Quote:
Nooooooooooo! This is NOT AT ALL TRUE!
Let me try this again:
The proposed Act 311 is an *amendment* to the existing Horse Protection Act. That means it is like editing the existing Horse Protection Act -- the entire rest of the H.P.A. (including its specified definitions) would still apply, it's just that you'd add the changes proposed in Act 311.
Repeat, the DEFINITIONS of terms used in the existing H.P.A. still apply.
And "sore" is VERY CLEARLY DEFINED in the existing H.P.A. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001821----000-.html, or scroll up to my post above for exact quote). Go read it. Notice that all parts of the definition carefully specify that the harm has to have been CAUSED BY A PERSON {edited to add: and, if you go there and read the next paragraph, it also specifies CAUSED FOR THE PURPOSES OF INFLICTING PAIN. Sorry I didn't copy that part too in my earlier post]. So "sore" in this law does NOT mean just any horse who's hurtin' for any ol' reason. What it means is specifically, and only, those horses that have had injuries/pain inflicted on them intentionally by people. The term "sore" in this context derives from "soring", the term for what used to be commonplace in gaited horse showing, where you intentionally burn, bruise, etcetera a horse's legs (etc) in order to influence its way of going. Similar things can occur in any kind of training, of course, it isn't just the gaited horse world.
If you implant steel shot into your horse's hooves to make him walk in a certain way, THAT is soring. If you stuff caustic chemicals up his, er, nether regions to make him hold his tail high and roll his eyes, THAT is a sore horse.
Your horse who twists a fetlock on a trailride, or gets cut on something in the pasture, is NOT sore under this law.
Honestly, this legal definition of soring has been in use for decades, and to pretty good effect (although it tends to need a tuneup every now and then as people think of new and ever-more-surreptitious ways to torture horses). IT IS NOT NEW. Soring has been illegal since, what, the seventies?? The honest and humane majority of the horse industry has survived perfectly well.
My point is that PLEASE do not be going off half-cocked begging congress to axe this act on account of its supposedly banning any horse from ever stepping onto a trailer--- because that will just get you ignored as a loony. I am not saying you ARE a loonie, I am saying that is what your representative will chalk you up as. And that would be a great shame because I think there ARE some really good reasons to oppose this bill, such as you yourself have in fact pointed out (it makes selling a horse unnecessarily perilous, and ending slaughter may not be the best thing overall anyhow).
Do you see my point?
Pat
Nooooooooooo! This is NOT AT ALL TRUE!
Let me try this again:
The proposed Act 311 is an *amendment* to the existing Horse Protection Act. That means it is like editing the existing Horse Protection Act -- the entire rest of the H.P.A. (including its specified definitions) would still apply, it's just that you'd add the changes proposed in Act 311.
Repeat, the DEFINITIONS of terms used in the existing H.P.A. still apply.
And "sore" is VERY CLEARLY DEFINED in the existing H.P.A. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001821----000-.html, or scroll up to my post above for exact quote). Go read it. Notice that all parts of the definition carefully specify that the harm has to have been CAUSED BY A PERSON {edited to add: and, if you go there and read the next paragraph, it also specifies CAUSED FOR THE PURPOSES OF INFLICTING PAIN. Sorry I didn't copy that part too in my earlier post]. So "sore" in this law does NOT mean just any horse who's hurtin' for any ol' reason. What it means is specifically, and only, those horses that have had injuries/pain inflicted on them intentionally by people. The term "sore" in this context derives from "soring", the term for what used to be commonplace in gaited horse showing, where you intentionally burn, bruise, etcetera a horse's legs (etc) in order to influence its way of going. Similar things can occur in any kind of training, of course, it isn't just the gaited horse world.
If you implant steel shot into your horse's hooves to make him walk in a certain way, THAT is soring. If you stuff caustic chemicals up his, er, nether regions to make him hold his tail high and roll his eyes, THAT is a sore horse.
Your horse who twists a fetlock on a trailride, or gets cut on something in the pasture, is NOT sore under this law.
Honestly, this legal definition of soring has been in use for decades, and to pretty good effect (although it tends to need a tuneup every now and then as people think of new and ever-more-surreptitious ways to torture horses). IT IS NOT NEW. Soring has been illegal since, what, the seventies?? The honest and humane majority of the horse industry has survived perfectly well.
My point is that PLEASE do not be going off half-cocked begging congress to axe this act on account of its supposedly banning any horse from ever stepping onto a trailer--- because that will just get you ignored as a loony. I am not saying you ARE a loonie, I am saying that is what your representative will chalk you up as. And that would be a great shame because I think there ARE some really good reasons to oppose this bill, such as you yourself have in fact pointed out (it makes selling a horse unnecessarily perilous, and ending slaughter may not be the best thing overall anyhow).
Do you see my point?
Pat
Last edited:
