[QUOTE=Draftmare;8818917]
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.[/QUOTE]
But Morgans don’t have the singlefoot gaits where they’d be appropriate, and this thread is about AMHA.
IF you read the proposed regulations, I want to call attention to the word “trot” held within the document.
The first instance of the word trot is under the heading of Background…
“and, as a result of such application, infliction, injection, use, or practice, such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected to suffer, physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking, trotting, or otherwise moving.”
The very next paragraph after this:
“Soring has been primarily used in the training of Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, and related breeds to produce an exaggerated gait for competition. However, the Act is intended to enforce prohibitions against soring in all horse breeds.”
Under the definitions in the proposed legislation, the last paragraph of 11.1 reads:
Finally, we would add a definition for the term substance. This term would be defined as 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, exhibition, sale, or auction. This definition would also include agents applied to a horse’s limbs before and after a horse is shown, exhibited, or offered for sale, or otherwise present on the grounds at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. We propose to prohibit the presence of all substances on the limbs of any Tennessee Walking Horse, Racking Horse, or related breed while the horse is present on the grounds at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
this means no fly spray, no linament, no poultice.
under 11.2 proposed legislation is this paragraph:
'As we indicated we would do in the 1979 rule cited above, we have given serious consideration to prohibiting all action devices and pads, as the current industry inspection program has failed to adequately address instances of soring. The Department believes that 38 years has been more than enough time for the gaited horse industry to reform its training practices to comply with the Act. Therefore, to successfully and significantly reduce the number of sored horses shown, exhibited, sold, and auctioned, we are proposing to prohibit the use of pads, action devices, and substances on the limbs of any Tennessee Walking Horse, Racking Horse, or related breed."
Also under 11.2
“Prohibited actions, practices, devices, and substances.
I 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. The use of the following devices, equipment, or practices is specifically prohibited with respect to any Tennessee Walking Horse, Racking Horse, or related breed that performs with an accentuated gait that raises concerns about soring at any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction:[/I]
I Any action device as defined in §?11.1 is prohibited.[/I]
I Any pad, wedge, or hoof band is prohibited.[/I]
I 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.[/I]
I Artificial extension of the toe length is prohibited.
…”[/I]
Then there is this. This doesn’t differentiate what types of shows, auctions or exhibitions.
"§?11.5
Inspection and detention of horses; responsible parties.
I Each custodian of any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction shall, without fee, charge, assessment, or other compensation, admit any APHIS representative or authorized Horse Protection Inspector (HPI) appointed by management to all areas of barns, compounds, horse vans, horse trailers, stables, stalls, paddocks, or other show, exhibition, or sale or auction grounds or related areas at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction, for the purpose of inspecting any such horse at any and all reasonable times. Such inspections may be required of any horse which is stabled, loaded on a trailer, being prepared for show, exhibition, or sale or auction, being exercised or otherwise on the grounds of, or present on the grounds at, any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction, whether or not such horse has or has not been shown, exhibited, or sold or auctioned, or has or has not been entered for the purpose of being shown or exhibited or offered for sale or auction at any such horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction. HPIs and APHIS representatives will not generally or routinely delay or interrupt actual individual classes or performances at horse shows, horse exhibitions, or horse sales or auctions for the purpose of examining horses, but they may do so in extraordinary situations such as, but not limited to, lack of proper facilities for inspection, failure of management to cooperate with inspection efforts, reason to believe that failure to immediately perform inspections may result in the loss, removal, or masking of any evidence of a violation of the Act or the regulations, or a request by management that such inspections be performed by an authorized HPI or APHIS representative.[/I]
I Each custodian of any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction shall promptly present his horse for inspection upon notification, orally or in writing, by any APHIS representative or an authorized HPI appointed by management, that the horse has been selected for inspection for the purpose of determining whether such horse is in compliance with the Act and regulations.?"[/I]
NOW HERE IS THE BIG ONE…you don’t think that this will apply to other horse breeds and outside horses and that we are all crazy conspiracy theorists…NOW READ THIS
"§?11.9
Management responsibilities; access, space, and facilities.
