American Morgan Horse Assoc. opposes Horse Protection Act?

[Stonewall]

Just got an email from th AMHA:

Be assured, AMHA is absolutely opposed to soring and other practices that been illegal for several years. We do not use them on Morgan horses and abhor their use on any equine. Unfortunately, the newest version seems to try and encompass everything without regard for individual needs. The current proposals are not breed specific, but include the possible elimination of “protective” equipment such as bell boots, etc. and could possibly eliminate the use of ALL pads including those for therapeutic purposes as well as other blanket policies. AMHA wants the rule written in such a way that it cannot be misunderstand and we feel there is room for a great deal of clarification.

Really? Bell boots? This doesn’t ring true. A little googling found a COTH thread archived that read:

The Board of Directors of the Morgan Horse Association has approved the use of bands and turnbuckles for any horse other than a weanling or a yearling.

So is AMHA opposed to soring but ok with pads and straps and other bizarre “packages”?

My old style Morgan does great barefoot and booted. Is this another example of a show-oriented breed association that has lost contact with everyday horse owners?

Sorry that I have more questions than answers. All that hangs in the balance for me, anyway, is the annual fee I pay them.

[red_mares]

@Stonewall;8814800

Really? Bell boots? This doesn’t ring true. A little googling found a COTH thread archived that read:

It indeed rings true. Go read the actual proposed legislation. Read what is actually on the page. AMHA is looking out for ALL of their members and not the just the ones with barefoot horses.

I’ve been to walking horse shows where even simple bell boots were not allowed. The proposed rules are tailored to TWHs, but not specifically limited to them. If you want some bureaucrat telling you what you can & cannot do with your horse, by all means support it.

[clanter]

believe me as much legation the AMHA has been through they know a problem when they see it

[Guilherme]

The plain language of the Act says that therapeutic pads are permitted but non-therapeutic are not. Only zealots are crying “it outlaws all pads.” That is categorically NOT true. If you don’t believe me then read the Act for yourself!!!

The AMHA seems to be listening to a segment of their ownership who are invested in a certain style of Morgan Horse. I’d bet money these are a few very well connected “show barns” or their friends and associates. The clear misrepresentation of the Act suggests that somebody sees their “ox getting gored” and wants to ensure that doesn’t happen.

This is exactly what is happening with the TWH and TWHBEA. The vast majority of TWH owners want to see an end to the horrid practices that have sullied the TWH name since the late '60s. The TWHBEA is solidly in the control of a small number of families in Middle TN, assisted by a small number of folks in adjacent states. These show interests have been in control for a long time. Now an outside party, the USDA, will be in a position to “geld” them and they don’t like it one bit. So they are doing what they can to misrepresent the Act using scare tactics and are trying to get other breeds to do the same. Shame on the Morgan folks for allowing themselves to be “fished.”

G.

[red_mares]

G, I respect your experience as lawyer, but as someone who works for the government, I do not trust anyone here to rationally enforce this. I have seen too many people become “experts” simply because their new job title. Often they got the new job because they were idiots, but as government employees it was easier to give them a glowing recommendation than to fire them. If you want to put your horses in hands like that…

Action device means any boot, collar, chain, beads, bangles, roller, or other device which encircles or is placed upon the lower extremity of the leg of a horse in such a manner that it can either rotate around the leg, or slide up and down the leg so as to cause friction, or which can strike the hoof, coronet band, or fetlock joint.

I think 99% of us would agree that bell boots are pretty harmless. However, they are not solidly fixed on a leg; they can rotate around a leg, and do strike the hoof. If you can explain to me how they are not prohibited under this rule, I would appreciate it. I would also appreciate if you explain why bell boots are so horrible that they need to be prohibited by a federal regulation.

[lindac]

Back in the days before the HPA, the TWH crowd hid items to sore their horses under the bell boots.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=red mares;8815571]
G, I respect your experience as lawyer, but as someone who works for the government, I do not trust anyone here to rationally enforce this. I have seen too many people become “experts” simply because their new job title. Often they got the new job because they were idiots, but as government employees it was easier to give them a glowing recommendation than to fire them. If you want to put your horses in hands like that…

I think 99% of us would agree that bell boots are pretty harmless. However, they are not solidly fixed on a leg; they can rotate around a leg, and do strike the hoof. If you can explain to me how they are not prohibited under this rule, I would appreciate it. I would also appreciate if you explain why bell boots are so horrible that they need to be prohibited by a federal regulation.[/QUOTE]

Under Definitions we find:

"(1) (A) The term ‘action device’ means any boot, collar, chain, roller, or other device that encircles or is placed upon the lower extremity of the leg of a horse in such a manner that it can—

“B Such term does not include soft rubber or soft leather bell boots or quarter boots that are used as protective devices[/B].”;

This is from the Senate version. I don’t know what the final bill will say. I didn’t look at the House version. Problem solved.

I worked with the APHIS folks on many occasions in the '90s, when the TWHBEA was being protected by VP Gore. While they have been vilified and demonized and physically threaten by the “sore horse interests” of the TWHBEA they always were professional. I, too, have worked with and against government for just about 50 years. I trust it only as far as I can see it. The statute and it’s proposed amendments do not trigger my “Big Brother Is Coming” warning system.

Put another way, they are neither EPA nor BLM.

G.

[csaper58]

[QUOTE=lindac;8815660]
Back in the days before the HPA, the TWH crowd hid items to sore their horses under the bell boots.[/QUOTE]

I have seen this too.

[poltroon]

It’s good that protective bell boots are called out as specifically okay, but why would you need to put bell boots on a park horse at a horse show anyway? Hunters under saddle manage to warm up without them.

AMHA needs to let go of this, and take the tall pads and action devices off the horses.

[ridebluesky]

Please comment for the proposal to end finally the horrid abuse that these horses have endured for 50 years.
Lickers have had 40 plus years of due process and failed to clean up and end soring Instead It continues.
This would end the stacks broken tails tied mouths acid chains 10 in shank bits and the beating they endure to stand still when the pain is too great. Please sign for ending this in the usda websites. This has to end

[lindac]

[QUOTE=ridebluesky;8818475]
Please comment for the proposal to end finally the horrid abuse that these horses have endured for 50 years.
Lickers have had 40 plus years of due process and failed to clean up and end soring Instead It continues.
This would end the stacks broken tails tied mouths acid chains 10 in shank bits and the beating they endure to stand still when the pain is too great. Please sign for ending this in the usda websites. This has to end[/QUOTE]

It will not end tail cutting (subcutaneous caudal myotomy).That is a separate issue. See separate thread about ending tail disfigurement or click link for more information and pictures on that subject.

http://www.americansaddlebredsporthorse.net/

[Ladylexie]

The American Saddlebred horse Assoc opposes this also. They also want to make sure tail cutting is always allowed.:no:

[Draftmare]

[QUOTE=clanter;8814958]
believe me as much legation the AMHA has been through they know a problem when they see it[/QUOTE]

I agree. Not involved in any of the breeds that are going to be immediately impacted, but the way that I read the new proposed law, pads of any kind would be banned. That would spell disaster for horses with flat soles (as my first horse had, he wouldn’t stay sound without pads), or horses with issues like lamenitis. There is one horse at my barn who doesn’t stay sound without her wedge pads due to a bone chip.

[Draftmare]

[QUOTE=poltroon;8815969]
It’s good that protective bell boots are called out as specifically okay, but why would you need to put bell boots on a park horse at a horse show anyway? Hunters under saddle manage to warm up without them.

AMHA needs to let go of this, and take the tall pads and action devices off the horses.[/QUOTE]

Icelandics frequently show in bell boots, and I thought that five gaited ASBs did too? Some of their gaits can cause them to clip their heels with a back foot.

[lindac]

[QUOTE=Draftmare;8818912]
I agree. Not involved in any of the breeds that are going to be immediately impacted, but the way that I read the new proposed law, pads of any kind would be banned. That would spell disaster for horses with flat soles (as my first horse had, he wouldn’t stay sound without pads), or horses with issues like lamenitis. There is one horse at my barn who doesn’t stay sound without her wedge pads due to a bone chip.[/QUOTE]

The new proposed rule reads… “This prohibition is not intended to disallow corrective devices, such as Memphis bars which consist of a metal bar(s) crossing from the ground surface of one side of the horseshoe to the ground surface of the other side of the horseshoe, and the purpose of which is to correct a lameness or pathological condition of the hoof: Provided, That such metal bar(s) do not act as a single fulcrum point so as to affect the balance of the horse.”

It says "This prohibition is not intended to disallow corrective devices " and then they give an example of a corrective device.

Therapeutic pads are a corrective device.

I personally don’t believe that the government will do away with all the therapeutic pads on all the horses in the US that wear them. This new HPA rule is to strengthen the Horse Protection Act to prevent soring, not regulate the entire horse population of the USA. I believe the ASHA and AMHA are whipping their members into a frenzy over something that they have no historical reason to worry about, PLUS they are taking the side of the Sore Horse Crowd which looks very bad…

[Amwrider]

The way the verbiage is written in the USDA/APHIS proposed rule changes, the language is very loose. There are no less than 7 times that in discussing gaits, the word “trotting” is used. This opens the language to include breeds that do not show under the TWH type shows.

There are also about 20 spots where the proposed regulations refer to “and related breeds” but there is no clear definition of how they are going to define that “relation.” Is it related by blood? By gait? By show association? By use of pads? By judging standards that reward high knee action?

There is no definition and this is what the American Morgan Horse Association, the American Saddlebred Association, the United Professional Horsemen’s Association and the USEF are all taking a very close look at and asking members to submit comments either against the proposal or to ask them to tighten up the definitions so that the non-soring breeds are excluded.

We would only be too happy to see the Big Lick horses go away…for many, many years our breeds have tried to distance ourselves from that segment of the horse industry and the general public keeps wanting to lump us with them.

If you read the regulations carefully, it also indicates USDA inspections at horse shows, but does not have language to limit it to the TWH type shows. If they do use the broadest sense of the language, this would mean that the non soring breeds would also be subject to inspections and elimination for scar rules or sniffers that detect fly spray and linaments. Nobody wants that. What we do want is the language to be tightened up.

I think we would all be happy to see it end, but we do not want their “taint” to overflow into our industries and effect us. Why punish the innocent segments of the industry to get to the bad people?

This would be like banning dressage to get rid of Rollkur.

[Amwrider]

And if you think that the language will pass as is and everything will be all hunky-dory and will only apply to the TWH, you need to realize the loopholes that are being created in the laws. The Horse Protection Act applies to “all breeds of horses” and has only been applied to the TWH and their shows, however THIS language opens it up so much more.

You also need to look into the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack and his wife Christine and their ties with the HSUS. Then look at how the HSUS how much they pay their lawyers to get legislation like this passed. They know they cannot outright ban all these segments of the horse industry, BUT if they can get a loophole passed, it opens doors for later…

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=Amwrider;8824012]
The way the verbiage is written in the USDA/APHIS proposed rule changes, the language is very loose. There are no less than 7 times that in discussing gaits, the word “trotting” is used. This opens the language to include breeds that do not show under the TWH type shows.

There are also about 20 spots where the proposed regulations refer to “and related breeds” but there is no clear definition of how they are going to define that “relation.” Is it related by blood? By gait? By show association? By use of pads? By judging standards that reward high knee action?

There is no definition and this is what the American Morgan Horse Association, the American Saddlebred Association, the United Professional Horsemen’s Association and the USEF are all taking a very close look at and asking members to submit comments either against the proposal or to ask them to tighten up the definitions so that the non-soring breeds are excluded.

We would only be too happy to see the Big Lick horses go away…for many, many years our breeds have tried to distance ourselves from that segment of the horse industry and the general public keeps wanting to lump us with them.

If you read the regulations carefully, it also indicates USDA inspections at horse shows, but does not have language to limit it to the TWH type shows. If they do use the broadest sense of the language, this would mean that the non soring breeds would also be subject to inspections and elimination for scar rules or sniffers that detect fly spray and linaments. Nobody wants that. What we do want is the language to be tightened up.

I think we would all be happy to see it end, but we do not want their “taint” to overflow into our industries and effect us. Why punish the innocent segments of the industry to get to the bad people?

This would be like banning dressage to get rid of Rollkur.[/QUOTE]

I think your fears are overstated. I’m not a Big Government Guy but I read the Senate version of the proposed legislation and I don’t find it threatening in any meaningful way to the mainstream of most disciplines.

The fear that suddenly there will be an army of HSUS-sympathetic APHIS vets appearing at horse shows is really fantasy. The HPA has a maximum authorized budget of $500,000 (not, AFAIK, indexed to inflation). This paltry sum is why in the '90s an effort at “self-regulation” was launched and the DQP program begun. There was simply not enough money to fund direct regulation. And I don’t think that the entire $500,000 has ever been authorized in any appropriation.

Most Federal legislation is “loose” and the real “teeth” will be in the regulations issued to apply the statute. This makes a LOT of work for lawyers. It also reflects the reality that what is appropriate today in any given industry might be very inappropriate in five years.

Whenever I see “scare” language on any issue I know that I’m dealing with somebody who has something to lose of the status quo is disturbed. Or something to win. In any event something that in their minds justifies “fudging” or even out and out lying. For lots of examples look at the present presidential campaign.

The Morgan folks have been stirred up about this. If they really think they might fall under the “gun” I’d suggest they review their practices 'cause the amended HPA does not threaten any legitimate practices that I can see.

Put another way, if they think this will make them “criminals” then they likely already are.

G.

[Amwrider]

With all due respect Guilherme, the Senate version is greatly different than this version.

The version called the PAST Act (Prevent All Soring Tactics) is stuck in the House right now. The PAST act is limited to TWH, SSH and Racking horses. The original language included the possibilities for other breeds but so many people protested that they changed the language to limit it to the three breeds because they knew it would not pass a vote if it included breeds outside of those three.

Because the bill is stuck on the house floor, this option is being tried and it does have the far-reaching language that opens it up to other breeds.

This is NOT going up for vote. They are taking comments and then will submit text to go to the White House and afterwards if it is signed it will be added to the Federal Register as law.

This is a back-door way to get legislation through without having it voted on and as I stated, the language needs to be tightened up. We do not want any loopholes that have the potential to punish innocent segments of the horse industry that have NOTHING to do with the TWH industry.

[Amwrider]

This is the link to the current proposed regulations. The proposed regulations were entered into the Federal Register on July 26, 2016. The USDA and APHIS are conducting a small handful of meetings and are accepting comments through September 26. 2016.

The link: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=APHIS-2011-0009-0001