Menu

Stay in Touch
Sign up for ENews
Subscribe Now

Unlimited access >

Menu

American Morgan Horse Assoc. opposes Horse Protection Act?

Off Course
#61

So basically, there is existing law that is not being enforced.

Rather than enforce the existing law, the go-to is to re-write and expand the unenforced law.

Gives the lawyers work and the politicians work and does nothing really for the horses…

Rather like saying "we aren’t catching all the human murderers out there, so let’s pre-emptively jail people who yell at each other in public. because, yanno, yelling is a violent act and might be the seed of a future murderer.

And if they look funny; all of them need to be locked up too.
Until we can check them all and verify that they are not a hazard.

-Just protecting everyone: Aren’t we wonderful?"

#62

Wading in as a Morgan person here…

For those of us who belong to AMHA and are NOT showing horses with weights, pads, etc., and for the most part avoiding the breed shows, the thing that got most of us steamed was an email from AMHA saying that they opposed this legislation and encouraging us (all of us) to oppose it also. With NO explanation as to why, what was in the legislation, etc. They got a torrent of angry emails (including from yours truly), and came out with a clarifying statement a few days later. It reflects a lot of what has already been said here, about therapeutic shoeing, boots for protection, etc.

Yet it’s pretty clear that AMHA was NOT representing all members, but instead a small group, mostly wealthy, or trainers, or both, that seem to have control of the organization regardless of any attempts by those of us “on the other side” to try to change that. But until now, it’s mostly been a dispute within the Morgan community. AMHA representing all of us as in agreement with that small group, publicly, was, um, dead wrong.

But … in the meantime, note how tiny that Park class was. That’s at the National/World show, and there were only 5 horses I think, and Park is supposed to be the showcase for the “penultimate” Morgan??? Park (saddle and harness) has become so specialized that it’s one of those disciplines where people might breed 50 foals hoping to get one good Park horse. I will say, however, that a lot of “rejected from Park” Morgans are super-athletic and very game. They can make great sport horses.

Saddle seat in general is dying in the breed, and the shows as a whole are really suffering. I think most horse owners don’t find it so enjoyable to have their horses kept like a Morgan show horse in a Morgan show barn. The phrase “pampered prisoners” comes to mind, though many do get treated in a more relaxed manner over the winter. The use of long toes and weights has spread “downward” into Hunter Pleasure and even Western Pleasure, now.

A lot of us are out here enjoying our Morgans and mostly not responding to the show stuff. I do have friends who do the breed shows, though none have Park horses. My mare’s paternal grand-dam was a successful Park Harness horse – and the tales of what happened “when the drugs wore off” (she was an auction purchase) are pretty horrifying. It took a LONG time to rehab her brains (and a full year or more just to get her to do a flat walk under saddle), but eventually it was clear that her problems came from how she’d been treated, not from her basic genetics.

And yes, there are gaited Morgans, and they are becoming more popular, enough to demand a premium, rather than being considered rejects. Getting the Morgan personality AND a smooth gait is lovely if you’re older, have back trouble, etc. The gaiting has been there all along – we know this now that there’s a genetic test for it – and is found in a lot of the old lines. You have to keep in mind that the Morgan registry was open, to some degree, until the late 1940s. I think it’s pretty cool that AMHA is recognizing this, because we need all the markets for Morgans that we can get.

#63

Whatever happened to the Show rule: “Lame horses must be dismissed.”

If there are rules in jumpers that boots may not weigh more than XX;
why can’t there be rules in all divisions that shoes+ pad may not weigh more than XX,
and toe length may not be more than XX from coronet to ground surface, with height/weight allowance for 12 hh ponies and 17 hh WB?

Can people sore with short toe and ‘protective, therapeutic boots’ ?
I have no doubt that won’t slow them down much if they are the type to deliberately sore in the first place.

And I am not in favor of ‘Let Litigation work out the problems, which we realize there will be’.
That is the equivalent of saying ‘Throw money at it if you don’t like it: we have a bottomless hole for your funds and plan to hire better lawyers than you could afford’.

I am against soring. I think owners, riders/drivers, trainers should collectively be fined, tossed out of shows, exhibition, auctions, etc.