…
(b) Inspection space and facility requirements. The management of every horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale or auction, including horse shows, horse exhibitions, horse sales or auctions which do not include Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, or related breeds of horses that perform with an accentuated gait that raises concerns about soring, shall provide, without fee, charge, assessment, or other compensation, sufficient space and facilities for authorized HPIs and APHIS representatives to carry out their duties under the Act and regulations when requested to do so by authorized HPIs or APHIS representatives, whether or not management has received prior notification or otherwise knows that such show may be inspected by APHIS."
That is right! Hunter shows, dressage shows, carriage driving shows, rodeos, EVERY SINGLE SHOW is subject to inspectors that will come in and check for:
Still think we are crazy nutjobs with governmentiscomingafterus-itis?
[QUOTE=Amwrider;8824608]
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.
The ORIGINAL HPA, passed in 1970, does not mention any specific breed. It does specifically mention practices that were very closely associated with Walking and Racking horses. I met an APHIS vet. who once inspected a Paso Fino show in FL. With 2500 head being shown there were no citations issued. AFAIK the APHIS folks never again attened a Paso Fino show.
As I noted the money available for HPA enforcement is very limited. The USDA follows the “Willie Sutton Rule” in spending that money.
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.
If this is true then nothing changes. Other breeds are already open to HPA regulation if they engage in prohibited practices.
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.
The current administration is no friend of the Constitution but a bill, to become law, must still pass both houses of Congress. It doesn’t just go Senate-White House and into effect.
Within the confines of the current HPA the President may modify the appropriate CFR sections. He cannot add anything that is not presently authorized.
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.[/QUOTE]
The Constitution does not recognize “back door legislation.” It didn’t in the time of G. Washington and won’t even under The Red Queen or The Donald.
I’ve started to see more “fear mongering” among some elements of the equine show world. That says that the people doing it lack “intestinal fortitude” or are doing bad things and don’t want to get caught. Maybe I’m being to hard on them and they’re just not very bright. Or maybe they’re a bunch of Libertarians/libertarians and don’t want “The Government” telling them what can or can’t do in a horse show. I don’t know what their motives are. Their claims are clearly wrong.
In any event I don’t have a problem with the Senate version.
It’s been a while since I read the PAST Act and have not had the time to compare and contrast the two different bills.
G.
[QUOTE=poltroon;8824671]
But Morgans don’t have the singlefoot gaits where they’d be appropriate, and this thread is about AMHA.[/QUOTE]
The fact that bell boots should not be allowed WAS mentioned in the thread in refrence to TWHs. Which is why I mentioned that other gaited breeds show in bell boots and are not soring or doing other unsavory things.
Some Morgans do singlefoot and there are shows and competitions for them on the FOSH circuit. USEF does not sanction any gaited only Morgan shows but they are out there.
Guilherme perhaps “back door legislation” is being a bit dramatic of me but this is how it works…
government agencies are allowed to make changes to existing laws. The USDA is a government agency. They make the changes and publish them in the Federal Register and there is a comment period. After the comments, the legislation is either dropped, changed or maintained. if not dropped, a final version is sent to the White House for signature. once signed it goes to Congressional Review.
in all of history, Congressional Reciew has only stopped the process ONCE.
so this does not go through an initial vote in the house or senate and the laws are not drafted by the house at all.
the USDA is overseen by Tom Vilsack; he and his wife are in the pockets of the HSUS who contributed $750,000 to Christine Vilsack’s failed campaign
for a congessional seat in Iowa. Christine is an animal rights advocate who is anti animal agriculture.
this legislation unfortunately muddies the water and creates loopholes that
animal rights extremists can exploit
[QUOTE=Amwrider;8825295]
Guilherme perhaps “back door legislation” is being a bit dramatic of me but this is how it works…
government agencies are allowed to make changes to existing laws. The USDA is a government agency. They make the changes and publish them in the Federal Register and there is a comment period. After the comments, the legislation is either dropped, changed or maintained. if not dropped, a final version is sent to the White House for signature. once signed it goes to Congressional Review.
in all of history, Congressional Reciew has only stopped the process ONCE.
so this does not go through an initial vote in the house or senate and the laws are not drafted by the house at all.
the USDA is overseen by Tom Vilsack; he and his wife are in the pockets of the HSUS who contributed $750,000 to Christine Vilsack’s failed campaign
for a congessional seat in Iowa. Christine is an animal rights advocate who is anti animal agriculture.
this legislation unfortunately muddies the water and creates loopholes that
animal rights extremists can exploit[/QUOTE]
Regardless if we consider those concerns valid or not, why not at least be proactive and ask those be addressed by asking for more precise wording?
Seems the sensible way to address that, not to just to dismiss those concerns off hand, no matter who brings them up?
Comments is what the regulatory agency is asking for, right?
[QUOTE=Amwrider;8825295]
Guilherme perhaps “back door legislation” is being a bit dramatic of me but this is how it works…
government agencies are allowed to make changes to existing laws. The USDA is a government agency. They make the changes and publish them in the Federal Register and there is a comment period. After the comments, the legislation is either dropped, changed or maintained. if not dropped, a final version is sent to the White House for signature. once signed it goes to Congressional Review.
Law is made by Congress and President. Regulations can be made by the President, alone, unless prohibited by Congress and the primary way Congress can limit the President’s power to issue regulations is by the Power of the Purse (forbidding the Executive to spend any money on the regulation is question). Congress may by statute restrict some Executive action in any given law but if they don’t then all can do is forbid spending. That’s called “Separation of Powers.”
If a dispute arises the Judicial branch makes the final call unless they decide the issue is a “political question” and then they bow out. That leaves final resolution to the voters.
in all of history, Congressional Reciew has only stopped the process ONCE.
I don’t know this but for now I’ll take your word for it.
so this does not go through an initial vote in the house or senate and the laws are not drafted by the house at all.
Tighten up your language, here. “Law” comes from Congress and the President. Regulations from from the President. Regulations may have the force of law but if that’s the case it’s because Congress said so.
the USDA is overseen by Tom Vilsack; he and his wife are in the pockets of the HSUS who contributed $750,000 to Christine Vilsack’s failed campaign
for a congessional seat in Iowa. Christine is an animal rights advocate who is anti animal agriculture.
Perhaps true. But that doesn’t mean he’s not SecAg and can’t use the powers of his office pursuant to law.
this legislation unfortunately muddies the water and creates loopholes that
animal rights extremists can exploit[/QUOTE]
I don’t see that at all. If a device or practice is “therapeutic” it’s OK. If it’s not and causes pain it’s not OK. There will be a whole lot of “middle ground” that will be litigated before this is over. That’s what the Constitution requires.
G.
[QUOTE=Amwrider;8824634]
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[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the link. I am against all the crap the TWH inflicts on horses but after reading the details, I cannot support this. There are too many times that it will
have consequences contrary to the intentions. It needs better writing before being enacted.
Most of these breeds have turned horses into showdogs. Foget actual performance standards because the lazy idiots seem only capable of waterskiing on the mouths of these poor artificial creatures
[QUOTE=Haybert;8826820]
Most of these breeds have turned horses into showdogs. Foget actual performance standards because the lazy idiots seem only capable of waterskiing on the mouths of these poor artificial creatures[/QUOTE]
Do you mean, because you don’t like those breeds and their presentation, you think laws should be passed that may affect all breeds and all we may do with horses in a negative way?
That doesn’t really make much sense.
Following with your example there, I may not like breed conformation shows in dogs, but to let laws pass that interfere with how all may enjoy their dogs because I don’t like what some do with their dogs, show in conformation, just seems a bit absurd.
THAT is what is at stake here, to insure any laws passed for the welfare of these gaited horses and all horses in general, are not a back way, for those that don’t think humans should use horses at al,l to get a foot in the door to advance that goal of theirs.
If there are some valid questions about the wording of these proposed regulations, why not address those, so everyone is on the same page?
The old “divide and conquer” at play here, from all sides.
When that happens, no telling what we will end up with.
I think this is just a comments period, so bring your comments to bear, whatever those may be and, more importantly, let others do so too, so everyone is heard.
[QUOTE=Amwrider;8825260]
Some Morgans do singlefoot and there are shows and competitions for them on the FOSH circuit. USEF does not sanction any gaited only Morgan shows but they are out there.[/QUOTE]
I thought that there were some gaited Morgans out there.
[QUOTE=Draftmare;8826958]
I thought that there were some gaited Morgans out there.[/QUOTE]
There are some, but it was for some time considered a defect in their way of going. (I’ll be up front and state that it is a pet peeve of mine and I do consider it a defect in gait, but I’m aware that others do not, and they are obviously free to breed as they wish.) There are no AMHA or USEF-sanctioned gaited Morgan shows. The Morgan Singlefooting Association very well may put on competitions.
THis is what AMHA says about gaited Morgans:
“Overall, the Morgan is not a gaited breed, although there are some gaited Morgans found within the breed. In the 1800s, Morgans were valued for their speed in harness, and both trotting and pacing Morgans came at a high price. Today, a few Morgans can be found that are capable of performing a rack, pace, fox-trot, or other lateral gaits in which the horse’s movement is from side-to-side instead of up and down as found in diagonal gaits, such as the trot and canter. No specific families or bloodlines are predominant in producing Morgans that can gait today. Information on breeders producing gaited Morgans can be found in the list of National Organizations.”
Here’s the list of National Organizations:
http://www.morganhorse.com/forms/clubs/club-listings/
I’ve always admired the Morgan Horse and looked at the gaited version in the late '90s as we looked for TWH alternatives.
They were a clear possibility but at that time were being treated like “red headed step children” by the main Morgan association. The idea that “gait” in an otherwise trotting breed is a defect is actually widely accepted even if it is scientifically wrong. As noted above, the Morgan has a significant root in the pacing world and, in a time when astride travel was common, a horse that could cover ground comfortably at gait beyond a walk was important. The rise of better roads meant that pulling horses were a “better idea” and a trotter will pull better than a single-footer. The gaited Morgan declined in popularity and acceptance. But the reason is practical, not the result of confrontational or other abnormality! 
In similar situation can found in Quarter Horses. When Capt. King brought his Quarter Runners to Texas before the ACW they were stood to the local mares that were often of Spanish Jennet breeding and that often produced offspring with a “fourth gear.” This was rejected by King and his contemporaries and such stock was either quickly sold off or euthanized. Even today there is the odd foal born in some lines with the “fourth gear.” They are not favored.
Trotting horses can’t be “sored” as a pacing horse can be but that doesn’t mean you can’t abuse a trotter with “devices” to accentuate a movement. That would be not be permitted either under the HPA as it stands now or under the HPA’s proposed amendments.
G.
[QUOTE=Guilherme;8827050]
Trotting horses can’t be “sored” as a pacing horse can be but that doesn’t mean you can’t abuse a trotter with “devices” to accentuate a movement. That would be not be permitted either under the HPA as it stands now or under the HPA’s proposed amendments.
G.[/QUOTE]
And this is exactly what the Morgan and ASB show horse people want to perpetuate. Stripping away all of the shoes, and pads, and lead weights under the pads, or attached to the shoe, would level the playing field.
There are fabulous horses out there who naturally trot above level. They are generally an exception- but, for show ring purposes, you need a vertical neck set, AND a horse who can hit level- for any division at the WC level, excluding Western Pleasure.
Finding horses with the acceptable neckset is hard, and has been- but doing it from foal crops of under 1000 horses a year? You aren’t going to have a bunch, when most estimates assume 10% might fall into the show rings desired model.
Stripping away all of the shoes and gimmicks means that you need to take the talent of the horse in front of you, and develop it without the kind of things that have been considered acceptable for years. And you know what? It’s long past time. The cream will rise to the top- both in quality trainers, and horses that are suitable for the divisions. The paradigm in the show ring might change, but other than the fact that these people don’t want to change ANYTHING, how is that bad?
The bottom line is that they have long believed- and still do- that they can continue this way, with no repercussions. They could have made adaptations internally, within the breeds and organizations, but they believed that they could dodge the bullet.
Feet and tails are going to change. Fact. It is only a question of time. The real question is, do these organizations, and the members who are on board with these kinds of artificial, egotistical, and ludicrous methods and applications want to be a part of the change, or simply have it forced upon them.
Take a lesson from the Big Lick people- do the right thing. Now.
The ASHA’s position on HPA- hot off of the presses…
Many members of the American Saddlebred Horse Association (ASHA) are aware of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) recently proposed changes to the regulations governing enforcement of the Horse Protection Act (HPA).
The HPA was created primarily to end the practice of “soring” in some parts of the Tennessee Walking Horse, Racking Horse, and Spotted Saddle Horse Industries (all non-United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) regulated breeds). The ASHA remains dedicated to upholding the highest standard of equine welfare, and remains opposed to any and all practices that are designed to inflict pain or cause distress to horses, including the practice of “soring”. However, some of the proposed changes to the HPA have prompted some questions about unclear language used that would potentially include other breeds.
The ASHA, United Professional Horsemen’s Association (UPHA) and American Hackney Horse Society (AHHS) will be sending representatives to the Public Hearing held Tuesday, September 6, at the APHIS Headquarters in Maryland. The ASHA, UPHA, and AHHS have been working with the USEF and the American Horse Council (AHC) to lobby the USDA to add clarifying language regarding their proposed rule changes to the HPA. Our main objective is to exclude trotting breeds (ASB, Hackney, Morgan, Arabian) from the regulation in order to eliminate any question about the application of these regulations to the ASB, Hackney, Morgan, and Arabian breeds. Historically, these breeds have had no soring issues.
Another area of concern is the prohibition of pads, wedges, or hoof bands (section 11.2 a. 2.) This would cause unintended consequences that would be detrimental to the health and soundness of some horses. These items are used for therapeutic purposes, aid in the comfort of the horse, add balance to their natural way of moving which aids in the prevention of leg injuries, and can help address issues in older horses, such as arthritis. We are enlisting the assistance of farriers, veterinarians, and other related experts to help educate the USDA/APHIS on these issues.
We encourage the membership to comment on the proposed changes to the HPA, specifically citing that all trotting breeds be excluded from this regulation, by clicking on this link.
Comments will be received until September 26, 2016
I’m a member of two farrier groups on Facebook and this is a hot topic at this time. Very, very few of the farriers on these groups shod any gaited horses. Most shoe Quarter Horses and other straight gaited breeds. Almost 100% of them are completely opposed to this legislation, as they feel it may prohibit them from performing corrective care to their client’s, even with Veterinarian approval.
The last I looked, there weren’t enormous, internationally recognized problems of systematic, inhumane and horrendously abusive soring practices associated with Morgans, ASB’s, etc.
There sure as shootin’ are with TWH’s among the 2% unlucky enough to fall in with the “Big Lick” faction.
If you care about the horses themselves AT ALL, as opposed to problems which are no problem and are here being floated as a straw man, PLEASE support this legislation and let’s put this disgusting chapter of anachronistic stupidity behind us–NOW. It’s exactly BECAUSE Walkers have such quiet, forgiving temperaments that they are susceptible to this torture; I believe there’s a very special place in h-e-double-boothooks for anyone who perpetuates this atrocity. If you allow it to go on, you’re condoning it, case closed. And you don’t convince me that someone’ll be coming next for your snowball pads and bell-boots. It’s about SORING and PACKAGES, nailed-on, remember?
