American Morgan Horse Assoc. opposes Horse Protection Act?

[csaper58]

[QUOTE=Amwrider;8887296]
sez you

my horses can prove otherwise. I have had plenty of saddle seat horses that also jump…both Saddlebreds and Morgans.

Do you want to see pictures of my former park horse jumping a rolltop? Want to see two different English Pleasure horses taking a wall? How about a former saddle seat country pleasure horse on an eventing course?

Just let me know, I have the photos.

OH…and one of those “repurposed” show horses was reserve national champion working hunter for junior exhibitors at last years Morgan show. She just took third in the Hunter Hack National Finals class this afternoon. I don’t think she has “glaring issues.”

And in case you think she wasn’t a nice show horse, before she was in the sport horse division, she was a 2013 reserve national champion in the show horse division…wearing a padded shoe and weights at Nationals, then we pulled the show shoes and put her keg shoes on and the next day she showed in the sporthorse arena and placed top 10 in the Hunter Hack National Finals. The we put her show shoes back on and later in the week she showed back in the show horse divisions.

I have had a LOT of riders that will show in the show division with pads, and we cross-enter into sporthorse. It usually depends on which classes are offered and how the classes are spaced apart because we don’t always have time to change out shoes.

I am sorry, but you guys keep arguing about how detrimental the padded shoes are to the horses and I am finding the exact opposite. Like I said, you are seeing everything in black and white. My experience tells me that there is a lot of gray area and a lot of benefits to being able to customize shoeing as needed.

There are different people sports that necessitate different shoeing and there are different horse sports that necessitate different shoeing too.

People have sport shoes that are designed for lateral stability such as for playing tennis. You have sport shoes that are lightweight and are designed for runners to breakover off their toes more quickly, You have sport shoes with large padded cushioned insoles and ankle supports for basketball players. You have soccer shoes designed for traction on grass and the ability to make quick turns and spins. If suddenly the IOC decides that running shoes are the gold standards for all human sports, then the basketball players will suffer, the tennis players will suffer, etc.

Why should flat shod keg shoes be the gold standard for every discipline? What will protect our horses from concussive injuries?

As I stated before, a big trotting horse pounds the ground pretty hard…even if he isn’t shod for showing. Forcing these horses to work in keg shoes without pads will bring on concussive and arthritic changes much earlier and thus shorten their competitive lifespans. Then what happens?

What happens to the horses that have a club foot, or toe out, or have a limb anomaly that causes them to have an unbalanced trot that puts them at risk of injury? We will not be allowed to help these horses. What happens to those horses?[/QUOTE]

I was answering another poster, and referring to the horses that no one would buy because their tails were ‘messed up’.

I have never known a customer to pass up a ‘sport’ prospect, that was checking all the boxes, because of it’s tail. I’m saddened if that is the reality were others live.

[Amwrider]

[QUOTE=csaper58;8887611]

Amwrider…I have found that there are other options than keg shoes. A lovely wide web hand forged shoe works well for several saddle/sport horses here.

Therapeutic shoes for horses with angular limb deformities are going to be allowed.[/QUOTE]

It is my understanding that they have made adjustments to the proposed legislation to further limit the shoeing and they have extended the comment period.

I will have to find the verbiage but it looks like hand forged wide webbed shoes will ne illegal. Pretty much only standard kegs will be allowed. I need to find the link.

[Amwrider]

Here you go Csaper58

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=APHIS-2011-0009-7612

 [I]"In our proposed changes to §?11.2, we included provisions in proposed paragraph (a)(3) of that section stating that the use of any weight on horses up to 2 years old, except a keg or similar conventional horseshoe is prohibited, as is the use of a horseshoe on horses up to 2 years old that weighs more than 16 ounces. In keeping with the intent of our other proposed changes, we are considering changing proposed paragraph (a)(3) to read [B]"The use of any weight on horses, except a keg or similar conventional horseshoe, is prohibited"

[/B][/I]
So…what exactly constitutes a “conventional horseshoe?”

does this mean No trailers on shoes? No toe clips or side clips? No half/round shoes? What is the definition of a “conventional shoe?” We don’t know…so how far will this reach?

