American Morgan Horse Assoc. opposes Horse Protection Act?

[quietann]

Checking in from Morgan Land again, where the show people are up in arms about the proposed regulations, and going into great detail about the benefits of shoeing “packages” and why their horses must must must be allowed to have long toes, weighted shoes, pads, etc.

Are these folks even aware of the HUGE number of “pleasure horse”, “sport horse”, “trail horse” etc. Morgans who do it all BAREFOOT? And certainly are not confined to arenas with great footing? They are not always of similar lines, but the breed as a whole is known for having good hooves. So what gives?

(My Morgan, as I have said, is shod, including simple hard rubber pads in front, but that’s as much for the legs above her hooves as her hooves themselves. When she was young and living in Maryland rather than New England, she went barefoot. She’s a bit of a sport, quite atypical in a number of ways for the breed – but DNAs to her registered, DNA-typed Morgan parents.)

[luvmyhackney]

This is what my farrier sent me regarding it. He does dressage horses in our area and says that he’s not going to be able to use anything that covers the frog. He does my ponies barefoot trim.
We have a few Country Pleasure horses at the barn that can’t meet the weight requirements for shoes. They wear eventer kegs, but ones 17.3 hands and the other is 17.2. They both have big feet and wear size 4 shoes, which are over 16 oz’s.

https://www.americanfarriers.com/blogs/1-from-the-desk-of-afj/post/8687-usda-clear-as-mud-on-horse-protection-changes

[MyssMyst]

For anyone interested, here is USEF’s statement on this: http://www.morganhorse.com/upload/photos/613USDA.statement.Schumacher.09062016[1].pdf

[CA_ASB]

USEF statement not available via link.

[MyssMyst]

[QUOTE=CA ASB;8862811]
USEF statement not available via link.[/QUOTE]

The board software isn’t using the last part as a link for whatever reason…

[Guilherme]

The loud complaints from the show world about these regulations parallel the complaints the Walker show world has been making since the first HPA was proposed after a LIFE magazine expose’ of industry practices in 1968. I became part of the anti-soring process in 1988 after “the night when the lights went out in GA.” It’s damn near word for word in some cases. It was bunk when the Walker trainers whined and it’s bunk now that Morgan and ASB and other trainers are whining.

Read the regulations. They are fair and impartial and as precise as regulations can be in this milieu. That is going to make some people happy and some people unhappy. Such is life.

G.

[Ladylexie]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8864436]
The loud complaints from the show world about these regulations parallel the complaints the Walker show world has been making since the first HPA was proposed after a LIFE magazine expose’ of industry practices in 1968. I became part of the anti-soring process in 1988 after “the night when the lights went out in GA.” It’s damn near word for word in some cases. It was bunk when the Walker trainers whined and it’s bunk now that Morgan and ASB and other trainers are whining.

Read the regulations. They are fair and impartial and as precise as regulations can be in this milieu. That is going to make some people happy and some people unhappy. Such is life.

G.[/QUOTE]

Totally ridiculous what some of the show horse people are saying that the American Saddlebred show world will end without pads. I love the American Saddlebred and feel like that breed is more than a pile of pads. Good to know that people have so little faith in this breed. Hunters have existed with very little pads, bands, and action devices and they have outpaces ASB’s by far look at Wellington and then go to our piddly little shows and tell me that by taking away our stacks of pads we are going to end our breed…WTF?

[SmartAlex]

[QUOTE=Ladylexie;8864498]
Totally ridiculous what some of the show horse people are saying that the American Saddlebred show world will end without pads. I love the American Saddlebred and feel like that breed is more than a pile of pads. [/QUOTE]

Agreed. Trouble is that everyone wants a freak. They can’t be happy with normal motion and a square trot. They all have to hit their chins or they’re no good. We need to stop thinking that the extreme is the norm. Most of them probably move pretty nice without a package.

[ASB_Stars]

[QUOTE=SmartAlex;8864597]
Agreed. Trouble is that everyone wants a freak. They can’t be happy with normal motion and a square trot. They all have to hit their chins or they’re no good. We need to stop thinking that the extreme is the norm. Most of them probably move pretty nice without a package.[/QUOTE]

The problem is that the show world has made extreme the only acceptable model. Combine the required neckset with excessive motion, et voila! Six figures- and those who run things, the trainers at the top- that is the money that they need to keep getting to keep this mess going. I mean, it isn’t like there are hundreds of those horses out there. Soon, there will be even fewer, because they are wiping out the breeders, and therefore the breed, over this.

I still believe that some modifications might be made to allow for therapeutic pads, however, I’d rather take the rule as written, than risk someone figuring out how to cheat because of a loophole.

[Ladylexie]

No pads will be cheaper…I recall the $300 farrier bills not fondly.

[ASB_Stars]

[QUOTE=Ladylexie;8864824]
No pads will be cheaper…I recall the $300 farrier bills not fondly.[/QUOTE]

I actually wonder if the blacksmiths will determine that more goes into putting on the shoes without the pads in terms of time. I mean, if you have a horse with sensitive soles, they have to get out the angle grinder…and I assume that they are also going to want to keep their livelihood on par with now. By the same token, you can put on a whole bunch more shoes without pads, in a day, than you can making up those packages, and all of the forge work.

We’ll see!

[Ladylexie]

yes time will tell.

[D_BaldStockings]

[QUOTE=ASB Stars;8856240]
Theraputic is fine- Fuego would be fine. If a horse requires therapeutic shoeing- then, you do it. As long as it is within the parameters of the law, and supported by a Vet.

My point, and I do have one, is that this is an opportunity for the ASB world to strip it down, and show people we really don’t have anything to hide, and care more about the horses than anything else.