Stop posturing and obfuscating and factionalizing and do the right thing for the HORSES! No one’s after your Morgan’s bell boots.
[QUOTE=LockeMeadows;8828698]
I’m a member of two farrier groups on Facebook and this is a hot topic at this time. Very, very few of the farriers on these groups shod any gaited horses. Most shoe Quarter Horses and other straight gaited breeds. Almost 100% of them are completely opposed to this legislation, as they feel it may prohibit them from performing corrective care to their client’s, even with Veterinarian approval.[/QUOTE]
Their fears are misplaced.
As long as the device is “therapeutic” then they are OK. If it’s not then they are not.
Is there room for some “gray” here? Indeed there is. Can there be differences of opinion? Yes. Some farriers are less than totally honest and might “concoct” a “therapeutic” Rx when one is not, in fact, indicated. Vets might do the same thing. If they get called then they might have to defend what they did. If they are honest and keep a record (this would be new for most farriers) then I don’t see a problem. If they are “fudging” or are of the “records…we don’t need no stinking records” school of thought then they might find their client in difficulty.
The HPA does not prohibit “soring” directly. It prohibits showing, transporting, exhibiting, etc. a horse that has been sored. As I read it, a farrier who applies a non-therapeutic device would not be liable under the HPA but might be under State animal cruelty laws. In the case of applying chemicals, to obtain a conviction under State law the State would have to prove that soring chemicals were applied to the foot of the horse AND that the Defendant was the person who actually applied them. Or perhaps ordered their application or assisted in the application. In most instances that would be impossible to establish beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is why the HPA doesn’t do that; that Act just looks at the horse and who owns, trains, exhibits, etc., said horse. They are the people who could face criminal, civil, and administrative penalties.
So the farrier’s concerns are unfounded.
G.
[QUOTE=Guilherme;8828726]
Their fears are misplaced.
As long as the device is “therapeutic” then they are OK. If it’s not then they are not.
Is there room for some “gray” here? Indeed there is. Can there be differences of opinion? Yes. Some farriers are less than totally honest and might “concoct” a “therapeutic” Rx when one is not, in fact, indicated. Vets might do the same thing. If they get called then they might have to defend what they did. If they are honest and keep a record (this would be new for most farriers) then I don’t see a problem. If they are “fudging” or are of the “records…we don’t need no stinking records” school of thought then they might find their client in difficulty.
The HPA does not prohibit “soring” directly. It prohibits showing, transporting, exhibiting, etc. a horse that has been sored. As I read it, a farrier who applies a non-therapeutic device would not be liable under the HPA but might be under State animal cruelty laws. In the case of applying chemicals, to obtain a conviction under State law the State would have to prove that soring chemicals were applied to the foot of the horse AND that the Defendant was the person who actually applied them. Or perhaps ordered their application or assisted in the application. In most instances that would be impossible to establish beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is why the HPA doesn’t do that; that Act just looks at the horse and who owns, trains, exhibits, etc., said horse. They are the people who could face criminal, civil, and administrative penalties.
So the farrier’s concerns are unfounded.
G.[/QUOTE]
But is “protective”, the same as “therapeutic”? Im thinking esp of the eventers with bell boots, grease, special shoes etc. its been known for awhile that HSUS and PETA have no use for eventing. Some believe its a cruel and abusive sport.
Also if you read this section:
"Such inspections may be required of any horse which is stabled, loaded on a trailer, being prepared for show, exhibition, or sale or auction, being exercised or otherwise on the grounds of, or present on the grounds at, any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction, whether or not such horse has or has not been shown, exhibited, or sold or auctioned, or has or has not been entered for the purpose of being shown or exhibited or offered for sale or auction at any such horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction. "
If I board my horse at a barn that holds shows/events etc, that quoted section gives any insp the right to demand to inspect my horse just because I board there, even though I have no connection to showing. Dangerous ground. I sure would object loudly!
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
