I found it
Its no longer there. I just checked. I had the page bookmarked. I promise I didn’t make it up. Now it says the following:
As part of our proposed rule, we proposed to retitle §?11.2 as “Prohibited actions, practices, devices, and substances” and to prohibit all action devices, pads, and substances applied to a horse’s limbs. Also prohibited is any practice involving a horse, and, as a result of such practice, such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected to suffer, physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking, trotting, or otherwise moving. These proposed changes were intended to successfully and significantly reduce the number of sored horses shown, exhibited, sold, and auctioned. In our proposed changes to §?11.2, we included provisions in proposed paragraph (a)(3) of that section stating that the use of any weight on horses up to 2 years old, except a keg or similar conventional horseshoe is prohibited, as is the use of a horseshoe on horses up to 2 years old that weighs more than 16 ounces. In keeping with the intent of our other proposed changes, we are considering changing proposed paragraph (a)(3) to read “The use of any weight on horses, except a keg or similar conventional horseshoe, is prohibited.” We will consider all comments we received on this provision throughout the comment period so that those who have already commented know we will continue to consider their views.
[QUOTE=luvmyhackney;8865610]
Its no longer there. I just checked. I had the page bookmarked. I promise I didn’t make it up. Now it says the following:
As part of our proposed rule, we proposed to retitle §?11.2 as “Prohibited actions, practices, devices, and substances” and to prohibit all action devices, pads, and substances applied to a horse’s limbs. Also prohibited is any practice involving a horse, and, as a result of such practice, such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected to suffer, physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking, trotting, or otherwise moving. These proposed changes were intended to successfully and significantly reduce the number of sored horses shown, exhibited, sold, and auctioned. In our proposed changes to §?11.2, we included provisions in proposed paragraph (a)(3) of that section stating that the use of any weight on horses up to 2 years old, except a keg or similar conventional horseshoe is prohibited, as is the use of a horseshoe on horses up to 2 years old that weighs more than 16 ounces. In keeping with the intent of our other proposed changes, we are considering changing proposed paragraph (a)(3) to read “The use of any weight on horses, except a keg or similar conventional horseshoe, is prohibited.” We will consider all comments we received on this provision throughout the comment period so that those who have already commented know we will continue to consider their views.[/QUOTE]
This change sounds like it answers many of the objections relating to “ambiguous wording.”
G.
[QUOTE=Guilherme;8865963]
This change sounds like it answers many of the objections relating to “ambiguous wording.”
G.[/QUOTE]
That’s OK- they will like this even less. It just won’t allow for THAT particular excuse…:lol:
[QUOTE=ASB Stars;8866263]
That’s OK- they will like this even less. It just won’t allow for THAT particular excuse…:lol:[/QUOTE]
Since I’m a “no action devices” guy this modification is fine by me. May not sit so well with the “nail on the gait” crowd.
G.
[QUOTE=Guilherme;8866425]
Since I’m a “no action devices” guy this modification is fine by me. May not sit so well with the “nail on the gait” crowd.
G.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you, on both counts.
The ambiguous wording we are concerned about is in regards to the word trot mentioned at times as well as related breeds.
Also what constitutes a conventional shoe?
I understand it is difficult to craft appropriate language.
[QUOTE=roseymare;8868042]
The ambiguous wording we are concerned about is in regards to the word trot mentioned at times as well as related breeds.
Also what constitutes a conventional shoe?
I understand it is difficult to craft appropriate language.[/QUOTE]
So what you are saying is that you do not think trotting breeds should be included? Why?
It amazes me that the professionals, in particular, think that a symmetrically lame horse trotting appears sound. They don’t.
So, when you close nail a horse behind. all around, in an effort to make them appear “hocky”, you aren’t making them better, you are crippling them. But no, you don’t call that soring…
[QUOTE=roseymare;8868042]
The ambiguous wording we are concerned about is in regards to the word trot mentioned at times as well as related breeds.
Also what constitutes a conventional shoe?
I understand it is difficult to craft appropriate language.[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure I understand your concern. Please point to the language that is causing some questions.
Regarding “conventional” shoe I suspect that’s being used as a substitute for “keg” shoe or, perhaps, to distinguish between a shoe that you might buy at your local co-op vs. a hand-forged 48 oz. Plantation shoe or some other shoe with unusual characteristics. IMO common modifications to shoes such as clips, caulks, studs, borium, and trailers would not necessarily mean a shoe is not “conventional.”
G.
[QUOTE=ASB Stars;8868275]
So what you are saying is that you do not think trotting breeds should be included? Why?
It amazes me that the professionals, in particular, think that a symmetrically lame horse trotting appears sound. They don’t.
So, when you close nail a horse behind. all around, in an effort to make them appear “hocky”, you aren’t making them better, you are crippling them. But no, you don’t call that soring…[/QUOTE]
Shhhhhhhhhh…
[QUOTE=ASB Stars;8868275]
So what you are saying is that you do not think trotting breeds should be included? Why?
