American Morgan Horse Assoc. opposes Horse Protection Act?

[ASB_Stars]

The latest from the ASHA- which contains information about the latest USDA meeting where representatives of The AMHA, UPHA, and Hackney Association were represented:

Showing a united front, a delegation of leadership and members of the American Saddlebred Horse Association (ASHA), the United Professional Horseman’s Association (UPHA), the American Hackney Horse Society (AHHS) and the American Morgan Horse Association (AMHA), in addition to the United States Equestrian Federation’s Dr. Stephen Schumacher, just returned from the final in-person public hearing regarding the USDA’s Horse Protection Act proposed rule changes.

It is imperative that our membership go to the USDA website and make comments on behalf of our trotting breeds. To help with this process and to keep the membership updated with ongoing developments, ASHA has created a separate page https://www.asha.net/horseprotection on our website. There are bullet points outlining topics for comment as well as copies of the presentations made at the in-person public hearing. More information will be added as it becomes available.

The DEADLINE for making comments is SEPTEMBER 26. This is the most important thing you have ever done for the American Saddlebred. Please do your part.

Thank You
Bob Funkhouser, ASHA President

And here is what they want addressed:
Horse Protection Act

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 is a law that 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). This law was passed by Congress and is enforced by the USDA. The USDA has the authority to create any Rules it deems necessary to enforce this law. These Proposed Rules were published on July 25, 2016 and a 60-day Public Hearing and Public Comment period began. This comment period ends September 26, 2016 at which time the USDA will review comments, make any revisions/changes, and finalize the Rule. Because the HPA is already a law, there is no Congressional vote.

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, the proposed rule forbids the use of pads, bands and action devices in Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, Spotted Saddlehorses “AND RELATED BREEDS”. Elsewhere in the rule it mentions horses that “move with an accentuated gait.” We feel that the language used in this proposed rule is far too broad and would encompass many breeds including the American Saddlebred, Hackney, Morgan, Arabian and Half-Arabian, who have no history or soring nor any incentive to do so. All of these are “TROTTING BREEDS” and a horse cannot trot if it is not sound.

The ASHA, UPHA, AHHS and AMHA 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 (American Saddlebred, Hackney, Morgan, Arabian and Half-Arabian) from the regulation in order to eliminate any question about the application of these regulations to these breeds. Historically, these breeds have had no soring issues, are all USEF Affiliated breeds and are well regulated by USEF at recognized competitions.

WHAT CAN I DO?

We encourage the membership to comment on the proposed changes to the HPA, specifically citing that all TROTTING BREEDS be excluded from this regulation.

http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=APHIS-2011-0009

If you have problems with the Regulations.gov page loading, try cutting and pasting the above link into your browser. Also try visiting the page early in the morning or late in the evening when “traffic” may be lighter. Keep trying because every comment counts!

SUGGESTED POINTS TO MAKE IN COMMENTS TO USDA
•The proposed rule is overly broad and goes well beyond the statutory authority of the HPA.
•The proposed rule is vague and open to interpretation
•Inclusion of ‘related breeds’ captures many performance breeds not subject to soring practices, including American Saddlebreds, Morgans, Hackneys, and Arabians
•Prohibition of pads and wedges undermines the purpose and integrity of many breeds and is antithetical to the intention of insuring both soundness and performance
•The use of pads, wedges, hoof bands and weights are common practice in many USEF member breeds. Use does not involve soring, yet is prohibited under the proposed rule
•Lubricants on outer extremities are prohibited under the rule without adequate definition and such prohibitions could be detrimental to the horse
•The rule, as currently written, would have major economic implications for the show horse industry and would cause loss of jobs and devastate small businesses.
•We request the proposed rule be rewritten to exclude all trotting breeds.

It is imperative that your comment be individualized and personal. It may not be duplicated or a “form letter” or it will not count. Concise, well-written, educated, professional comments will carry more weight than a vague or angry response. Please feel free to use verbiage from any of these comments below which were presented at the USDA Headquarters at the final public meeting on September 6th, HOWEVER YOU MUST MAKE YOUR COMMENT YOUR OWN!

