The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 160
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    47,120

    Default House bill would be devastating for horse industry

    I just received this e-mail.
    Remember, the AHC itself is not for or against the ban slaughter bill, but has members in both sides of that controversy.

    You be the judge of what it means:

    ---"House bill would be devastating for horse industry

    The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the 2008 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations bill (H.R. 3161), which would fund the U.S. Department of Agriculture for Fiscal Year 2008, early next week.
    Section 738 of that bill would be devastating because it would cut off funding for USDA activities important to the horse industry. It would eliminate funding necessary for USDA to operate quarantine facilities and to pay personnel to approve and facilitate the import and export of horses for exhibition, competition, sale or breeding.

    The bill would not only cut off direct funding to USDA, but also eliminate USDA's authority to impose user fees, which support the operation of the three major USDA Animal Import Centers and the land border ports along the Canadian and Mexican borders.

    The American Horse Council is asking members of the horse industry to contact the members of Congress from their state asking that this provision be removed.

    NOTE: Although the language is an apparent attempt by proponents of legislation to end the slaughter of horses for human consumption by taking the USDA out of the process, as was done last year, the language in Section 738 would have a far broader impact and would affect the movement of all horses. The major U.S. equine and livestock organizations are united in opposition to this language.

    While an individual's or organization's position on limiting USDA's authority to inspect horses for slaughter may be based on their position on the federal bill banning slaughter, the industry should be opposed to this overly-broad limit on USDA's authority and economic ability to protect animal health through inspection, quarantine and oversight of the movement of all horses.

    The AHC is opposed to this language for animal health reasons and because it would have an extremely adverse effect on important equine activities and commerce. The AHC supports the effort to have it removed when the House considers the USDA Appropriations bill. "---



  2. #2
    Join Date
    May. 18, 2007
    Location
    Norco, CA
    Posts
    923

    Default

    Bluey, where can I find the text of the Bill?



  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep. 18, 2000
    Location
    Tatertown, KY, USA
    Posts
    1,888

    Default

    http://thomas.loc.gov/

    Enter
    H.R.3161
    in the Search box, click the "Bill Number" button, and click search



  4. #4
    Join Date
    May. 18, 2007
    Location
    Norco, CA
    Posts
    923

    Default

    Thanks!



  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct. 2, 1999
    Location
    Mendocino County, CA: Turkey Vulture HQ
    Posts
    15,955

    Default

    Good grief, it's inserted in the Farm Bill.

    I made a good faith effort - I have no idea where whatever it is is in the text. Someone smarter than me will have to find it.
    If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket



  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec. 4, 2003
    Posts
    3,812

    Default

    how does the USDA affect showhorses?



  7. #7

    Default

    As it stands now any species of livestock has to have USDA approval to leave the U.S. unless that law is changed no animal could go into Can. or Mex. regardless of reason. Thats what the concern is about.
    Quality doesn\'t cost it pays.



  8. #8
    Bluey is offline Schoolmaster Premium Member
    Original Poster
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    47,120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xegeba View Post
    how does the USDA affect showhorses?
    I don't know, that is why I posted that, to see what those here in the know of those legislative issues can tell us, or find out.

    I would say that movement of show horses would be handicapped or halted, just like that of any other horses, so those horses now going to Canada and Mexico and eventually to slaughter, in the zeal to ban all horse slaughter, would not go there.

    Remember that those pushing for those bills don't care about the horse industry or those participating in it. Many consider just owning horses objectionable in itself.
    Anything to make that more difficult, thru any means, is ok in their book.


    Horses going and coming from Europe are quarantined and tested, I think by the USDA.
    I wonder if it would affect them also?



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    5,699

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by county View Post
    As it stands now any species of livestock has to have USDA approval to leave the U.S. unless that law is changed no animal could go into Can. or Mex. regardless of reason. Thats what the concern is about.
    I believe you are referring to permanent relocation as moving Horses to/from Canada for 30 Days or Less no veterinary inspection is required at the border for horses entering Canada or the U.S. provided the horse returns within 30 days of the date of entry into either the U.S. or Canada on a temporary basis.

    A current Health Certificate and a current EIA test must accompany all horses and have proper brand inspection documents

    Horses may enter/re-enter at any port of entry. A duty or sales tax will not be assessed if a horse is entering Canada or the U.S. temporarily.

    It has been more than a few years since we have hauled into/out of Canada but this was all that was required then and appears to be the same now.