So let’s get a high stepping, long-pasterned saddlebred that is a ground pounder at the trot and not allow any kind of trailer on the shoe. This is going to reduce the amount of suspensory support that the shoe provides. What about those horses that have huge, open trotting strides and maybe are prone to heel first landings? Since we cannot correct this with pads and weight on the shoe and looks like trailers are unconventional, how will this affect the health and longevity of the horses? What about us horse people in FL that do not have benefit of an indoor arena with dry footing in our wet summers. It will be bad enough not having bands to help keep shoes on wet feet, but we might not even be able to have toe or side clips.

There is FAULTY LANGUAGE all throughout this legislation and it is purposely left this way so that it can be applied in arbitrary and capricious methods by the USDA so that when their HSUS buddies get a new target, they can apply the same legislation without having to bother with all of the meetings around the country and the comment periods, etc. Then after they get rid of another industry they will move on to the next one…and then the next one…and so on and so on until there isn’t a horse industry left.

This is TROJAN HORSE legislation. People think it looks nice and friendly on the outside, but there is a horrible surprise awaiting within.

[Onetrickpuppy]

[QUOTE=Amwrider;8885681]
They have also been joined by the Arabian Horse Association, the United Professional Horsemen’s Association, the USEF and the American Horse Council.[/QUOTE]

Reading over the USDA proposal, I can understand why the aforementioned horse associations may take issue, given that it’s clear as mud on several points. For instance, under Definitions, the last paragraph adds a new definition for the term “substance.”
“Substance” is defined as, “…any agent applied to a horse’s limbs while the horse is shown, exhibited, or offered for sale…”
That sentence is very broad and could prohibit the use of fly spray for all we know. I agree with prohibiting shoe packages that exceed a single pad, chains, etc., and believe the intent of the proposal is valid, however it need clarification on several issues. JMO. Carry on.

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-17648/p-111

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=Amwrider;8887657]
Here you go Csaper58

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=APHIS-2011-0009-7612

 [I]"In our proposed changes to §?11.2, we included provisions in proposed paragraph (a)(3) of that section stating that the use of any weight on horses up to 2 years old, except a keg or similar conventional horseshoe is prohibited, as is the use of a horseshoe on horses up to 2 years old that weighs more than 16 ounces. In keeping with the intent of our other proposed changes, we are considering changing proposed paragraph (a)(3) to read [B]"The use of any weight on horses, except a keg or similar conventional horseshoe, is prohibited"

[/B][/I]
So…what exactly constitutes a “conventional horseshoe?”

“The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience…” Justice Holmes’ observation is often forgotten but remains valid. Within the equestrian community most of us know what a “conventional” shoe is, particularly when contrasted to the “unconventional” shoes of the “gait cosmeticians” that use devices to alter way of going. Further, this “conventional” requirement is to be read in conjunction with the base requirement that non-therapeutic shoeing practices are what is being addressed. Meaning that if the shoe is “therapeutic” for any reason then it’s kosher. If it’s not, then it’s not.

Any claim that “hand forged shoe” is never “conventional” would be highly questionable. It might be, but it might not be. The issue, however, is it’s therapeutic value.

Clips, trailers, studs, borium, etc. would all fall into the “conventional” category. In any given circumstance they might even be “therapeutic.”

does this mean No trailers on shoes? No toe clips or side clips? No half/round shoes? What is the definition of a “conventional shoe?” We don’t know…so how far will this reach?

We know exactly how far it reaches.

So let’s get a high stepping, long-pasterned saddlebred that is a ground pounder at the trot and not allow any kind of trailer on the shoe. This is going to reduce the amount of suspensory support that the shoe provides. What about those horses that have huge, open trotting strides and maybe are prone to heel first landings? Since we cannot correct this with pads and weight on the shoe and looks like trailers are unconventional, how will this affect the health and longevity of the horses? What about us horse people in FL that do not have benefit of an indoor arena with dry footing in our wet summers. It will be bad enough not having bands to help keep shoes on wet feet, but we might not even be able to have toe or side clips.

If the practice is “therapeutic” it’s allowed. If it’s not, it’s not.

There is FAULTY LANGUAGE all throughout this legislation and it is purposely left this way so that it can be applied in arbitrary and capricious methods by the USDA so that when their HSUS buddies get a new target, they can apply the same legislation without having to bother with all of the meetings around the country and the comment periods, etc. Then after they get rid of another industry they will move on to the next one…and then the next one…and so on and so on until there isn’t a horse industry left.