It amazes me that the professionals, in particular, think that a symmetrically lame horse trotting appears sound. They don’t.
So, when you close nail a horse behind. all around, in an effort to make them appear “hocky”, you aren’t making them better, you are crippling them. But no, you don’t call that soring…[/QUOTE]
So a farrier that accidentally quicks a horse can get thrown under the bus because some fool is deliberately close-nailing to sore? (yes, inflicting pain is soring - no brainer)
-Which by the way isn’t covered in the proposed regulations at all: but don’t let that put your focus back on the actual proposed regulations.
Nowhere does it say you can’t hold a show/auction/exhibition if there is no inspector… Now THAT might cut down on soring - I wonder why no one thought of that?
Or how about making it illegal to SELL Heavy shoes/ pad stacks/ tack boots (yeah, you can buy those or could this spring -inquiring minds checked.)
When there are no cops on the highway, most people seem to go 10 mph over the limit.
Where there are time traps with auto-ticketing? VERY few chance it.
You won’t stop soring without enforcement; all you will do is annoy those who aren’t soring by calling them abusers, too.
[QUOTE=ASB Stars;8868275]
So what you are saying is that you do not think trotting breeds should be included? Why?
It amazes me that the professionals, in particular, think that a symmetrically lame horse trotting appears sound. They don’t.
So, when you close nail a horse behind. all around, in an effort to make them appear “hocky”, you aren’t making them better, you are crippling them. But no, you don’t call that soring…[/QUOTE]
Now this statement is crap. My pony is done regularly by an ASB farrier who clinic’s with Rood and Riddle podiatry dept and does custom shoes for vets in the NC/VA area. You might want to let them know he hot nails on purpose. Never had my ponies or horses hot nailed on purpose. Yes, I’ve done all the major shows and groomed my way through college.
My hackney does pleasure driving, jumps, trail rides. He’s never had a lame step in his life, wears the same shoes/barefoot trim for everything.
I have no problem with weight requirements, hoof length requirements as long as the size of the horse is taken into account(different length/weights for ponies vs horses) and they give us specific rules to follow. Get rid of the tail sets, and nicking. Doesn’t bother me a bit.
By specific rules, I want it to be shown like it is in dressage ( you can use this,this, this, you can not use this, this, this. )
But you have no right to say or imply every ASB farrier hot nails a horse to make them “hocky”. If you ever want to watch my farrier, not sure what area you are in, I’m sure he love for you to watch him shoe. Then you can decide if the magic cushion between the pad and hoof cause discomfort and count how many shoes he hot nails.
I am more concerned about innovations in shoeing that could help horses coming under the auspices of this rule in that they are not conventional.
As well as the sometimes using the word trot and other times not. I think the wording should be the same throughout the legislation.
Funny you assume I have Saddlebreds. I have quarter horses who have been barefoot for the majority of their life. 2 have never even had shoes and are nearing double digits. However when I was showing my mare who is now in her 30’s did have to be shod with an unconventional shoe for a few years.
[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;8868622]
So a farrier that accidentally quicks a horse can get thrown under the bus because some fool is deliberately close-nailing to sore? (yes, inflicting pain is soring - no brainer)
-Which by the way isn’t covered in the proposed regulations at all: but don’t let that put your focus back on the actual proposed regulations.
Nowhere does it say you can’t hold a show/auction/exhibition if there is no inspector… Now THAT might cut down on soring - I wonder why no one thought of that?
Or how about making it illegal to SELL Heavy shoes/ pad stacks/ tack boots (yeah, you can buy those or could this spring -inquiring minds checked.)
When there are no cops on the highway, most people seem to go 10 mph over the limit.
Where there are time traps with auto-ticketing? VERY few chance it.
You won’t stop soring without enforcement; all you will do is annoy those who aren’t soring by calling them abusers, too.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for another bellicose rant.
I am wondering if USEF will get involved with checking out what is on these horses, at some level. All of the breeds, other than the TWHs, are part of USEF. If it is illegal, it will undoubtedly get a PRC wherein it isn’t allowed by the governing body, methinks.
Of course, I might be dreaming.
By the way, generally speaking ONE hot nail- on an accidentally quicked horse- is going to cause asymmetrical lameness. Probably not someting you’d throw anyone under the bus about. I mean, I’d be po’d, but that’s another story. Just a thought. Apparently, nailing close, all around, behind, creates a hockier horse. So I’m told :yes:
And no one is tarring the world with the same brush. Leveling the playing field is what it is. Wake up.
[QUOTE=luvmyhackney;8868677]
Now this statement is crap. My pony is done regularly by an ASB farrier who clinic’s with Rood and Riddle podiatry dept and does custom shoes for vets in the NC/VA area. You might want to let them know he hot nails on purpose. Never had my ponies or horses hot nailed on purpose. Yes, I’ve done all the major shows and groomed my way through college.
