Tennessee Walking Horse Soring Issue *Update post 1*

[hurleycane]

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;6557759]

[QUOTE=hurleycane;6556271]It is pretty much [B]not just about soring anymore - but also the other cruelties. Like the stack of pads, the chains, the tail cutting, the heavy and banded shoe and so on.

Without those devices most so called highly trained high steppers would not get a knee near the rail.[/[/B]QUOTE]

This only gives people tangents to take the discussion away from ending soring and weakens the argument.

As to commenting on the plantation shod horse vs stacked I can’t say I favored the shoeing job on either class. So I refuse to pick until a shorter toe w/ proper alignment of angles is put up.

-And I have personally seen many horses that traveled quite high without special shoeing, but none of them were TWH.

Carry on.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;6557907]
But I doubt that outlawing the stack, as it has been labeled, will do the job of stopping soring -using pain for gain.[/QUOTE]

Only two ways to produce that crawl of the stacked gaited horse: Sore them (chains,chemicals, pressure shoeing, road founder, kick them in the coronet) OR stack and chain em. And you are quite right about the distorted weighted foot being very similar to the stacked foot. AND, unless one has been in a hole in China, it should be quite apparent that in particular the stacked TWH show folks can not tell the difference between the stacked or sored horse. Cause they have given Jackie McConnel championships for his soring techniques.

So, if you follow me with the “only two ways” reasoning above - then you will understand soring goes on because they have been allowed to weight and stack the foot. No more weighting and stacking of the foot, the gait distortion will be gone. Get rid of the mechanical gait distortion and then the real judging and riding will begin. THEN you will see more loose, sweeping gliding power house TWH as they were meant to be presented.

IMO, the AVMA and AAEP smartly proposed and contend that soring will be unnecessary if action devices and stacks are banned from the show ring. And D_BaldStockings, it is by your own words that their pointed purpose is driven home:

[INDENT]“By enacting a law banning The Pads & Action Devices, the common practices of Soring will be unnecessary”

BECAUSE [QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;6557759]
And I have personally seen many horses that traveled quite high without special shoeing, but none of them were TWH.[/QUOTE][/INDENT]

And here is the rub - For the TWH all the action is the back end - NOT the front!

[cuonxc]

@subk;6557595

Anybody have a link to the actual bill? Not much interested in media bruhaha as the devil is in the details.

http://whitfield.house.gov/sites/whitfield.house.gov/files/WHITFI_046_xml%20HPA%20Bill.pdf

[hurleycane]

[QUOTE=cuonxc;6558121]
http://whitfield.house.gov/sites/whitfield.house.gov/files/WHITFI_046_xml%20HPA%20Bill.pdf[/QUOTE]

:)For the future.
:sadsmile: For those that paid the price - in particular the young bay whose suffering I witnessed. We will remember you.

[walknsound]

[QUOTE=cuonxc;6558121]
http://whitfield.house.gov/sites/whitfield.house.gov/files/WHITFI_046_xml%20HPA%20Bill.pdf[/QUOTE]

Thanks for posting.

[walknsound]

[QUOTE=hurleycane;6558128]
:)For the future.
:sadsmile: For those that paid the price - in particular the young bay whose suffering I witnessed. We will remember you.[/QUOTE]

Sooo true!

[WalkInTheWoods]

Here we go…

http://www.wbir.com/news/article/234464/2/Tennessee-lawmakers-anxious-to-review-new-bill-on-horse-soring

[walknsound]

[QUOTE=outofthebox;6557822]
Weakens the argument???

Is there anyone out there arguing FOR soring?

“By enacting a law banning The Pads & Action Devices, the common practices of Soring will be unnecessary.”

Sorry, they all go together, soring, pads, devices… It is time for TW industry change.[/QUOTE]

Thank you!

[subk]

“His staff could not immediately say how much the department would gain for such purposes by getting a share of entrance fees.”

And there would be the detail and I hope it means what I think it means.

