UPDATE. USEF Proposed Rule Change on Tail Alteration.

[ASB_Stars]

[QUOTE=Bent Hickory;8895724]
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.

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![/QUOTE]

“In the manner of” doesn’t mean that a horse has to be in that discipline, clearly. It is just being done in the way it is done in that discipline.

This is a learning curve, and I certainly do not expect this to pass this year- I never had any such delusions- and if you do not like it, that’s fine. It’s real purpose is to stop the practice of tail alteration, not to mess with the hunters, etc. However, since some had questions, I added additional language.

Life will go on.

[ASB_Stars]

[QUOTE=luvmyhackney;8895832]
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.[/QUOTE]

If you are not altering the animals natural tail carriage, it is not affected. However, if you are tying the tail to the bottom of the cart to alter the tail carriage, well, yeah, that might be an issue.

[Bent_Hickory]

[QUOTE=luvmyhackney;8895832]
This “rule” is not well thought out.[/QUOTE]

It’s not well thought out because the drafter simply doesn’t understand horse sport outside her saddleseat/harness horse world.

[ASB_Stars]

[QUOTE=Bent Hickory;8895906]
It’s not well thought out because the drafter simply doesn’t understand horse sport outside her saddleseat/harness horse world.[/QUOTE]

I have been competing successfully in the sport horse world for decades.

I understand that you do not agree with the wording of the rule. I’m clear on that.

However, as you have virtually no idea who I am, or my background, I would appreciate it if you gave me the same courtesy I am giving you, and try to avoid personal insults.

Thanks!

[Bent_Hickory]

[QUOTE=ASB Stars;8895909]
However, as you have virtually no idea who I am, or my background, I would appreciate it if you gave me the same courtesy I am giving you, and try to avoid personal insults.[/QUOTE]

It wasn’t meant as an insult – simply my perception based on the rule you drafted and information gleaned from your website. It’s pretty clear that you are immersed in the saddleseat/harness horse world.

[ASB_Stars]

[QUOTE=Bent Hickory;8895931]
It wasn’t meant as an insult – simply my perception based on the rule you drafted and information gleaned from your website. It’s pretty clear that you are immersed in the saddleseat/harness horse world.[/QUOTE]

It shouldn’t be, considering that that the website addy is www.americansaddlebredsporthorse.net. I haven’t show a horse in the Saddle Seat divisions since I was a child. While I have owned one horse that competed in the SS world since then, he didn’t live here.

I have been doing dressage with my horses since 1986- prior to that, I competed at the National level in the hunters for a couple of years. I have owned everything with a brand on it’s butt, but I happen to love ASBs, and so, that’s what I own now. My stallion, Borealis, still owns the highest score an ASB has ever attained, in front of an Olympic level judge- Hilda Gurney gave him a 78%.

Guess what? He was braided, and his tail was banged- but never cut or set. Yep. An ASB!!

So, while I have American Saddlebreds, I am not “immersed in the saddleseat/harness horse world.” You assumption is incorrect, and obviously clouds your thinking.

No, I am not waiting for an apology. :winkgrin:

[mjhco]

[QUOTE=Bent Hickory;8895906]
It’s not well thought out because the drafter simply doesn’t understand horse sport outside her saddleseat/harness horse world.[/QUOTE]

Or driving and the reason to attach the end of the tail to the vehicle.

[trubandloki]

The one comment does make me wonder… a crupper does change the way the tail is carrier at times, so will they be banned?

BTW, I think this is a good topic to discuss and I think it is great that someone is stepping forward trying to get something started. We all know there are kinks to be worked out until it is all set.

[Bent_Hickory]

[QUOTE=ASB Stars;8895890]
“In the manner of” doesn’t mean that a horse has to be in that discipline, clearly. It is just being done in the way it is done in that discipline.[/QUOTE]

That’s the point - it’s NOT CLEAR. Banging a dressage horse’s tail is different from banging a jumper horse’s tail, notably by the amount of tail hair cut off, jumpers often can be significantly shorter in practice. Which is permitted?