We need to move away from anything that resembles, or smacks of artifice. Our horses really can do this without a pile of crap on them. The discussion about different kinds of shoeing to stop horses from interfering, or support lower limb deformities is proactive. However, we need to do the minimum that produces the maximum effect. NOT pile on more.[/QUOTE]

While I personally agree with the premise of less is more; the new regs do not specify weight limits for horses over 2 years old (the 16 oz is for younger horses) nor do they limit hoof length to less than 1 1/2 ‘natural’ length (which is unspecified) of horn growth only.

So heavy shoes and excessively long hooves are still ‘legal’.

Unfortunately if you have a horse that interferes a bit and will go clear with a bit of weight on his shoe, that is not to be allowed.
" We would also remove the exception that allows the practice of adding weights to the bottom surface within the horseshoe because we have determined that such weights can be used in ways that can cause soring."

**Fuego’s Rocker shoes are specifically illegal
“Paragraph (b)(14) of §?11.2 prohibits rocker-bars on the bottom surface of horseshoes which would cause, or could reasonably be expected to cause, an unsteadiness of stance in the horse with resulting muscle and tendon strain due to the horse’s weight and balance being focused upon a small fulcrum point. We would retain the prohibitions in this paragraph,…”

But as he is unlikely to show in the USA, I am not sure he could ever come under such scrutiny. Will we ever again host the Olympics or World Dressage championships?

Wouldn’t it be amusing if most of the imported Olympic competitors were disqualified by APHIS inspectors for soring practices or had to arrive with their ‘therapeutic certificates’… I think not.

[D_BaldStockings]

The reason for the additional regulations

"The OIG auditors found that DQPs avoid documenting instances of soring in several ways. DQPs often provide warnings to exhibitors when they detect soring in a horse, when under the regulations they are required to recommend to show management that the horse be prohibited from performing. The report also concluded that DQPs fail to sufficiently inspect and weigh chains, boots, and other action devices as currently required in the regulations.

The report noted that when DQPs document noncompliance with the Act, they often identify a stable hand or a relative of the exhibitor as the alleged violator of the Act, so that the person actually responsible for the alleged violation can avoid responsibility. Furthermore, the report stated that there are no reliable controls in place to prevent an exhibitor who is serving an industry-issued suspension for a violation of an HIO’s rulebook from competing in another show.

APHIS veterinary medical officers conduct unannounced inspections at selected horse events to evaluate DQPs and to visually and physically inspect horses for indications of soring and determine compliance with the Act and regulations. However, as noted above, APHIS officials can only attend a small number of shows, sales, exhibitions and auctions each year. OIG noted that DQPs were much more likely to document noncompliance with the Act when APHIS was also present at a horse show. From the shows OIG reviewed, it found that DQPs issued 49 percent of their total violations at the 6 percent of shows at which APHIS officials also attended."

My bolding

In a nutshell: DQPs were not doing the job.

Realize that more funding has not been offered, just more regulation.

[roseymare]

Are you reading different regs than I am? They state that only keg shoes or traditional shoes to be present on all horses. Previously this was limited to under two in the regs. It has now been changed to say horses of all ages.

[ASB_Stars]

No big shock there. The USEF should check and see if there are tail sets on the country pleasure horses. Guess what? They don’t. Too many times, the USEF employees become buds with the show horse people that they see every week.

[Ladylexie]

[QUOTE=ASB Stars;8865334]
No big shock there. The USEF should check and see if there are tail sets on the country pleasure horses. Guess what? They don’t. Too many times, the USEF employees become buds with the show horse people that they see every week.[/QUOTE]

I agree…I see sets on Morgans and work in a tack shop at shows. We regularly sell ginger at all Morgan shows.

[D_BaldStockings]

[QUOTE=roseymare;8865333]
Are you reading different regs than I am? They state that only keg shoes or traditional shoes to be present on all horses. Previously this was limited to under two in the regs. It has now been changed to say horses of all ages.[/QUOTE]

I was using this document. is there a more recent version?
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=APHIS-2011-0009-0001

"Current paragraph (b)(9) of §?11.2 prohibits the use of any weight on yearling horses, excepting a keg or similar horseshoe, and also prohibits horseshoes weighing more than 16 ounces on yearling horses.

We would redesignate paragraph (b)(9) as (a)(3) and replace the term “yearling horses” with “horses up to 2 years old.” This change would clarify that horses younger than 1 year old are not yearlings but should be covered under the prohibitions in those paragraphs."

I didn’t find any reference to keg shoes only on older horses.
Although any sole covering, weight added or wedges or rocker motion, etc. would be prohibited.
So no boots, gloves, hoofcasts, etc.

From what I read the heavy ‘plantation shoes’ would still be legal, sadly.

[luvmyhackney]

There is a more recent change that includes all ages of horses. I read it last night. How can the heavy plantation shoes still be legal with the weight limit set at 16 oz for all ages?? I think they need to set up something, because a 16 oz shoe on a hackney pony (under 14.2) or saddlebred ( under 15.1) pony is different than a 16 oz shoe on a 17.3 saddlebred. I appreciate they are trying but I know pony trainers are going to take that and tack on the heaviest kegs possible.

[roseymare]

[QUOTE=luvmyhackney;8865503]
There is a more recent change that includes all ages of horses. I read it last night. How can the heavy plantation shoes still be legal with the weight limit set at 16 oz for all ages?? I think they need to set up something, because a 16 oz shoe on a hackney pony (under 14.2) or saddlebred ( under 15.1) pony is different than a 16 oz shoe on a 17.3 saddlebred. I appreciate they are trying but I know pony trainers are going to take that and tack on the heaviest kegs possible.[/QUOTE]

I read it as well and I cannot find it now. Was it a typo? I am really confused.