a well done proposal, will get a hard
look
from the Grants committee.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Teeter" <johnt@...>
To: <KimFue@...>
Cc: "aerc List" <AERCMembersForum@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict


> Kim,
>
> It was pointed out to me that the RM of the ride which uses the project
site cast a vote with respect to the project. In my opinion,
a conflict of
interest was involved. It seemed important enough that a
discussion occur
amongst the members to establish the proper precedence.
>
> When I asked the original question on the members list, I didn't
specifically say who was in conflict (only referencing the
sw directors) and
that anyone in conflict should have not have voted on the
issue. I also
think there has been a long term effort behind the scenes to
make that
particular ride site the permanent home of the AERC
championship event and I
mentioned that as well.
>
> I didn't specifically say who was in conflict on the vote. He is a sw
director and the manager of the ride. The other sw director
sanctions the
rides held at that site and has used that site in the past
for his rides as
well. From my perspective, it is difficult to tell the
difference between
these two individuals. They have passed rides back and forth
between them
quite frequently over the past years. They tend to act as
one in matters
concerning AERC. Nothing particularly wrong with that except
that it becomes
a bit difficult to pin down the details at times. It becomes
difficult to
tell one from the other at a distance.
>
> But in this case, only the RM is in conflict. He should not have voted
either for or against this issue. AERC should encourage
clarity in this area
and discourage the establishment of president which
justifies conflicted
actions.
>
> Finally, I suggested that ride venues which support higher participation
levels might be worthy of AERC trails infrastructure grants
as well. It was
mentioned later in the discussion that the two example
rides, Biltmore and
Tevis, have not requested grant funds from AERC. To that
issue, I suggest
that AERC should become more proactive in the grants
solicitation process.
Identify those venues which it wishes to fund and work with
the interested
parties to establish the projects which are suitable.
>
> It is too bad that the non-RM was called into question, but reputations
have a way of inducing bias.
>
> ride well:)
>
> jt.
>
> note: as to the conflict statements on file with the AERC. These are to be
updated annually I think? In the case of the one shown on
this list, the
activity of Ride Management was mentioned as an area of
conflict.
>
> ==== original post ====
>
>
> It was pointed out to me that there is a conflict of interest within the
southwest region directors concerning the recent vote to
allocate additional
AERC funds to the improvements of the Fort Stanton ride site.
>
> At the very least, the ride manager of the Fort Stanton event should have
abstained from this vote to avoid the conflict. Possibly the
ride vet(s)
should also have abstained? Is it a conflict of interest for
the Ride
Manager to have voted to allocate these funds?
>
> More broadly, the total allocated funds from AERC for this one ride site
seems very high as compared to the number of riders (@60
last year) who
attend the ride.
>
> This is phase 4 of the project(s), what funds did AERC provide for phases
1-3??), are future phases anticipated?
>
> Is AERC really building the future permanent home of the AERC (US+CA)
National Championship Event?
>
> MikeJ, do you know the total $s AERC has provided for Fort Stanton
improvement? Do you feel these to be in line with the level
of AERC usage of
the venue? (just to contrast, Biltmore just hosted 200+ AERC
members w/o any
support from AERC for trails maintenance). Tevis will host
200+ w/o any AERC
grants support. etc.
>
> johnt
>
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-
> =-
> -= Discussion List Archives: http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
> =-
> -= Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto: AERCMembersForum-moderator@...
> =-
> -= Rules of Usage: http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
> =-
> -= Terms of Usage & Liability:
http://www.goldhill.com/members/liability.html
> =-
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-
>
>

===================================================

Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 08:50:17 -0700
From: "List Moderator" <AERCMembersForum-Moderator@...>
Reply-To: <AERCMembersForum-Moderator@...>
Subject: [AERC-Members] The Forum is moving and I need your
help!
Team,

As you know the AERC Members Forum is moving to a new home
at Yahoo Groups. I think you'll like the improved feature
functionality. There are two ways to join our Forum on Yahoo.

If you have not already received an individual email telling
you you've been added to the new list please select your
preferred method below and do one of the following ASAP.
This will help us get everyone moved over more quickly. I
will not turn on email coming from the new list until next
Friday, June 4 when we'll officially move to Yahoo.

Method 1
You can sign up for a Yahoo account and get the benefit of
self-administering your subscription to the Members Forum
and any other Yahoo lists you're on. To do this start out at
groups.yahoo.com and look for "Sign-Up." Afterwards you
should be able to add the AERC Members Forum to your account.

Method 2
You can simply send an email to the Members Forum requesting
you be added. The address is
AERCMembersForum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. You will not be
able to change features of your subscription yourself but
will have all of other the benefits of the list.

I've configured the archives to be open to the public.
Anyone can view them. They are at
groups.yahoo.com/groups/AERCMembersForum. If you've been
waiting for a better digest function I think you'll be
pleased with the one Yahoo generates.

I appreciate your support of the AERC Members Forum!

Mike Jaffe
===================================================

From: Oldwaggy@...
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 13:26:31 EDT
Subject: [AERC-Members] Announcement re LD BC

-------------------------------1085678791
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

There has been an active debate on this and other lists
about the merits of
the proposal to require every ride manager who holds a
limited distance ride to
provide a best condition award which follows the AERC form
requiring a top
ten finish to qualify. I have also heard from dozens of AERC
members on this
topic at every ride I've attended in the last few months.
Before the debate
continues further, I would like to inform everyone that the
AERC Limited Distance
Committee has notified the members of the Board of Directors
that it is
withdrawing the proposal.

By way of background, the proposal was first stated in
general terms by the
LD Committee several months ago.  A motion to adopt the
proposal was approved
by the Board near the beginning of the regular board meeting
on the day before
the convention in February.  To be more exact, the motion
was to change the
word "may" to "will" in Rule L9.  The Rules Committee was
also directed to come
up with a revision of Rule L9.2 to remove the language
making the use of the
AERC best condition system optional.  I did not participate
int that part of
the meeting because I had to take a late flight after an all
day legal
proceeding.

At the next meeting of Board the day after the convention, I
made a motion to
defer final adoption of the proposal until the 2004 midyear
meeting.  We
realized that the edition of EN discussing the proposal had
not yet reached all of
our members.  We wanted to give our membership the ability
to discuss and
comment on the proposal at length before we made our final
decision.  The Board
approved the motion to defer the final decision and the
discussion on this and
other lists ensued.

I have no reason to reiterate the pro's and con's of the
proposal here
because they have been so thoroughly discussed by others.
The Board has received
(and is still receiving) over a hundred emails on the
subject.  It is fair to
say the membership is evenly divided on the topic.  Many
ride managers in the
West and Pacific Southwest Regions oppose the proposal,
however.  There has been
surprisingly little comment by LD riders in those regions
who might want the
award.

In any event, the LD Committee is withdrawing the proposal.
It will be making
a new proposal at the midyear meeting for the AERC to
provide a national LD
best condition award to supplement the regional LD best
condition awards we
currently provide.  The chairperson of the LD Committee,
Terry Wooley Howe, has
prepared an article discussing all of this in more detail
which will appear
both on the AERC website and in Endurance News.

I, for one, learned a lot from the input of the membership
and very much
appreciate the effort people have made to communicate with
me and other members of
the Board of Directors.  Regardless of what your position
might have been in
this discussion, I hope everyone joins me in applauding the
members of the LD
Committee for their willingness to listen, for their
creativity and for their
ability to stay positive in the face of controversy.

John Parke



From: EquesB@...
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 16:09:28 EDT
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict

-------------------------------1085688568
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 5-27-2004 10:23 A Eastern Daylight Time,
johnt@... writes:
To that issue, I suggest that AERC should become more
proactive in the grants
solicitation process. Identify those venues which it wishes
to fund and work
with the interested parties to establish the projects which
are suitable.
John;

What do you suggest AERC do?  The process is on the website
and in EN.
Anyone who has in the past addressed a trails advocate for
help, at least in my
neighborhood, is informed of the trails grant and encouraged
to apply.

Jackie Baker
Florida

PS: The trails grant are for developing equestrian trails
and amenities. The
Biltmore is privately owned and therefore is not accessible
to the general
public.


Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 16:23:58 -0600
From: John Teeter <johnt@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict
hmmmm....how about each of the state trails advocates be
asked to specifiy their top 10 list of project in their
state (or 5 or 1) and then have that list presented to the
trails committee and then a priority for be assigned for
each identified project as it is reviewed and then the
projects funded by that priority (as it is adjusted over
time) so that predictability, budgeting, and sound planning
can be applied to the long term support of the trails
systems where AERC riders ride.

but that's just an off the top suggestion. Proactive means
that the AERC work at the planning process rather than being
reactive (as in whenever someones thinks to address a trails
advaocate for help and the projects being presented to the
trails committee ad hoc and reviewed in a relative vacuum.

jt.

At 02:09 PM 5/27/2004, you wrote:
>In a message dated 5-27-2004 10:23 A Eastern Daylight Time, johnt@...
writes:
>To that issue, I suggest that AERC should become more proactive in the grants
solicitation process. Identify those venues which it wishes to fund and work
with the interested parties to establish the projects which are suitable.
>
>John;
>
>What do you suggest AERC do?  The process is on the website and in EN.  Anyone
who has in the past addressed a trails advocate for help, at least in my
neighborhood, is informed of the trails grant and encouraged to apply.
>
>Jackie Baker
>Florida
>
>PS: The trails grant are for developing equestrian trails and amenities. The
Biltmore is privately owned and therefore is not accessible to the general
public.
>

===================================================

Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 19:27:05 -0700
From: MARY VISCO <mfvisco@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Announcement re LD BC
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_6/vRBbJwT2jlRTPsHParrQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

I am just checking to see if this is working. Could someone
tell me if I got through to the group? Thanks
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Oldwaggy@...
    To: ridecamp@... ; aercmembersforum@...
    Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 10:26 AM
    Subject: [AERC-Members] Announcement re LD BC


    There has been an active debate on this and other lists
about the merits of the proposal to require every ride
manager who holds a limited distance ride to provide a best
condition award which follows the AERC form requiring a top
ten finish to qualify. I have also heard from dozens of AERC
members on this topic at every ride I've attended in the
last few months.  Before the debate continues further, I
would like to inform everyone that the AERC Limited Distance
Committee has notified the members of the Board of Directors
that it is withdrawing the proposal.

    By way of background, the proposal was first stated in
general terms by the LD Committee several months ago.  A
motion to adopt the proposal was approved by the Board near
the beginning of the regular board meeting on the day before
the convention in February.  To be more exact, the motion
was to change the word "may" to "will" in Rule L9.  The
Rules Committee was also directed to come up with a revision
of Rule L9.2 to remove the language making the use of the
AERC best condition system optional.  I did not participate
int that part of the meeting because I had to take a late
flight after an all day legal proceeding.

    At the next meeting of Board the day after the
convention, I made a motion to defer final adoption of the
proposal until the 2004 midyear meeting.  We realized that
the edition of EN discussing the proposal had not yet
reached all of our members.  We wanted to give our
membership the ability to discuss and comment on the
proposal at length before we made our final decision.  The
Board approved the motion to defer the final decision and
the discussion on this and other lists ensued.

    I have no reason to reiterate the pro's and con's of the
proposal here because they have been so thoroughly discussed
by others.  The Board has received (and is still receiving)
over a hundred emails on the subject.  It is fair to say the
membership is evenly divided on the topic.  Many ride
managers in the West and Pacific Southwest Regions oppose
the proposal, however.  There has been surprisingly little
comment by LD riders in those regions who might want the
award.

    In any event, the LD Committee is withdrawing the
proposal. It will be making a new proposal at the midyear
meeting for the AERC to provide a national LD best condition
award to supplement the regional LD best condition awards we
currently provide.  The chairperson of the LD Committee,
Terry Wooley Howe, has prepared an article discussing all of
this in more detail which will appear both on the AERC
website and in Endurance News.

    I, for one, learned a lot from the input of the
membership and very much appreciate the effort people have
made to communicate with me and other members of the Board
of Directors.  Regardless of what your position might have
been in this discussion, I hope everyone joins me in
applauding the members of the LD Committee for their
willingness to listen, for their creativity and for their
ability to stay positive in the face of controversy.