  10. #10
    Bluey is offline Schoolmaster Premium Member
    Original Poster
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    47,120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by plottwist View Post
    I'm confused here. Please help me understand.

    If this passes, there won't be any more USDA inspectors to check horses coming/going into the country. And since there is a law stating that an inspector must check horses coming/going, what happens to the law once the inspectors are gone.

    It seems to me that if the law is to remain active, there must be inspectors.
    Or, the law in now useless.

    Did that make sense?
    Don't really know, or if there would be a loophole for "show or breeding" horses.
    I doubt that, because those that are trying to stop slaughter by any means, regardless of the cost to the horse industry, it's members and as demonstrated ultimately to horses, on the premise that it is ok that many suffer now, for the greater possible good later, don't care of not one more horse ever goes anywhere.

    And then there are those out there also, out to destroy the horse industry, as they don't believe in humans using animals at all, for any purpose.

    If other horses were permitted to pass, like show, rodeo or breeding stock, then that could be a loophole to let eventually slaughterbound horses thru.

    I think the whole thing is a battle on many fronts to keep us from eventually not having any use of our animals, including horses.

    Sadly, that battle is fought on the animal rights side with donations of so many well meaning people, many that have horses and don't understand where those animal rights groups and supporters come from, still thinking they are "animal welfare" groups, don't realize they have morphed into zealot animal right activists.

    We really need here someone that is used to legislative work to interpret this for us.
    All I can find is against this, but the sources are those that so many on COTH will not consider unbiased, in their own very biased opinion.

    So, anyone else can make real sense of this?

    I would say that this new law would not stand up at all, under the NAFTA agreement, but defeating it once passed would tie everyone in knots again, making it so much harder for the horse industry, that doesn't has the so very deep pockets of the animal rights groups, that have all the time in the world, along with millions for such delay tactics.



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun. 28, 2003
    Posts
    4,551

    Default

    Here's some info we just got from USEF. Sounds like they agree this WOULD close down the quarantine facilities for horses being imported to US - including those coming back from competition overseas


    Section 738 of that bill would be devastating because it would cut-off funding for USDA activities important to the horse industry. It would eliminate funding necessary for USDA to operate quarantine facilities and to pay personnel to approve and facilitate the import and export of horses for exhibition, competition, sale or breeding. The bill would not only cut off direct funding to USDA, but also eliminate USDA’s authority to impose user fees, which support the operation of the three major USDA Animal Import Centers and the land border ports along the Canadian and Mexican borders.


    The joys of unintended consequences. So you stop export for slaughter, but also pretty much stop export entirely.



  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar. 28, 2001
    Location
    Aiken, SC
    Posts
    2,689

    Default

    AQHA and USEF have sent almost identical emails in opposition to this legislation. The sample letter referenced in both emails is from the American Horse Council who are also opposed.

    "The AHC is opposed to this language for animal health reasons and because it would have an extremely adverse effect on important equine activities and commerce. The AHC supports the effort to have it removed when the House considers the USDA Appropriations bill. "



  13. #13
    Bluey is offline Schoolmaster Premium Member
    Original Poster
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    47,120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PineTreeFarm View Post
    AQHA and USEF have sent almost identical emails in opposition to this legislation. The sample letter referenced in both emails is from the American Horse Council who are also opposed.

    "The AHC is opposed to this language for animal health reasons and because it would have an extremely adverse effect on important equine activities and commerce. The AHC supports the effort to have it removed when the House considers the USDA Appropriations bill. "

    Anyone can tell us if and more important, WHY they are wrong to oppose this bill, other that what we already know, that it is supposed to stop slaughterbound horses from going out of this country?



  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar. 21, 2004
    Location
    US
    Posts
    2,251

    Default

    Somehow I *knew* as soon as I saw the title that this thread related to slaughter. Until I see the actual text from the actual legislation, I'm withholding all judgement. Sadly, I no longer trust or believe that any of the large horse organizations are truly independent/unbiased on the slaughter topic.. Their existance and growth depends on ever-increasing #s of membership and registrations -- e.g. ever-increasing #s of horses -- and it shows in many of their activities.

    I'm in the legislation now. There are no numbered section headers -- only titles. I've yet to find any reference to "Section 738," or any text cutting off or limiting funding related to quarantine, Canada or Mexico. Except one reference to limiting funding around water quality on the border with Mexico.

    Instead of reference apparent nonexistance sections, perhaps those who are concerned could give the actual title where the offending text appears.