The language is not faulty.

This is TROJAN HORSE legislation. People think it looks nice and friendly on the outside, but there is a horrible surprise awaiting within.[/QUOTE]

In your opinion.

G.

[Amwrider]

[QUOTE=Onetrickpuppy;8887662]
Reading over the USDA proposal, I can understand why the aforementioned horse associations may take issue, given that it’s clear as mud on several points. For instance, under Definitions, the last paragraph adds a new definition for the term “substance.”
“Substance” is defined as, “…any agent applied to a horse’s limbs while the horse is shown, exhibited, or offered for sale…”
That sentence is very broad and could prohibit the use of fly spray for all we know. I agree with prohibiting shoe packages that exceed a single pad, chains, etc., and believe the intent of the proposal is valid, however it need clarification on several issues. JMO. Carry on.

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-17648/p-111[/QUOTE]

Lots of it is “clear as mud” and that paragraph is one that is used in the arguments. Prohibited substances could include fly sprays, shampoos, liniments, clay poultice, baby powder, hoof black, hoof conditioner and more.

Example…when I show at nationals, in OKC, the stalls are put up on concrete. Every single stall there is on concrete. We bed deeply and use the rubber mat rental company but they are still standing on concrete for up to two weeks. We walk concrete to go to the arena and to go from barn to barn. The only time they are not on concrete is when they are actually showing or in the warmup ring.

I like to liniment legs after a workout, or at least use a wintergreen alcohol to cool and soothe the legs and at night I clay poultice and wrap to try to combat any hint of inflammation from being on the concrete.

If this passes…no can do…

[ASB_Stars]

[QUOTE=Amwrider;8887856]

I like to liniment legs after a workout, or at least use a wintergreen alcohol to cool and soothe the legs and at night I clay poultice and wrap to try to combat any hint of inflammation from being on the concrete.

If this passes…no can do…[/QUOTE]

Why? Because it is isn’t a therapeutic use, or your Vet wouldn’t sign off on it?

Examples like this amaze me. Whatever the cause, those against always swing the pendulum as far into the ridiculous as they can.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=Onetrickpuppy;8887662]
Reading over the USDA proposal, I can understand why the aforementioned horse associations may take issue, given that it’s clear as mud on several points. For instance, under Definitions, the last paragraph adds a new definition for the term “substance.”
“Substance” is defined as, “…any agent applied to a horse’s limbs while the horse is shown, exhibited, or offered for sale…”
That sentence is very broad and could prohibit the use of fly spray for all we know. I agree with prohibiting shoe packages that exceed a single pad, chains, etc., and believe the intent of the proposal is valid, however it need clarification on several issues. JMO. Carry on.

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-17648/p-111[/QUOTE]

Definition of Substance:

Substance means any agent applied to a horse’s limbs while a horse is shown, exhibited, or offered for sale, or otherwise present on the grounds at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction. This definition also includes any agent applied to a horse’s limbs before or after a horse is shown, exhibited, or offered for sale, or otherwise present on the grounds at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction.

Application of Definition of Substance:

Prohibited actions, practices, devices, and substances.
(a) Specific prohibitions. No device, method, practice, or substance shall be used with respect to any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction if such use causes or can reasonably be expected to cause such horse to be sore.

You have to read ALL of the relevant parts of the Rule.

G.

[Gnalli]

[QUOTE=Onetrickpuppy;8887662]
Reading over the USDA proposal, I can understand why the aforementioned horse associations may take issue, given that it’s clear as mud on several points. For instance, under Definitions, the last paragraph adds a new definition for the term “substance.”
“Substance” is defined as, “…any agent applied to a horse’s limbs while the horse is shown, exhibited, or offered for sale…”
That sentence is very broad and could prohibit the use of fly spray for all we know. I agree with prohibiting shoe packages that exceed a single pad, chains, etc., and believe the intent of the proposal is valid, however it need clarification on several issues. JMO. Carry on.

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-17648/p-111[/QUOTE]

It DOES apply to fly spray, baby powder, anything that the horse is not born with is considered a foreign substance.

[Gnalli]

[QUOTE=ASB Stars;8887881]
Why? Because it is isn’t a therapeutic use, or your Vet wouldn’t sign off on it?

Examples like this amaze me. Whatever the cause, those against always swing the pendulum as far into the ridiculous as they can.[/QUOTE]

It doesn’t matter what the vet will or wont sign off on. It is considered a foreign substance.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=Gnalli;8888126]
It DOES apply to fly spray, baby powder, anything that the horse is not born with is considered a foreign substance.[/QUOTE]

Did you read the rest of the item I posted? The foreign substance must be part of a soring protocol before it becomes unlawful. I’m wondering how Repelex or talcum powder could be used as soring chemicals.

G.

[Onetrickpuppy]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8887893]
Definition of Substance:

Substance means any agent applied to a horse’s limbs while a horse is shown, exhibited, or offered for sale, or otherwise present on the grounds at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction. This definition also includes any agent applied to a horse’s limbs before or after a horse is shown, exhibited, or offered for sale, or otherwise present on the grounds at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction.

Application of Definition of Substance:

Prohibited actions, practices, devices, and substances.
(a) Specific prohibitions. No device, method, practice, or substance shall be used with respect to any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction if such use causes or can reasonably be expected to cause such horse to be sore.

You have to read ALL of the relevant parts of the Rule.

G.[/QUOTE]

True. I found paragraphs related to the use of substance far down in the bill which as you point out, seeks to clarify the original definition.
I’m not an attorney nor do I play one on TV, but I have to ask, when addressing the use of substances, for example, why place the definition one place and the explanation of such somewhere else in the bill? For laymen such as myself, who make an effort to actually read and understand what is being proposed, it gets somewhat confusing. And I don’t like being confused.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=Onetrickpuppy;8888150]
True. I found paragraphs related to the use of substance far down in the bill which as you point out, seeks to clarify the original definition.
I’m not an attorney nor do I play one on TV, but I have to ask, when addressing the use of substances, for example, why place the definition one place and the explanation of such somewhere else in the bill? For laymen such as myself, who make an effort to actually read and understand what is being proposed, it gets somewhat confusing. And I don’t like being confused.[/QUOTE]

That’s the way statutes and regulations are written. It’s not designed to confuse, although that can happen either through sloppy drafting or as an attempt at “creative ambiguity.” IMO the proposed Regulations are reasonably well drafted and don’t trigger any “warning bells” on the “ambiguity” side.

G.

[Onetrickpuppy]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8888189]
That’s the way statutes and regulations are written. It’s not designed to confuse, although that can happen either through sloppy drafting or as an attempt at “creative ambiguity.” IMO the proposed Regulations are reasonably well drafted and don’t trigger any “warning bells” on the “ambiguity” side.

G.[/QUOTE]

Not trying to argue here, yes, the proposal is reasonably well drafted if you’re an attorney.

Anyway, thanks for pointing out the clarifications regarding substances.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=Onetrickpuppy;8888322]
Not trying to argue here, yes, the proposal is reasonably well drafted if you’re an attorney.

Anyway, thanks for pointing out the clarifications regarding substances.[/QUOTE]

Reading Federal Regulations is not for the weak of heart or eye!!!

There are actually VERY specific rules about how these things are written.

You’re welcome regarding substances.

G.

[Kaede]

I have a nice saddlebred gelding who’s tail was cut and is now awry. My trainer and I have been working with him since July to get him to move more like a sport horse. He is doing fine. I figure It will be another year before his head and neck are down and he doesn’t look wildly lateral at the canter. What is going to kill him in the dressage arena is not his tail, it’s his tongue.
When he gets his loose ring french link snaffle on, it pops out of his mouth and WAVES around in the air. Vet says its nerve damage from being tied… Other times he bares his teeth, I’m told its a habit from wearing a show bridle… Still its a bit off putting to see him working at the walk, waving his tongue around or moving into a trot baring his teeth… Will the proposed legislation do anything to prevent tongue tying or the “spiked” or “studded” nose band or the mule bit he wore?

