PasoVoice.Com :: Cut Tail, an Art of Cruelty! WARNING! on VIDEO

BigJ

Rules:

Intent
Scope or applicability
Definitions
General Prohibition
Exemptions
Procedure or methods
Standards
Suspension or enforcement
Financial Responsibility/Record Keeping
Transfers

That's starting somewhere. It is not enough to say it can't happen. PFHA and CONFEPASO have demonstrated this.

Paintedhorizon

I'm all for all of that Candice.

BigJ

Good deal! Just me, but I'd focus on what's in place now.

I'll keep saying this because it'll happen. Having rules in place, even the best ones, don't guarantee success. Rules are there by free will. It is a statement of good will by a populace. In no way will it stop the bad players. Truthfully, if you have a rule voted in, then you already have the good will of the people. Rules are not the whole answer. If people don't want to be policed they won't stand for it. It is better for the breed to have people wanting to do "right".

That is why the tail cutting by a vet passed. People do care enough to want the procedure done professionally and as humanely as possible. It is not a defeat; it is a win. It is not that far-fetched to appeal to that concern and convince that the most caring and humane thing is to honor the horse as nature presents it. Let's acknowledge the first step as being positive instead of going on emotional rants, threatening our organization, and pretending to have other shows that are any different. It only makes our organization even more vunerable than it is.

When I paid my dues to PFHA, it infers that I have an unspoke loyalty to my organization as a member. I'm a member and pay dues in SUPPORT of my organization. It means I will honor my role as a member and try to help PFHA even when I think bad decisions are made and I oppose the final outcome. I have a right as a member to provide POSITIVE input to remedy problems that may exist.

Now, there is a political process to study up on too...

grif

Paintedhorizon

PFHA should pay for it. How, I don't know, but I'm all for thinking up ideas.

You didn't read that right, I didn't say all J tails are obviously cut, I said If it's cut to look like a J, then that is obvious how the conformation and appearance are altered. Meaning obviously the tail went from non "J" to "J", altering it's appearance.

Believe it or not, Stella has a gorgeous yearling filly right now that has a J. First thing I noticed on her! Just imagine once she's riding, woo!

Why should a judge not test for this once he/she is taught how? They are the judge, judging conformation, gait, rider, horse, etc. They are the one walking behind the horse. They can check for it then.

grif

PFHA is not going to pay for it. They did not pay for it the first time. It was paid for by donation. And the conclusion did not favor spending any more money. Perhaps you are unware but PFHA is in quite a bit of financial trouble right now. They are not even spending any money on advertising or marketing so I have news for you, there is no money to do more research on a subject that has already been researched and talked to death. The matter has been decided by the members. If you want more testing, you better plan on finding the money for it.

A judge is not qualified to test for an altered tail. Period, end of story. Nor do we want to be. Nor do we need to be. Nor should we be.

Paintedhorizon

End of your story maybe, but not mine. That is one thing I disagree on Cindy. I think judges ARE qualified and should be.

Totally understood about PFHA not being able to afford it. What are they doing with the funds they receive from memberships, etc? Is that open to the public to be able to see?

grif

grif

cristy

PH, you also have to look at it from a judges point of view. Say they do try to distinguish between the tail altered and the non altered, Since there is not way of telling for sure if it has been done or not they are basically just guessing...think of the law suits this would bring up. What of the horses that are missed? They win the class and nothing was accomplished except maybe disqualifing the better horse because the judge "thinks" the tail was altered. Then what after they win the lawsuit (because they will win it, we have no conclusive way to tell if the tail was done) do you go back and re run the class? that is not going to happen..so then the owner of the horse who was disqualified is turned off to the PFHA....not for the greater good.

I am against tail cutting, I hate anything that is unnecessary (I would not even have a dogs ears done unless there is a medical reason to do it.) BUT we have to be logical. I think the better approach to this would be through disucssion and advertising. kinda like no smoking ads, it is not illegal to smoke but you see ads discouraging kids from doing it all the time. The rules we have now are a good start, as someone mentioned earlier you don't want this to turn into a anti slaughter like issue, making it worse like they did. At least we are regulating it. Now the next step would be to publically discourage it. Obviously this will have to be done by us the general public not PFHA. If you really want to stop it write articles and submit them to PFHW, place ads in the magazine and in regional mailers. I think the key is to educate the public, make it so that the new buyer that may let the trainer talk them into cutting their horses tail now knows fully about the procedure and that so many are against and maybe this will sway them into not having it done.

I don't mean to burst your bubble but I think you really need to hear what Cindy and Candice are saying...this issue has been beat to death, the PFHA did put forth honest effort to find a workable solution to this problem, there just is no good solid solution so they did the best they could. If certified vets and other specialists could not tell there is no way a judge should be exspected to make that call.

(it's early I hope that does not read in a big circle)

BigJ

Michele, you aren't thinking this out very logically. I suggest that you do your research first before presenting further argument.

Your are not a judge; you know few judges--how can you say a judge is qualified and you don't even have an idea as to the method used to detect tail cutting? A more logical approach is to get feedback from PFHA judges, stewards, and show management about the most practical approach rather than copy the "logic" of the current rule language. Think out of the box. What is a judge's role in the show ring? What is a steward's role? Should a vet or a member of show management be involved?

The LAST thing I want to see is our judges looking at tail anuses in the middle of the show ring. Please give me the words to explain THAT to a newcomer to the breed! I'd vote it down just because of this one thing alone. Yes, I do care a great deal about first impressions and this is one impression I would prefer not be the first one.

Please do not compare this to checking for obvious wounds which may have occurred during the exhibition. If a judge saw a bloody tail the horse would be out too. We are discussing a previously performed, HEALED, surgery that was done months before a competition. I don't expect judges to check for correct shoeing or correct gear either. That's all done before the competition as the minimum qualifications to compete. A pre-examination giving the examiner plenty of time for thorough testing may be required. How long does it take to examine a tail?

The test methods have not been directly observed to know how they apply to determine tail alteration. All you have is a copy of a letter. Were you present during the examination? Have you watched how they check for tail alterations at QH shows? Have you attended the paso Mundials and watched how they performed the prepista before the class? Ground truthing is a part of the procedure when developing proposals. You must be able to submit will documented, researched material. Professional consultants should be contacted for input and supporting evidence.

No research has been presented as to the methods that DO alter a tail. Watching a video or two without appropriate context is invalid. Please refer to the letter from Anderson. This is a professional, directly involved with tail alteration detection; please read his professional consultation to PFHA. Has anyone or PFHA followed up?

There is no evidence what the PFHA budget is or a financial statement of the organization. There is no information about the type of equipment or costs, but already PFHA has been arbitrarily dictated to cover such costs without a proposal as to how. It's great to spout forth something arbitrary like "PFHA will pay" "tests for unaltered tails is free" or "regions will do the work". HOW? Spell it out verbatim, how.

No feasibility study has been done or a cost analysis study.

Any time any information is received, you are obligated from an analytical approach to validate all information. Only in this way can you provide the rigor of confidence required in order to substantiate your proposal under careful scrutiny. Currently you are in the "discovery" stage of your proposal. I've yet to see any facts presented.

Maybe other forums are encouraging you to believe you are "done", but you have yet begun a full investigation to even begin drafting a proposal of any kind. If you do not have the scientific backing, financial backing, and the political backing first then no matter how wonderful the proposal may be you will fail. The idea is to give the proposal every opportunity to succeed, which means having everything possible in its favor.

Start Here:

Get all the documents you can find first--rules, letters, methods, videos, financial statements etc. Contact professionals and consultants that can give you expert opinion and advice.

Perform in field ground truthing. Methods of cutting tails, witnesses and testimony on the after effects. Photos, videos, of the procedure and healed tails.

Get the scientific data validating a method detection works--you will need statistical evidence it works within a certain confidence level 99% confidence or nothing less than 95% confidence level.

Determine the feasibility of training people to use the method--again you must demonstrate the method can be taught and done with a high degree of consistency. You may find out only vets can perform the test.

Do a cost analysis to determine actual costs to implement the method and a proposal to cover those costs. A grant? Private funding? Increase in membership fees? Show fees?

Perform a climate survey--will the members of PFHA support the method of detection, the associated costs?

grif

Very good advice, Candice. I would like to add one more thing, when you are compiling such evidence, always provide evidence from both sides and not just the one you want people to see. Trust me when I tell you that if you do not, the other side will in spades and you will look like a fool for not presenting it first.

As a side note, very sorry to hear about your job. I know it is hard to think positive but you have to believe that this is just opening a new door in your life. Instead of dwelling on the past, look forward to the new adventures that are in store for you when you walk through that door.

BigJ

I agree. The first steps are only to find the facts nothing more. A good investigation doesn't interject emotion into the endeavor and gathers up all the information for or against an idea. This gives more accurate probability for success or guidance to modify the proposal. BTW, this new rule is such a modification given today's current mindset. The majority could have voted out ALL language about tail cutting, but instead voted for professional intervention. It's a beginning.

I like Cristy's comments too. Should the investigation find out that it's too costly or sentiments are against the idea--like me not wanting to see judges peer into horses' butts, then maybe more energy could be focused on education and campaigning.

Paintedhorizon

I don't want you guys thinking I'm arguing or fighting. I honestly am taking every single letter to heart and will print this out and use it to go forward. I promise.

Cindy, thank you very much. This was a complete and total mind blowing shock. I plan on spending next week with the pasos a couple of days, for therapy. But I'm already working on my resume and will start sending them out. Also already have a couple of attorney's that I know personally that hopefully are needing someone, because they've already said they'd hire me.

caliber · Site Admin

Hey Painted!! I just want you to know!! that you are in my thoughts!

and NO!!! I never thought you where arguing.........

Saludos! and a huge (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((HUG)))))))))))))))))))))