    I have found the following actual text:

    "For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to prevent, control, and eradicate pests and plant and animal diseases; to carry out inspection, quarantine, and regulatory activities; and to protect the environment, as authorized by law, $874,643,000..."

    "BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

    For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance, environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and acquisition of land as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 428a, $4,946,000, to remain available until expended."


    "Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

    For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs to administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; the Agricultural Marketing Service; and the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration; $759,000."

    "Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    SALARIES AND EXPENSES

    (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

    For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to prevent, control, and eradicate pests and plant and animal diseases; to carry out inspection, quarantine, and regulatory activities; and to protect the environment, as authorized by law, $874,643,000"



  15. #15
    Bluey is offline Schoolmaster Premium Member
    Original Poster
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    47,120

    Default

    Maybe here they can help you get more information:

    Please call the AHC (202) 296-4031 if you have any questions.

    E-mails can be sent to ahc@horsecouncil.org.

    ---"Somehow I *knew* as soon as I saw the title that this thread related to slaughter. Until I see the actual text from the actual legislation, I'm withholding all judgement. Sadly, I no longer trust or believe that any of the large horse organizations are truly independent/unbiased on the slaughter topic.. Their existance and growth depends on ever-increasing #s of membership and registrations -- e.g. ever-increasing #s of horses -- and it shows in many of their activities. "---

    Do you mean to say by default that you then believe what the animal rights associations, that are behind all this, are to be implicitly believed?

    Just curious, in what form are you "in the legislation", maybe as a lobbyist and if so for whom?



  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    5,699

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xegeba View Post
    how does the USDA affect showhorses?
    If the horse is across the border (US to Canada or Canada to US) for 60 days or more, the horse is then considered imported and then requires USDA inspection to get back in the US

    60 days is the time period when a horse becomes a resident, if a show is longer than that it may be better to level the horse there

    Without USDA inspectors then the private sector would have to step up to insure the paper work was in order for imported stock



  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb. 4, 2007
    Location
    NW Maine
    Posts
    732

    Default

    Please feel free to color me clueless, but I'm not sure what would be "devastating" about this.

    Help?



  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan. 18, 2004
    Location
    Cloud Nine in Seventh Heaven
    Posts
    2,942

    Default

    "Devestating" equals AHC's political-speak to get your attention. I'm not disagreeing that there may be concerns but that's the main reason the headline reads as it does.
    Freaky Farm Hermit Clique
    Mighty Thoroughbred Clique COMH Page: Tory Relic



  19. #19
    Bluey is offline Schoolmaster Premium Member
    Original Poster
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    47,120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Barn View Post
    Please feel free to color me clueless, but I'm not sure what would be "devastating" about this.

    Help?
    Good question. Maybe you can ask the AHC themselves?

    Of course, if you only have a horse or two to trail ride and live in the middle of the country, you are not impacted by much anyway, no need to worry about most laws, other than maybe those closing trails.

    Divide and conquer has worked since roman times.



  20. #20
    Bluey is offline Schoolmaster Premium Member
    Original Poster
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    47,120

    Default

    I tend to forget that people can't read minds, so I better elaborate on my last post.

    The AHC was the main force behind the fight to keeping open riding access, to keep trails for horses also, along with the different purposes other citizens wanted to make of those lands.

    The ban slaughter issue has been a perfect cause to divide the horse industry, polarizing those that listen to the animal rights activists against those that, having been part of the horse industry for long, know what part slaugthter has served and why and that there will be many unintended consequences, detrimental to our use of horses and the best interest of horses altogether, if it is stopped so abruptly, on the whim of a few, that don't want us to use our horses anyway.

    That is why my previous comments:

    ---"Quote:
    Originally Posted by Red Barn
    Please feel free to color me clueless, but I'm not sure what would be "devastating" about this.

    Help?

    Good question. Maybe you can ask the AHC themselves?

    Of course, if you only have a horse or two to trail ride and live in the middle of the country, you are not impacted by much anyway, no need to worry about most laws, other than maybe those closing trails.

    Divide and conquer has worked since roman times."---



Similar Threads

  1. Oh where has the horse industry gone?
    By Obi in forum Off Course
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: Jun. 11, 2011, 06:04 PM
  2. WTD about $736 electric bill for vacant house?
    By pony4me in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Apr. 2, 2011, 06:59 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Jan. 5, 2011, 09:36 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Oct. 8, 2010, 03:06 PM
  5. Replies: 190
    Last Post: Nov. 22, 2004, 11:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •