Congress says horses are livestock

[pluvinel]

@B and B

Cl Moonriver…wouldn’t it be better to change the law so that abuse of livestock carried the appropriate penalties?
One of the worst things that has happened to the Connecticut horse industry, is that horses are now in a grey area. By and large they are still livestock. BUT, horse operations are not classified as agricultural land use unless a profit can be shown. Which seems reasonable enough, until one looks at how property is taxed in CT. (If in PA490, which only applies to parcels over 10 acres) If I have pasture and run a few cows, my property tax is assessed at the ag rates. Even if the cows are pets. If I have a horse, my property tax is assessed at the residential rate. If my hay field is producing hay for my horses…it is residential. If it is producing hay for cows…it is ag. Unless, I can sell the majority of the my hay and only keep some for my horses. The difference is thousands of dollars a year.
If horses ever get completely reclassed as pets, that sort of tax issue will get worse as it will start to impact not just backyard owners but all aspects of the industry. The horse industry will be literally taxed out of existence, not the horses, but the land.

Same in PA.

Lots of case law on whether horses are Ag or not.
http://www.eastcoastequestrian.net/n…-His-Dream.php

https://www.thereporteronline.com/news/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-bedminster-barn-case-ruling-stands/article_363195ef-9c91-5c0b-8605-f4064417acae.html

Guaranteed that if horses are NOT livestock, all those nice green pastures will sprout houses. Once the taxes make it onerous the farmer will sell out to developers vs dealing with the hassle.

[TheMoo]

Horses should stay livestock

[CL_Moonriver]

There is one story I feel like it is worth sharing here. Just to show that the “livestock” designation can backfire on occasion.

Someone not to far from me had a “therapy pony” It was a small pony. A Shetland or something. The pony had enough land to live on, was very well cared for, etc. The lady had the pony to help her deal with her PTSD. (I do not know what caused her PTSD)

Well, some snot-nosed stuck-up neighbor complained about manure smell. So the court got involved. In the end, the lady had to give her up her pony because the court ruled that the pony was “livestock” and local ordinance said that livestock was not allowed within city limits.

Not suggesting that single incident is a good reason to reclassify equines as pets. Just that the current “livestock vs. pets” binary classification is seriously broken. Perhaps the whole thing needs to be scrapped and we need to start over with something new that doesn’t try to dump domestic animals into just two categories, and actually takes individual circumstances into account.

[pluvinel]

@CL Moonriver

There is one story I feel like it is worth sharing here. Just to show that the “livestock” designation can backfire on occasion.

Someone not to far from me had a “therapy pony” It was a small pony. A Shetland or something. The pony had enough land to live on, was very well cared for, etc. The lady had the pony to help her deal with her PTSD. (I do not know what caused her PTSD)

Well, some snot-nosed stuck-up neighbor complained about manure smell. So the court got involved. In the end, the lady had to give her up her pony because the court ruled that the pony was “livestock” and local ordinance said that livestock was not allowed within city limits.

Not suggesting that single incident is a good reason to reclassify equines as pets. Just that the current “livestock vs. pets” binary classification is seriously broken. Perhaps the whole thing needs to be scrapped and we need to start over with something new that doesn’t try to dump domestic animals into just two categories, and actually takes individual circumstances into account.

Sorry…been down that road before.

If the lady had PTSD and needed a support animal, then perhaps a large dog would have been a better choice if she lived in an area where livestock was not allowed.

It was not the fault of the pony that the owner did not know the regulations where she lived.

It is people like this lady that make it difficult for people who have farms and want to maintain the livestock classification for agricultural purposes.

Horses are livestock and should stay livestock…they are no different than a cow or a pig…and there are people who ride cows and keep pigs as pets.

[Guilherme]

@CL Moonriver

There is one story I feel like it is worth sharing here. Just to show that the “livestock” designation can backfire on occasion.

Someone not to far from me had a “therapy pony” It was a small pony. A Shetland or something. The pony had enough land to live on, was very well cared for, etc. The lady had the pony to help her deal with her PTSD. (I do not know what caused her PTSD)

Well, some snot-nosed stuck-up neighbor complained about manure smell. So the court got involved. In the end, the lady had to give her up her pony because the court ruled that the pony was “livestock” and local ordinance said that livestock was not allowed within city limits.