But I don’t think I should be thrown under the bus because I have a horse that I determine needs standing wraps or full coverage boots that are not prescribed by a vet overnight or during a warmup or are not declared therapeutic per some yet-to-be written list.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/84/4a/35/844a35512f0184d82b29ba65f05bd1a2.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/19/ae/7b/19ae7b3bcb414a6ae988c88afcfe4e2d.jpg
I bet a ‘soring person’ could have a field day using that Dressage boot.

https://img.smartpak.com/product/300x300/14628_Brown.jpg
Open front jumper boots are more therapeutic and protective than closed front…how? They are designed so horses that make mistakes over jumps will feel discomfort in the hope they will jump higher next time.

http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2010/09/p/175.jpg
Eventing grease could easily be used to carry soring agents… but Eventers don’t sore. Should they be restricted in using the grease -only if a vet says it is OK?

Are we heading toward ‘All horses must wear these keg shoes or racing plates because they are minimalist?’
And you know that if you define a shoe as protective, the next ruling will be that unshod horses are being mistreated because they don’t have shoes. Because you know you can sore a horse by trimming it too short and thinning the sole… but putting a shoe on will fix that: ergo, must have shoes or you abuse.

I put no trust in most lawyers to find the right answers.

Hit SORING. Enforce the law.
Attacking disciplines that ‘put things on legs’ or have ‘weird shoes’ is not stopping soring.

Sore horses are SORE.

It really is that simple.

#64

I’ve watched a clearly lame horse get pinned in a FOSH affiliated show judged by a “name” in “natural horsemanship.” It seems that there was no rule mandating that a lame horse be excused from the ring.

One of the initiatives discussed by sound Walker advocates in the mid-90s was a rule that lame horses be excused without exception. It’s based on the thought that all sored horses are lame (even though not all lame horses are sored). The show interests were unanimous in opposing this rule. Show interests have a lot of say in the development of show rules and regulations. The rule was never adopted by the National Horse Show Commission (the official regulatory body supported by the Walking and Racking horse breed associations). I don’t know of FOSH (or any other group) ever adopted such a rule.

It’s incorrect to say that “existing law that is not being enforced.” It is correct to say that existing law is not being consistently enforced. It’s also correct to say that existing law fails to completely address multiple regulatory issues (including, but not limited to, action devices, enforcement mechanisms and procedures, penalties, etc.).

I’m a believer in evolution. Not only the biological kind but also the social, economic, political, and legal kind. I’m not afraid of well drafted rules. I am afraid of “slippery slopes” and rules that amount to a game of “bring me a rock.” The proposed rules under discussion, as written, are neither.

Regarding devices, if it is “therapeutic” then it’s OK; if it’s not then it might not be OK. It rather depends on what it is, what does, how it does it, and what the consequences are. I’m not smart enough to draw one regulation that would do that in implementing the device mandates of the HPA and I’m actually very good at drafting regulations (as a result of several years of doing it as a Naval Officer and a lawyer).

The Regulations proposed are honestly functional, if not perfect. But we err when we demand “perfection” in place of “honest functionality.”

G.

#65

So what do anti-soring folks do if someone gets a vet to sign off that ‘TWH stacks’ are therapeutic?

Either you need to have literal measuring and too much is disqualifying, and ‘therapeutic’ doesn’t enter into the equation at all; or people will find ways to negate the ‘rules’.

What if a vet signs off that horse needs treatment bandages and ‘trainer’ adds a little something /changes the poultice/linament mix after the fact?

‘Trainer’ has a ‘get-out of jail note’ / oops misread the prescription /
and vet goes under the bus?

And lame is lame.
If judges can’t see it or won’t see it, we are talking show politics or incompetence, and all the unenforced rules in the world are not going to help.

USEF has no lameness rules in almost every division, including the general rules:
GR841 Soundness
Unless specific division rules state otherwise, all animals except stallions and mares in Breeding classes must be serviceably sound for competition purposes i.e., such animal must not show evidence of lameness or broken wind. Animals with complete loss of sight in either eye may be found serviceably sound at the Judge’s discretion, except in a class over fences where a Judge may ask a rider to change horses.

TWH chose to leave USEF. Morgans, Saddlebreds, Hackneys, Arabians are all still under USEF rules = there is a rule against lameness.

Now you tell me there is no elimination for lameness in ‘other’ TWH / Racking / SSH show Rules?

Why should USEF shows and participants be blanketed within hyper-restrictive rules (and probably inspections and that cost) being created for control of ‘soring’, including scar rules, requiring therapeutic designations, eliminating accepted practices in horses that are required to NOT BE LAME if they are showing in rated shows, etc.?

Not enjoying being lumped into a ‘problem’ I am not a part of.

#66

Disjointed rant snipped for brevity.

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;8833579]

Not enjoying being lumped into a ‘problem’ I am not a part of.[/QUOTE]

Do you drink and drive? If the answer is “no” do you see DUI laws as lumping you into a problem you’re not part of? If so, why? If not, why not?

G.

#67

Here is the thing USEF HAS DUI laws.

TWH has Coca-Cola laws, because most of the people with TWH that drink Coca-Cola end up with wrecks, because of ‘improper use of Coca-cola’.

So rather than implement DUI rules which would eliminate the real source of the problem, you go after Coca-Cola users and hit THEM ALL with pre-emptive pseudo-DUI rules that nonetheless skate around the DUI itself.

Because Coke will kill you, and don’t get me started on Energy drinks; we’re coming after that, too.

“When did you stop beating your wife?” Ah, lawyers!

#68

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;8833632]
Here is the thing USEF HAS DUI laws.

TWH has Coca-Cola laws, because most of the people with TWH that drink Coca-Cola end up with wrecks, because of ‘improper use of Coca-cola’.

So rather than implement DUI rules which would eliminate the real source of the problem, you go after Coca-Cola users and hit THEM ALL with pre-emptive pseudo-DUI rules that nonetheless skate around the DUI itself.

Because Coke will kill you, and don’t get me started on Energy drinks; we’re coming after that, too.

“When did you stop beating your wife?” Ah, lawyers![/QUOTE]

You did not answer the question. Lawyers know when that happens, too!!! :slight_smile:

G.

#69

Do I drink (alcohol)? NO
Do I drive (a motorized vehicle on public roads) YES

However there are many who drink and do not drive drunk.

Throwing all the drinkers (who are not driving while drinking/under the influence) in jail because there are fools who drive drunk …
…is analogous to throwing 'non-therapeutic limb/hoof stuff users into the ‘that is soring you are an abuser’ dumpster when the horses are.not.sore. And are.not.lame.

Because they could (maybe?) become so, we’ve decided for you.

#70

Do you use a saddle?

Or a bridle with bit?

Those can cause discomfort or soreness/injury in some cases. Very rarely would they be considered ‘therapeutic’.

So if you are an abuser because you use a saddle or bridle or (horrors) both, change your ways.
We’ve seen what ill-fitting tack can do.

Prepare to be inspected, we have the right to do so and by the way, here is our bill for an honest $100/horse; we accept Visa and American Express.

“When did you stop beating your wife?”

#71

And I have been corrected.

The question posed should be: “Are you still beating your wife? Answer Yes or No.”

Assumptive question, highly inflammatory, and No is not a safe (or true) answer since it is incomplete.

I wish people would put teeth in the laws, rules, regulations with measurement and enforcement. And adding lameness to descriptions when you are trying to avoid pain to horses seems a no-brainer.

#72

Many moons ago, I judged unrated horse shows in my area. One day, I was at a show competing when someone who I had judged previously came up to me, and asked if I would watch her horse jog, and tell her if it was lame. I agreed. Now, I would probably tell them to call their Vet. :lol:

Seriously, for me this is just not that complicated. Let’s take all of the unnecessary pads (non-theraputic) and all bands off of all horses in competition. The ASHA wants to tell you that horses are born this way, and I agree; they can be. So, just work on what is in front of you, as a trainer, and see what happens. STOP all of the artificial stuff that really has no purpose in the health and welfare of the horse.

I don’t find it to be complicated. What IS complicating it is the desire of the Morgan, and ASB people to obfuscate and do anything that they possibly can to NOT change. Hello, ASHA? Twenty-first century calling! WAKE UP!