    John Parke


Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 19:30:32 -0700
From: MARY VISCO <mfvisco@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Announcement re LD BC
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_t4ryHBBh/3VnY4P1zihu7A)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: MARY VISCO
    To: Oldwaggy@... ; ridecamp@... ;
aercmembersforum@...
    Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 7:27 PM
    Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Announcement re LD BC


    I am just checking to see if this is working. Could
someone tell me if I got through to the group? Thanks
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Oldwaggy@...
      To: ridecamp@... ; aercmembersforum@...
      Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 10:26 AM
      Subject: [AERC-Members] Announcement re LD BC


      There has been an active debate on this and other lists
about the merits of the proposal to require every ride
manager who holds a limited distance ride to provide a best
condition award which follows the AERC form requiring a top
ten finish to qualify. I have also heard from dozens of AERC
members on this topic at every ride I've attended in the
last few months.  Before the debate continues further, I
would like to inform everyone that the AERC Limited Distance
Committee has notified the members of the Board of Directors
that it is withdrawing the proposal.

      By way of background, the proposal was first stated in
general terms by the LD Committee several months ago.  A
motion to adopt the proposal was approved by the Board near
the beginning of the regular board meeting on the day before
the convention in February.  To be more exact, the motion
was to change the word "may" to "will" in Rule L9.  The
Rules Committee was also directed to come up with a revision
of Rule L9.2 to remove the language making the use of the
AERC best condition system optional.  I did not participate
int that part of the meeting because I had to take a late
flight after an all day legal proceeding.

      At the next meeting of Board the day after the
convention, I made a motion to defer final adoption of the
proposal until the 2004 midyear meeting.  We realized that
the edition of EN discussing the proposal had not yet
reached all of our members.  We wanted to give our
membership the ability to discuss and comment on the
proposal at length before we made our final decision.  The
Board approved the motion to defer the final decision and
the discussion on this and other lists ensued.

      I have no reason to reiterate the pro's and con's of
the proposal here because they have been so thoroughly
discussed by others.  The Board has received (and is still
receiving) over a hundred emails on the subject.  It is fair
to say the membership is evenly divided on the topic.  Many
ride managers in the West and Pacific Southwest Regions
oppose the proposal, however.  There has been surprisingly
little comment by LD riders in those regions who might want
the award.

      In any event, the LD Committee is withdrawing the
proposal. It will be making a new proposal at the midyear
meeting for the AERC to provide a national LD best condition
award to supplement the regional LD best condition awards we
currently provide.  The chairperson of the LD Committee,
Terry Wooley Howe, has prepared an article discussing all of
this in more detail which will appear both on the AERC
website and in Endurance News.

      I, for one, learned a lot from the input of the
membership and very much appreciate the effort people have
made to communicate with me and other members of the Board
of Directors.  Regardless of what your position might have
been in this discussion, I hope everyone joins me in
applauding the members of the LD Committee for their
willingness to listen, for their creativity and for their
ability to stay positive in the face of controversy.

      John Parke


=-
-= Discussion List Archives:
http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
=-
-= Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:
AERCMembersForum-moderator@...
=-
-= Rules of Usage: http://www.goldhill.com/members/rules.html
=-
-= Disclaimer of liability:
http://www.goldhill.com/members/liability.html
=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I was searching Google for something AERC related and I found the
following article by the US Department of the Interior that I had not
seen before- it is much nicer in its pdf
format which I have attached .  Great PR for AERC....

Randy Eiland



NEWS RELEASE Contact: Lisa Morrison 505-438-7526

For Immediate Release: April 7, 2004

Roger Taylor, American Endurance Ride Conference,
Receives Prestigious Departmental Award

(Fort Stanton, New Mexico) – Department of Interior Bureau of Land
Management Director Kathleen Clarke presented Roger Taylor, Southwest
Director of the American
Endurance Ride Conference (AERC), with the prestigious Take Pride in
America Award today in a
ceremony near Fort Stanton, New Mexico. Mr. Taylor, who resides in
Albuquerque, received this award for
contributing over 5,000 volunteer hours leading numerous AERC volunteers
in the development of a
horse trails system in the Fort Stanton Area of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACEC) managed by the
Bureau of Land Management in Lincoln County, New Mexico.
In the ceremony, Director Clarke cited Mr. Taylor’s and the AERC’s many
accomplishments in service to
America by surveying and signing horseback riding trails on the Fort
Stanton ACEC, by making
improvements in providing water and power to the horse trails visitor
area, and by planning and
coordinating several endurance ride events held there. She also cited the
national attention received by Roger and the AERC for their partnership
with the BLM in national
magazines like the Arabian Horse World.
About the Awardees

Mr. Roger Taylor
• Director of AERC for its first four years and is currently Southwest
Region Director
• A rider for 30+ years with 5 children that have ridden thousands of
miles
• Ride manager for many one, three and five day endurance rides,
including a six day event scheduled for Fort Stanton ACEC this June.

About Take Pride in America
Take Pride in America is a national partnership that aims to seek,
support and recognize volunteers who work to improve our public parks,
forests, grasslands, reservoirs and wildlife refuges, as well as our
cultural and historic sites, local playgrounds and other recreation
areas. With 100 Charter Partners, Take
Pride involves federal, state and local governments, conservation, youth
and recreation groups, and top
national corporations and organizations. Together, we protect and enhance
the special legacy all
Americans share – our public lands that cover one in every three acres
across the nation.

For more information visit: www.TakePride.gov.
-- DOI --



Yahoo! Groups Links




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AERC-Members-Digest]
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 04:42:25 -0700
From: AERCMembersForum-owner@... (List Server)

===================================================

Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 14:20:24 -0600
From: John Teeter <johnt@...>
Subject: [AERC-Members] Fwd: Conflict of interest?
It was pointed out to me that there is a conflict of
interest within the southwest region directors concerning
the recent vote to allocate additional AERC funds to the
improvements of the Fort Stanton ride site.

At the very least, the ride manager of the Fort Stanton
event should have abstained from this vote to avoid the
conflict. Possibly the ride vet(s) should also have
abstained? Is it a conflict of interest for the Ride Manager
to have voted to allocate these funds?

More broadly, the total allocated funds from AERC for this
one ride site seems very high as compared to the number of
riders (@60 last year) who attend the ride.

This is phase 4 of the project(s), what funds did AERC
provide for phases 1-3??), are future phases anticipated?

Is AERC really building the future permanent home of the
AERC (US+CA) National Championship Event?

MikeJ, do you know the total $s AERC has provided for Fort
Stanton improvement? Do you feel these to be in line with
the level of AERC usage of the venue? (just to contrast,
Biltmore just hosted 200+ AERC members w/o any support from
AERC for trails maintenance). Tevis will host 200+ w/o any
AERC grants support. etc.

johnt

============

   From the board minutes -

Mike Jaffe, Trails Grants Committee Chair, presented a
motion from committee to approve funding of $5000, a funding
share agreement with the BLM to complete Phase IV of the
Fort Stanton project.  If approved, electricity will be
added to the trailhead facility.  Connie Caudill requested a
roll call vote with results as follows:  17 yes votes/1 no
vote, with 2 members not voting as they joined the call
after voting took place.  Jan Jeffers-Yes; Mike Jaffe-Yes;
Roberta Harms-Yes; Connie Caudill-No; Howard Kent-Yes; Gail
Williams-Yes; Bob Morris-Yes; John Parke-Yes; Duane
Barnett-Yes; Randy Eiland-Yes; Roger Taylor-Yes; Nick
Warhol-Yes; Jim Baldwin-Yes; Barney Fleming-Yes; Dane
Frazier-Yes; Mike Maul-Yes; Stagg Newman-Yes; Robert
Ribley-Yes; Patti Pizzo and Terry Woolley Howe did not vote
as they joined the call after voting took place.

======

===================================================

Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Fwd: Conflict of interest? (long)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 16:12:06 -0500
From: "Mike Jaffe" <mjaffe@...>
John,

All good questions and I'll try and answer the ones I have
knowledge of.


The Fort Stanton Horse Trails Project has been a joint pilot
project
between the AERC and the BLM to develop a permanent
recreational area to
be used by endurance riders as well as other outdoor
enthusiasts. Phase
I of the project was to build permanent trail head restrooms
and trails.
Phase II was the creation of significantly more trails (~200
miles).
Phase III was the installation of a permanent potable water
system at
the trail head (The AERC contributed $3500 towards this $80K
project).=20

I believe the value of the Fort Stanton project is in
furthering a good
working relationship with the BLM, not just in New Mexico
but across the
country. I am not aware of any other plans to invest further
in Fort
Stanton.

I hear your concern on the question of equity in investing
in locations
based on the number of riders that use it during
competitions. It's a
valid question. Generally I think we should go for the
biggest bang for
our buck. That would include leveraging our modest
contributions to
significantly larger matching funds, largest human volunteer
contributions, donations, number of rides/riders benefited
and finally
any publicity opportunities.

I encourage you and others who have an interest in Trails
Projects to
bring them to the attention of the Trails Committee who can
help work
them up and then present them to the Trails Grants Committee for
consideration.

:-)

Mike J.



=20

-----Original Message-----
From: AERCMembersForum-owner@...
[mailto:AERCMembersForum-owner@...] On Behalf Of
John Teeter
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 3:20 PM
To: Aerc List
Subject: [AERC-Members] Fwd: Conflict of interest?

It was pointed out to me that there is a conflict of
interest within the
southwest region directors concerning the recent vote to
allocate
additional AERC funds to the improvements of the Fort
Stanton ride site.


At the very least, the ride manager of the Fort Stanton
event should
have abstained from this vote to avoid the conflict.
Possibly the ride
vet(s) should also have abstained? Is it a conflict of
interest for the
Ride Manager to have voted to allocate these funds?

More broadly, the total allocated funds from AERC for this
one ride site
seems very high as compared to the number of riders (@60
last year) who
attend the ride.=20

This is phase 4 of the project(s), what funds did AERC
provide for
phases 1-3??), are future phases anticipated?=20

Is AERC really building the future permanent home of the
AERC (US+CA)
National Championship Event?=20

MikeJ, do you know the total $s AERC has provided for Fort
Stanton
improvement? Do you feel these to be in line with the level
of AERC
usage of the venue? (just to contrast, Biltmore just hosted
200+ AERC
members w/o any support from AERC for trails maintenance).
Tevis will
host 200+ w/o any AERC grants support. etc.=20

johnt

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20

   From the board minutes -=20

Mike Jaffe, Trails Grants Committee Chair, presented a
motion from
committee to approve funding of $5000, a funding share
agreement with
the BLM to complete Phase IV of the Fort Stanton project.
If approved,
electricity will be added to the trailhead facility.  Connie
Caudill
requested a roll call vote with results as follows:  17 yes
votes/1 no
vote, with 2 members not voting as they joined the call
after voting
took place.  Jan Jeffers-Yes; Mike Jaffe-Yes; Roberta
Harms-Yes; Connie
Caudill-No; Howard Kent-Yes; Gail Williams-Yes; Bob
Morris-Yes; John
Parke-Yes; Duane Barnett-Yes; Randy Eiland-Yes; Roger
Taylor-Yes; Nick
Warhol-Yes; Jim Baldwin-Yes; Barney Fleming-Yes; Dane
Frazier-Yes; Mike
Maul-Yes; Stagg Newman-Yes; Robert Ribley-Yes; Patti Pizzo
and Terry
Woolley Howe did not vote as they joined the call after
voting took
place.=20

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20

-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D
-=3D-=3D-=3D-
=3D-
-=3D Discussion List Archives: =
http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
=3D-
-=3D Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:
AERCMembersForum-moderator@...
=3D-
-=3D Rules of Usage: http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
=3D-
-=3D Terms of Usage & Liability:
http://www.goldhill.com/members/liability.html
=3D-
-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D
-=3D-=3D-=3D-

===================================================

From: Magnumsmom@...
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 17:24:31 EDT
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Fwd: Conflict of interest? (long)

-------------------------------1085174671
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 5/21/2004 3:13:39 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
mjaffe@... writes:
I hear your concern on the question of equity in investing
in locations
based on the number of riders that use it during
competitions. It's a
valid question. Generally I think we should go for the
biggest bang for
our buck. That would include leveraging our modest
contributions to
significantly larger matching funds, largest human volunteer
contributions, donations, number of rides/riders benefited
and finally
any publicity opportunities.

However, one of the draw backs of lots of people is much
less unspoiled and unpopulated land.  A place like NM is
still full of open spaces just waiting for someone to come
along and "love" them.  It's a good place to "prove concept",
"get the ball rolling", or just find a place where we can do
something like this.

Protect what we have now and not wait until it's too late.

The number of people and members we have here is lower
than any other AERC region, but then don't forget we have
a lot of riders who come from out of region... and some from
quite a long way.

I don't understand why everyone seems to be so concerned
about "numbers" lately.