Not suggesting that single incident is a good reason to reclassify equines as pets. Just that the current “livestock vs. pets” binary classification is seriously broken. Perhaps the whole thing needs to be scrapped and we need to start over with something new that doesn’t try to dump domestic animals into just two categories, and actually takes individual circumstances into account.

There will always be somebody who won’t do their job correctly. To reclassify a $90 Billion segment of the U.S. economy by fiat (executive or otherwise) would not have benefited either the industry or the horses.

Horses are not cute puppies or kittens. They are big, smelly things that make 50 lbs. of manure, more or less, per day. They evolved on the short grass steppe and have a natural comfort range of between 15F and 60F. They MUST walk somewhere between seven and 15 miles per day for their own health. And this is just an average saddle horse at 900-1100 lbs. Add in the drafts, the warmbloods, and the carthorses and you have an even bigger issue (literally). If you want to make minis “pets” then have at it. In fact, given what they are, they probably are already. But even ponies are more like horses than minis. In no wise, however, are they like Peekapoos.

The definition of therapy horse is not an example of a “backfire” but of the unintended consequences of central authority deciding how a person ought to live and what they may or may not do with their property. Law is a “blunt instrument” for influencing human behavior because it is based on the concept of the power to punish. Even unto death for certain behaviors. Apply this power sparingly you’ll learn the TRUE meaning of “backfire” in social policy!

G.

[Milobloom]

Horses are livestock.

I do do wish there was a third option of “companion livestock” which would encompas livestock generally kept for non food production. Horses, mini pigs, Pygmy goats etc, but I also think that would open the door to a whole new level of headaches

[Scribbler]

The livestock versus pet zoning rules come into play also with things like pot bellied pigs.

If a neighbor could smell manure from the Shetland pony, then that’s pretty clear proof it is livestock.

If an animal classified as livestock was a genuine therapy animal there might be specific exceptions to the regulations. Like seeing eye dogs can go into restaurants.

Unfortunately there are lots of folks bending the definition of therapy animal and claiming their pocket chihuahua helps them cope with anxiety etc.

As far as the Shetland pony, did it go out and about with the ptsd owner? Or just sit in the suburban backyard and poop?

I personally love horses in suburbs and grew up in a horsey suburb. But I don’t love how people invent therapy designations just to try to skirt existing laws.

A good quiet golden lab in harness under a cafe table is a nice sight and a good thing. I enjoy feral teens with ferrets and rats and snakes in their hoodies because they aren’t making any claims about the animals. But just deciding your pet is a therapy animal and can go everywhere with you with no training and no consequences makes it harder for those who really do have therapy animals.

[candyappy]

Horses are livestock! I find those who view them as pets or companion animals to be, well …

[CL_Moonriver]

@pluvinel

Horses are livestock and should stay livestock…they are no different than a cow or a pig…and there are people who ride cows and keep pigs as pets.

I strongly disagree. There’s a reason we don’t eat horses in America, but it is perfectly okay to eat cows and pigs. Horses are NOT livestock in the sense that cows and pigs are.

Obviously there are cultural issues at work here. Horses are given “higher standing” in America than cows or pigs are. I suppose it’s because America would not exist at all today if not for the special bond between horses and humans. In the military, horses even hold rank, sometimes outranking their human handlers. They are awarded medals for bravery, and so on. Don’t believe me? Read the story of Staff Sergeant Reckless. A Thoroughbred mare who served in the Korean War.

Now if you want to argue that this is all just some kind of sentimental garbage based on America’s traditional love affair with horses? That’s fair. You can argue that. But if you do want to make that argument, then a consistent moral value system would classify all animals the same way, would it not? And a TRULY consistent moral value system would classify human life as no more intrinsically valuable than the life of a horse.

[TheMoo]

@CL Moonriver

I strongly disagree. There’s a reason we don’t eat horses in America, but it is perfectly okay to eat cows and pigs. Horses are NOT livestock in the sense that cows and pigs are.

Obviously there are cultural issues at work here. Horses are given “higher standing” in America than cows or pigs are. I suppose it’s because America would not exist at all today if not for the special bond between horses and people. In the military, horses even hold rank, sometimes outranking their human handlers. They are awarded medals for bravery, and so on. Don’t believe me? Read the story of Staff Sergeant Reckless. A Thoroughbred mare who served in the Korean War.