Lame is lame. If a Vet decides to either ignore that, or support practices which perpetuate that, they need to get gone.

#73

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;8833782]
And I have been corrected.

The question posed should be: “Are you still beating your wife? Answer Yes or No.”

On advice of counsel I decline to answer the question. :slight_smile:

Assumptive question, highly inflammatory, and No is not a safe (or true) answer since it is incomplete.

This is only the classic example of many forms of the “loaded question.” It’s not really relevant as I’ve never asked you one.

I wish people would put teeth in the laws, rules, regulations with measurement and enforcement. And adding lameness to descriptions when you are trying to avoid pain to horses seems a no-brainer.[/QUOTE]

It would be for horse show sanctioning organizations but many don’t.

Still, that does not really address the issues under the HPA and its regulations. I understand you don’t like them and don’t believe they would apply to you. They do, however, apply to a large enough group of people that Congress found they have an adverse effect on Interstate Commerce and that they have the power to legislate and issue appropriate rules.

It’s really not not about either you or me. Reducing it to that level is neither wise nor does it address the issues.

G.

#74

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8834083]
It would be for horse show sanctioning organizations but many don’t.

Still, that does not really address the issues under the HPA and its regulations. I understand you don’t like them and don’t believe they would apply to you. They do, however, [B]apply to a large enough group of people that Congress found they have an adverse effect on Interstate Commerce and that they have the power to legislate and issue appropriate rules.

Regulations without teeth are suggestions. Waste of time.

It’s really not about either you or me. Reducing it to that level is neither wise nor does it address the issues.

[/B]
G.[/QUOTE]

If I had a horse to show, or the barn I was at had a show I did not enter, it would then be about me, no matter the breed or discipline.
Just because I don’t sore doesn’t mean I welcome randomly spending my ‘horse time’ having my horse inspected instead of riding. Or having him poked swabbed and annoyed instead of resting in the paddock or stall, for that matter.

We also seem to see the issues differently:
I perceive you as believing that spending money to re-write, with more detail and clearer writing (while omitting the word lame) will produce enforceable rules.

I believe current rules are sufficient, but go enforce them: spend money there.

If your horse is not getting water, that is the thing to address: big or little trough, white or purple, medical values for hydration vs. dehydration are all red herrings. Spend your money on getting water to the horse, not the how.

One can be for or against legislation that will affect pregnant women, for example, even if one is neither female nor pregnant, nor planning pregnancy.

#75

“Are you still beating your wife? Answer Yes or No.”

And the correct answer is…

Yes. At checkers. But not backgammon.

#76

Let me emphasize the part that I believe you’re overlooking:

I don’t see the cause for concern, at least in applying outside the specific context of soring occuring to accentuate movement.

#77

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;8834196]
If I had a horse to show, or the barn I was at had a show I did not enter, it would then be about me, no matter the breed or discipline.
Just because I don’t sore doesn’t mean I welcome randomly spending my ‘horse time’ having my horse inspected instead of riding. Or having him poked swabbed and annoyed instead of resting in the paddock or stall, for that matter.

I understand your concern. But sometimes you have to put up with annoying stuff due to the evil deeds of others. Think the TSA. Or the IRS. Or Customs Agents. Or go back a couple of generations and consider conscription into the Armed Forces. Annoyance may be one of the costs of modern life.

We also seem to see the issues differently:
I perceive you as believing that spending money to re-write, with more detail and clearer writing (while omitting the word lame) will produce enforceable rules.

The new rules are quite a bit more comprehensive than this. The existing rules are “enforceable” but have not been effective.

I believe current rules are sufficient, but go enforce them: spend money there.

The existing rules are better than the rules they replaced (and the rules have been modified more than once since the early '70s). Again this is an evolutionary process.

If your horse is not getting water, that is the thing to address: big or little trough, white or purple, medical values for hydration vs. dehydration are all red herrings. Spend your money on getting water to the horse, not the how.

No person has the right to touch my horse, even to give it water, if I say they can’t. It’s mine. If you think I’m acting in cruel fashion by providing insufficient water you may call A/C or the sheriff or whatever authority might have jurisdiction and they might be able to tell me to water my horse under penalty of law or maybe even seize the horse and water it themselves. It’s not just a simple project involving a bucket and hose. Neither is managing HPA rules.

One can be for or against legislation that will affect pregnant women, for example, even if one is neither female nor pregnant, nor planning pregnancy.[/QUOTE]

Indeed.

We are clearly at impasse, here, regards the rules. I’m not sure what more need be said.

G.

#78

USDA Listening Session 9-06-16

Here is an audio recording of the USDA Public Meeting on the HPA Rule Making 9-6-16

https://youtu.be/T6dkBz9sftQ

Some of the things that I learned from listening to this meeting are; an amendment to the Horse Protection Act passed in 1979 says that the USDA reserves the right through rule making, to ban the pads and chains if the soring doesn’t end in a timely manner (I think this is a little late…37 years!), the HPA of 1970 covers ALL BREEDS of horses so technically the fact that the ASHA & AMHA oppose this rule making on the grounds that this rule making says “and related breeds” is a non issue because the rule making CAN NOT change the Horse Protection Act of 1970 which states that the HPA applies to ALL BREEDS, only Congress can change that…

#79

I think it’s reasonable to assume that if the HPA had applied only to Tennessee Walking Horses specifically when it was passed, that the TWH would have quickly become extinct and been replaced by Southern Strolling Horses or the like.

#80

“No person has the right to touch my horse, even to give it water, if I say they can’t. It’s mine. If you think I’m acting in cruel fashion by providing insufficient water you may call A/C or the sheriff or whatever authority might have jurisdiction and they might be able to tell me to water my horse under penalty of law or maybe even seize the horse and water it themselves. It’s not just a simple project involving a bucket and hose. Neither is managing HPA rules.”

In many locations, A/C or whoever they designate as approved (unlicensed, untrained, but approved) personnel (could be volunteers with the local rescues, etc.) may enter your property unannounced if they have reason to believe your horse is without water. And enter unlocked barns (who locks their barn?), fields, etc. to locate your horse. And they may give the horse water without your permission if they deem necessary. No veterinary or Law enforcement oversight needed. Depends on their ‘at risk level’ assessment -and the amount of cray-cray of the personnel involved.

They may at that point involve Law Enforcement to attempt seizure proceedings.
Or continue to return, also unannounced, to ‘re-inspect’ at their discretion.
Or ‘break their version of the story’ to the media.

You may be able to take effective legal remedies against ‘invasive search and tampering with your livestock by the concerned but not very competent’.
-Or not, depending on the interaction within your local community network between LE, AC, the media, etc. And you will no doubt need veterinary validation of your horse’s heath to override the non-pro volunteer opinion that is taken as gospel.

Re: HPA, You have yourself said that a bell boot worn for protection is legal, but if there is no need for protection that same bell boot is illegal because it ‘might’ sore a horse. A light leather strap is illegal because it has no therapeutic use, even though it causes no sore because it ‘accentuates gait’.

Specialized Dressage shoes do accentuate gait. Will this become a ‘soring actionable issue’, since they are not therapeutic?

Perhaps part of my dislike of the revisions is that I foresee them being enforced in a ‘cherry-picking’ manner:
We are starting with this bunch over here, but that bunch over there look somewhat similar, so we’ll randomly include some of them in our enforcement.
Sorry you folks got singled out, but being underfunded we cannot apply the rule to everyone…
But you look a lot like those we know are causing the problem, so lucky you with the ‘non-therapeutic appliance that we believe might be used to sore’ on your not lame horse are being tarred and feathered.

Meanwhile, disciplines with different tack and clothing -and some horses that are lame or have a scar or ‘wear other non-therapeutic appliances that accentuate gait’ and competing/warming up with them are untouched, though not off limits for us.

This is sort of like saying Organic is better because it is Organic.
We inspected non-organic food and found a few with xx levels of THIS.
We don’t need to inspect Organic because they are golden.
(If you know anything about food processing and growing you know Organic can be no better, and can use more toxic but less effective fertilizers, etc.)

Get your Digital Subscription here - only $21.95 / year

Subscribe here
See gift options

Sign up to our monthly newsletter!

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.

Copyright © 2023 The Chronicle of the Horse