American Morgan Horse Assoc. opposes Horse Protection Act?

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=pezk;8828842]
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.

It might be; it might not be. It would be circumstantial in most instances. I said there were going to be “gray” areas.

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![/QUOTE]

It is common practice among miscreants who are being threatened by APHIS to “secrete” horses in trailers or other locations. The above language allows the inspector to “follow the horse” and inspect it wherever found.

G.

[lindac]

I think EVERYONE who doesn’t have a 100% lateral gaited horse’s fear about this new rule is misplaced.

The original HPA from 1970 covers ALL breeds, yet for 46 years, the USDA has concentrated on those breeds that are traditionally sored. They have roughly $700,000 a year to run the program. There is NO WAY that that small amount of money will be used to go to every horse show in the nation and inspect every horse in America. If they were going to go to EVERY horse show in America to see if a horse has a single pad on, the program would have to have Billions of dollars from Congress and become a huge bureaucratic entity to support such a thing.

Here is a direct quote from the HPA of 1970,

"Soring is the practice of applying irritants or blistering agents to the front feet or forelegs of a horse, making it pick its feet up higher in an exaggerated manner that creates the movement or “action” desired in the show ring. Soring is an act of animal cruelty that gives practitioners an unfair advantage over other competitors. The Horse Protection Act is enforced by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), a branch of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Although violations of the law are seen most often in the Tennessee Walking Horse industry, the Horse Protection Act covers all breeds. "

So you see we have all been living under this Act for the past 46 years, yet there is very little impact to other breeds other than TWH.

I predict nothing will change with all other breeds except those who are traditionally sored. As I have said before, the Big Lick Tennessee Walking horse crowd is trying to whip every horse breed association and horse owner in America into a frenzy to try to support their sinking ship. I’m not drinking that koolaid.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=lindac;8829194]
I think EVERYONE who doesn’t have a 100% lateral gaited horse’s fear about this new rule is misplaced.

The original HPA from 1970 covers ALL breeds, yet for 46 years, the USDA has concentrated on those breeds that are traditionally sored. They have roughly $700,000 a year to run the program. There is NO WAY that that small amount of money will be used to go to every horse show in the nation and inspect every horse in America. If they were going to go to EVERY horse show in America to see if a horse has a single pad on, the program would have to have Billions of dollars from Congress and become a huge bureaucratic entity to support such a thing.

Here is a direct quote from the HPA of 1970,

"Soring is the practice of applying irritants or blistering agents to the front feet or forelegs of a horse, making it pick its feet up higher in an exaggerated manner that creates the movement or “action” desired in the show ring. Soring is an act of animal cruelty that gives practitioners an unfair advantage over other competitors. The Horse Protection Act is enforced by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), a branch of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Although violations of the law are seen most often in the Tennessee Walking Horse industry, the Horse Protection Act covers all breeds. "

So you see we have all been living under this Act for the past 46 years, yet there is very little impact to other breeds other than TWH.

I predict nothing will change with all other breeds except those who are traditionally sored. As I have said before, the Big Lick Tennessee Walking horse crowd is trying to whip every horse breed association and horse owner in America into a frenzy to try to support their sinking ship. I’m not drinking that koolaid.[/QUOTE]

+1

G.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=lindac;8829194]
I think EVERYONE who doesn’t have a 100% lateral gaited horse’s fear about this new rule is misplaced.

The original HPA from 1970 covers ALL breeds, yet for 46 years, the USDA has concentrated on those breeds that are traditionally sored. They have roughly $700,000 a year to run the program. There is NO WAY that that small amount of money will be used to go to every horse show in the nation and inspect every horse in America. If they were going to go to EVERY horse show in America to see if a horse has a single pad on, the program would have to have Billions of dollars from Congress and become a huge bureaucratic entity to support such a thing.

Here is a direct quote from the HPA of 1970,

"Soring is the practice of applying irritants or blistering agents to the front feet or forelegs of a horse, making it pick its feet up higher in an exaggerated manner that creates the movement or “action” desired in the show ring. Soring is an act of animal cruelty that gives practitioners an unfair advantage over other competitors. The Horse Protection Act is enforced by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), a branch of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Although violations of the law are seen most often in the Tennessee Walking Horse industry, the Horse Protection Act covers all breeds. "

So you see we have all been living under this Act for the past 46 years, yet there is very little impact to other breeds other than TWH.