Now if you want to argue that this is all just some kind of sentimental garbage based on America’s traditional love affair with horses? That’s fair. You can argue that. But if you do want to make that argument, then a consistent moral value system would classify all animals the same way, would it not? And a TRULY consistent moral value system would classify human life as no more intrinsically valuable than the life of a horse.

Horses are not livestock like cows and pigs if the defining line is eating them. They do however need to be considered livestock. Classifying horses as pets, IMO would cause way more problems.

Also, Staff Sergeant Reckless was not a TB. She was a small horse of Mongolian breeding purchased off a Korean boy for $250.

[Scribbler]

So cats are pets but can be shot at the pleasure of the landowner if they are a nuisance? But then horses should be classified as pets because their lives are of equal value to humans?

That doesn’t work. For that to work, you need to reclassify horses as persons.

Now my mare is nearly there, in her own mind. But I still wouldn’t trust her in a voting booth.

She’d eat the pencils.

[TheMoo]

@Scribbler :lol::lol::lol:

[pluvinel]

@CL Moonriver

I strongly disagree. There’s a reason we don’t eat horses in America, but it is perfectly okay to eat cows and pigs. Horses are NOT livestock in the sense that cows and pigs are.

Obviously there are cultural issues at work here. Horses are given “higher standing” in America than cows or pigs are. I suppose it’s because America would not exist at all today if not for the special bond between horses and humans. In the military, horses even hold rank, sometimes outranking their human handlers. They are awarded medals for bravery, and so on. Don’t believe me? Read the story of Staff Sergeant Reckless. A Thoroughbred mare who served in the Korean War.

Now if you want to argue that this is all just some kind of sentimental garbage based on America’s traditional love affair with horses? That’s fair. You can argue that. But if you do want to make that argument, then a consistent moral value system would classify all animals the same way, would it not? And a TRULY consistent moral value system would classify human life as no more intrinsically valuable than the life of a horse.

I am very familiar with Sgt. Reckless…

I have eaten horse and would eat it again…where it is tastily prepared.

I took care of a farm where a Clara the calf became veal scallopini and Wilbur the pig (who used to root in the water tubs) became bacon and pork chops.

I worked in SC where deer season is pretty much year round…the Bambi-BBQ that my colleagues brought in was very tasty.

The more and more people are separated from the land (and believe that hamburger comes from the grocery store) the worse off for farmers of all kinds.

The banning of horse slaughter in the US was a PR-motivated decision.

Turn horses into “pets” and watch horse farms (e.g. horse boarding) disappear.

So…although you are advocating for the horse…beware that the rules of unintended consequences will always prevail: “The road to hell is paved with with good intentions.”

[Guilherme]

@CL Moonriver

I strongly disagree. There’s a reason we don’t eat horses in America, but it is perfectly okay to eat cows and pigs. Horses are NOT livestock in the sense that cows and pigs are.

Your privilege to disagree. We don’t eat horse meat here, as rule, because of English fore-bearers did not. But if we are of French or German extraction it’s quite possible they DID eat horse meat. They do so today in Europe. Aboriginal American tribes did. So Icelanders. Not sure how many others.

Obviously there are cultural issues at work here. Horses are given “higher standing” in America than cows or pigs are. I suppose it’s because America would not exist at all today if not for the special bond between horses and humans. In the military, horses even hold rank, sometimes outranking their human handlers. They are awarded medals for bravery, and so on. Don’t believe me? Read the story of Staff Sergeant Reckless. A Thoroughbred mare who served in the Korean War.

I’ve commented periodically about the “romance of horses” and how it can lead to silliness. The statement “In the military, horses even hold rank, sometimes outranking their human handlers.” is not just false it’s absurd. Yes, I know about Sgt. Reckless. A fine animal and probably the best $250 the Marines ever spent. But the horse was NOT a sergeant, it was an honorary sergeant. Like a “Kentucky Colonel” is an honorary title, not the military rank of O-6. Yes, decorations have been awarded but, again, these are honorary recognition are are for the purpose of improving the moral of the troops not as an example of other animals to note and emulate.