Comments will be received until September 26, 2016 at midnight.

ASHA - Bob Funkhouser

AMHA - C. A. “Tony” Lee

UPHA - Smith Lilly

Dr. Owen Weaver

Jackie and James Hale

Donna Pettry-Smith

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;8835327]
“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.

Assuming everything you’ve said is correct my question is “so what?”

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’.

I MOST CERTAINLY HAVE NOT SAID IT’S LEGAL; THE RULES AS WRITTEN SAY IT’S LEGAL!!!

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

I dunno. Read the rules.

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.

Since no law enforcement agency in the world ever has enough resources to enforce every law they are charged with enforcing they all make decisions on where to place emphasis and deploy resources accordingly. Call it “cherry picking” or “selective enforcement” or anything you want. As long as you call it “reality.”

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.)[/QUOTE]

I don’t understand your last comment at all.

G.

[Skippity]

AVMA Supports Proposed Regulations

The AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) released a statement today urging support for the proposed regulations. They specifically addressed the concerns being raised about “related breeds”.

"What’s missing from the messages being spread is the context that comes from reviewing the entire text of the proposed rule, which states “related breed that performs with an accentuated gait that raises concerns about soring at any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction.” What this suggests is that if you’re not soring your horses, the USDA is not going to come after you when you’re training, riding or showing them.

The AVMA statement is here:
http://atwork.avma.org/2016/09/08/fact-fiction-horse-soring-usda-proposed-rule/

Amwrider and paw have already pointed out this language in the proposed regulations. So, if you are NOT soring your American Saddlebred, Morgan, Hackney, Dutch Harness Horse, etc., why are you concerned?.

I attended the public forum at the USDA last Tuesday. From the trotting breed organizations, I heard over and over, “You can’t sore a trotting horse. It doesn’t work.” I also heard, “We support the USDA’s efforts to eliminate soring.”

So there you are. This regulation applies to horses where there is a concern about soring, not to your trotting horses.

Therefore, I ask you to comment in support of this proposed regulation to help eliminate the soring that IS happening. These horses are being tortured. They need your help. Thank you.

[Stonewall]

“You can’t sore a trotting horse. It doesn’t work.”

And how would this be known? And if the point is to get higher action, why wouldn’t it work?

[ezduzit]

Morgans are routinely trained with chains and elastic. Collars put around the pasterns with surgical tubing tied between them then worked on the lunge or under saddle/driving. When the horse is trained with that resistance it will perform higher when the resistance is removed. What makes the park horse LOOK like a big lick horse is that it’s really easy to develop the front end but really hard to get hocks to match. So, you have a big way of going in the front with a rear that can barely keep up.

Trainers use this methods for all disciplines within the Morgan breed, including western pleasure. The top western horse, not including reining or game horses, go like parade horses…a lot of action and quite prancy.

I have left the Morgan breed ring because I refuse to do or allow these things to be done to my horse so I am not competitive making showing a complete waste of time and money for me. I show western dressage at schooling shows.

Addressing your last point, YES, given the right stimuli, the horse will have flash backs. My daughter’s horse is case in point. Rubbing the neck does work to get that giraffe neck back down.

[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]

[Idrivetrotters]

Soring brings a head bob, desirable in gaited breeds, not in trotting breeds as it would indicate lameness. So yes, soring a trotting horse is normally counter productive.

The USDA and thus the “gubment” got involved because the TWH intentionally stopped protecting the breed and allowed soring to become so rampant and systematic that the HPA was brought about in early 70’s. Soring only went underground and once the DQP program came about, it got really bad. A “compliant” horse is a sore horse who passed inspection, especially a corrupted self policing system allowed a lot of bad image horses in the ring.

Now, after 45+ years of nearly unchecked soring, the public has had enough. I wish I could send Jackie McConnell a bottle of whiskey for his very public videos that showed soring, stewarding, and horses groaning in pain. Those videos got the public aware of what is happening in the small Big Lick world. Pressure has been non stop and progress has been made. Many Big Lick farms and trainers are closing shop, 75% of Big Lick trainers/owners said “they would not show/train a flatshod horse” so if those percentages hold up, soring will be truly a few “bad apples”.

I would like to see language tightened up, and again this is just the hearing/comments stage and if people would stop, pull their panties out of their various orifices, take a deep breath and realize that if the USDA hasn’t come after you yet, they are coming after you even with new HPA language.

I do support the proposed USDA HPA changes for many reasons. In a perfect world, yes any pad not for therapeutic but for gait manipulation would be banned. I am a trainer and a purist, I don’t want to put every thing but the kitchen sink on a horse to do their signature gait. I want to see horses bred for natural talent, and this would go a long way in helping all of our various show breeds bring in new owners.

The saddle seat world is shrinking, at least at the shows I go to. I’m seeing more natural type horses in other divisions. So either the show ring changes or there will be fewer people showing. I stopped showing for years because of soring and seeing a horse in shoes that are so heavy they require a band to hold them on, get pinned over a horse with less shoe but same movement. That is rewarding the manufactured not the natural so my dollars and time has gone to other horse venues where a talented natural horse is desired not sneered at.

We NEED these regulations, as believe me the USDA will spend their time where the problems are, the TWH. The language about “other related breeds” is coming from the Big Lick threat of making a new “breed and registry” that is not called the TWH so they can keep those extreme pads and chains.

The ASB, Morgans, and Arabs do not have a soring problem, have been using a small pad (not the 8-12 lb each package/stack the TWH is forced to wear) and bells for decades without issue and will keep those under USEF rules. This is geared for the TWH and those related to the TWH who do sore their horses. They deserve to lose the privilege of pads.

[microbovine]

[QUOTE=quietann;8832307]
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.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for this. I joined the AMHA when I bought my Morgan (a pitifully thin mare cheap on a CL ad, but registered). She has very well-known lines and was trained by a very well-known trainer. Perhaps she slipped through the cracks because she was one of the 49, or perhaps it was because they had trouble getting her into foal.

Regardless, I will say that I was very impressed with the Morgan community locally. Once I contacted them, they told me everything about my new mare. The lady who saddle broke her even called me to tell me about her history. They were also concerned that she had slipped through the cracks. I got the strong impression that Morgan breeders and owners typically look out for their horses. I never saw that level of concern with stock horse breeds.

[CA_ASB]

This has been a hot topic on the west coast Saddlebred email. While I can see elements of “chicken little” mentality, my radar antennae immediately went up when someone on the list forwarded and then invited Keith Dane of HSUS to comment. I will dig out the comments, but for anyone who doesn’t think that they are solidly behind this? Think again. For just that reason alone, clarification needs to be made in the language, because, as it is written, it opens a definite toe hold and can affect far more disciplines than saddle seat.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=CA ASB;8840125]
This has been a hot topic on the west coast Saddlebred email. While I can see elements of “chicken little” mentality, my radar antennae immediately went up when someone on the list forwarded and then invited Keith Dane of HSUS to comment. I will dig out the comments, but for anyone who doesn’t think that they are solidly behind this? Think again. For just that reason alone, clarification needs to be made in the language, because, as it is written, it opens a definite toe hold and can affect far more disciplines than saddle seat.[/QUOTE]

Again, the original AHA was NOT restricted to any specific breed of horses. It was not a project of HSUS. It outlawed certain practices that were the almost exclusive province of certain breeds of horses. The current rule changes do not alter that legal reality.

I first became associated with Mr. Dane since we worked together in the International Plantation Walking Horse Association in the early '90s. Unless he’s gone to the “dark side” he’s been a very sane and sensible fellow. I’ve not seen in a long time but there is no evidence that he’s become a zealot that I can find.

I’d agree that HSUS is PETA in a better suit. They are not my favorite organization but their support does not automatically mean that mine must be withheld.

Yes the rules are broader than before. That’s because the rules that went before were the work product of a public process where the Sore Lick folks had big say, thanks to Members of Congress and a former Vice President of the U.S. Right now the Members are less willing to “carry water” for the Sore Lick advocates and the former VP has other “fish to fry.”

Most of the opposition has come from people whipping up “fear and loathing” with no real issues involved.

G.

[microbovine]

G, thank you for that information.

Who is the former VP that was defending Big Lick?

[ASB_Stars]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8840292]

Most of the opposition has come from people whipping up “fear and loathing” with no real issues involved.

G.[/QUOTE]

The Morgan, American Saddlebred, and Hackney Associations, along with the United Professional Horseman’s Association, which represents the trainers of these horses, and others, are working overtime to try and make this much more than it is; a law that will prevent any attempt to sore horses. It also will prevent horses from wearing pads and bands that serve no purpose other than attempting to accentuate gait.

Leather and plastic pads, used singly, are commonly used to protect horses soles from damage on questionable surfaces- as in trail riding. Their use to protect from concussion is limited. However, The breeds in question work on very controlled surfaces- with high quality footing. Even if a case is made for a horse to wear a single pad, for therapeutic reasons, the idea of multiple pads, and the use of bands, is simply for attempting to accentuate the action of the horse.

I am all for the use of pads as a therapeutic tool. But even in the ASB country pleasure divisions- NO pads are permitted. Why stop there? Are those horses worked or shown on different footing? Nope.

The smoke and mirrors, and “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” stuff needs to stop, and the welfare of the horses, not the vanity of the owners, needs to be of utmost importance. It is long past time.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=microbovine;8840294]
G, thank you for that information.

Who is the former VP that was defending Big Lick?[/QUOTE]

The Gore family for some time owned and showed Big Lick horses. They had extensive community, political, and economic ties to the segment of TWH owners that did the same in TN.

G.

[microbovine]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8841192]
The Gore family for some time owned and showed Big Lick horses. They had extensive community, political, and economic ties to the segment of TWH owners that did the same in TN.

G.[/QUOTE]

Hmm. Maybe we could find and environmental angle as to why we shouldn’t use Big Lick techniques on horses? If only…

[D_BaldStockings]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8824159]
I think your fears are overstated. I’m not a Big Government Guy but I read the Senate version of the proposed legislation and I don’t find it threatening in any meaningful way to the mainstream of most disciplines.

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

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

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

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

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

[/B]G.[/QUOTE]

This attitude and assumption is unwarranted and prejudiced.

It does make your position crystal clear.

And removes science, logic and an open mind regarding ‘related breeds’ outside your mental box.

It refuses to consider that the so called ‘related breeds’ are shown under a governing body - USEF - that disqualifies lame horses; a governing body that the ‘soring community’ left long ago to pursue its’ course.

Adding more ‘breed options’ and ‘discipline options’ to an anti-soring bill does nothing to stop existing abuses within the non-USEF soring culprits. It is a smokescreen covering up inaction and underfunding of enforcement while enabling future restrictions on horse presentation at any venue.

The important inclusion of ‘non-therapeutic’ language into the bill assumes that nothing physically attached can ‘aid’ or ‘encourage’ or ‘elicit’ or ‘enhance’ a horse’s leg movement without being a soring agent.

Ergo, use a ‘thing’ on a leg or hoof = you’ve sored the horse; or at least intended to because non-therapeutic use is now illegal per the bill.

I would love to see what a forward thinking farrier like Fran Jurgen, with his one of a kind Dressage shoes (which clearly produce shifted fulcrum effects - considered non therapeutic and gait altering/accentuating under the bill) worn by top competitors which are legal in FEI competition would do if lumped in with the soring crowd. You think he has ‘something to hide’?

https://hoofcare.blogspot.com/2011/10/dressage-fuego-style-its-whats.html

I know an irrational Blacklist when I see one. Even in the guise of 'we need to keep America ‘safe’.

[D_BaldStockings]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8840292]
Again, the original AHA was NOT restricted to any specific breed of horses. It was not a project of HSUS. It outlawed certain practices that were the almost exclusive province of certain breeds of horses. The current rule changes do not alter that legal reality.

I first became associated with Mr. Dane since we worked together in the International Plantation Walking Horse Association in the early '90s. Unless he’s gone to the “dark side” he’s been a very sane and sensible fellow. I’ve not seen in a long time but there is no evidence that he’s become a zealot that I can find.

I’d agree that HSUS is PETA in a better suit. They are not my favorite organization but their support does not automatically mean that mine must be withheld.

Yes the rules are broader than before. That’s because the rules that went before were the work product of a public process where the Sore Lick folks had big say, thanks to Members of Congress and a former Vice President of the U.S. Right now the Members are less willing to “carry water” for the Sore Lick advocates and the former VP has other “fish to fry.”

Most of the opposition has come from people whipping up “fear and loathing” with no real issues involved.

G.[/QUOTE]

If you believe sane and sensible can truly be in alignment with PETA, you need to think more deeply about the organization.

Making a dog fighter and wanton abuser/killer of dogs a spokesperson for HSUS and supposedly forgiving such vicious crimes, even placing a companion dog with his family, all for a huge monetary payoff from the NFL may be sane and sensible financially, but it is beyond immoral.

‘they are not my favorite…’ does leave the door open to ‘but I agree with them, nonetheless’.

The real issue is arbitrarily drawing the dividing line between ‘this is good’ and
‘everything outside of our line is bad’.

The line is drawn around ‘accentuated gait’.
Why did they get to decide that is bad?

Yes, that is a huge leap from ‘soring must end’.
And a completely different and far larger circle of influence being grabbed for.

Not fear and loathing at all. Simple reading for comprehension and use of the dictionary.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;8841507]
If you believe sane and sensible can truly be in alignment with PETA, you need to think more deeply about the organization.

I believe I know how to read and have a lot of experience with administrative rules and procedures.

Making a dog fighter and wanton abuser/killer of dogs a spokesperson for HSUS and supposedly forgiving such vicious crimes, even placing a companion dog with his family, all for a huge monetary payoff from the NFL may be sane and sensible financially, but it is beyond immoral.

‘they are not my favorite…’ does leave the door open to ‘but I agree with them, nonetheless’.

Well, Hell Fire, I breath as does every member of PETA. Unless you are a “bot” of some sort then YOU breath, too. Are you going to stop breathing because Keith Dane, Wayne Pacelle, and I all breath, too?!?!?!?!?!

The real issue is arbitrarily drawing the dividing line between ‘this is good’ and
‘everything outside of our line is bad’.

The line is drawn around ‘accentuated gait’.
Why did they get to decide that is bad?

It’s NOT about “accentuated gait.” It’s about how “accentuated gait” is achieved. Breed for it, train for it, and enjoy it. Nail it on or slather it on or hook it one and it’s NOT OK!!!

Yes, that is a huge leap from ‘soring must end’.
And a completely different and far larger circle of influence being grabbed for.

Not fear and loathing at all. Simple reading for comprehension and use of the dictionary.[/QUOTE]

No, Sir, not even close.

G.

[pattnic]

I still fail to understand how this passing would lead to loss of income and jobs in the trotting breed world.

[D_BaldStockings]

Question:

Every year at Horse Expos in my area flat shod pleasure TWH are one of the ‘exhibition of breeds’ members. Lovely horses and yes, of course they gait.

No DQP however.

I can’t recall offhand if there were any in ‘decorative’ bandages or boots to make it easier for spectators to see the steps of the gait.

Would such a small exhibition be required under the new regs to have inspectors and farriers on site (and paid) if they continued to include these innocent and unsored TWH in their programs?

Question2:

If there are shows, exhibitions and auctions where TWH Racking horses and other horses specifically targeted by inspectors, why don’t they simply say at ‘such-and such published list of shows, exhibitions and auctions’.
Show your ‘related’ by performance class entry breed there, abide by the rules, and get inspected WHEN THERE.

