• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

House bill would be devastating for horse industry

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    Comment


    • #3
      http://thomas.loc.gov/

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

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks!

        Comment


        • #5
          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

          Comment


          • #6
            how does the USDA affect showhorses?

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment

              • Original Poster

                #8
                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?

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment

                  • Original Poster

                    #10
                    Originally posted by plottwist
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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. "
                        Fan of Sea Accounts

                        Comment

                        • Original Poster

                          #13
                          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?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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"

                            Comment

                            • Original Poster

                              #15
                              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?

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                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

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Please feel free to color me clueless, but I'm not sure what would be "devastating" about this.

                                  Help?

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    "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

                                    Comment

                                    • Original Poster

                                      #19
                                      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.

                                      Comment

                                      • Original Poster

                                        #20
                                        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."---

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X