Now if you want to argue that this is all just some kind of sentimental garbage based on America’s traditional love affair with horses? That’s fair. You can argue that. But if you do want to make that argument, then a consistent moral value system would classify all animals the same way, would it not? And a TRULY consistent moral value system would classify human life as no more intrinsically valuable than the life of a horse.

It is a romantic notion. As long as it stays that way things won’t get too far out of line. But when we being to attribute human characteristics to horses folks can “lose the bubble” and bad things can happen.

As far as “consistency” is concerned, Emerson said it best:

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

Do note the true, operative word in the above is “foolish.” Being wisely consistent would be a Very Good Thing for most people and society at large!

G.

[CL_Moonriver]

@TheMoo

Also, Staff Sergeant Reckless was not a TB. She was a small horse of Mongolian breeding purchased off a Korean boy for $250.

A technicality that is not important for my argument. I know her history. I’ve read the books about her. I know there is some debate about whether she was full TB or not. But again, it’s not important for the purposes of the argument I was making.

[bangboombaby]

I am moving to a county that is mostly farmland. The terms to get farm tax deferral stipulate the use of the horses. If the horse is your pleasure horse it doesn’t count as farming. You must actually be raising, breeding, boarding, selling and/or training horses. From what I’ve read they don’t investigate unless your neighbors complain, or if you plan to build any buildings you must prove they will be used for farming. Of course, there is lots of other farming you can do besides horses, but they do frown upon having all non-working horses (if you are getting farm tax deferral). If horses are livestock then shouldn’t keeping any horses count as farming? I am referring to EFU (exclusive farm use) zoned land in Oregon.

[TheMoo]

@CL Moonriver

A technicality that is not important for my argument. I know her history. I’ve read the books about her. I know there is some debate about whether she was full TB or not. But again, it’s not important for the purposes of the argument I was making.

I’ve never heard of such a debate but okay. As @Guilherme noted, Reckless and her awards and promotions were for moral. She was not considered above any Marine.

Regardless, if horses are no longer considered livestock it will open a whole can of worms that we horse people do not want.

Yes in my eyes, my dog and horse are equal. Despite that, horses need to stay livestock. For example where I live the town taxes my pets. Horsey is expensive enough without additional taxes.

[CL_Moonriver]

@Scribbler

So cats are pets but can be shot at the pleasure of the landowner if they are a nuisance? But then horses should be classified as pets because their lives are of equal value to humans?

As I said before, I’m 42, unmarried, and have no children other than my horses. I will do what I have to to protect them, including killing.

@Scribbler

That doesn’t work. For that to work, you need to reclassify horses as persons.

If a person / human shows up on my land and points a gun at one of my horses? I will kill that person / human just like I would any other animal that was a threat to my horses. And under my particular state law, I will be justified in doing so.

[Bluey]

@CL Moonriver

As I said before, I’m 42, unmarried, and have no children other than my horses. I will do what I have to to protect them, including killing.

If a person / human shows up on my land and points a gun at one of my horses? I will kill that person / human just like I would any other animal that was a threat to my horses. And under my particular state law, I will be justified in doing so.

I think that you are confusing defending your property, here horses, as Guilherme has explanied, chattel you own, with defending yourself or your human family.

There are laws addressing both.

Depending on the circumstances, no, you can’t go killing someone just because they are threatening your possessions, even if those are your horses.
You can kill a dog chasing your horses, not a kid chasing them.

You really can’t make laws as you go, with how you feel about things and expect them to fit everyone else, just because you feel like it.

I am sure that Guilherme can explain this better.

[CL_Moonriver]

@Bluey

I think that you are confusing defending your property, here horses, as Guilherme has explanied, chattel you own, with defending yourself or your human family.

I can use deadly force to defend my property under my state law, assuming the other person presents a threat that a reasonable person would believe to be legitimate. So I’m not actually confusing anything. However, I will NOT use deadly force in most cases, even if I legally could so so. If someone breaks into my house and they have a gun, and all they want is my TV? I’ll tell them to go ahead and take it. A TV is certainly not something I am willing to kill another human being over. I can replace the TV.

But horses are not machines. Horses are living beings, each with their own personality, etc. I cannot simply replace a horse with a new one. So yes, if someone threatens one of my horses? I will use deadly force to protect the horse.