I predict nothing will change with all other breeds except those who are traditionally sored. As I have said before, the Big Lick Tennessee Walking horse crowd is trying to whip every horse breed association and horse owner in America into a frenzy to try to support their sinking ship. I’m not drinking that koolaid.[/QUOTE]

Maybe, but I don’t see that asking for clarification of the wording in some points of the proposal, during the comment phase, is “trying to whip” anyone into anything?
Remember, this is just the comment part of this proposal, why making comments is applicable here.

Why not bring something up to clarify those points to everyone’s satisfaction, that would be to stop the soring and other cruelty from happen, surely the common goal here?

Why insist only one way is right, “my way”, by any of those involved?

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=Bluey;8829216]
Maybe, but I don’t see that asking for clarification of the wording in some points of the proposal, during the comment phase, is “trying to whip” anyone into anything?
Remember, this is just the comment part of this proposal, why making comments is applicable here.

Why not bring something up to clarify those points to everyone’s satisfaction, that would be to stop the soring and other cruelty from happen, surely the common goal here?

Why insist only one way is right, “my way”, by any of those involved?[/QUOTE]

I don’t insist on “my way or the highway.” I don’t see the language in the proposals as threatening to any legitimate show interest.

Folks who find action devices acceptable, and indeed necessary, are understandably against their elimination. Those of us who find action devices the province of the inept find their elimination admirable. Frankly, I don’t see much ground for “compromise” on the issue. So maybe that is an something that will go one way or the other.

There has been clear “fear-mongering” by some who oppose this initiative.

G.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8829381]
I don’t insist on “my way or the highway.” I don’t see the language in the proposals as threatening to any legitimate show interest.

Folks who find action devices acceptable, and indeed necessary, are understandably against their elimination. Those of us who find action devices the province of the inept find their elimination admirable. Frankly, I don’t see much ground for “compromise” on the issue. So maybe that is an something that will go one way or the other.

There has been clear “fear-mongering” by some who oppose this initiative.

G.[/QUOTE]

Maybe I don’t understand what this is all about, since I am not familiar at all with those types of horses, but to me, for what has been posted, it seems that the problem is not that no one wants to eliminate those “action devices”, but that they want more clear terminology of what those are and are not?

Don’t want to pass something trying to eliminate abuse that ends up making criminals of everyday, proper use of some of those, for example, “pads” can be all kinds and maybe the wording for that should be more specific, in the eyes of some?

Again, this is a comment phase, why is it not ok to comment, either way, those that think the wording is good enough, as you do and those that find it insufficient and possibly too restrictive, as others do?

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=Bluey;8829413]
Maybe I don’t understand what this is all about, since I am not familiar at all with those types of horses, but to me, for what has been posted, it seems that the problem is not that no one wants to eliminate those “action devices”, but that they want more clear terminology of what those are and are not?

Don’t want to pass something trying to eliminate abuse that ends up making criminals of everyday, proper use of some of those, for example, “pads” can be all kinds and maybe the wording for that should be more specific, in the eyes of some?

Again, this is a comment phase, why is it not ok to comment, either way, those that think the wording is good enough, as you do and those that find it insufficient and possibly too restrictive, as others do?[/QUOTE]

If you are going to draft a document that will have the force of law reasonable specificity is a Constitutional requirement. You can’t have regulations that are the equivalent of a game of “bring me a rock.”

Still, when preparing a rule you must not only deal with what is but what reasonably might be. In a criminal statute this is a very tight requirement. In an administrative rule the requirement is less “tight.”

Having spent 40 years reading statutes, regulations, and opinions my perception of the rules being proposed is that they are within the fair boundaries of rules of this type. OK, that’s “weasel wording” and I’ll admit it. It’s still fair as the rules, as written, give fair warning of what is or is not prohibited. They are not unlawfully ambiguous. They could be more specific, but they could also be less specific. It’s a question of reasonable balance and I find them reasonably balanced. There will be litigation over specifics, but that would be true no matter who wrote them.

I find them fair and reasonable. YMMV.

G.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8829492]
If you are going to draft a document that will have the force of law reasonable specificity is a Constitutional requirement. You can’t have regulations that are the equivalent of a game of “bring me a rock.”

Still, when preparing a rule you must not only deal with what is but what reasonably might be. In a criminal statute this is a very tight requirement. In an administrative rule the requirement is less “tight.”

Having spent 40 years reading statutes, regulations, and opinions my perception of the rules being proposed is that they are within the fair boundaries of rules of this type. OK, that’s “weasel wording” and I’ll admit it. It’s still fair as the rules, as written, give fair warning of what is or is not prohibited. They are not unlawfully ambiguous. They could be more specific, but they could also be less specific. It’s a question of reasonable balance and I find them reasonably balanced. There will be litigation over specifics, but that would be true no matter who wrote them.

I find them fair and reasonable. YMMV.

G.[/QUOTE]

And, of course, I defer to your wisdom, oh enlightened One.

Just seemed unjust to just try to silence any other opinions, but maybe they deserve the smack-down.

As we have all learned since the formation of the EPA, why my concern, give government agencies an inch, they take thousand miles.:eek:

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=Bluey;8829526]
And, of course, I defer to your wisdom, oh enlightened One.

Not “enlightened,” just experienced. And specifically experienced in this sort of thing.

Just seemed unjust to just try to silence any other opinions, but maybe they deserve the smack-down.

I didn’t try and silence anyone; I did try and correct errors.

As we have all learned since the formation of the EPA, why my concern, give government agencies an inch, they take thousand miles.:eek:[/QUOTE]

Fortunately APHIS is not EPA. And EPA has garnered a number of “smackdowns” over the years.

I’m not a fan of “regulation” in general. Some, however is necessary.

G.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8829674]
Fortunately APHIS is not EPA. And EPA has garnered a number of “smackdowns” over the years.

I’m not a fan of “regulation” in general. Some, however is necessary.

G.[/QUOTE]

Definitely, we want regulation, just not over-regulation, or “special” agenda driven regulations.

Will be interesting to see what comes out of all of this, down the years.

[Amwrider]

This is from the proposed regulations:

Section 11.1 refers to prohibited action devices as
"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."

Under Section 11.1 the definition of SUBSTANCE is vague….
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.

Under section 11.1 the definition of SCAR
The scar rule criteria are as follows:
(a) The anterior and anterior-lateral surfaces of the fore pasterns (extensor surface) must be free of bilateral granulomas, other bilateral pathological evidence of inflammation, and other bilateral evidence of abuse indicative of soring including, but not limited to, excessive loss of hair.
(b) The posterior surfaces of the pasterns (flexor surface), including the sulcus or ‘‘pocket’’ may show bilateral areas of uniformly thickened epithelial tissue if such areas are free of proliferating granuloma tissue, irritation, moisture, edema, or other evidence of inflammation.

§11.2 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. 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:
(1) Any action device as defined in
§11.1 is prohibited.
(2) Any pad, wedge, or hoof band is prohibited.
(note there are many more points but these are the ones that stand out to most people)

11.9
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.

11.12
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.

note that 11.9 and 11.12 state that any horse at any show can be inspected. They will be inspected for violations in 11.1 and 11.2. Note that the Scar rule does not appear to have ANY restrictions place on it as to breeds.

Decide for yourself what it means and decide what a “related breed” consists of.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=Amwrider;8831040]
This is from the proposed regulations:

Section 11.1 refers to prohibited action devices as
"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."

Under Section 11.1 the definition of SUBSTANCE is vague….
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.

Under section 11.1 the definition of SCAR
The scar rule criteria are as follows:
(a) The anterior and anterior-lateral surfaces of the fore pasterns (extensor surface) must be free of bilateral granulomas, other bilateral pathological evidence of inflammation, and other bilateral evidence of abuse indicative of soring including, but not limited to, excessive loss of hair.
(b) The posterior surfaces of the pasterns (flexor surface), including the sulcus or ‘‘pocket’’ may show bilateral areas of uniformly thickened epithelial tissue if such areas are free of proliferating granuloma tissue, irritation, moisture, edema, or other evidence of inflammation.

§11.2 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. 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:
(1) Any action device as defined in
§11.1 is prohibited.
(2) Any pad, wedge, or hoof band is prohibited.
(note there are many more points but these are the ones that stand out to most people)

11.9
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.

11.12
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.

note that 11.9 and 11.12 state that any horse at any show can be inspected. They will be inspected for violations in 11.1 and 11.2. Note that the Scar rule does not appear to have ANY restrictions place on it as to breeds.

Decide for yourself what it means and decide what a “related breed” consists of.[/QUOTE]

I don’t understand the point, here. These are regs. under the CURRENT HPA. It has ALWAYS applied to every breed, but since only the TWH and related breeds were engaging in the prohibited practices they were the only ones “targeted.”

APHIS follows the Willie Sutton Theory and has for virtually the entire life of the HPA. Trying to conjure the HSUS or PETA or some other group by “magically in canting” the proposed regulations won’t make them appear. Or disappear. They just aren’t in the room. Or even in the building.