If I compete in a USEF recognized event there is a fee for each entered horse that goes to the USEF for any drug testing. I don’t support the government increasing funding for more inspections because I feel strongly that that funding should come from those that are showing. I have to foot the bill in my sport they need to foot the bill in theirs. If they can’t police themselves then they can cough up the money for someone else to do it AND if that bill for government policing is more than they want to pay and cost prohibitive then that’s even better!

Increasing USDA funding for inspections misses a really BIG opportunity to make showing more difficult.

[D_BaldStockings]

[QUOTE=hurleycane;6558030]

Only two ways to produce that crawl of the stacked gaited horse: Sore them (chains,chemicals, pressure shoeing, road founder, kick them in the coronet) OR stack and chain em. And you are quite right about the distorted weighted foot being very similar to the stacked foot. AND, unless one has been in a hole in China, it should be quite apparent that in particular the stacked TWH show folks can not tell the difference between the stacked or sored horse. Cause they have given Jackie McConnel championships for his soring techniques.

So, if you follow me with the “only two ways” reasoning above - then you will understand soring goes on because they have been allowed to weight and stack the foot. No more weighting and stacking of the foot, the gait distortion will be gone. Get rid of the mechanical gait distortion and then the real judging and riding will begin. THEN you will see more loose, sweeping gliding power house TWH as they were meant to be presented.

IMO, the AVMA and AAEP smartly proposed and contend that soring will be unnecessary if action devices and stacks are banned from the show ring. And D_BaldStockings, it is by your own words that their pointed purpose is driven home:

[INDENT]“By enacting a law banning The Pads & Action Devices, the common practices of Soring will be unnecessary”

BECAUSE [/INDENT]

And here is the rub - For the TWH all the action is the back end - NOT the front![/QUOTE]

Addressing the last comment ‘by your own words’: My words were in response to your words that 'without devices and shoeing highsteppers would not reach the rail…" to which I called false.

moving back to your words of ‘soring OR stacks’, you placed the or, not I.

So stacking isn’t soring -per your words.

Following on, the gait distortion (your opinion) is what you wish to stop whether there is soring involved or not.

I have to conclude that since the distorted gait is what is rewarded in the show ring, outlawing stacks (which are not soring - per you) would merely move the method to a different one, not shift the TWH to your preferred presentation.

I’m sure you have seen horses trained to spanish walk? And some of the recent gaits on Dressage horses?

If you want to stop soring, very good.

If you think stopping stacks will stop soring; and also stop the ‘distorted gait’ which is desired in the show ring, I am sorry to disillusion you - it won’t.

At this time developing the ‘distorted’ gait is not criminal, soring to achieve it is; it is now in the beauty-in-the eye-of-the-beholder category, not in the proven inhumane category. That means those who prefer the look will continue to train for and reward it in the ring and so it will go until proof of harm criminalizes the gait.

You are going to have to change the shows and the judging to accomplish that if you can’t go the criminal route, which means changing other peoples’ opinions of beauty.

Note that I said change which implies agreement, recommendation, voting, attendance and supporting those changes at the shows.

And this is also why I feel extending the SORING definition to activities that are not soring or to intended harmless devices that can be used to harm turns your discussion into an opinion-fest rather than a soring eradication focus.

You might say I liked your pot-roast until you insisted on the raspberry sauce and require that I eat the raspberry sauce or no pot-roast. This is not going to sell your pot-roast.

[WalkInTheWoods]

Sacramento, California newspaper

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/13/4817829/avma-issues-statement-in-support.html

[walknsound]

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/13/4817829/avma-issues-statement-in-support.html

[hurleycane]

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;6558900]
Addressing the last comment ‘by your own words’: My words were in response to your words that 'without devices and shoeing highsteppers would not reach the rail…" to which I called false.

moving back to your words of ‘soring OR stacks’, you placed the or, not I.

So stacking isn’t soring -per your words.

Following on, the gait distortion (your opinion) is what you wish to stop whether there is soring involved or not.

I have to conclude that since the distorted gait is what is rewarded in the show ring, outlawing stacks (which are not soring - per you) would merely move the method to a different one, not shift the TWH to your preferred presentation.