Once again, a democracy is not only about the largest numbers
of votes, but it's also about doing the right thing for the
lessor
numbers as well.  I.E., protecting the little guy too, not just
running him over.

Kathy Myers
in Santa Fe, NM
ps... a new boss just moved here from Boston with his family
and 4 kids last year.  During a conversation with him last week
I found out he had never even heard of the BLM or BLM land!

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AERC-Members-Digest]
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 04:26:01 -0700
From: AERCMembersForum-owner@... (List Server)

===================================================

From: "Howard Bramhall" <howard9732@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Fwd: Conflict of interest? (long)
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 10:58:17 -0400
There are not many humans I trust in this world (horses are
far more
trustworthy) but, one of the few humans I do trust is Jerry
Fruth.  If he
says there isn't a conflict of interest here, if he says
it's a win-win
situation (BLM/FS/AERC) for us all, if he says the decisions
that were made
with the Fort Stanton Ride were made honestly and followed
established
protocol, and, that others will be looked at in the east, I,
for one, am so
grateful that he's involved, I hope we never lose him or his
enthusiasm.

A working relationship with agencies like the BLM and the
Forest Service can
do so much good for all of us (even psuedo-endurance riders
like myself),
that the positives far outweigh the negatives.  This type of
action gives me
so much hope that I can't even find one negative here.
Grant money should
go to anything that would help us keep our trails; because,
without them,
there is no ride or even a place to train.

cya,
Howard


>From: "Jerry Fruth" <jerryfruth@...>
>To: <Magnumsmom@...>, <aercmembersforum@...>
>CC: <mjaffe@...>
>Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Fwd: Conflict of interest? (long)
>Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 14:09:27 -0500
>
>Kathy,
>You make some very good observations.  If you take a look around at the
>grants we have approved,
>you will find that we have be very even handed.  We have tried to serve the
>membership the best we
>can with the funds we have available.
>Ft. Stanton is just an extraordinary place.  We were at the right place at
>the right time.  As it is turning out,
>the investment we have or are making in Ft. Stanton is having an effect for
>riders from all across the
>nation.
>We are taking the concept of what we did at Ft. Stanton and are working on
>a location in the east
>whereby we will develop the same working relationship with the FS as we
>have with the BLM.  I suspect
>the work with the FS will take longer to develop, but now is the time to
>begin.  The FS has its own
>management style which is a lot different than that of the BLM.  We just
>have to be ready to work with
>both for the good of the AERC.
>Jerry
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Magnumsmom@...
>   To: aercmembersforum@...
>   Cc: mjaffe@...
>   Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 4:24 PM
>   Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Fwd: Conflict of interest? (long)
>
>
>   In a message dated 5/21/2004 3:13:39 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
>mjaffe@... writes:
>     I hear your concern on the question of equity in investing in
>locations
>     based on the number of riders that use it during competitions. It's a
>     valid question. Generally I think we should go for the biggest bang
>for
>     our buck. That would include leveraging our modest contributions to
>     significantly larger matching funds, largest human volunteer
>     contributions, donations, number of rides/riders benefited and finally
>     any publicity opportunities.
>
>   However, one of the draw backs of lots of people is much
>   less unspoiled and unpopulated land.  A place like NM is
>   still full of open spaces just waiting for someone to come
>   along and "love" them.  It's a good place to "prove concept",
>   "get the ball rolling", or just find a place where we can do
>   something like this.
>
>   Protect what we have now and not wait until it's too late.
>
>   The number of people and members we have here is lower
>   than any other AERC region, but then don't forget we have
>   a lot of riders who come from out of region... and some from
>   quite a long way.
>
>   I don't understand why everyone seems to be so concerned
>   about "numbers" lately.
>
>   Once again, a democracy is not only about the largest numbers
>   of votes, but it's also about doing the right thing for the lessor
>   numbers as well.  I.E., protecting the little guy too, not just
>   running him over.
>
>   Kathy Myers
>   in Santa Fe, NM
>   ps... a new boss just moved here from Boston with his family
>   and 4 kids last year.  During a conversation with him last week
>   I found out he had never even heard of the BLM or BLM land!

_________________________________________________________________
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail
Extra Storage!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/

===================================================

Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Reply-To: bratcat91@...
From: "Nancy Mitts" <bratcat91@...>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:51:48 -0400 (EDT)

Bob,
But there IS a conflict of interest, as others have pointed
out. The fact that there were only the best of intentions is
a good thing (the project itself, and laying positive
groundwork with the BLM, is a good thing), but the fact that
several board members aren't recognizing the appearace of a
conflict conflict is what is disturbing. Especially in light
of the fact that one of these same board members has lit
into other board members for other perceived conflicts of
interest in the past.
As far as the "true beneficiaries" are concerned, I hope
they appreciate it and look favorably on endurance riders
due to the funding. That aside, AERC is not so rich it can
solve all of America's trail problems. Therefore I would ask
the grants committee to consider only funding projects that
will benefit an endurance ride. Be it an existing ride, or
in developing a great place for some future ride. In
reality, maintaining the right to use public trails for our
competition is, IMO, our most pressing issue.. There are a
lot of good riding trails which are closed to competitions.
This is where we need to improve the public perception of
out sport, and where we should look to spend our time and $.
Yes, that means someone on the board may always have a
perceived conflict with a project in their area, but if one
vote makes the difference it may not be the most worthy
project after all. Again, the problem is not "that some ride
manager will benefit", I would hope some ride manager would
benefit from all our projects! They just shouldn't
participate in the vote.

Nancy Mitts


   --- On Mon 05/24,  < bobmorris@... > wrote:
From:  [mailto: bobmorris@...]
To: annie@..., AERCMembersForum@...
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:52:07 -0600
Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict

In all
actuality there is no conflict of interest in the FT.
Stanton grant. The grant
was not used by the Ft. Stanton ride nor was it used to
benefit that ride. It
was granted to assist the BLM in the establishment of a
trailhead for multi-use.
For use by the general public. The AERC and thus the SW
region Directors and the
Ft. Stanton Ride Manager and all the AERC Riders who
participate in that ride
are nothing more than incidental beneficiaries. The true
beneficiaries are the
American public who avail themselves of the opportunity to
ride from the FT. Stanton Trailhead
Bob Morris

_______________________________________________

===================================================

From: "Annie George" <annie@...>
Subject:  Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 10:25:12 -0600
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00DB_01C4430B.BABE9550
Content-Type: text/plain;
	 charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

That is all anybody has been saying from the start. It is
just a smoke =
screen to twist it around to look like people are
complaining about the =
project, or the individuals personaly, or anybody making
money. I hope =
Roger makes allot of money. The fact that that the BOD is
not concerned =
with the conflict or the perceptions of a conflict bothers
me allot more =
than the actual conflict.  Annie G.=20
Anne George Saddlery  www.vtc.net/~ageorge   =20
    ----- Original Message -----=20
    From: Nancy Mitts=20
    To: bobmorris@... ; annie@... ;
AERCMembersForum@... =

    Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 9:51 AM
    Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict



    Bob,
    But there IS a conflict of interest, as others have
pointed out. The =
fact that there were only the best of intentions is a good
thing (the =
project itself, and laying positive groundwork with the BLM,
is a good =
thing), but the fact that several board members aren't
recognizing the =
appearace of a conflict conflict is what is disturbing.
Especially in =
light of the fact that one of these same board members has
lit into =
other board members for other perceived conflicts of
interest in the =
past.
    As far as the "true beneficiaries" are concerned, I hope
they =
appreciate it and look favorably on endurance riders due to
the funding. =
That aside, AERC is not so rich it can solve all of
America's trail =
problems. Therefore I would ask the grants committee to
consider only =
funding projects that will benefit an endurance ride. Be it
an existing =
ride, or in developing a great place for some future ride.
In reality, =
maintaining the right to use public trails for our
competition is, IMO, =
our most pressing issue.. There are a lot of good riding
trails which =
are closed to competitions. This is where we need to improve
the public =
perception of out sport, and where we should look to spend
our time and =
$.
    Yes, that means someone on the board may always have a
perceived =
conflict with a project in their area, but if one vote makes
the =
difference it may not be the most worthy project after all.
Again, the =
problem is not "that some ride manager will benefit", I
would hope some =
ride manager would benefit from all our projects! They just
shouldn't =
participate in the vote.

    Nancy Mitts


     --- On Mon 05/24,  < bobmorris@... > wrote:
    From:  [mailto: bobmorris@...]
    To: annie@..., AERCMembersForum@...
    Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:52:07 -0600
    Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict

    In all=20
    actuality there is no conflict of interest in the FT.
Stanton grant. =
The grant=20
    was not used by the Ft. Stanton ride nor was it used to
benefit that =
ride. It=20
    was granted to assist the BLM in the establishment of a
trailhead for =
multi-use.=20
    For use by the general public. The AERC and thus the SW
region =
Directors and the=20
    Ft. Stanton Ride Manager and all the AERC Riders who
participate in =
that ride=20
    are nothing more than incidental beneficiaries. The true
beneficiaries =
are the=20
    American public who avail themselves of the opportunity
to ride from =
the FT. Stanton Trailhead
    Bob Morris

    _______________________________________________

===================================================

Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 10:29:00 -0600
Subject: [AERC-Members] Official AERC Conflict of Interest
Statement
From: Randy H Eiland <renegade12@...>
This message is in MIME format.  Since your mail reader does
not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

----__JNP_000_3a09.1976.7463
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=--__JNP_000_39a2.4104.6618

This message is in MIME format.  Since your mail reader does
not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

----__JNP_000_39a2.4104.6618
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The following is my Conflict of Interest statement provided
   by AERC - to
be filled out by the Director (me) and kept on file with
AERC.  I think
it is educational for members to know what the official
Director's AERC
Conflict of Interest Documents contain.   Personally, I have
no interest
in the Ft Stanton Project except that Ft Stanton is in my
region.
Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, no other persons
or directors
involved with Ft Stanton were in violation of paragraph 3
below.  Randy
Eiland

Conflict of Interest Statement by AERC Director

1.         My name is: ____Randy
Eiland___________________________.  I
sit on the AERC Board of Directors.

2.         I have identified in the space below any business or
professional interest of mine which may be impacted by
decisions of the
AERC Board of Directors.  This includes business or professional
interests of me personally, of members of my immediate
family, of my
employer, or of any person or organization to which I
regularly provide
goods or services.  I realize that examples of business or
professional
interests requiring disclosure include ride management,
veterinary
services for endurance rides, breeding or sale of endurance
horses, sale
or manufacture of supplies for endurance riding, or paid
consultation
relating to endurance riding.
   1)  I manage a number of endurance rides each year
   2)  I sell one to three horses per year
   I own and operate EICO which is a commercial real estate
and development
company.  My primary source of income comes from commercial
real estate
sales, leases and development with no connection to AERC or
endurance
related interests.  occasionally I have business
transactions and/or
consultations with clients who may also be AERC members, but
these
transactions and/or consultations are not related to AERC or
endurance
riding.
   3.         I understand that if I have a material
financial interest in
a direct transaction between the AERC and me or a member of
my family
which is under consideration by the AERC Board of Directors,
I will
specifically disclose my interest to the Board and will not
participate
in any vote by the Board on the transaction.

Date:  _January 31, 2003                      Signature: __Randy
Eiland_______________


                        Randy Eiland

===================================================

From: "Annie George" <annie@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Official AERC Conflict of
Interest Statement
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:32:27 -0600
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0157_01C44315.1F53DB20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	 charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thank You Randy,  I and I am sure others will appreciate
this. Annie G.=20
Anne George Saddlery  www.vtc.net/~ageorge   =20
    ----- Original Message -----=20
    From: Randy H Eiland=20
    To: AERCMembersForum@...=20
    Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:29 AM
    Subject: [AERC-Members] Official AERC Conflict of
Interest Statement


    The following is my Conflict of Interest statement
provided  by AERC - =
to be filled out by the Director (me) and kept on file with
AERC.  I =
think it is educational for members to know what the
official Director's =
AERC Conflict of Interest Documents contain.   Personally, I
have no =
interest in the Ft Stanton Project except that Ft Stanton is
in my =
region.  Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, no other
persons or =
directors involved with Ft Stanton were in violation of
paragraph 3 =
below.  Randy Eiland
     =20
    Conflict of Interest Statement by AERC Director=20

    =20

    1.         My name is: ____Randy
Eiland___________________________.  I =
sit on the AERC Board of Directors. =20

    =20

    2.         I have identified in the space below any
business or =
professional interest of mine which may be impacted by
decisions of the =
AERC Board of Directors.  This includes business or
professional =
interests of me personally, of members of my immediate
family, of my =
employer, or of any person or organization to which I
regularly provide =
goods or services.  I realize that examples of business or
professional =
interests requiring disclosure include ride management,
veterinary =
services for endurance rides, breeding or sale of endurance
horses, sale =
or manufacture of supplies for endurance riding, or paid
consultation =
relating to endurance riding.=20

     1)  I manage a number of endurance rides each year

     2)  I sell one to three horses per year

     I own and operate EICO which is a commercial real estate
and =
development company.  My primary source of income comes from
commercial =
real estate sales, leases and development with no connection
to AERC or =
endurance related interests.  occasionally I have business
transactions =
and/or consultations with clients who may also be AERC
members, but =
these transactions and/or consultations are not related to
AERC or =
endurance riding.

