USEF officers released a proposed extraordinary rule change

[Rel6]

Article here: https://chronofhorse.com/article/usef-proposes-rule-changes-strengthening-its-ability-to-punish-abuse-off-show-grounds/

Text of the proposed rule change here: https://www.chronofhorse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/109-23-3.pdf

I’m torn on this. I appreciate the need, especially following the Cesar Parra video, to be able to sanction clear cases of abuse wherever they occur. The issue is not all cases will be so clear - and some of what is being defined as abuse seems too poorly defined (“showing or training a horse with any evidence of the use of improper training techniques”).

[Willesdon]

Every journey begins with a first step. If no one tries, then nothing changes.

[sherian]

lazy rule writing 1) “excessive” - who decides what is excessive? 2) “evidence of the use of improper training techniques” - again what’s the standard? Seems to be a set of rules that hangs the show officials out to dry - they need clear and concise guidelines to back them up in the moment, this seems to be more of a rule change for USEF to point at to say “we are serious about welfare” than one that can be enforced

[kenyarider]

Definitions such as excessive etc. will be defined as they are ordinarily used probably. USEF will have to look at dictionary definition, FEI definition etc. You have to write a rule that covers the prohibited behavior. If it is too narrow, people slide through, just as if it is too broad it encompasses people who shouldn’t be there. Change is coming, USEF and hunter/jumper industry is either ahead of it, or behind and if they are behind, some legislative body will make the rules, e.g., Safe Sport. I’m a fan of Safe Sport but there still was and continues to be a lot of squealing about its so called “unfairness”. I hope it passes, it’s time.

[Janet]

Hypocrits.

So this is abuse:
“Soring or using an action device on any limb of a Tennessee Walking Horse, Racking Horse, or Spotted Saddle Horse (each a breed not recognized by the Federation)”

But not
“Soring or using an action device on any limb of a” Hackney, Morgan, Parade Horse, or American Saddlebred (which ARE breeds recognized by the Federation) ?

[jvanrens]

@Janet

But not
“Soring or using an action device on any limb of a” Hackney, Morgan, Parade Horse, or American Saddlebred (which ARE breeds recognized by the Federation) ?

Soring is not an issue with those breeds. They all trot, and a sored horse is not going to trot it’s best.

[Alterrain]

If this passes I think there are going to be a LOT of higher, wider, thicker hedges in Wellington by next year.

[dmveventer]

I actually think the rule is a pretty good start as written. It defines abuse as “any action or omission that causes or is likely to cause pain or unnecessary discomfort to a horse” and then lists off a bunch of examples, most of which are pretty clear. For “improper training techniques” the standard would be if it caused pain or unnecessary discomfort; they can’t possibly write down every single example that might come up in the rule.

I’m in favor. Whether it will be enforced is another matter but it includes a lot of the more subtle instances that can be abuse, like excessive lunging, competing too often, etc. Since horse welfare alone clearly wasn’t enough to get people moving at least they’re taking the social license problem seriously. Nothing like getting called out on social media to finally get people moving…

[DMK]

As said, that’s not comparable. Trotting horses are lame when sored. There definitely been infamous abuse in the saddlebred industry, but it was related to blocking pain to eek out another great performance from a legendary horse, not creating pain in that horse.

But the use of bungie devices for developing shoulder action is not unusual in those breeds, and that raises a hypothetical question, since it was obvious that equipment design was poorly copied by CP.

In his case it was poorly designed and poorly used, leading to a frantic, scared horse who didn’t learn anything (except to be scared). A bad idea all around. But what if it was correctly designed, correctly used and aided the horse in developing the physical strength and flexibility to use his shoulder better? In that case, how is it different from side reins? Both descriptions can so easily apply to both (or any) training aid. I think it gets less clear in those cases.

[Janet]

@jvanrens

Soring is not an issue with those breeds. They all trot, and a sored horse is not going to trot it’s best.

They may not use “soring”, but they DO use things like fetlock chains, which seem to meet the definition of “action devices”.

[DMK]

Also, now that I had time to read the old and new rule, I’m even further confused by your comment. I mean they may well be hypocrites, but since the rule hasn’t passed, that’s more your speculation than actual fact, right?

Today those things are prohibited at shows. If the rule passes, it will be against the rule to use them in training at home.*

So what’s hypocritical? There is no special carve out for those breeds in the current or proposed rule so I’m having trouble understanding what point you are trying to make?

• This is all well intentioned and I totally understand why we are at this place, I just wonder how many people will need to be hired to review and weed out all the petty/vindictive or well meaning but clueless claims to find the few bad cases.