My hackney does pleasure driving, jumps, trail rides. He’s never had a lame step in his life, wears the same shoes/barefoot trim for everything.
I have no problem with weight requirements, hoof length requirements as long as the size of the horse is taken into account(different length/weights for ponies vs horses) and they give us specific rules to follow. Get rid of the tail sets, and nicking. Doesn’t bother me a bit.
By specific rules, I want it to be shown like it is in dressage ( you can use this,this, this, you can not use this, this, this. )
But you have no right to say or imply every ASB farrier hot nails a horse to make them “hocky”. If you ever want to watch my farrier, not sure what area you are in, I’m sure he love for you to watch him shoe. Then you can decide if the magic cushion between the pad and hoof cause discomfort and count how many shoes he hot nails.[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say that you did anything crappy to your pony. I didn’t say that every farrier does nasty things to every horse. I simply offered that it IS done. People have got to pull their heads out of…the sand…and realize that rotten things are being done- under their noses. There are people that figure that they are smarter than their clients, and that whatever they tell their clients, they will believe is engraved in stone. Some of those people are horse trainers.
It is this kind of reaction- where someone decries the idea that this is actually happens, or runs out with it isn’t MY farrier, that makes them laugh, and it all continues.
You love your pony. That is a wonderful thing. I love my horses. And I want all of their relatives to be loved in a way that doesn’t hurt.
[QUOTE=roseymare;8869040]
I am more concerned about innovations in shoeing that could help horses coming under the auspices of this rule in that they are not conventional.
As well as the sometimes using the word trot and other times not. I think the wording should be the same throughout the legislation.
Funny you assume I have Saddlebreds. I have quarter horses who have been barefoot for the majority of their life. 2 have never even had shoes and are nearing double digits. However when I was showing my mare who is now in her 30’s did have to be shod with an unconventional shoe for a few years.[/QUOTE]
The primary rule is that any deviation from a “conventional” shoe must be therapeutic in nature. I believe this is stated several times. All of the discussions about detail must lead back to that primary rule. So as long as what you are doing can be defined as “therapeutic” the fact that it’s also “innovative” should not be an issue.
You know and I know that in the breeds that seek a very flashy way of going the use of devices to achieve that “splash and dash” is disturbingly common. It is the province of the greedy, the lazy, or the cruel. Some of those devices are relatively benign (a light chain around the foot) but some will cause crippling injuries over time. Some are just outrageous (like putting “knobs” on the rear underside of a saddle to encourage the horse to travel ventroflexed). As long as judges pin such horses the practices will be continued. Shame on ALL the breed association leaderships that have condoned such things for years. Since “jawboning” has not worked to alter these conditions force of law will now be applied.
G.
Bellicose rant? I may be grouchy, but my statements reflect realistic scenarios. No going to waste time on a rant.
It seems to me as if you are using a discussion of proposed rules change to air your personal agendas.
And you just stated you ‘had been told’.
Evidence not admissible in court…
It is a heated issue. You seem to enjoy throwing Chlorine triflouride on it.
“Since “jawboning” has not worked to alter these conditions force of law will now be applied.” -G
Would that FORCE of law will now be applied. What is being encouraged is regulation without FORCE.
What a waste of good horseflesh and people’s intelligence.
[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;8869944]
Bellicose rant? I may be grouchy, but my statements reflect realistic scenarios. No going to waste time on a rant.
It seems to me as if you are using a discussion of proposed rules change to air your personal agendas.
And you just stated you ‘had been told’.
Evidence not admissible in court…
It is a heated issue. You seem to enjoy throwing Chlorine triflouride on it.[/QUOTE]
I don’t find your arguments reasonable, and sometimes not even plausible, but you are entitled to them. Of course, you must realize that all of these are personal agendas. Simply by definition.
And, as incendiary as the issue seems to be, I have no intention of allowing the smoke and mirrors I’ve watched for years cloud my opinions, or change my need to protect these horses in any way that I can.
a symmetrically lame horse would look miserable which would be counterproductive to the “brilliant and eager” look that wins in the show ring.
So, when you close nail a horse behind. all around, in an effort to make them appear “hocky”, you aren’t making them better, you are crippling them. But no, you don’t call that soring…
ASBStars is using a false narrative because she knows that most of this forum is made up of hunter jumper and dressage people. The way to make a horse “hocky” has more to do with the angles at which the horse is trimmed. A horse at a steeper angle and a rolled toe will have a quicker breakover speed for when his hooves leave the ground.
In the old days, they used a lower angle on the hooves which would slow down the breakover and keep the hoof on the ground longer…then the horse would snatch up the hoof quickly to make up for the delayed breakover, but nowadays this doesn’t usually place well because the horse is “trailing his hocks” behind him.
People that don’t understand how much the laws of physics applies to horse shoeing usually make up all kinds of “horror stories” to explain things.