     3.         I understand that if I have a material
financial interest =
in a direct transaction between the AERC and me or a member
of my family =
which is under consideration by the AERC Board of Directors,
I will =
specifically disclose my interest to the Board and will not
participate =
in any vote by the Board on the transaction.

    =20

    Date:  _January 31, 2003                      Signature:
__Randy =
Eiland_______________


                =
                           Randy Eiland


===================================================

From: <bobmorris@...>
Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:40:03 -0600
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C44316.2F8E1A40
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	 boundary="----=_NextPart_001_000C_01C44316.2F8E1A40"


------=_NextPart_001_000C_01C44316.2F8E1A40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	 charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

What is "Conflict of Interest"?=20

The Members=92 Conflict of Interest Act stipulates that a
Member of the (Legislative) Assembly must not be involved in
a decision during the course of public duties with the
knowledge that there is an opportunity to further the
Member=92s private interests.

The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon On
* Conflict Of Interest *
    <http://www.lectlaw.com/art/line7blu.gif>=20

CONFLICT OF INTEREST - Refers to a situation when someone,
such as a lawyer or public official, has competing
professional or personal obligations or personal or
financial interests that would make it difficult to fulfill
his duties fairly.=20


Conflict of interest


>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.=20


A conflict of interests is a situation in which someone,
most commonly a lawyer <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer>
, a politician <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician> ,
or a director of a corporation
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation> , has competing
professional or personal interests that would make it
difficult to fulfill their duties
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty>  fairly.=20


More generally, it can be defined as any situation in which
an individual is able to exploit their professional or
official capacity in some way.=20


In cases of a conflict of interest, the conflicted
individual is expected to recuse himself from the matter and
not take part in, or influence in any way, the process. For
example, judges are seen to recuse themselves from cases
from time to time due to personal conflicts of interest.=20




Types of conflicts of interests


The following are the most common forms of conflicts of
interests:=20


* Self-dealing, in which public and private interests
collide, for example issues involving family, or privately
held business interests,=20

* Outside employment, in which the interests of one
job contradicts another,=20

* Accepting of benefits, including bribes and other
gifts accepted to cury favor,=20

* Influence peddling, using one's position to
influence other realms,=20

* Use of government / corporate / legal property for
personal use,=20

* Unauthorized distribution of confidential
information=20

A conflict of interest can become a legal matter if the
individual does not recuse from the matter, but instead
tries to influence the outcome for personal benefit.=20


There are two kinds of conflicts of interests, a "real"
conflict, which is the type mentioned above, in which the
competing interests are exploited for personal gain, and an
"apparent" conflict, in which the conflict of interests is
acknowledged and is dealt with by the parties involved
accordingly.=20

=20

With those definations in mind please describe where the
persons you are concerned about have a conflict of interest.
Realize that the general concensus within the endurance
community is that ride managers are hard put to even break
even on managing rides.=20

=20

Bob

=20

Bob Morris
Morris Endurance Enterprises
Boise, ID=20

-----Original Message-----
From: AERCMembersForum-owner@...
[mailto:AERCMembersForum-owner@...] On Behalf Of
Annie George
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:25 AM
To: AERC LIST
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict


That is all anybody has been saying from the start. It is
just a smoke screen to twist it around to look like people
are complaining about the project, or the individuals
personaly, or anybody making money. I hope Roger makes allot
of money. The fact that that the BOD is not concerned with
the conflict or the perceptions of a conflict bothers me
allot more than the actual conflict.  Annie G.=20
Anne George Saddlery  www.vtc.net/~ageorge   =20

----- Original Message -----=20
From: Nancy Mitts <mailto:bratcat91@...> =20
To: bobmorris@... ; annie@... ;
AERCMembersForum@...=20
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 9:51 AM
Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict


Bob,
But there IS a conflict of interest, as others have pointed
out. The fact that there were only the best of intentions is
a good thing (the project itself, and laying positive
groundwork with the BLM, is a good thing), but the fact that
several board members aren't recognizing the appearace of a
conflict conflict is what is disturbing. Especially in light
of the fact that one of these same board members has lit
into other board members for other perceived conflicts of
interest in the past.
As far as the "true beneficiaries" are concerned, I hope
they appreciate it and look favorably on endurance riders
due to the funding. That aside, AERC is not so rich it can
solve all of America's trail problems. Therefore I would ask
the grants committee to consider only funding projects that
will benefit an endurance ride. Be it an existing ride, or
in developing a great place for some future ride. In
reality, maintaining the right to use public trails for our
competition is, IMO, our most pressing issue.. There are a
lot of good riding trails which are closed to competitions.
This is where we need to improve the public perception of
out sport, and where we should look to spend our time and $.
Yes, that means someone on the board may always have a
perceived conflict with a project in their area, but if one
vote makes the difference it may not be the most worthy
project after all. Again, the problem is not "that some ride
manager will benefit", I would hope some ride manager would
benefit from all our projects! They just shouldn't
participate in the vote.

Nancy Mitts


   --- On Mon 05/24,  < bobmorris@... > wrote:
From:  [mailto: bobmorris@...]
To: annie@..., AERCMembersForum@...
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:52:07 -0600
Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict

In all=20
actuality there is no conflict of interest in the FT.
Stanton grant. The grant=20
was not used by the Ft. Stanton ride nor was it used to
benefit that ride. It=20
was granted to assist the BLM in the establishment of a
trailhead for multi-use.=20
For use by the general public. The AERC and thus the SW
region Directors and the=20
Ft. Stanton Ride Manager and all the AERC Riders who
participate in that ride=20
are nothing more than incidental beneficiaries. The true
beneficiaries are the=20
American public who avail themselves of the opportunity to
ride from the FT. Stanton Trailhead
Bob Morris

_______________________________________________



===================================================

Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 13:39:59 -0400
From: Truman Prevatt <tprevatt@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Nancy is right on the money. No one has said it is not a
good thing.
That is not the point and in fact it is actually irrelevant.
The definition of "conflict of interest" is very simple: "A
conflict
between the private interests and the public obligations of
a person in
an official position."

What makes this situtation appear even worse is this would
have passed -
without the vote of the one or two directors in question.

IMO the first order of business of the AERC BOD is to
operate at an
ethical standard that is beyond reproach. Part of that is to
maintain a
strict policy of directors with a conflict of interest is
recluse
themselves from voting on issues associated with any particular
conflict. It is not that a director has a conflict of
interest - it is
how that fact is dealt with by that director and the BOD as
a whole.
After all when it comes to the operating ethical standards
of any BOD,
perception is often time as important - sometimes more - as the
standards itself.

If the directors in question had chosen to recluse
themselves from the
vote, it would have passed with the benefits stated - but this
conversation would not have come up or been necessary since
there would
have been no conflict of interest real or perceived intering
into
operation of the AERC.

Truman





Nancy Mitts wrote:

>Bob,
>But there IS a conflict of interest, as others have pointed out. The fact that
there were only the best of intentions is a good thing (the project itself, and
laying positive groundwork with the BLM, is a good thing), but the fact that
several board members aren't recognizing the appearace of a conflict conflict is
what is disturbing. Especially in light of the fact that one of these same board
members has lit into other board members for other perceived conflicts of
interest in the past.
>As far as the "true beneficiaries" are concerned, I hope they appreciate it and
look favorably on endurance riders due to the funding. That aside, AERC is not
so rich it can solve all of America's trail problems. Therefore I would ask the
grants committee to consider only funding projects that will benefit an
endurance ride. Be it an existing ride, or in developing a great place for some
future ride. In reality, maintaining the right to use public trails for our
competition is, IMO, our most pressing issue.. There are a lot of good riding
trails which are closed to competitions. This is where we need to improve the
public perception of out sport, and where we should look to spend our time and
$.
>Yes, that means someone on the board may always have a perceived conflict with
a project in their area, but if one vote makes the difference it may not be the
most worthy project after all. Again, the problem is not "that some ride manager
will benefit", I would hope some ride manager would benefit from all our
projects! They just shouldn't participate in the vote.
>
>Nancy Mitts
>
>
> --- On Mon 05/24,  < bobmorris@... > wrote:
>From:  [mailto: bobmorris@...]
>To: annie@..., AERCMembersForum@...
>Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:52:07 -0600
>Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict
>
>In all
>actuality there is no conflict of interest in the FT. Stanton grant. The grant
>was not used by the Ft. Stanton ride nor was it used to benefit that ride. It
>was granted to assist the BLM in the establishment of a trailhead for
multi-use.
>For use by the general public. The AERC and thus the SW region Directors and
the
>Ft. Stanton Ride Manager and all the AERC Riders who participate in that ride
>are nothing more than incidental beneficiaries. The true beneficiaries are the
>American public who avail themselves of the opportunity to ride from the FT.
Stanton Trailhead
>Bob Morris
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>=-
>-= Discussion List Archives: http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
>=-
>-= Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto: AERCMembersForum-moderator@...
>=-
>-= Rules of Usage: http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
>=-
>-= Terms of Usage & Liability: http://www.goldhill.com/members/liability.html
>=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>
>
>
>


===================================================

From: <bobmorris@...>
Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:47:32 -0600
Truman:

You state<<<no conflict of interest real or perceived
intering into operation of the AERC.>>

Upon whose perception are we to govern the actions of the
AERC Board of Directors? You are skirting the actual
conditions and rationalizing upon the hypothetical.  No one
has shown actual conflict in the matter, in fact the
opposite has been proven. That leaves us with the
"perceived" to consider. Perception is a nebulous and
fleeting, personal opinion.

Bob =20


Bob Morris
Morris Endurance Enterprises
Boise, ID=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Truman Prevatt [mailto:tprevatt@...]=20
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:40 AM
To: bratcat91@...
Cc: bobmorris@...; annie@...;
AERCMembersForum@...
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict


Nancy is right on the money. No one has said it is not a
good thing.=20
That is not the point and in fact it is actually irrelevant.
The definition of "conflict of interest" is very simple: "A
conflict=20
between the private interests and the public obligations of
a person in=20
an official position."
=20
What makes this situtation appear even worse is this would
have passed -=20
without the vote of the one or two directors in question.

IMO the first order of business of the AERC BOD is to
operate at an=20
ethical standard that is beyond reproach. Part of that is to
maintain a=20
strict policy of directors with a conflict of interest is
recluse=20
themselves from voting on issues associated with any
particular=20
conflict. It is not that a director has a conflict of
interest - it is=20
how that fact is dealt with by that director and the BOD as
a whole.=20
After all when it comes to the operating ethical standards
of any BOD,=20
perception is often time as important - sometimes more - as
the=20
standards itself.

If the directors in question had chosen to recluse
themselves from the=20
vote, it would have passed with the benefits stated - but
this=20
conversation would not have come up or been necessary since
there would=20
have been no conflict of interest real or perceived intering
into=20
operation of the AERC.