[Rel6]

@dmveventer

I actually think the rule is a pretty good start as written. It defines abuse as “any action or omission that causes or is likely to cause pain or unnecessary discomfort to a horse” and then lists off a bunch of examples, most of which are pretty clear. For “improper training techniques” the standard would be if it caused pain or unnecessary discomfort; they can’t possibly write down every single example that might come up in the rule.

This is a good point - the examples still need to fit into the actual USEF definition of abuse. I don’t envy USEF trying to construct a rule around this. The more you narrow a definition the more you may potentially exclude things that should be included - the more broad you are, you run the opposite risk. Hopefully this really does turn out to be a step in the right direction.

[Janet]

@DMK

So what’s hypocritical? There is no special carve out for those breeds in the current or proposed rule so I’m having trouble understanding what point you are trying to make?

The hypocrisy (in the existing rule as well as the proposal) is that it says “they (breeds which are not part of USEF) are not allowed to do X”, while leaving it open for “us (breeds and disciplines which ARE part of USEF) to do X”

[atl_hunter]

Actually, it is covered just below in P (here if the full context). Also, you need to view both the Saddlebred SB) rules and General Rules (GR) for complete rule context:

Soring and/or the use of an action device on any limb of a Tennessee Walking Horse, Racking Horse, or
Spotted Saddle Horse (each a breed not recognized by the Federation) in any class at a Federation
Licensed Competition is prohibited. An action device is defined by the USDA as any boot, collar, chain,
roller, or other device that encircles or is placed upon the lower extremity of the leg of a horse in such a
manner that it can rotate around the leg or slide up and down the leg so as to cause friction or strike the
hoof, coronet band, fetlock joint or pastern of the horse. (Protective bell boots or heel boots are
specifically excluded from this definition). The use of a weighted shoe, pad, wedge, in conjunction with a
hoof band or other device or material (commonly referred to as a performance package) placed on,
inserted in, or attached to any limb of a Tennessee Walking Horse, a Racking Horse, or Spotted Saddle
Horse (each a breed not recognized by the Federation) constructed to artificially alter the gait of such a
horse, and which are not protective or therapeutic in nature, at a Federation Licensed Competition is
prohibited.
p. Soring of any horse, including but not limited to the application of caustic chemicals to a horse’s legs or
hooves, in order to cause pain and/or affect a horse’s performance, and/or used as a training technique.

[jvanrens]

@Janet

@jvanrens

Soring is not an issue with those breeds. They all trot, and a sored horse is not going to trot it’s best.

They may not use “soring”, but they DO use things like fetlock chains, which seem to meet the definition of “action devices”.

I know someone who’s “action device” is cheap white plastic chain. Most of them IME are not much heavier, think small dog chain leash cut up to fit a pony or horse. The bungies and other crap should go away, too many ways for that to go sideways.

[BITSA]

@Willesdon

Every journey begins with a first step. If no one tries, then nothing changes.

This; and don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough. Its a place to start and wrinkles need to be ironed out but its a start nonetheless.

[findeight]

IMO its a start and opens the subject up for serious discussion whether it passes or not. It may make it more a acceptable to speak up about it.

[Alterrain]

I was at a training show Tuesday, and a horse stopped at the liverpool. The trainer went into the ring, took the top 2 rails off the jump, so it was now like 2’6", then followed the horse with a lunge whip as it jumped, cracking the whip as it left the ground. The tail of the whip was NO WHERE near the horse, maybe 15 feet away from contact. Then she put one rail up (now the jump was like 3’) followed it with the whip again (no crack), then top rail back on, then followed with the whip (no crack), then the horse jumped it with no whip at all, then the trainer left the ring, and the horse started the whole course over again, and jumped the liverpool calmly and bravely. In my books, a good training and learning experience for the horse. But a few of the spectators in the stands were horrified (I could hear them.) And I was thinking, where would this kind of thing fall? BC those spectators clearly thought this was an abusive situation.

[DownYonder]

My take on that situation is this: Even though the whip never touched the horse during that specific instance, it responded to the crack of the whip by jumping the (lowered) liverpool. That could be interpreted to mean that the horse was afraid of the whip, which meant it had felt the whip before and not in a kind manner. IOW, he knew the crack of the whip meant “Get your a** moving forward and jump that jump or this whip will land on your butt.”

Is it also possible that the trainer in question was known to those spectators as one who instills fear in her horses through lavish use of whips?

[trubandloki]

That is a weird theory to me.

I feel like most horses do not like the whole lunge whip thing even having never been whacked by it.