[Onetrickpuppy]

[QUOTE=Kaede;8888736]
I have a nice saddlebred gelding who’s tail was cut and is now awry. My trainer and I have been working with him since July to get him to move more like a sport horse. He is doing fine. I figure It will be another year before his head and neck are down and he doesn’t look wildly lateral at the canter. What is going to kill him in the dressage arena is not his tail, it’s his tongue.
When he gets his loose ring french link snaffle on, it pops out of his mouth and WAVES around in the air. Vet says its nerve damage from being tied… Other times he bares his teeth, I’m told its a habit from wearing a show bridle… Still its a bit off putting to see him working at the walk, waving his tongue around or moving into a trot baring his teeth… Will the proposed legislation do anything to prevent tongue tying or the “spiked” or “studded” nose band or the mule bit he wore?[/QUOTE]

Wow, I had no clue about spiked nosebands. All for a ribbon. :no:
When I was younger, I has aspirations of showing at Nationals, but as I became more aware of some of the cruelty involved to win a stupid ribbon, I’m happy just putzing around our place.

[D_BaldStockings]

[QUOTE=csaper58;8887622]
I was answering another poster, and referring to the horses that no one would buy because their tails were ‘messed up’.

I have never known a customer to pass up a ‘sport’ prospect, that was checking all the boxes, because of it’s tail. I’m saddened if that is the reality were others live.[/QUOTE]

ASB Stars market is people looking for a possible Dressage horse, not a Jumper.
In Dressage, the tail would be a no go / no sale if visibly altered.

When you find $ profit in a horse with 6 months to a year of retraining, generally refeeding and hoof correction, in a Breed that does not have Sport classes within their breed shows, so everything is against Open competition, let me know how you do that

This is just an aside.

I am not in favor of having an anonymous show vet responsible to sign off on all leg washes, fly spray, etc. that might go on a horse at a show if I forget to bring ‘my note’. I can’t imagine how time consuming it would be for 10 horses in a barn, and all the barns at a show.

The USEF already has a forbidden substances list…

Not limiting the hoof length while removing the ability to use pads or bands seems like a recipe for damage to me.

[Amwrider]

[QUOTE=Kaede;8888736]
I have a nice saddlebred gelding who’s tail was cut and is now awry. My trainer and I have been working with him since July to get him to move more like a sport horse. He is doing fine. I figure It will be another year before his head and neck are down and he doesn’t look wildly lateral at the canter. What is going to kill him in the dressage arena is not his tail, it’s his tongue.
When he gets his loose ring french link snaffle on, it pops out of his mouth and WAVES around in the air. Vet says its nerve damage from being tied… Other times he bares his teeth, I’m told its a habit from wearing a show bridle… Still its a bit off putting to see him working at the walk, waving his tongue around or moving into a trot baring his teeth… Will the proposed legislation do anything to prevent tongue tying or the “spiked” or “studded” nose band or the mule bit he wore?[/QUOTE]

The proposed legislation does not reference bits or nose bands.

I doubt the tongue waving is nerve damage. If his tongue was damaged by being tied down you should see indentations on the sides where tissue was damaged by someone forgetting to take it off, or tying it too tightly for too long.

I have seen some horses bare their teeth before, usually if their cavesson is cranked down very tightly so he may have developed a habit.

[D_BaldStockings]

[QUOTE=Kaede;8888736]
I have a nice saddlebred gelding who’s tail was cut and is now awry. My trainer and I have been working with him since July to get him to move more like a sport horse. He is doing fine. I figure It will be another year before his head and neck are down and he doesn’t look wildly lateral at the canter. What is going to kill him in the dressage arena is not his tail, it’s his tongue.
When he gets his loose ring french link snaffle on, it pops out of his mouth and WAVES around in the air. Vet says its nerve damage from being tied… Other times he bares his teeth, I’m told its a habit from wearing a show bridle… Still its a bit off putting to see him working at the walk, waving his tongue around or moving into a trot baring his teeth… Will the proposed legislation do anything to prevent tongue tying or the “spiked” or “studded” nose band or the mule bit he wore?[/QUOTE]

in a word: no.
It only applies to limbs and what goes on them.

There is always room for another USEF rule proposal, though…

• I am sorry for your horse’s predicament.
  Perhaps posting the issue and asking for suggestions on the Dressage forum could find a solution or speed his recovery and acceptance of this or another bit.