Truman





Nancy Mitts wrote:

>Bob,
>But there IS a conflict of interest, as others have pointed
out. The=20
>fact that there were only the best of intentions is a good
thing (the=20
>project itself, and laying positive groundwork with the
BLM, is a good=20
>thing), but the fact that several board members aren't
recognizing the=20
>appearace of a conflict conflict is what is disturbing.
Especially in=20
>light of the fact that one of these same board members has
lit into=20
>other board members for other perceived conflicts of
interest in the=20
>past. As far as the "true beneficiaries" are concerned, I
hope they=20
>appreciate it and look favorably on endurance riders due to
the=20
>funding. That aside, AERC is not so rich it can solve all
of America's=20
>trail problems. Therefore I would ask the grants committee
to consider=20
>only funding projects that will benefit an endurance ride.
Be it an=20
>existing ride, or in developing a great place for some
future ride. In=20
>reality, maintaining the right to use public trails for our
competition=20
>is, IMO, our most pressing issue.. There are a lot of good
riding=20
>trails which are closed to competitions. This is where we
need to=20
>improve the public perception of out sport, and where we
should look to=20
>spend our time and $. Yes, that means someone on the board
may always=20
>have a perceived conflict with a project in their area, but
if one vote=20
>makes the difference it may not be the most worthy project
after all.=20
>Again, the problem is not "that some ride manager will
benefit", I=20
>would hope some ride manager would benefit from all our
projects! They=20
>just shouldn't participate in the vote.
>
>Nancy Mitts
>
>
> --- On Mon 05/24,  < bobmorris@... > wrote:
>From:  [mailto: bobmorris@...]
>To: annie@..., AERCMembersForum@...
>Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:52:07 -0600
>Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict
>
>In all
>actuality there is no conflict of interest in the FT.
Stanton grant. The grant=20
>was not used by the Ft. Stanton ride nor was it used to
benefit that ride. It=20
>was granted to assist the BLM in the establishment of a
trailhead for multi-use.=20
>For use by the general public. The AERC and thus the SW
region Directors and the=20
>Ft. Stanton Ride Manager and all the AERC Riders who
participate in that ride=20
>are nothing more than incidental beneficiaries. The true
beneficiaries are the=20
>American public who avail themselves of the opportunity to
ride from the FT. Stanton Trailhead
>Bob Morris
>
>_______________________________________________



===================================================

From: KimFue@...
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 14:00:50 EDT
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict

-------------------------------1085594450
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 5/26/2004 10:40:54 AM Pacific Standard Time,
tprevatt@... writes:
Nancy is right on the money. No one has said it is not a
good thing.
That is not the point and in fact it is actually irrelevant.
The definition of "conflict of interest" is very simple: "A
conflict
between the private interests and the public obligations of
a person in
an official position."
OK,  I must be REALLY stupid here but I do not understand
what is going on on
this list.  For those of you (John Teeter and Truman) that I
can think of off
hand that started this conflict of interest thread,  please
explain to me
either in private or on the list why the focus of the
conflict of interest is on
Randy Eiland when he is NOT listed as the ride manager for
Ft Stanton.  All
this time I was under the impression that both of the SW
directors were
managers of this ride and therefore there was a conflict of
interest because of
possible financial gain from this ride.  Where is the
conflict of
interest.....because the project was in their region???
Does this mean that directors should
abstain from voting on grants that are proposed in their
region?     Does this
mean that directors should not propose projects in their own
region?  If Randy
is not the manager of the ride where is the "appearance" of
a conflict of
interest?  What is really going on here that I am missing?

Kim Fuess
AERC # 6648
PS Region
No possible ulterior motive because this isn't even in my
region and I
haven't ridden in New Mexico for almost 10 years....and I
have no plans to do so in
the 2004-2005 ride season :)



From: "Jerry Fruth" <jerryfruth@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 14:23:03 -0500
Nancy,
We have funded some trail projects that have not had a
direct benefit to
a specific endurance ride.  And I would expect that in the
future there
may be some more projects that will be funded in the same
manner.
Please look at the word I used (direct) to describe some
funding.
As an example, we funded a trail head development at the Big
South
Fork in Tennessee that has no direct connection to an
endurance ride.
However, we have one of the largest rides in the southeast
put on at the BSF
each year.  As you know, securing permission from a land
manager may be
difficult at times.  At the BSF there has been an ongoing
environmental
issue
that has prevented us from using part of the BSF for the
ride.  By creating
a strong working relationship with the managers at BSF it is
our hope that
someday we can overcome the environmental concerns and
expand the trail
system we ride on.  Supporting the trail head project was a
matter of
creating
good will with the Forest Service.
Do we want to devote some of our funding to create good will
with those we
must work with?   I believe its a good investment.  And make
no mistake,
we should look at the funding we do through the Trails
Grants Committee
as an investment.
Jerry Fruth
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy Mitts" <bratcat91@...>
To: <bobmorris@...>; <annie@...>;
<AERCMembersForum@...>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:51 AM
Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict


>
> Bob,
> But there IS a conflict of interest, as others have pointed out. The fact
that there were only the best of intentions is a good thing
(the project
itself, and laying positive groundwork with the BLM, is a
good thing), but
the fact that several board members aren't recognizing the
appearace of a
conflict conflict is what is disturbing. Especially in light
of the fact
that one of these same board members has lit into other
board members for
other perceived conflicts of interest in the past.
> As far as the "true beneficiaries" are concerned, I hope they appreciate
it and look favorably on endurance riders due to the
funding. That aside,
AERC is not so rich it can solve all of America's trail
problems. Therefore
I would ask the grants committee to consider only funding
projects that will
benefit an endurance ride. Be it an existing ride, or in
developing a great
place for some future ride. In reality, maintaining the
right to use public
trails for our competition is, IMO, our most pressing
issue.. There are a
lot of good riding trails which are closed to competitions.
This is where we
need to improve the public perception of out sport, and
where we should look
to spend our time and $.
> Yes, that means someone on the board may always have a perceived conflict
with a project in their area, but if one vote makes the
difference it may
not be the most worthy project after all. Again, the problem
is not "that
some ride manager will benefit", I would hope some ride
manager would
benefit from all our projects! They just shouldn't
participate in the vote.
>
> Nancy Mitts
>
>
>  --- On Mon 05/24,  < bobmorris@... > wrote:
> From:  [mailto: bobmorris@...]
> To: annie@..., AERCMembersForum@...
> Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:52:07 -0600
> Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict
>
> In all
> actuality there is no conflict of interest in the FT. Stanton grant. The
grant
> was not used by the Ft. Stanton ride nor was it used to benefit that ride.
It
> was granted to assist the BLM in the establishment of a trailhead for
multi-use.
> For use by the general public. The AERC and thus the SW region Directors
and the
> Ft. Stanton Ride Manager and all the AERC Riders who participate in that
ride
> are nothing more than incidental beneficiaries. The true beneficiaries are
the
> American public who avail themselves of the opportunity to ride from the
FT. Stanton Trailhead
> Bob Morris
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-
> =-
> -= Discussion List Archives: http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
> =-
> -= Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto: AERCMembersForum-moderator@...
> =-
> -= Rules of Usage: http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
> =-
> -= Terms of Usage & Liability:
http://www.goldhill.com/members/liability.html
> =-
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-
>

===================================================

From: "Jerry Fruth" <jerryfruth@...>
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Fwd: Conflict of interest? (long)
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 14:28:37 -0500
Howard,
Thanks you for your kind remarks.  I just keep things glued
together.
Its our trail advocates out there in every state that are
making the
difference.  Without them, I would have no support and we would
not be making any difference in trail preservation.
I thoroughly enjoy working for every endurance rider across
the country,
trying to make access or the lack thereof a non issue.
Sometimes we win,
and sometimes its a draw.  Rarely do we loose anymore.  Its
an ongoing
fight, something that will go on forever.
Thanks for all of the support and encouragement you all give
me.  It makes
a difference.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Bramhall" <howard9732@...>
To: <jerryfruth@...>; <AERCMembersForum@...>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Fwd: Conflict of interest? (long)


> There are not many humans I trust in this world (horses are far more
> trustworthy) but, one of the few humans I do trust is Jerry Fruth.  If he
> says there isn't a conflict of interest here, if he says it's a win-win
> situation (BLM/FS/AERC) for us all, if he says the decisions that were
made
> with the Fort Stanton Ride were made honestly and followed established
> protocol, and, that others will be looked at in the east, I, for one, am
so
> grateful that he's involved, I hope we never lose him or his enthusiasm.
>
> A working relationship with agencies like the BLM and the Forest Service
can
> do so much good for all of us (even psuedo-endurance riders like myself),
> that the positives far outweigh the negatives.  This type of action gives
me
> so much hope that I can't even find one negative here.  Grant money should
> go to anything that would help us keep our trails; because, without them,
> there is no ride or even a place to train.
>
> cya,
> Howard
>
>
> >From: "Jerry Fruth" <jerryfruth@...>
> >To: <Magnumsmom@...>, <aercmembersforum@...>
> >CC: <mjaffe@...>
> >Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Fwd: Conflict of interest? (long)
> >Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 14:09:27 -0500
> >
> >Kathy,
> >You make some very good observations.  If you take a look around at the
> >grants we have approved,
> >you will find that we have be very even handed.  We have tried to serve
the
> >membership the best we
> >can with the funds we have available.
> >Ft. Stanton is just an extraordinary place.  We were at the right place
at
> >the right time.  As it is turning out,
> >the investment we have or are making in Ft. Stanton is having an effect
for
> >riders from all across the
> >nation.
> >We are taking the concept of what we did at Ft. Stanton and are working
on
> >a location in the east
> >whereby we will develop the same working relationship with the FS as we
> >have with the BLM.  I suspect
> >the work with the FS will take longer to develop, but now is the time to
> >begin.  The FS has its own
> >management style which is a lot different than that of the BLM.  We just
> >have to be ready to work with
> >both for the good of the AERC.
> >Jerry
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: Magnumsmom@...
> >   To: aercmembersforum@...
> >   Cc: mjaffe@...
> >   Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 4:24 PM
> >   Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Fwd: Conflict of interest? (long)
> >
> >
> >   In a message dated 5/21/2004 3:13:39 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
> >mjaffe@... writes:
> >     I hear your concern on the question of equity in investing in
> >locations
> >     based on the number of riders that use it during competitions. It's
a
> >     valid question. Generally I think we should go for the biggest bang
> >for
> >     our buck. That would include leveraging our modest contributions to
> >     significantly larger matching funds, largest human volunteer
> >     contributions, donations, number of rides/riders benefited and
finally
> >     any publicity opportunities.
> >
> >   However, one of the draw backs of lots of people is much
> >   less unspoiled and unpopulated land.  A place like NM is
> >   still full of open spaces just waiting for someone to come
> >   along and "love" them.  It's a good place to "prove concept",
> >   "get the ball rolling", or just find a place where we can do
> >   something like this.
> >
> >   Protect what we have now and not wait until it's too late.
> >
> >   The number of people and members we have here is lower
> >   than any other AERC region, but then don't forget we have
> >   a lot of riders who come from out of region... and some from
> >   quite a long way.
> >
> >   I don't understand why everyone seems to be so concerned
> >   about "numbers" lately.
> >
> >   Once again, a democracy is not only about the largest numbers
> >   of votes, but it's also about doing the right thing for the lessor
> >   numbers as well.  I.E., protecting the little guy too, not just
> >   running him over.
> >
> >   Kathy Myers
> >   in Santa Fe, NM
> >   ps... a new boss just moved here from Boston with his family
> >   and 4 kids last year.  During a conversation with him last week
> >   I found out he had never even heard of the BLM or BLM land!
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra
Storage!
> http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/

===================================================

Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 17:48:23 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Official AERC Conflict of
Interest Statement
From: <heidi@...>
> The following is my Conflict of Interest statement provided  by AERC -
> to be filled out by the Director (me) and kept on file with AERC.  I
> think it is educational for members to know what the official Director's
> AERC Conflict of Interest Documents contain.   Personally, I have no
> interest in the Ft Stanton Project except that Ft Stanton is in my
> region.  Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, no other persons or
> directors involved with Ft Stanton were in violation of paragraph 3
> below.  Randy Eiland

Randy, if we were mistaken and it is Roger rather than you
that manages
the Fort Stanton ride, then apologies.  However, if Roger is
indeed the
manager then he DOES have a conflict of interest.  And he
SHOULD have
recused himself.

Again, this is not meant to reflect on the project
itself--just a matter
of continued disgust at the fact that directors who cannot
see that a
conflict of interest exists reflect poorly on our
organization when they
do NOT recuse themselves.

Do we really have to go to the extent of having somebody
advise directors
when they have a conflict of interest?

I submit that it would have also been just plain good taste
for you to
recuse yourself as well, as the other regional director.
And I would feel
the same way if Bob Morris worked his fanny off to get a
similar grant for
the NW and it involved a trailhead at one of Gail Williams'
rides.  Or any
other region where directors are also ride managers (which
without
checking, I suspect involves more than just a few regions).

Heidi


===================================================

Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 18:04:54 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict
From: <heidi@...>
> CONFLICT OF INTEREST - Refers to a situation when someone,
> such as a lawyer or public official, has competing
> professional or personal obligations or personal or
> financial interests that would make it difficult to fulfill
> his duties fairly.


Seems pretty clear-cut to me.  A director is a "public
official" and as a
ride manager, he has a "personal or financial interest" in a
project that
involves a trailhead at or near his ride site.  Whether he
makes money off
of the ride is irrelevant--he puts on the ride (personal
interest) and
puts money into the ride (financial interest).