The rules are clear enough within the context of the history of the HPA. That’s all they need to be.

G.

[microbovine]

I have a question. Are saddleseat Morgans trained using chains and pads? I have a Morgan that is great on the trail. Very well trained but very animated as soon as she sets foot in an arena. I get the white eye, head up, feet thrown out and fast gaits. She takes awhile to calm down. Half-halts only sort of work. I have to rub her neck until she finally drops her head and relaxes.

[Stonewall]

Don’t know about training but here is the result. Getting way too close to big lick for my taste.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sBoWuBY338

[ASB_Stars]

[QUOTE=microbovine;8831329]
I have a question. Are saddleseat Morgans trained using chains and pads? I have a Morgan that is great on the trail. Very well trained but very animated as soon as she sets foot in an arena. I get the white eye, head up, feet thrown out and fast gaits. She takes awhile to calm down. Half-halts only sort of work. I have to rub her neck until she finally drops her head and relaxes.[/QUOTE]

Yes, Morgans are trained wearing pads and chains. Sadly, the Morgan trainers have created horses that imitate what has become expected in the ASB ring. So, the Park horses, in particular, wear substantial toe and pads, in many cases.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=Stonewall;8831418]
Don’t know about training but here is the result. Getting way too close to big lick for my taste.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sBoWuBY338[/QUOTE]

The Big Lick was created in the TWH during the mid-50s by the application of then common ASB techniques (stacks, chains, etc.). In the process they learned that the application of caustic chemicals made the chains more effective. There were even more extreme measures used, like cutting golf ball in half and placing it between the frog and first pad of a stack (make the horse live constantly walking on a “big rock”). I don’t know how much of the “extreme” practices (like the golf ball thing) would work in a diagonally gaited horse.

For those who doubt the above I commend to you one of the definitive histories of the TWH, The Echo of Hoofbeats by Dr. Bob Womack.

G.

G.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8831685]
The Big Lick was created in the TWH during the mid-50s by the application of then common ASB techniques (stacks, chains, etc.). In the process they learned that the application of caustic chemicals made the chains more effective. There were even more extreme measures used, like cutting golf ball in half and placing it between the frog and first pad of a stack (make the horse live constantly walking on a “big rock”). I don’t know how much of the “extreme” practices (like the golf ball thing) would work in a diagonally gaited horse.

For those who doubt the above I commend to you one of the definitive histories of the TWH, The Echo of Hoofbeats by Dr. Bob Womack.

G.

G.[/QUOTE]

That would be a valid reason to ban pads while showing, if people were hiding things to make a horse lift their feet so high under those!:eek:

Those that want to show but want true therapeutic pads the rest of the time can use some they can put on and take off, like hospital plates.

[jdobbs64]

[QUOTE=Stonewall;8831418]
Don’t know about training but here is the result. Getting way too close to big lick for my taste.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sBoWuBY338[/QUOTE]
The hooves at 3:26? Grossly distorted. What a waste of a breed to aim for such extremes.

[jdobbs64]

This is the CURRENT code in the Code of Federal Regulations. Those who insist that all of this about pads is new, are wrong.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=9:1.0.1.1.5&idno=9#se9.1.11_11

It won’t take long to find that the following is already true (emphasis mine)…

§11.4 Inspection and detention of horses.
For the purpose of effective enforcement of the Act:

(a) Each horse owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person having custody of, or responsibility for, any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction, shall allow any APHIS representative to reasonably inspect such horse at all reasonable times and places the APHIS representative may designate. 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 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. 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, refusal of management to cooperate with Department inspection efforts, reason to believe that failure to immediately perform inspection 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 APHIS representative.

and…trotters are already included.

(4) Any other substance or device has been used by a person on any limb of a horse or a person has engaged in a practice involving a horse, 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, except that such term does not include such an application, infliction, injection, use, or practice in connection with the therapeutic treatment of a horse by or under the supervision of a person licensed to practice veterinary medicine in the State in which such treatment was given.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=Bluey;8831760]
That would be a valid reason to ban pads while showing, if people were hiding things to make a horse lift their feet so high under those!:eek:

Those that want to show but want true therapeutic pads the rest of the time can use some they can put on and take off, like hospital plates.[/QUOTE]

I’m very familiar with the soring techniques used on laterally gaited horses. I’m much less familiar with the techniques that might be used on a diagonally gaited horse.

G.