UPDATE. USEF Proposed Rule Change on Tail Alteration.

[lindac]

Please visit https://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/2016/Proposals/093-16.pdf to see the PRC on STOPPING tail alteration, on the USEF site. If you are a USEF member, we NEED your comments to help stop this mutilating practice. Please consider joining USEF, to comment if you are not a member. (A non-competing membership is $25).

Also, there is a petition at https://www.change.org/p/united-states-equestrian-federation-halt-equine-tail-alteration-now?recruiter=602714279&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
asking the USEF to stop tail alteration in all breeds they sanction.

The HORSES need your help! Please sign and share.
Thank You!

[Bent_Hickory]

[A]ny device or substance used to alter the natural tail carriage shall be illegal.

Arguably, a fake tail alters the natural tail carriage and hence would no longer be permitted as a result of this rule change. Presumably, that is not the intent of the rule, but I did not see a carve out permitting fake tails. As written, then, I cannot support the proposal nor will the vast majority of the hunter/jumper members.

[Bent_Hickory]

Essentially, in addition to the welfare concerns, by not acting for the welfare of horses and ponies with regard to this issue, the USEF is promoting illegal tail alteration. As an example, the procedure of tail cutting, which is surgical, can only be performed legally by a licensed Veterinarian. If the Veterinarians subscribe to the AAEP welfare statement, and refuse to perform these procedures, any tail cutting, or alteration, that is done will have been done illegally. To allow this to continue is to support this practice, both legally, and illegally. Additionally, the FEI, which governs International Horse Sport, does not allow tail alteration f any kind. USEF, as the governing body for all United States Equine Sports, should be in parity with FEI, on this issue. Absent a rule from USEF, unlicensed individuals would be strongly inclined to continue this practice, illegally. Putting rules in place making all manner of tail alteration illegal will effectively stop this practice at all levels.

I am not a proponent of “tail alteration.” I am also not a proponent of “faulty logic.” As I understand it, various tail alteration procedures are currently legal in various states. Whether or not a vet subscribes to the AAEP welfare statement is not relevant to the legality of any such procedures as such welfare statements do not have any legal weight. The conclusion that such procedures can only be illegally performed is flawed because 1) any vet can legally perform the procedures; and 2) the owner of the horse can legally perform the procedures.

[Daventry]

[QUOTE=Bent Hickory;8878812]

[A]ny device or substance used to alter the natural tail carriage shall be illegal.

Arguably, a fake tail alters the natural tail carriage and hence would no longer be permitted as a result of this rule change. Presumably, that is not the intent of the rule, but I did not see a carve out permitting fake tails. As written, then, I cannot support the proposal nor will the vast majority of the hunter/jumper members.[/QUOTE]

I have to agree with Bent Hickory. Without the inclusion for an exception for fake tails for various disciplines, the wording of this proposal creates a problem, especially for the hunter ring.

[Halt_Near_X]

I’m not a proponent of tail altering, but since I will not be renewing my USEF membership I don’t feel there’s any point in making comments through their system.

But for whatever my feedback is worth:

Paragraphs (1) and (2) are contradictory. If a horse is foaled after January 1, 2016 but altered before January 1, 2017, can it compete? Why not make both dates the same, e.g. no horse foaled on or after January 1, 2017 may compete with an altered tail and any horse foaled prior to January 1, 2017 must prove any alteration was also completed prior to January 1, 2017.

The AAEP statement at the end of (2) is completely extraneous and irrelevant from a rule perspective. As moral/ethical justification of the entire rule, I get it. As something associated to a specific paragraph in the rule, it makes no sense.

(2) is going to toss a number of perfectly good horses out of the show ring through no fault of their own, because their current owners will have bought them already altered and may not be able to discover the name of the vet that did it/get the affidavit they need. I can’t tell if this is the intent or just an unintended consequence.

There is no allowance for horses with a legitimate injury. Tail amputations happen, for instance, but under the docking rule any such horse would be forever prohibited from the show ring.

(5) appears to be lifted out of the Arabian section of the rules, but this rule makes no attempt to reference/reconcile itself with other sections of the rule book that may be doing similar things. Without making sure all the overlaps are identified and cleaning up area-specific rules to defer to this umbrella rule, it’s setting up a situation where one section could alter their rule (e.g. Arabians could change their suggested penalty) and suddenly there is a conflict between sections of the rule book.

I agree with Bent Hickory on the fake tail issue and that the “intent” section of the rule is doing it no favors. It comes across as a rule proposal driven more by emotion and hyperbole than one that can stand on facts. Neither AAEP nor USEF have any bearing in what is or is not legal for horse owners to do or where/how people choose to show their horses outside USEF.

This rule may decrease the marketability of altered tails, but it is not going to “stop this practice at all levels.”

I agree with what the rule is attempting to do, but honestly if I were maintaining my USEF membership I’d comment against the rule because it reads like something that is being rushed through on emotion and would benefit from taking additional time to step back, ensure all the consequences are thought through and accounted for, and all impacts to other sections of the rule book are evaluated and managed.

I’m sure a lot of work went in to it to get it this far, but I don’t think it’s where it should be to actually pass as a rule.

[gypsymare]

Why in the world do hunters need fake tails? If no one had them no one would have an advantage.

[Daventry]

[QUOTE=Halt Near X;8878953]
I’m not a proponent of tail altering, but since I will not be renewing my USEF membership I don’t feel there’s any point in making comments through their system.

But for whatever my feedback is worth:

Paragraphs (1) and (2) are contradictory. If a horse is foaled after January 1, 2016 but altered before January 1, 2017, can it compete? Why not make both dates the same, e.g. no horse foaled on or after January 1, 2017 may compete with an altered tail and any horse foaled prior to January 1, 2017 must prove any alteration was also completed prior to January 1, 2017.

The AAEP statement at the end of (2) is completely extraneous and irrelevant from a rule perspective. As moral/ethical justification of the entire rule, I get it. As something associated to a specific paragraph in the rule, it makes no sense.

(2) is going to toss a number of perfectly good horses out of the show ring through no fault of their own, because their current owners will have bought them already altered and may not be able to discover the name of the vet that did it/get the affidavit they need. I can’t tell if this is the intent or just an unintended consequence.

There is no allowance for horses with a legitimate injury. Tail amputations happen, for instance, but under the docking rule any such horse would be forever prohibited from the show ring.

(5) appears to be lifted out of the Arabian section of the rules, but this rule makes no attempt to reference/reconcile itself with other sections of the rule book that may be doing similar things. Without making sure all the overlaps are identified and cleaning up area-specific rules to defer to this umbrella rule, it’s setting up a situation where one section could alter their rule (e.g. Arabians could change their suggested penalty) and suddenly there is a conflict between sections of the rule book.

I agree with Bent Hickory on the fake tail issue and that the “intent” section of the rule is doing it no favors. It comes across as a rule proposal driven more by emotion and hyperbole than one that can stand on facts. Neither AAEP nor USEF have any bearing in what is or is not legal for horse owners to do or where/how people choose to show their horses outside USEF.

This rule may decrease the marketability of altered tails, but it is not going to “stop this practice at all levels.”

I agree with what the rule is attempting to do, but honestly if I were maintaining my USEF membership I’d comment against the rule because it reads like something that is being rushed through on emotion and would benefit from taking additional time to step back, ensure all the consequences are thought through and accounted for, and all impacts to other sections of the rule book are evaluated and managed.

I’m sure a lot of work went in to it to get it this far, but I don’t think it’s where it should be to actually pass as a rule.[/QUOTE]

Agree on all points.

[m_m1]

Fake tails being obligatory fries my brain. I realize that the main point of the discussion, and the rule debate is about far more important horse welfare issues than fake tails, but they really are ridiculous.

[lindac]

[QUOTE=Daventry;8878940]
I have to agree with Bent Hickory. Without the inclusion for an exception for fake tails for various disciplines, the wording of this proposal creates a problem, especially for the hunter ring.[/QUOTE]

You could put that in your comment. Allow fake tails.

[MyssMyst]

[QUOTE=Halt Near X;8878953]
I’m not a proponent of tail altering, but since I will not be renewing my USEF membership I don’t feel there’s any point in making comments through their system.

But for whatever my feedback is worth:

Paragraphs (1) and (2) are contradictory. If a horse is foaled after January 1, 2016 but altered before January 1, 2017, can it compete? Why not make both dates the same, e.g. no horse foaled on or after January 1, 2017 may compete with an altered tail and any horse foaled prior to January 1, 2017 must prove any alteration was also completed prior to January 1, 2017.

The AAEP statement at the end of (2) is completely extraneous and irrelevant from a rule perspective. As moral/ethical justification of the entire rule, I get it. As something associated to a specific paragraph in the rule, it makes no sense.

(2) is going to toss a number of perfectly good horses out of the show ring through no fault of their own, because their current owners will have bought them already altered and may not be able to discover the name of the vet that did it/get the affidavit they need. I can’t tell if this is the intent or just an unintended consequence.

There is no allowance for horses with a legitimate injury. Tail amputations happen, for instance, but under the docking rule any such horse would be forever prohibited from the show ring.

(5) appears to be lifted out of the Arabian section of the rules, but this rule makes no attempt to reference/reconcile itself with other sections of the rule book that may be doing similar things. Without making sure all the overlaps are identified and cleaning up area-specific rules to defer to this umbrella rule, it’s setting up a situation where one section could alter their rule (e.g. Arabians could change their suggested penalty) and suddenly there is a conflict between sections of the rule book.

I agree with Bent Hickory on the fake tail issue and that the “intent” section of the rule is doing it no favors. It comes across as a rule proposal driven more by emotion and hyperbole than one that can stand on facts. Neither AAEP nor USEF have any bearing in what is or is not legal for horse owners to do or where/how people choose to show their horses outside USEF.

This rule may decrease the marketability of altered tails, but it is not going to “stop this practice at all levels.”

I agree with what the rule is attempting to do, but honestly if I were maintaining my USEF membership I’d comment against the rule because it reads like something that is being rushed through on emotion and would benefit from taking additional time to step back, ensure all the consequences are thought through and accounted for, and all impacts to other sections of the rule book are evaluated and managed.

I’m sure a lot of work went in to it to get it this far, but I don’t think it’s where it should be to actually pass as a rule.[/QUOTE]

Exactly… And the issue with #2 was pointed out a LONG time ago. Just make it off foal dates and go from there.

[ASB_Stars]

[QUOTE=Bent Hickory;8878812]
Arguably, a fake tail alters the natural tail carriage and hence would no longer be permitted as a result of this rule change. Presumably, that is not the intent of the rule, but I did not see a carve out permitting fake tails. As written, then, I cannot support the proposal nor will the vast majority of the hunter/jumper members.[/QUOTE]

A well done switch is not noticeable, and does not change the carriage of the horse’s tail. They are ALLOWED under this PRC. No where in the PRC does it state that they are not. Perhaps more specific language, which speaks to this should be added. We’ll see where this goes.

[Anne_FS]

[QUOTE=Bent Hickory;8878812]
Arguably, a fake tail alters the natural tail carriage and hence would no longer be permitted as a result of this rule change. Presumably, that is not the intent of the rule, but I did not see a carve out permitting fake tails. As written, then, I cannot support the proposal nor will the vast majority of the hunter/jumper members.[/QUOTE]

I’d support the proposal specifically because it includes fake tails.

[GoodTimes]

[QUOTE=gypsymare;8879064]
Why in the world do hunters need fake tails? If no one had them no one would have an advantage.[/QUOTE]

I’ve never seen a fake tail “weigh down” or stop a horse with a busy wringing tail so assuming that the majority of fakes are used to make the tail appear full then banning them would not level the playing field - it would do the opposite.

I’m in Canada and no longer show in Florida so this doesn’t really affect me otherwise the only change I would make to the proposal would be to allow fake tails and braided tails.

[Daventry]

[QUOTE=lindac;8879152]
You could put that in your comment. Allow fake tails.[/QUOTE]

Regardless, it means this rule change proposal needs to go back to the drawing board. I would go through Halt Near x’s valid points and adjust the proposal accordingly. This proposal is going to be a sore spot for some, so it needs to be worded just right if there is any chance of people voting for it.

[ASB_Stars]

Here is a link to the amended PRC. I tried to clarify it as much as possible.

http://prc.usef.org/portals/viewdraft.aspx?tID=93&rY=16&dV=2

[Bent_Hickory]

Additionally, this rule is not meant to preclude the use of artificial tail hair, or a “switch” being applied to the horse or pony’s tail, provided that it does not alter the natural carriage of the tail.

This doesn’t change my position at all. The underlined language raises the identical concern that I had with the original rule and I submit, could still be used to prevent use of fake tails.

Permit fake tails without limitation or limit the rule to the relevant saddle-seat/harness classes.

3. However, braiding of the top of the tail, to the bottom of the tail bone, in the show hunter tradition, “banging”, or trimming the bottom of the tail, in the manner of the dressage tradition, or trimming the sides of the tail, in the manner of the dressage tradition shall be acceptable.

So what if you bang the tail of a hunter? Or braid the tail of an event horse? Or if the braiding of the top of the tail extends below the tail bone? Or what if the horse’s entire tail is braided and kept in a tail bag on the show grounds? Or what about mudknots? This addition creates more problems that the original draft!

[SendenHorse]

[QUOTE=GoodTimes;8880460]
I’ve never seen a fake tail “weigh down” or stop a horse with a busy wringing tail so assuming that the majority of fakes are used to make the tail appear full then banning them would not level the playing field - it would do the opposite.

I’m in Canada and no longer show in Florida so this doesn’t really affect me otherwise the only change I would make to the proposal would be to allow fake tails and braided tails.[/QUOTE]
?? this is exactly why they are used in western pleasure- to keep the tail down and more still.

[Jealoushe]

if fake tails are more important than horse welfare than I can’t even begin to deal with that mentality…

[luvmyhackney]

I actually support doing away with sets, braces, ginger, but hand stretching…how is that supposed to be enforced. Us driving people use hand stretching alot, our horses have to wear cruppers. Plus the way the rule #1 reads puts many horses out of work if they have previously set tails. What about us drivers that tie our horses tail to the bottom of the cart so it doesn’t get caught in the wheels? This “rule” is not well thought out.

[Bent_Hickory]

[QUOTE=Jealoushe;8895761]
if fake tails are more important than horse welfare than I can’t even begin to deal with that mentality…[/QUOTE]

An easy quip, but that’s just not the mentality. The horse welfare issues can be readily addressed without preventing use of fake tails (or now other practices, including braiding tails). Should showing be eliminated altogether to address this particular aspect of horse welfare?