While we may be picking unduly on Randy here (and Randy, if
we erred,
realize it is easy to jump to conclusions given what appears
to be a
history of "close calls" with this same concept), it seems
irrefutable
that Roger had a conflict of interest here, and that for the
good of both
the project and the organization, SHOULD have recused himself!

Clearly, the issue did not NEED his vote to pass, so why
cast the light of
impropriety on it by voting????

Heidi


===================================================

Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 18:10:37 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: [AERC-Members] Conflict
From: <heidi@...>
>  All  this time I was under the
> impression that both of the SW  directors were  managers of this ride
> and therefore there was a conflict of interest because of  possible
> financial gain from this ride.

I was, too--and apparently only one of them is.

>Where is the conflict of
> interest.....because the project was in their region???

While that one is a stretch, since both ARE ride managers,
it would be in
good taste to abstain.  As it is, ONE director DOES manage
the ride.  So
he most definitely had a conflict of interest.

>Does this mean
> that directors should  abstain from voting on grants that are proposed
> in their region?     Does this  mean that directors should not propose
> projects in their own region?  If Randy  is not the manager of the ride
> where is the "appearance" of a conflict of  interest?  What is really
> going on here that I am missing?

I think your first sentence certainly suggests something
worth thinking
about, but there should be no question when the grant
involves an area
where you personally manage a ride...

Heidi


===================================================

Subject: RE: [AERC-Members] Conflict
Reply-To: bratcat91@...
From: "Nancy Mitts" <bratcat91@...>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 00:41:12 -0400 (EDT)

A trails grant that improves the trail system, camp area, or
mood/attitude of the governing agency is beneficial to a
ride manager putting on a ride in that area (whether they
make money at it or not.) AERC has limited funds to use for
such projects. While there may have been no other worthy
projects under consideration at this time, who is to
determine the "most worthy" project? A ride manager whose
ride will benefit from a particular trails grant should not
be voting on it.

Nancy Mitts




_______________________________________________

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-
-= Discussion List Archives:
http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
=-
-= Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:
AERCMembersForum-moderator@...
=-
-= Rules of Usage: http://www.goldhill.com/members/rules.html
=-
-= Disclaimer of liability:
http://www.goldhill.com/members/liability.html
=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Last July - I posted a list of breeds that are competing now
or have competed in the past in the AERC records.  There
have been some requests for an update so here it is.

Mike

*******************************************

In response to a question on another list about breeds
competing, here's a listing by breed of the horses in the
AERC records.

In the database - not all horses have a breed listed. Some
are deceased.

Of the total number of horses in the database from the start
of record keeping - we have:

Horses by Breed 5/24/2004

Horse Breed Number of Horses:
1/2 Arab  2199
Akhal Teke  29
American Warmblood 1
Amonte  6
Andalusian  4
Anglo Arab  416
Appaloosa  676
Appy Cross  31
Arab  13303
Arab Cross  787
Belgian  2
Cleveland Bay  8
Colorado Rangerbred 12
Curly  14
Fox Trotter  23
Grade  1753
Hungarian  5
Icelandic  15
Kentucky Mt. Horse 5
Kiger Mustang  10
Mo Fox  75
Morab  99
Morgan  375
Morgan Cross  30
Moyle  10
Mule  145
Mustang  233
National Show  56
Nez Perce  2
Other  2826
Paint  147
Paso Fino  96
Peruvian Paso  47
Pinto  12
POA  49
Pony  20
Quarter Horse  155
Quarter Cross  50
Racking Horse  12
Rocky Mountain  17
Russ Orlov  13
Saddlebred  65
Saddlebred Cross 5
Shagya  8
Shagya Cross  6
Spanish Mustang  17
Spotted Saddle Horse 9
Standardbred  67
Standardbred Cross 5
Tenn Walker  209
Thoroughbred  300
Thoroughbred Cross 16
Tiger Horse  3
Trakehner  8
Welsh  19
Welsh/Arab  3
Welsh/Shetland  1
Total Horses:  24509

Team,

With Mike Maul's generous support we have begun preparing to move the AERC
Members Forum to its new home at Yahoo Groups. To minimize inconvenience to each
of you we are doing it by adding you to Yahoo Groups which requires that you do
nothing. Each day Mike M is adding a group of 10 (Yahoo's limit) to the new
list. Other than the note that you'll receive when you've been added, you will
not receive any other email from the new site until we get everyone setup. It'll
take us a few more weeks to complete things.

I appreciate your patience during the move!

Mike J.

As the "helpdesk" for all the AERC online services - here's
a question that comes up more than most.

Q.  How do I print out my horse/rider record?  It doesn't
print when I try it.

A. Move your cursor to a blank spot on the part of the
screen that you want to print out.  Click once - then print.

The screens were built using frames and you need to be in
the correct frame for printing.  This applies to all the
AERC services online.

Mike

The AERC services of calendar, ride results, rider/horse
history etc were unavailable yesterday for about 8 hours.

Apparently our Doublejoy services ISP suffered a DOS (Denial
of Service) attack.

Everything has been back up today with no further problems.

Mike

From: KEESEEFARMS@...
Subject: [RC]   Hoosier Daddy Ride

Hi all.  We still have plenty of entries to fill for the
Hoosier Daddy Ride in Indiana.  We have a 100 rider per day
cap, and are still less than half reserved for the first
day.  Anyone interested should go to the ride calendar and
get the ride flyer, and entry form.

http://www.doublejoy.com/erol/Calendar/RideDetails.asp?rideID=3200

We are a new ride and would like very much to have a good
turn out.  The Hoosier Daddy Ride is not for profit and the
proceeds are going to the Hoosier National Forest for trail
maintenance, and to the Agape Center (an equine therapy
center for challenged children).   The ride is June 26th,
and 27th.  It consists of a 25CTR, and 25LD, and a 50
endurance each day all on non-repeating loops.  Please check
us out if you can.

Ken Keesee

25 mile competitive and LD`s, and 50 mile endurance on June
26th, and June 27th. Circle S Horse Camp is reserved for
endurance riders for the weekend and closed to the public.
The horse camp includes ammenities as well as primitive. 1st
come, first served on the camp sites with hook ups. The camp
has showers. Plenty of water for horses and people.

For at least the afternoon and evening - the Doublejoy site
which has the calendar, ride results, members page,
rider/horse history etc has not been responding.

We are working on this with the ISP(aerohost.com) to get
doublejoy responding.

Mike

Posted for Jerry Fruth.

****************************

MEMORANDUM
To: AHC Organizations
From: American Horse Council
Re: National Livestock Identification System
Date: May 13, 2004

Attached is a summary of the presentation on Equine Identification at
the AHC's National Issues Forum in Washington, DC.

This is an important issue to the horse industry and one that will have
broad implications and affect all sectors.  It is important that our
individual members and member organizations understand the issues and
implications of setting up such a national identification system.

We hope that the attached will be helpful to that understanding.

American Horse Council Hosts Forum on Equine Identification

Members of the U.S. horse industry gathered for a day-long forum at the
American Horse Council's annual convention in Washington, DC to hear an
update on the national standardized identification system for horses.

Neil Hammerschmidt, the Animal Identification Coordinator for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Veterinary Services, launched the program
with an in-depth review of the U. S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP).
"This is a plan that was developed by the livestock industry for the
livestock industry and has been submitted to USDA only as a
recommendation," said Mr. Hammerschmidt.

"Maintaining the health of the U.S. herd is the most urgent issue for
the industry and animal health officials to address, and, therefore, is
the most significant focus of the U.S. Animal Identification Plan," he
said.  The goal is to establish a system by which a diseased animal can
be quickly traced back to the source of its infection, aiding in the
ability to contain, control and eradicate a disease.  "USDA's
involvement in the USAIP is strictly from an animal health perspective.
The sooner we can identify the source of a disease outbreak and locate
sick and exposed animals, the sooner we can stop the disease in its
tracks and the sooner every one can get back into business," said Mr.
Hammerschmidt.

"While the USDA supports the establishment of a national system of
livestock identification, it does not seek to make such a program
mandatory at this time," Mr. Hammerschmidt continued, suggesting that
unless the industry buys into a program, it won't be successful.

Mr. Hammerschmidt acknowledged some areas need more focus, particularly
the development and implementation of the premises identification
component of the plan.  Premises identification is essential because
trace back of diseased animals cannot work unless it can be determined
where an animal has been.  The information needed is the premises
identification number, the location of the animal and the date/time
stamp (when was the animal sighted or when it moved on or off a
property).

Mr. Hammerschmidt also acknowledged that database security and privacy
is critical if any plan is to be successful.  USDA considers this a
priority and is working to ensure that any information stored in
databases will be exempt from Freedom of Information Act requirements
(FOIA).  This a concern at the state level also because each state has
open records requirements as well.

Col. John Hoffman, Program Manager, Food & Agriculture, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, described the new Agency and how border inspection
and other activities of USDA now fit within it.  The Plant Protection
and Quarantine Service (PPQ),  a former agency of the USDA that was
responsible for checking passengers entering the U.S. for illegal
agricultural products, has been moved to the new Department.

Colonel Hoffman agreed that a national identification and tracking
system is important in the management of disease outbreaks.  "An
identification and tracking system is needed," he said, "and the horse
industry is essential to this.  When this meeting is over all of you in
this room will disperse to your various places in the country and few of
you will go to the same place.  That's the way the horse industry is.
Horses gather for a show, or a race, and then disperse.  Every horse
goes to a different place.  This makes the need for a good tracking
system for the horse industry important," he said.

Col. Hoffman also addressed what he called the "common misconception"
that horse diseases are unimportant and do not affect human health.
"Until the 1980's, the Soviet Union continued to produce in its
bio-weapons program a disease agent taken from horses but lethal to
humans too."

Col. Hoffman also addressed the privacy issue, agreeing that access to
database information by "nonessential parties" would be barred. As a
designated "critical infrastructure," any agriculture information
related to the activities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture will be
exempt from FOIA requirements, he suggested.

Dr. Peter Timoney, Director of the Gluck Equine Research Center and
Chairman of the Veterinary Sciences Department at the University of
Kentucky, followed Col. Hoffman's presentation with an excellent review
of equine diseases.  He explained that West Nile Fever, Easter and
Western Equine Encephalomyelitis, and Venezuelan Equine
Encephalomyelitis that present not only a public health concern but also
affect a multitude of species.

Dr. Timoney highlighted the many equine diseases that can affect other
livestock.  Vesicular Stomatitis, Samonellosis, and Leptospirosis are a
few examples.  "As a responsible member of the livestock community we
would be remiss if we didn't recognize the importance of participating
in a program that would help determine the source of a disease, contain
it and control it," Dr. Timoney said, referring to the horse industry's
participation in a plan to standardize livestock identification and
establish a system for disease trace back.

Dr. Maxwell "Mack" Lea, Louisiana State Veterinarian, presented the view
of the states regarding the implementation of a national livestock
identification plan.  He described how Louisiana and other states
currently handle livestock and premises identification, pointing out
that Louisiana is the first state in the U.S. to have a mandatory
identification program for horses.

The Louisiana program is linked to the state's Equine Infectious Anemia
program and requires that all horses be tested for EIA each year and be
permanently identified, either through brand, freeze brand, tattoo or
microchip, he said.  The state provides the chips at cost plus fifty
cents.

"Identification programs in livestock for disease-related reasons is
common in most livestock except in the equine industry," said Dr. Lea.
"But there are lots of reasons to require identification when addressing
a disease concern.  The biggest problem is that diagrammatic
identification is usually inadequate and lacks consistency.  Brands,
although not always individual, help greatly in finding the correct
animal."

Louisiana's mandatory identification program aids in the legal pursuit
of those who try to circumvent the state's regulations regarding EIA
testing.  "Not all horses are being tested as they are suppose to be but
its getting easy to track down those who haven't tested, " said Dr. Lea.
"Its even help law enforcement officials track down horses in cases of
theft."

Dr. Mary Giddens of the Dutch Warmblood Stud Book in North America
described the international approach to equine identification, providing
an excellent assessment of where many other countries are in identifying
their horses.  Dr. Gidden's presentation was provided through Dr. Teresa
Dohms of the German Equestrian Federation.

"Many countries are moving toward mandatory identification but not all
are there yet.  However, the move in European Countries is to adopt the
Unique Equine Lifetime Number," said Dr. Giddens.  "Similar to the U.S.
Animal Identification number in that it is a 15 digit ISO-compliant
number, with the first three digits representing the country of birth,
but with the UELN, the next three digits indicate the breed and the
remaining nine numbers can be used as the pedigree registration number."