This would exclude USEF venues and places where those practices do not occur that lead to soring: note that it is device plus ‘soring agent liquid/lubricant’ that causes soring, NOT light device alone.
Which is why all the devices are prohibited, not that they are harmful in themselves used alone.

Note that trail rides, rodeos and ‘speed event only’ are already excluded.

I’d like them to change the wording of ‘related breed’ to ‘any horse at this XXX listed show’.
You can’t be ‘related to soring’ it is a DO or DO NOT thing; even within the TWH registered horses.

And the thing is: this is no personal skin off my nose, I don’t show.

I will stand up for those who do show and do it right, however.
I very much dislike throwing out an entire warehouse of apples because a few oranges in a unique container in the same warehouse were rotting ‘and fruit is fruit’.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;8842786]
Question:

Every year at Horse Expos in my area flat shod pleasure TWH are one of the ‘exhibition of breeds’ members. Lovely horses and yes, of course they gait.

No DQP however.

I can’t recall offhand if there were any in ‘decorative’ bandages or boots to make it easier for spectators to see the steps of the gait.

Would such a small exhibition be required under the new regs to have inspectors and farriers on site (and paid) if they continued to include these innocent and unsored TWH in their programs?

These programs are presently regulated by the HPA. Under current rules if show management does not hire a DQP and a USDA Vet. appears to inspect and violations are found then show management is liable for penalties. If no USDA Vet. appears or if they do and don’t find any violations then “no harm, no foul.” I do not believe the rules change this.

Question2:

If there are shows, exhibitions and auctions where TWH Racking horses and other horses specifically targeted by inspectors, why don’t they simply say at ‘such-and such published list of shows, exhibitions and auctions’.
Show your ‘related’ by performance class entry breed there, abide by the rules, and get inspected WHEN THERE.

The HPA applies nationwide to all breeds, events, etc. To change this would require amendment. Write to you Federal representatives.

This would exclude USEF venues and places where those practices do not occur that lead to soring: note that it is device plus ‘soring agent liquid/lubricant’ that causes soring, NOT light device alone.
Which is why all the devices are prohibited, not that they are harmful in themselves used alone.

I’m sure USDA/APHIS does not spend scarce enforcement dollars on “zebra chasing.” USEF events won’t see any inspection activity unless and until there are credible reports of violations. Then they will. Maybe. If the money is there to do that.

Note that trail rides, rodeos and ‘speed event only’ are already excluded.

And for good reason.

I’d like them to change the wording of ‘related breed’ to ‘any horse at this XXX listed show’.
You can’t be ‘related to soring’ it is a DO or DO NOT thing; even within the TWH registered horses.

That would require legislative action.

And the thing is: this is no personal skin off my nose, I don’t show.

I will stand up for those who do show and do it right, however.
I very much dislike throwing out an entire warehouse of apples because a few oranges in a unique container in the same warehouse were rotting ‘and fruit is fruit’.[/QUOTE]

The sore horse industry for years has used this exact argument against the HPA: it’s just a few “bad apples”; don’t punish the many for the sins of the few.

But it’s not. Like the famous Biblical daemons the name of the Sore Horse Bad Apples is “Legion” for they are many.

If you are dissatisfied with the current rule changes and, indeed, the HPA itself, then let your Congressperson and Senators know. It is an election year.

G.

[microbovine]

I think there are a lot of fear mongers in regard to this issue. Put the horses first and move on. We all know abuse won’t magically disappear overnight at all horse shows, but, dang it, we should at least make it a lot harder for people to do wicked things for cheap little nylon ribbon! What the heck is so wrong with showing a horse in it’s natural gait? Why in the world would anyone feel the need to defend practices that have led to abuse?

It’s like any sport that needs to adjust how they operate when information about injuries becomes available. Football didn’t stop being played because people got smarter about wearing padding. In this case, the injuries are on a silent victim. All the more reason to proceed with caution. Horses will still be able to perform without pads and chains.