I’m sure you have seen horses trained to spanish walk? And some of the recent gaits on Dressage horses?

If you want to stop soring, very good.

If you think stopping stacks will stop soring; and also stop the ‘distorted gait’ which is desired in the show ring, I am sorry to disillusion you - it won’t.

At this time developing the ‘distorted’ gait is not criminal, soring to achieve it is; it is now in the beauty-in-the eye-of-the-beholder category, not in the proven inhumane category. That means those who prefer the look will continue to train for and reward it in the ring and so it will go until proof of harm criminalizes the gait.

You are going to have to change the shows and the judging to accomplish that if you can’t go the criminal route, which means changing other peoples’ opinions of beauty.

Note that I said change which implies agreement, recommendation, voting, attendance and supporting those changes at the shows.

And this is also why I feel extending the SORING definition to activities that are not soring or to intended harmless devices that can be used to harm turns your discussion into an opinion-fest rather than a soring eradication focus.

You might say I liked your pot-roast until you insisted on the raspberry sauce and require that I eat the raspberry sauce or no pot-roast. This is not going to sell your pot-roast.[/QUOTE]

Well, It is not my position to sell but I did my best to explain my take on AVMA and AAEP’s contention that action devices need to go. And it is brilliant! But to follow it you might need to know that soring is specifically defined in the HPA and you might need to know and understand the gaits of a gaited horse.

No more should be needed to understand what I posted.

Also, your statement which I quoted did say that you had not seen a high stepping TWH. Which would be a very reasonable expectation for any TWH that does the signature walking gait. Because the running walk is not a high stepping gait. A nice fast rack will be high stepping. A barefoot or keg shod racking horse can get a leg up quite naturally as the high reaching foot comes with the speed and momentum of the fast rack etc. The walking gaits are not speed gaits - and again what differentiates the walking gaits is the overreach of the hinds. Once a max speed is hit, the walking gait will either shorten length of the hind stride to a rack or will break to pace or canter or gallop.

BTW gallop and pace are and can be very high stepping gaits.

But the position of banning action devices as the path to ending soring is not my contention, but the contention of two very respected organizations.

[D_BaldStockings]

As the proposed amendment to the current law reads, in part:

6 ‘‘(1) The term ‘action device’ means any boot,
7 collar, chain, roller, or other device that encircles or
8 is placed upon the lower extremity of the leg of a
9 horse in such a manner that it can—
10 ‘‘(A) rotate around the leg or slide up and
11 down the leg, so as to cause friction; or
12 ‘‘(B) strike the hoof, coronet band, fetlock
13 joint, or pastern of the horse.’’;

This would include outlawing purely protective bell boots. I take it that TWH do not overreach and clip themselves at any time when gaiting so need never wear protective boots on a show grounds?

I can’t say the same for many people warming up horses of other breeds in other disciplines - Dressage horses often are booted from coronet to knee in front.
Horses that rack instead of run-walk wear protective boots that touch the coronet band so they are to risk injury?

I suppose I don’t understand why making a poorly enforced, selectively enforced and apparently non-enforced law more restrictive and generalizing in ways that could negatively affect those who don’t sore horses is a better choice than putting teeth into enforcing the existing legislation.

Saying “you oughtn’t do ABC (fill in the blank) because if you don’t we will maybe slap your wrist and tell you further that you oughtn’t do D”
Is not nearly the deterrent that “Doing ABC will result in everyone connected to the sore horse beiing fined/ eliminated/ excluded from showing any horse for X months, years or finally permanently”

Perhaps I am wrong, but new laws are as easily not-enforceable as old ones.

If the horse is sore, does the method of creating soreness make a difference? Shouldn’t all soring, no matter what new and horrific method is employed be equally actionable?

Why pick on boots?

I have experienced people thinking passing laws will stop bad behavior. And working hard to pass laws that are then applied randomly just as the earlier law was.

Seriously, enforcing laws works better than making more of them.

I do hope the plan to end soring works, although I don’t think it will end the BL look, if that is the real desire.

And I won’t be happy if I have a horse that needs boots for protection and a letter-of-the-law person finds fault with that.

[Fairfax]

Bald stockings…Thank you for your common sense post AND the explaination as to how and why laws work and how and why banning doesn’t

[hurleycane]

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;6559488]
As the proposed amendment to the current law reads, in part:

6 ‘’(1) The term ‘action device’ means any boot,
7 collar, chain, roller, or other device that encircles or
8 is placed upon the lower extremity of the leg of a
9 horse in such a manner that it can—
10 ‘’(A) rotate around the leg or slide up and
11 down the leg, so as to cause friction; or
12 ‘’(B) strike the hoof, coronet band, fetlock
13 joint, or pastern of the horse.’’;

This would include outlawing purely protective bell boots. I take it that TWH do not overreach and clip themselves at any time when gaiting so need never wear protective boots on a show grounds?

I can’t say the same for many people warming up horses of other breeds in other disciplines - Dressage horses often are booted from coronet to knee in front.
Horses that rack instead of run-walk wear protective boots that touch the coronet band so they are to risk injury?

I suppose I don’t understand why making a poorly enforced, selectively enforced and apparently non-enforced law more restrictive and generalizing in ways that could negatively affect those who don’t sore horses is a better choice than putting teeth into enforcing the existing legislation.

Saying “you oughtn’t do ABC (fill in the blank) because if you don’t we will maybe slap your wrist and tell you further that you oughtn’t do D”
Is not nearly the deterrent that “Doing ABC will result in everyone connected to the sore horse beiing fined/ eliminated/ excluded from showing any horse for X months, years or finally permanently”

Perhaps I am wrong, but new laws are as easily not-enforceable as old ones.

If the horse is sore, does the method of creating soreness make a difference? Shouldn’t all soring, no matter what new and horrific method is employed be equally actionable?

Why pick on boots?

I have experienced people thinking passing laws will stop bad behavior. And working hard to pass laws that are then applied randomly just as the earlier law was.

Seriously, enforcing laws works better than making more of them.

I do hope the plan to end soring works, although I don’t think it will end the BL look, if that is the real desire.

And I won’t be happy if I have a horse that needs boots for protection and a letter-of-the-law person finds fault with that.[/QUOTE]

Note the terms “friction” and “strike” in the proposal. And for your consideration please note weighted bell boots were also employed to manufacture a sored high step. The law also disallows pads on the foot if not therapeutic.

What they are in essence dictating is that gaited horses, specifically those breeds that historically have been sored successfully and whose breed associations have not taken demonstrable steps to protect the shown horse from abuse are to be brought to the show ring naked.

Note how the proposed bill does not include Icelandics? or ROcky Mountain? or Paso FIno? or Peruvian Paso? or Marchador? Mountain Pleasure Horse? etc etc

And sans the protection of a bell boot you should consider the current day dressage horse, hunter on the flat, speed racking horse etc. If a horse is in a roundy round class going on the flat and striking the fore - might that not be a horse that should not be shown in such events? Or a horse that needs a better trimed foot or rider? and a good one for the show rules to select out? Many show rules do select out such horses by requiring naked legs - I know the Roadster to Bike classes for the ASB crowd does not allow splint boots … anyone call travesty???

And consider this - most saddleseat breeds currently are shown sans saddle pads. This could and does present a problem for the low backed horse. But some would say the process of selection in a judged breed class should select out a horse with defects which needs compensation for an undesired back.

The law in essence would select out soring.

I agree that the added teeth of banning folks from showing that violate the HPA is a step in the right direction - one the current stacked TWH show folks are fighting against.

[Renae]

@hurleycane;6559658

And sans the protection of a bell boot you should consider the current day dressage horse, hunter on the flat, speed racking horse etc. If a horse is in a roundy round class going on the flat and striking the fore - might that not be a horse that should not be shown in such events? Or a horse that needs a better trimed foot or rider? and a good one for the show rules to select out? Many show rules do select out such horses by requiring naked legs - I know the Roadster to Bike classes for the ASB crowd does not allow splint boots … anyone call travesty???

Roadster to bike classes are for Standardbreds or Hackney Ponies, and are occasionally held at Morgan shows. Roadsters are allowed to wear protective quarter boots or bell boots, as someone who knows nothing about roadsters why do you think they need to be allowed to wear splint boots in the ring? When a Saddlebred Five-Gaited horse shows (those are the Saddlebreds that wear boots) they are to show at speed at both the trot and rack, that is why they are allowed to wear boots, please don’t make attempts to diminish something you have never done or even witnessed in person (calling it a “roundy round” class).

@hurleycane;6559658

And consider this - most saddleseat breeds currently are shown sans saddle pads. This could and does present a problem for the low backed horse. But some would say the process of selection in a judged breed class should select out a horse with defects which needs compensation for an undesired back.

Again, showing your ignorance. There is no rule against saddle pads when showing saddle seat in any breed. When they are used we choose black or brown pads that contour to the saddle so as to not be visible. In the Arabian ring the majority of people use a Pro Pad, in the Saddlebred and Morgan ring a lot of people use gel pads or Tacky Tack pads on every horse. If a horse is low backed we go through great lengths to get the saddle to fit correctly (saddle fitters, saddles custom made, just as any other discipline), there are many pads on the market to aid in this, and when we find the right pad we use it all the time, including in the show ring.

Also low backed horses are penalized in the show ring as it is not a desired trait. It is right in the rules.

[WalkInTheWoods]

Has anyone taken the ammendment and inserted it into the HPA instead of looking at it stand alone ? I havent yet. Does the specific reference to TWH, SSh and Racking horses now blanket the whole HPA and leave out the possibility of involving other breeds/disciplines ? Are there any areas to be looked at when it goes to committee ?

Wow about the saddle pads. I hadnt realized how prone the Saddlebred breed was to lordosis. Interesting the use of “invisible” saddle pads not extending beyond the saddle. Renae you bring up a good point that the different breeds can have exclusive problems and issues, so the rules in place address those breed or discipline specific matters. Many of the rules are to protect the horse. TWHs need that protection ! Damn you TWHBEA and various HIOs for not keeping this inhouse.

[hurleycane]

[QUOTE=Renae;6559668]
Roadster to bike classes are for Standardbreds or Hackney Ponies, and are occasionally held at Morgan shows. Roadsters are allowed to wear protective quarter boots or bell boots, as someone who knows nothing about roadsters why do you think they need to be allowed to wear splint boots in the ring? When a Saddlebred Five-Gaited horse shows (those are the Saddlebreds that wear boots) they are to show at speed at both the trot and rack, that is why they are allowed to wear boots, please don’t make attempts to diminish something you have never done or even witnessed in person (calling it a “roundy round” class).

Again, showing your ignorance. There is no rule against saddle pads when showing saddle seat in any breed. When they are used we choose black or brown pads that contour to the saddle so as to not be visible. In the Arabian ring the majority of people use a Pro Pad, in the Saddlebred and Morgan ring a lot of people use gel pads or Tacky Tack pads on every horse. If a horse is low backed we go through great lengths to get the saddle to fit correctly (saddle fitters, saddles custom made, just as any other discipline), there are many pads on the market to aid in this, and when we find the right pad we use it all the time, including in the show ring.

Also low backed horses are penalized in the show ring as it is not a desired trait. It is right in the rules.[/QUOTE]

My comments are based on my experience with ASB shows in Tampa FL and a couple of trips to Louiville as well. We never put a pad on a horse in the show ring though we did use them at home. In fact no one used a pad in the show ring. This was in the 80’s.

And my roadster comment was also based on my experience and to point out that these are high speed events in which certain protective gear is prohibited. You gotta admit there is great risk for interference taking a turn at speed right? And again in my experience, a WGC roadster to bike horse in a class was disgualified for a band of black tape added by the trainer the leg to support a recently recovered suspensory. A competitor challenged this “tape” and won the challenge.

Nothing wrong with boots or a pad or even the tape in my personal opinion. But in the opinion of the show rules, the tape was grounds for disqualification as would be the splint boots. Use any not allowed tack and you are out of the class in just about any show.

So setting tack limits should not be such an offense to experienced or inexperiended or breed specific experienced horse people.

BTW - roadster to bike was open to any breed horse that could blaze a trot. In fact a saddlebred used to compete in this arena, successfully.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;6559488]
As the proposed amendment to the current law reads, in part:

6 ‘’(1) The term ‘action device’ means any boot,
7 collar, chain, roller, or other device that encircles or
8 is placed upon the lower extremity of the leg of a
9 horse in such a manner that it can—
10 ‘’(A) rotate around the leg or slide up and
11 down the leg, so as to cause friction; or
12 ‘’(B) strike the hoof, coronet band, fetlock
13 joint, or pastern of the horse.’’;

This would include outlawing purely protective bell boots. I take it that TWH do not overreach and clip themselves at any time when gaiting so need never wear protective boots on a show grounds?

I can’t say the same for many people warming up horses of other breeds in other disciplines - Dressage horses often are booted from coronet to knee in front.
Horses that rack instead of run-walk wear protective boots that touch the coronet band so they are to risk injury?

I suppose I don’t understand why making a poorly enforced, selectively enforced and apparently non-enforced law more restrictive and generalizing in ways that could negatively affect those who don’t sore horses is a better choice than putting teeth into enforcing the existing legislation.

Saying “you oughtn’t do ABC (fill in the blank) because if you don’t we will maybe slap your wrist and tell you further that you oughtn’t do D”
Is not nearly the deterrent that “Doing ABC will result in everyone connected to the sore horse beiing fined/ eliminated/ excluded from showing any horse for X months, years or finally permanently”

Perhaps I am wrong, but new laws are as easily not-enforceable as old ones.

If the horse is sore, does the method of creating soreness make a difference? Shouldn’t all soring, no matter what new and horrific method is employed be equally actionable?

Why pick on boots?

I have experienced people thinking passing laws will stop bad behavior. And working hard to pass laws that are then applied randomly just as the earlier law was.

Seriously, enforcing laws works better than making more of them.

I do hope the plan to end soring works, although I don’t think it will end the BL look, if that is the real desire.

And I won’t be happy if I have a horse that needs boots for protection and a letter-of-the-law person finds fault with that.[/QUOTE]

I’ve used bell boots rarely over the years as we’ve not engaged in disciplines where they are required. But, from my limited experience as a bell boot user (and considerable experience as an attorney) I don’t see a real problem.

In the first instance, these rules will apply only to a limited number of breeds by statute. The writer is following the “Willie Sutton Rule” and narrowing the scope of application.

Secondly, the Secretary will have the authority to issue regulations implementing the statute. These regulations will require public hearings. This issue can be raised and addressed.

Thirdly, there is NO ban on bell boots. There IS a ban on certain uses of bell boots.

So I don’t see this as a major issue.

Personally, I’m not usually in favor of more intrusive regulation. As a long term veteran of the “soring wars” I’m glad to see more aggressive enforcement and a recognition that “time marches on” and the last statutory update was in the '70s. There’s been a fair amount of “water over the dam” since then. And soring has continued, unabated, for decades. So maybe this bit of “change” is a Good Thing.

G.

[Renae]

Things have changed since the '80s. Nearly all Arabian exhibitors use a pad all the time, and with Saddlebreds we freely use pads when there is a saddle fit issue that is best addressed with a pad. Gel pads were not widely used in the '80s and Tacky Tack pads did not exist. All saddle seat saddles made these days have memory or high impact foam panels, and you can even get a model built on a carbon fiber tree. The big innovation in the '80s was the adjustable stirrups bar, which is standard on all saddle seat saddles now.

Road Horse classes have been limited to registered Standardbreds since the '90s.

I apologize, you are not working on the basis of no experience or first hand information, but on 30 year old information. You still don’t seem to realize that using degrading language towards trotting saddle seat folk and making statements such as ban all action devices (instead of ban action devices in the show ring, which is what the AVMA is saying and what we already do) does not attract us to want to support your methods and efforts.