According to Dr. Giddens, most countries appear to be moving toward
microchipping, although not all countries require it at this time.
"Some countries such as the Netherlands, have outlawed hot iron branding
so other forms of identification are needed and microchipping is the
most logical," said Dr. Giddens.  "Breed registries, such as the Friesan
Horse Registry, require chipping, because its not easy to tell Friesan
horses apart from each other:  they are all black and without markings."


Vel Evens, consultant to Equine Canada, gave the convention attendees an
update on Equine Canada's plan to identify Canadian horses, which will
become mandatory for Canadian horses in 2006.  "Our industry is in a
similar place as yours is," said Ms. Evans.  "We've made some decisions,
such as the decision to go forward with use of the UELN, but many other
things still need to be worked out."

The day wrapped up with a report from Dan Fick of The Jockey Club and
Chairman of the AHC's National Equine Identification Task Force, who
announced that the task force has now been designated as the Species
Working Group for Equine, under the USAIP.  Mr. Fick reviewed the
numerous questions still facing the horse industry about a standardized
identification plan.

"We have a lot of work to do yet, but we've done a lot also.  The
consensus is that there are benefits to a national identification plans
for horses and that as a member of the U.S. livestock industry we have a
responsibility to participate in the livestock identification program,"
said Mr. Fick.  "There are lots of questions to be answered but the one
we've been able to answer is that there are important benefits for the
horse industry in participating."


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Posted for Jerry Fruth.

****************************

MEMORANDUM
To: AHC Organizations
From: American Horse Council
Re: National Livestock Identification System
Date: May 13, 2004

Attached is a summary of the presentation on Equine Identification at the AHC’s
National Issues Forum in Washington, DC.

This is an important issue to the horse industry and one that will have broad
implications and affect all sectors.  It is important that our individual
members and member organizations understand the issues and implications of
setting up such a national identification system.

We hope that the attached will be helpful to that understanding.

American Horse Council Hosts Forum on Equine Identification

Members of the U.S. horse industry gathered for a day-long forum at the American
Horse Council’s annual convention in Washington, DC to hear an update on the
national standardized identification system for horses.

Neil Hammerschmidt, the Animal Identification Coordinator for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s Veterinary Services, launched the program with an
in-depth review of the U. S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP).  “This is a
plan that was developed by the livestock industry for the livestock industry and
has been submitted to USDA only as a recommendation,” said Mr. Hammerschmidt.

“Maintaining the health of the U.S. herd is the most urgent issue for the
industry and animal health officials to address, and, therefore, is the most
significant focus of the U.S. Animal Identification Plan,” he said.  The goal is
to establish a system by which a diseased animal can be quickly traced back to
the source of its infection, aiding in the ability to contain, control and
eradicate a disease.  “USDA’s involvement in the USAIP is strictly from an
animal health perspective.  The sooner we can identify the source of a disease
outbreak and locate sick and exposed animals, the sooner we can stop the disease
in its tracks and the sooner every one can get back into business,” said Mr.
Hammerschmidt.

“While the USDA supports the establishment of a national system of livestock
identification, it does not seek to make such a program mandatory at this time,”
Mr. Hammerschmidt continued, suggesting that unless the industry buys into a
program, it won’t be successful.

Mr. Hammerschmidt acknowledged some areas need more focus, particularly the
development and implementation of the premises identification component of the
plan.  Premises identification is essential because trace back of diseased
animals cannot work unless it can be determined where an animal has been.  The
information needed is the premises identification number, the location of the
animal and the date/time stamp (when was the animal sighted or when it moved on
or off a property).

Mr. Hammerschmidt also acknowledged that database security and privacy is
critical if any plan is to be successful.  USDA considers this a priority and is
working to ensure that any information stored in databases will be exempt from
Freedom of Information Act requirements (FOIA).  This a concern at the state
level also because each state has open records requirements as well.

Col. John Hoffman, Program Manager, Food & Agriculture, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, described the new Agency and how border inspection and other
activities of USDA now fit within it.  The Plant Protection and Quarantine
Service (PPQ),  a former agency of the USDA that was responsible for checking
passengers entering the U.S. for illegal agricultural products, has been moved
to the new Department.

Colonel Hoffman agreed that a national identification and tracking system is
important in the management of disease outbreaks.  “An identification and
tracking system is needed,” he said, “and the horse industry is essential to
this.  When this meeting is over all of you in this room will disperse to your
various places in the country and few of you will go to the same place.  That’s
the way the horse industry is.  Horses gather for a show, or a race, and then
disperse.  Every horse goes to a different place.  This makes the need for a
good tracking system for the horse industry important,” he said.

Col. Hoffman also addressed what he called the “common misconception” that horse
diseases are unimportant and do not affect human health.  “Until the 1980’s, the
Soviet Union continued to produce in its bio-weapons program a disease agent
taken from horses but lethal to humans too.”

Col. Hoffman also addressed the privacy issue, agreeing that access to database
information by “nonessential parties” would be barred. As a designated “critical
infrastructure,” any agriculture information related to the activities of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture will be exempt from FOIA requirements, he
suggested.

Dr. Peter Timoney, Director of the Gluck Equine Research Center and Chairman of
the Veterinary Sciences Department at the University of Kentucky, followed Col.
Hoffman’s presentation with an excellent review of equine diseases.  He
explained that West Nile Fever, Easter and Western Equine Encephalomyelitis, and
Venezuelan Equine Encephalomyelitis that present not only a public health
concern but also affect a multitude of species.

Dr. Timoney highlighted the many equine diseases that can affect other
livestock.  Vesicular Stomatitis, Samonellosis, and Leptospirosis are a few
examples.  “As a responsible member of the livestock community we would be
remiss if we didn’t recognize the importance of participating in a program that
would help determine the source of a disease, contain it and control it,” Dr.
Timoney said, referring to the horse industry’s participation in a plan to
standardize livestock identification and establish a system for disease trace
back.

Dr. Maxwell “Mack” Lea, Louisiana State Veterinarian, presented the view of the
states regarding the implementation of a national livestock identification plan.
He described how Louisiana and other states currently handle livestock and
premises identification, pointing out that Louisiana is the first state in the
U.S. to have a mandatory identification program for horses.

The Louisiana program is linked to the state’s Equine Infectious Anemia program
and requires that all horses be tested for EIA each year and be permanently
identified, either through brand, freeze brand, tattoo or microchip, he said. 
The state provides the chips at cost plus fifty cents.

“Identification programs in livestock for disease-related reasons is common in
most livestock except in the equine industry,” said Dr. Lea.  “But there are
lots of reasons to require identification when addressing a disease concern. 
The biggest problem is that diagrammatic identification is usually inadequate
and lacks consistency.  Brands, although not always individual, help greatly in
finding the correct animal.”

Louisiana’s mandatory identification program aids in the legal pursuit of those
who try to circumvent the state’s regulations regarding EIA testing.  “Not all
horses are being tested as they are suppose to be but its getting easy to track
down those who haven’t tested, “ said Dr. Lea.  “Its even help law enforcement
officials track down horses in cases of theft.”

Dr. Mary Giddens of the Dutch Warmblood Stud Book in North America described the
international approach to equine identification, providing an excellent
assessment of where many other countries are in identifying their horses.  Dr.
Gidden’s presentation was provided through Dr. Teresa Dohms of the German
Equestrian Federation.

“Many countries are moving toward mandatory identification but not all are there
yet.  However, the move in European Countries is to adopt the Unique Equine
Lifetime Number,” said Dr. Giddens.  “Similar to the U.S. Animal Identification
number in that it is a 15 digit ISO-compliant number, with the first three
digits representing the country of birth, but with the UELN, the next three
digits indicate the breed and the remaining nine numbers can be used as the
pedigree registration number.”

According to Dr. Giddens, most countries appear to be moving toward
microchipping, although not all countries require it at this time.  “Some
countries such as the Netherlands, have outlawed hot iron branding so other
forms of identification are needed and microchipping is the most logical,” said
Dr. Giddens.  “Breed registries, such as the Friesan Horse Registry, require
chipping, because its not easy to tell Friesan horses apart from each other: 
they are all black and without markings.”

Vel Evens, consultant to Equine Canada, gave the convention attendees an update
on Equine Canada’s plan to identify Canadian horses, which will become mandatory
for Canadian horses in 2006.  “Our industry is in a similar place as yours is,”
said Ms. Evans.  “We’ve made some decisions, such as the decision to go forward
with use of the UELN, but many other things still need to be worked out.”

The day wrapped up with a report from Dan Fick of The Jockey Club and Chairman
of the AHC’s National Equine Identification Task Force, who announced that the
task force has now been designated as the Species Working Group for Equine,
under the USAIP.  Mr. Fick reviewed the numerous questions still facing the
horse industry about a standardized identification plan.

“We have a lot of work to do yet, but we’ve done a lot also.  The consensus is
that there are benefits to a national identification plans for horses and that
as a member of the U.S. livestock industry we have a responsibility to
participate in the livestock identification program,” said Mr. Fick.  “There are
lots of questions to be answered but the one we’ve been able to answer is that
there are important benefits for the horse industry in participating.”

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AERC-Members-Digest]
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 04:34:17 -0700
From: AERCMembersForum-owner@... (List Server)

===================================================

From: "Barbara McCrary" <bigcreekranch@...>
Subject: [AERC-Members] Reminder
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 07:29:36 -0700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.



BlankJust to remind riders who may be interested in Swanton
Pacific =
75/100 that we have a website with information, photos from
last year's =
ride and an entry blank that is printable by anyone.  Click
on the Entry =
Blank button and it will take you to the AERC site where
Mike Maul has =
made it possible to see the entry blank in pdf form.  Pdf
files are =
universally readable and printable by all who have Adobe
Acrobat on =
their computers, and I'm told that a majority of computer
owners do have =
it.  None of the mess I had last year on the website, due to
the fact =
that our entry blank was saved in a MS Word file and was not
printable =
by a good number of people.  I keep learning something new
all the time! =
   Mike was a BIG help to me in this new improvement.  So log
on to =
http://members.cruzio.com/~bigcreekranch   and enjoy the
scenery and =
riders you just might know.

Barbara McCrary, ride mgr.
Swanton Pacific 75/100
"The most beautiful trail in the world"




===================================================

Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:20:31 -0400
From: Roger R <vmaxept@...>
Reply-To: vmaxept@...
Subject: [AERC-Members] FEI and AERC National Championship
Re Minutes BOD  phone session APL 5

I must have missed this before.
I  OBJECT to combining the AERC NC ( ever, any year ) with
the FEI
venue/ride.
I believe it will in fact detract, impact adversely and
undermine the
significance of the AERC NC.
We have enough negative support (bashing) of the AERC NC due
to the
current format, including an FEI ride with the AERC NC will
really
cause riders to NOT attend. I also do not believe we should
combine it
with the AHA NC. However that association is more palatable
then the
FEI venue.

While I sure would like to ride another AERC NC, my current
status
will prevent me from attending this year. It would be of
interest to
ride in 2006 at the Ft Howes site, however IF the FEI ride was
concurrent, I surely would not attend.


Regards  Roger Rittenhouse   AERC 8263 SE


===================================================

Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:24:53 -0700
From: DreamWeaver <nvrider@...>
Subject: [AERC-Members] Ulcer Scoping Clinic this
weekend/SLC, UT
There are a couple of openings if anybody might be
interested in having
their horses scoped this weekend for ulcers in the Salt Lake
City, Utah
area.   Contact Dean Jackson for more information:  803-337-8315

k


===================================================

Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:45:46 -0700
From: DreamWeaver <nvrider@...>
Subject: [AERC-Members] Ulcer Scoping Clinic this
weekend/SLC, UT
One more try, with Dean's correct # this time
(sorry!)  801-254-4347    Email:  sundownr@...

Contact Dean if you wan to participate in the ulcer scoping
clinic near
SLC, Utah this weekend.


k


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-
-= Discussion List Archives:
http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
=-
-= Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:
AERCMembersForum-moderator@...
=-
-= Rules of Usage: http://www.goldhill.com/members/rules.html
=-
-= Disclaimer of liability:
http://www.goldhill.com/members/liability.html
=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The April 5 BoD conference call minutes are available from
the Recent News section of the AERC home page at

http://www.aerc.org/

In addition there is information on a Juniors email list at

http://www.aerc.org/Education_Junior_FAQ.asp

There are archived online Endurance News issues at

http://www.aerc.org/Membership_EN_Arch.asp

with those articles that were placed online.

An additional Protest result is available at

http://www.aerc.org/Education_Protests_Published.asp

There is the new online Rider Feedback Form for rides at the
forms page

http://www.aerc.org/Education_Protests_Published.asp

with additional online forms at the bottom of the page.

Mike Maul

New point standings have been posted at
    http://www.doublejoy.com/erol/Points/default.asp

The following pre-April rides are not included in the
standings at the link.

Jan 10, 2004 Warner Springs Endurance Ride
   Terry Woolley Howe (5961) phone:619-445-5443
email:cancer@...

Jan 16, 2004 El Paso-Las Cruces I,II,III Pioneer
   Randy Eiland (39) phone:915-833-8940
email:renegade12@...

Feb 14, 2004 Cow Tanks I,II,III Pioneer
   Randy Eiland (39) phone:915-833-8940
email:renegade12@...

Mar 18, 2004 New Mexico Renegade I,II,III Pioneer
   Randy Eiland (39) phone:915-833-8940
email:renegade12@...

Mar 20, 2004 Bar H Boogie I & II
   Lynne Glazer (14580) phone:909-947-0775
email:anyone@...

Posted for Jerry Fruth.

********************

> For Immediate Release to all Trail Enthusiasts Photos and logos
> available electronically from
Symposium@...
> or (530) 547-2060.
>
> National Trails Symposium is scheduled for October 21-24, 2004 in
> Austin, Texas
>
> For details see www.americantrails.org/Austin
>
> Calling all trail professionals, advocates, vendors and enthusiasts!
> It's time to brush up your proposals, schedule the dates, reserve your

> booth space, and prepare to nominate your best programs, projects and
> people. Get ready to join American Trails, Texas Parks and Wildlife
> Department, Austin Parks and Recreation Department and Texas Trails
> Network for the 17th National Trails Symposium, to be held in Austin,
> Texas, October 21-24, 2004.
>
> Centrally located in Texas, this state capital has a temperate climate

> and
is
> rich in history, culture and recreational opportunities - and to top
> it off, bills itself as the "Live Music Capital of the World." To
> learn more about the flavor of our host city, visit the Austin
> Convention and Visitors Bureau website at  ww.austintexas.org and
> Texas Trails Network at
www.texastrails.org.
>
> Austin is often called a city within a park. Town Lake bisects the
> center of downtown and is surrounded by 10 miles of hiking and biking
> trails, with access to parks, nature centers and wilderness preserves.

> The Symposium will be held at the Austin Convention Center, in
> proximity to the trail and accommodations. The conference host hotels
> - the Hyatt Regency Austin and Radisson Hotel and Suites - were
> selected for their quality and affordability and because their back
> doors open directly on this trail. Bike and boat rentals are
available
> from the Hyatt. For more on this and other local recreation sites,
> visit the Austin Parks and Recreation Department website at
www.ci.austin.tx.us/parks.
>
> The planning team members are hard at work developing the most
> innovative, practical, diverse and inspirational conference yet to
> showcase our theme, The
> Emerging Role of Trails in American Lifestyles. Trails are no longer
> the exclusive domain of the solitude-loving wilderness seeker or the
> dedicated fitness
> enthusiast. Whether facilitating transportation alternatives,
> providing recreational and educational opportunities, encouraging
> well-being, exploring history
> and heritage, or bringing together people of all ages and connecting
> communities, trails have become a prominent factor in how and where we
choose to live
> our lives. The prominent role of trails in the American lifestyle
contributes
> significantly to its phenomenal opularity and growth. The U.S.
> Department of
> Health and Human Services recently announced that President Bush is
proposing
> $125 million for a new "healthy cities" initiative that would provide
money for
> trails and other programs to combat a national crisis of obesity and
> associated health problems. Communities are already "walking the walk"

> and leading the
> way in demonstrating the correlation between trails and healthy minds,

> bodies, spirits and communities.
>
> We expect that over 800 attendees from across the nation and
internationally
> will join us to network, learn, partner, promote - and enjoy the Texas

> landscape and hospitality. The Symposium attendees consist of
approximately 65%
> agency representatives and 35% private sector advocates, including
> trail planners,
> contractors, volunteers, engineers, land managers, administrators,
> media, trail user and advocacy organizations, company/industry
> representatives, tourism,
> real estate developers and anyone interested in trails. The extensive
Exhibit
> Hall will feature the American Lifestyle Trail & Greenway designed,
> built and
> accessorized by Sponsor/Exhibitors. This is the premier opportunity to
display
> your state-ofthe-art products and services, provide demonstrations,
> show off
> your projects and programs and talk with the decision makers in your
> target market.
>
> The National Trails Awards Program is one way American Trails
> recognizes the
> tremendous contributions of volunteers, professionals, and other
> leaders
who
> are working to create a national system of trails for all Americans.
> It's time
> to begin planning your nominations for National Trails Awards, to be
announced
> at the Symposium. See the American Trails website for categories,
submission
> forms and a list of previous award winners.
>
> KEY DATES and CONTACTS:
>
> - Call for Proposals due: May 14 -
> www.americantrails.org/Austin/callpresent.html
> - 10% Discount Sponsor/Exhibitors: May 31 -
> www.americantrails.org/Austin/SponsOppNTS04.html
> - Registration Packets Mailed: June
> - Online Registration: by June 15 -
> www.americantrails.org/Austin/Registration.html
> National Award Nominations: July 30 -
> www.americantrails.org/Austin/awardnomNTS04.html
>
> For the most current information on the Symposium, sponsorship
opportunities,
> hotel reservations, and registration information, visit the American
Trails
> website at www.americantrails.org/Austin. For inquiries please contact

> American Trails at Symposium@... or (530) 547-2060.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-
=-
-= Discussion List Archives: http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
=-
-= Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:
AERCMembersForum-moderator@...
=-
-= Rules of Usage: http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
=-
-= Terms of Usage & Liability:
http://www.goldhill.com/members/liability.html
=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-

Posted for Jerry Fruth.

******************

Subject: US Forest Service Trail Publications


TO:     State Trail Administrators and Trail Advocacy Organizations
FROM: Christopher Douwes, Trails and Enhancements Program Manager,
Federal Highway Administration
Subject: US Forest Service Trail Publications

Hello everybody:

I am pleased to announce a newly updated webpage with US Forest Service
publications relating to trails located at
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/fspubs/index.htm. Some of these
publications were out-of-print, so they are available to the public
again. Some of the publications are only indirectly related to trails,
but you might find them handy. For example, if you are concerned about
invasive weeds along trails, you might want to know about the MTDC
Portable Vehicle Washer.

We expect to add a few more publications to this website in the near
future, such as the newly published "Portable Rock Crusher for Trails"
and "Accessible Handpump for Forest Service Campgrounds".

These publications also will be available on a CD that the USFS will
provide to us for distribution.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH to the US Forest Service's Technology and
Development Program. In particular, Brian Vachowski, Program Lead, and
Mary Trankel.

And especially, THANK YOU VERY MUCH to Jonathan LeClere, our onsite
contractor here with FHWA, who has turned our RTP website (and TE
website) into very user friendly and informative resources. Jonathan
spent a lot of time reformatting the publications to meet FHWA's
standards. He enjoyed reading the publications and learning more about
trails, as well.

We also improved links to other publications at
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails/publications.htm.

I hope you find these resources useful. They are brought to you by the
Recreational Trails Program administrative funds through a reimbursable
agreement with the US Forest Service Technology and Development Program.
I think this investment will help provide significant cost savings in
building and maintaining America's trails.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-
=-
-= Discussion List Archives: http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
=-
-= Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:
AERCMembersForum-moderator@...
=-
-= Rules of Usage: http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
=-
-= Terms of Usage & Liability:
http://www.goldhill.com/members/liability.html
=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-

Posted for Jerry Fruth.

**********
Regional Access Issues

Regional Issues Of National Interest

From time to time, ARRA will focus attention on regional issues that are
of interest to recreationalists throughout the country. Many groups are
waging important battles at the local, state and regional levels, and it
is important to recognize these efforts. ARRA welcomes information about
local activities and organizations. This information will be shared with
ARRA members via our website on a space available basis.

NPS Seeks Input on PWC Use in Chickasaw National Recreation Area (OK)
The National Park Service has proposed a rule allowing the use of
personal watercraft (PWC) in Chickasaw National Recreation Area,
Oklahoma.  The public comment period is open until May 24th.  ARRA
encourages you to participate so that the voice of responsible
recreationists can be heard.  Click the above link to learn more.
April 5, 2004

BLM Implements Closures near San Diego Due to Fire Damage The Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) has announced temporary closures of public lands
near San Diego to motor vehicles.  The closures are part of
rehabilitation efforts for the areas affected by the Otay, Cedar and
Paradise fires.
April 5, 2004

Your Support Has Helped Preserve OHV Recreation at Oceano Dunes!
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) just published its final rule
regarding the Oceano Dunes (CA) area.  Learn more by clicking the link
above.
March 22, 2004

New Motocross Park in Sun Valley, CA
Attention all motorcyclists your help is urgently needed!  There is
going to be a new motocross track in Sun Valley, California, but letters
of support are urgently needed.  Please click the link above for
information on how you can help.
March 15, 2004


BLM Issues Temporary Closure for Public Lands in Clark County, Idaho The
Bureau of Land Management has announced that all roads and trails in the
Deep Fire area are closed to motorized vehicles and any camping.  The
closure will remain in effect until August 1, 2005 or until the area has
been sufficiently rehabilitated.  For more information about the closure
click the link above.
March 4, 2004

BLM Announces Seasonal Closures in California The Bureau of Land
Management has announced seasonal road closures in Lassen and Modoc
(California) counties that take effect on Friday, March 12th.  The
closures, which are intended to protect muddy areas from damage, will
end later in the spring.  For details about the specific areas closed to
motor vehicle traffic, visit
http://www.ca.blm.gov/news/2004/02/nr/NCnews37_alturas_closures.html.
March 3, 2004

California's 10th Annual Friends of the Off-Road Motor Vehicle
Recreation Program Day The 10th Annual Friends of the Off-Road Motor
Vehicle Recreation Program annual lobbying day at California's State
Capitol will be on Monday, March 22, 9:00am to 5:00pm with a reception
at 5:30 that evening.  The program will include legislative and
Schwarzenegger Administration guest speakers, visits to legislators'
offices, and a reception at the historic Sacramento Sutter Club.  For
more information about the event, visit http://www.clorv.org.
March 3, 2004

Court Halts Yellowstone Snowmobile Ban
The National Park Service has announced that 780 snowmobiles per day
will be allowed in the park until the end of season.  This increases the
number from 483 machines permitted under the Clinton rule.  Read more
about this court decision.
February 11, 2004

Get a Degree in OHV Recreation
Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia is now offering a Park
and Recreational Resources program. Students can graduate with a
Bachelor of Science degree with an emphasis in parks and conservation
and a minor in OHV Recreation.
January 8, 2004


BLM Announces Road Closures and Trail Designations at Fort Stanton (NM)
The Roswell Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has
announced that its Route Designation Plan (transportation plan) includes
road closures, designating off-highway vehicle (OHV) routes, and
developing multiuse trails to protect resources within the Fort Stanton
Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).
November 11, 2003

Proposed Management Plan and FEIS Available for Santa Rosa and San
Jacinto Mountains National Monument The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
and the Forest Service (FS) have announced the availability of the
Proposed Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument.
November 11, 2003

Supreme Court Agrees to Review OHV Ruling The Supreme Court announced
that it will review a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling regarding OHV
use in Utah.
November 11, 2002

H.R. 3247, Trail Responsibility and Accountability for Improving our
Lands (TRAIL) Act of 2003 Endorsed by ARRA, the TRAIL Act of 2003 will
help maintain recreational access to public lands and promote
responsible use. For an overview of the TRAIL Act, click here. To read
the full text of the TRAIL Act, click here.
October 06, 2003

Testimony of Mike Pool Regarding Public Access in the CA Desert and the
Imperial Sand Dunes Mike Pool, the State Director of the Bureau of Land
Management in California provided an excellent overview of the
challenges of managing the California Desert Conservation District and
the popular Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area. We encourage you to
review Director Pool's testimony by clicking the link above.
August 28, 2003







-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=
-=iscussion List Archives: http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
=
-=ubscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto: AERCMembersForum-moderator@...
=
-=ules of Usage: http://www.goldhill.com/members/index.html
=
-=erms of Usage & Liability:
http://www.goldhill.com/members/liability.html
=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=