@ASB Stars;8895890

It’s real purpose is to stop the practice of tail alteration, not to mess with the hunters, etc.

Again, then redraft the rule to prohibit the specific practices to which you object and eliminate the catch-all language that “messes with the hunters.”

[trubandloki]

[QUOTE=Bent Hickory;8896055]
That’s the point - it’s NOT CLEAR. Banging a dressage horse’s tail is different from banging a jumper horse’s tail, notably by the amount of tail hair cut off, jumpers often can be significantly shorter in practice. Which is permitted?[/QUOTE]
Why would trimming the tail hair be a problem ever?

[Bent_Hickory]

[QUOTE=trubandloki;8896074]
Why would trimming the tail hair be a problem ever?[/QUOTE]

I agree – trimming the tail shouldn’t be a problem whatsoever, but read the proposed rule. The language re trimming and braiding that was added in the revised proposal raises more questions than it addresses. This is why I maintain that the drafter of the rule doesn’t fully understand how her proposed language impacts other facets of sport governed by the USEF.

[trubandloki]

[QUOTE=Bent Hickory;8896138]
This is why I maintain that the drafter of the rule doesn’t fully understand how her proposed language impacts other facets of sport governed by the USEF.[/QUOTE]
I think that is the point of the discussion though. To help clarify so it makes sense for why it was proposed but not cause issues for stuff it should not cause issues for.

Edit to add - I think I see what you are commenting on. The person writing means cut, as in things other than just the hair hanging down, but I can see how that wording is an issue.

[ASB_Stars]

[QUOTE=Bent Hickory;8896055]
That’s the point - it’s NOT CLEAR. Banging a dressage horse’s tail is different from banging a jumper horse’s tail, notably by the amount of tail hair cut off, jumpers often can be significantly shorter in practice. Which is permitted?

Again, then redraft the rule to prohibit the specific practices to which you object and eliminate the catch-all language that “messes with the hunters.”[/QUOTE]

Thank you for your thoughtful, kind and proactive suggestions. I promise that I will take them under advisement.

[CA_ASB]

[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]

I have a Saddlebred Western horse who has an incredible waterfall tail that she carries beautifully. However, any switch, no matter how light, braided into her tail and she hangs her tail like it has an anchor on it. So yes, in her case, the switch does affect her carriage.

I do get the intent … fake hair is fine. Banged tail hair is fine. Braiding is fine. What is NOT fine here is anything done to the inherent structure / anatomy of the horse. You can Barbie the hair all you want. Just don’t go for cosmetic restructuring.

Now she needs to work out some of the language … but that’s a pretty clear intent.

[pezk]

[QUOTE=ASB Stars;8895895]
If you are not altering the animals natural tail carriage, it is not affected. However, if you are tying the tail to the bottom of the cart to alter the tail carriage, well, yeah, that might be an issue.[/QUOTE]
What about the drafts that have tiny little tails so the tail hair isn’t caught in the harness? And what about cruppers, a necessary part of a harness?
I think someone needs to have more knowledge about the different horse sports and why they do what they do. Sometimes there are good reasons.

[luvmyhackney]

[QUOTE=pezk;8896277]
What about the drafts that have tiny little tails so the tail hair isn’t caught in the harness? And what about cruppers, a necessary part of a harness?
I think someone needs to have more knowledge about the different horse sports and why they do what they do. Sometimes there are good reasons.[/QUOTE]

The drafts would be unable to dock the tail based on the proposed legislation. I saw high tail cruppers would not be allowed, it didn’t say wrapped cruppers. I wrap mine fairly thick with memory foam and cover it with black vetwrap to make it softer. Would that be considered altering tail carriage?

[lindac]

I wish you all would go to the Halt Tail Alteration Now FB page a LOOK at the tails we are trying to get banned. It is truly horrific the way some of these horses go into the show ring with corkscrew tails. Tails permanently flipped over to the side, OPEN RAW PRESSURE SORES! Really, this needs to be stopped now and all the little minor details like can a crupper be wrapped to be softer and how much can a horses tail be banged can be decided later. These horses are suffering. Where is the welfare in that?

[pezk]

[QUOTE=lindac;8896427]
I wish you all would go to the Halt Tail Alteration Now FB page a LOOK at the tails we are trying to get banned. It is truly horrific the way some of these horses go into the show ring with corkscrew tails. Tails permanently flipped over to the side, OPEN RAW PRESSURE SORES! Really, this needs to be stopped now and all the little minor details like can a crupper be wrapped to be softer and how much can a horses tail be banged can be decided later. These horses are suffering. Where is the welfare in that?[/QUOTE]
Do I understand that You want to pass these rules but you want to spell out the details after the fact? I don’t think so. Not good.

[D_BaldStockings]

Why would a horse with open raw wounds anywhere on it’s body or appendages be permitted in any USEF showring?
Shouldn’t the judge excuse them?
Or the ring steward bring it to the judges attention?

or is blood in the showring OK?

If so, maybe that also needs to be addressed in the rules.

As to the tails, I am in agreement that surgical or any invasive alteration of living tissue should end. Hair is dead so do what you want with it. Even add some if you want.

I would also be opposed to mechanical alteration: tying a tail over a horse’s back to a surcingle, for instance.

Hand stretching? go ahead with that. If you actually cause pain, you will get kicked. No one is going to stand there for an hour holding up a horse’s tail…

Outlawing previous to XXXX date foaled horses from the show ring if they are altered as above? Only hurts the horses, water under the bridge - delete that.

Horses missing part of the tail post XXXX? Veterinary note or current veterinarian opinion.

Appliances associated with setting, including hi-tail crupper - out.
Inconspicuous padded crupper - fine.

Irritants, stimulants, etc. to anus, vagina, vulva, perianal region - out.

Simple.
Direct.
Clear.

[Halt_Near_X]

[QUOTE=lindac;8896427]
I wish you all would go to the Halt Tail Alteration Now FB page a LOOK at the tails we are trying to get banned. It is truly horrific the way some of these horses go into the show ring with corkscrew tails. Tails permanently flipped over to the side, OPEN RAW PRESSURE SORES! Really, this needs to be stopped now and all the little minor details like can a crupper be wrapped to be softer and how much can a horses tail be banged can be decided later. These horses are suffering. Where is the welfare in that?[/QUOTE]

The problem is that instead of limiting the rules to the disciplines where those things primarily occur, they were put forward as general rules affecting everyone. Without thinking through HOW they affect everyone.

And it does no good to keep crying “but the intent! the intent!” USEF can’t govern intent. It can only govern the rules that are passed, as they are passed.

Do you think, for example, that all the disciplines that use a crupper should just stop showing for a year between the time this rule is passed and the “minor detail” about the appropriate use of the crupper is sorted out and the rule is amended to handle it? Or should those people keep showing, because the rule isn’t “intended” to catch them, and just hope that USEF will ignore them (and no one protests them, forcing USEF to take some sort of action) in the meantime?

Not to mention that it is always harder to fix poorly-conceived things after the fact than it is to do it right the first time.

An alternate solution would have been to propose the rules within the disciplines where they would have the most affect. That would have an immediate affect on the population of horses you want to protect most. Then you take the time to reach out to other disciplines, understand their practices, traditions, and needs—the good and the bad–and draft legislation that can apply fairly to all groups.

Pass that, remove the discipline-specific rules, and there you go–what you’re trying to achieve now is still achieved, but with the support of everyone.

It takes longer, but it’s done right. The most pressing welfare questions are addressed immediately, and wider concerns are addressed in due course.

Something else to consider is that if this rule does not pass this year, some of the people on this thread have been offering insight into various disciplines and potential wordings of the rule that, if brought into an actual conversation (and not just “we’ll take it under consideration, maybe”) could be the ones who would help draft a rule that actually would pass next year. Or the year after.

So implying that they do not care about welfare just because they do care about having good, enforceable rules is a little shortsighted and isn’t going to help your long-term goals, either.