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

Paintedhorizon

Thank you Felix. That really means a lot. I may not be real active in the next few weeks regarding tails, but I promise as soon as I get a job, I'll be right back on it!

BigJ

There's plenty of time PH. Sometimes the process of getting all the material, discussion, etc. takes years not days.

The current way rules are handled is a knee-jerk style, which is why you see the same rule language revamped every two years. Rolling Eyes

Better is to have a really good proposal that you know will work and will be supported by most opposing views so that it is semi-permanent rather than voted in and out constantly.

BTW-just FYI the tail cutting rule has NOT been always present in the PFHA rules. It was added after the fact and in an attempt to reinforce the intent of naturalness. Since it first appeared, the rule has been strengthened or weakened depending on the political atmosphere. Mad

That is NOT the way rules should stand. Could you imagine what that would be like for gov't if rules changed every 4 years. That's why we have a system, which is very painful and slow and some degree of ambiguity.

You are in my thoughts!

motorgypsy

Hi guys!
A couple of thoughts on the tail cutting thing.

First of all a method of detection that is accurate - let's say 99% would be OK - must be in place. it must be portable and cheap.

Then at least once a year initially (probably can be done less often once things settle down) for horses who are listed as having an unaltered tail will have the test done and be certified as having an unaltered tail.
If the owner fails to do this and the owner will pay a reasonable fee to have it done, the horse will be listed as having an altered tail.

So it will be up to the owner to prove that the tail is natural. The state of the tail will be listed on the registration so breeders/buyers etc. will know if the tail is natural. It will be a simple two words on the reg papers where a dot is blackened to indicated altered tail or unaltered tail. This way if the owner doesn't care if the horse is listed with an altered tail then they don't have to pay the fee to prove otherwise.

A vet with the machine, device, whatever is proven to identify the procedure will be at the show so owners can get the test done there. If the test comes up positive for alteration and the owner knows this is untrue then the owner can have further tests done to prove that the tail is natural.

It should be fairly obvious if the tail is altered as compared to perhaps being broken by being caught in a gate or grabbed by a dog but the owner can always attach an explanation.

OK - some devil's advocate??

grif

The whole premise of this proposal is based on there being some device that can detect tail alteration and there is no such device so why propose it for discussion? It is a waste of time. In addition, your proposal allows that the owner would have to prove that the horse's tail has NOT been altered. I would think that as a scientist you would know that one cannot prove a negative. It is a scientific impossibilty. If we are going to CONTINUE ad nauseum to discuss this issue, can we please do so in a scientific manner and not with either emotion or fantasy.

britzlove

All these pages of discussion over something that really shouldn't have a place in a breed promotion forum.

If you don't want to alter your horses tails, don't. If you show a boxer and you don't want to dock its tail, don't.

Let's talk about trends in judging and help support judges in efforts to change the quick and tight training, let's do that. Let's champion horses and breeders and trainers and exibitors doing wonderful things, let's spend time on that. Please.

BigJ

motorgypsy

I was totally serious. You've talked to me at length and should know I don't "do sarcasm". When I brought up the other alterations we could do to our show horses that were not painful or detrimental to the horse I was being totally serious. Yes it then went to "tongue in cheek" but the point was to show how ridiculous it is to allow a tail to be surgically altered and not allow tail extensions.

My goal is to eliminate the desire to cut the horse's tail.

The process was illegal for a while and it seems to have had very little effect on those who choose to do it. The judges cannot be made responsible for determining if a tail is altered. PFHA can't fund expensive tests.

I would be quite happy to pay $25 per horse to prove to the world that I don't alter my horse's tails.

Yes it is a possibility that the states themselves can outlaw the practice and then of course it will go underground until we find a way to easily prove it has been done. But rather than force those who have altered the tail to submit their horses to a test to prove the cutting was done, which has already caused a rebellion, why not ask those who have not altered tails to test to prove this, which is a positive thing.

As far as the details of at what age it would be checked - that would be something up for discussion. There could be a third category of "has not been determined" but this category would not be allowed in the show ring as it is the show breeders/owners/trainers who perpetuate this practice.

Only the market can stop this barbaric practice. I personally know people who were told by their trainer that they had to alter their horse's tail to win the show ring. So they had it done.

If showing a horse with a lovely unaltered tail becomes a badge of not only beauty but also humane treatment of one's animals I know many people who would gladly have their horse's tail ultrasounded, XRayed or whatever diagnostic procedure we find is definitive and wear a tag on the show bridle attesting to this fact.

This is a postive approach to solving the problem rather than a negative and punitive approach. So please think about it before you slam me for thinking outside the box. Because this is my specialty - problem solving. And so far noone's come up with a solution to this problem that is doable.

I'm perfectly amenable to other solutions but I haven't yet seen one that I think will work. And I'm after a solution to the problem, a way to stop the barbaric practice, that is not punitive but positive since punitive hasn't worked. A reward for NOT DOING it rather than punishment for doing it. If cut tails don't win and don't sell the practice will stop. If show people proudly display uncut tails as many do and identify them as unaltered this is at least a step in the right direction.

As far as proving the tail has not been altered - that is not a negative. That is proving that no surgical procedure has been performed. A bone scan and Xrays show broken bones and soft tissue diagnoses show scarring.

I brought this up because I'm tired of hearing the show people threaten to leave PFHA and the rest of us telling the pro tail cutting crowd that they are cruel and egotistical and using animals to make themselves feel more important and make money when they cut tails. There has to be a better way. I've suggested one that is different from anything that has been tried. If we are to succeed we have to do better than call people names. We have to find a way that will work and it's a lot better if this way is positive, not negative. If you don't like my suggestion, how about another one that will work.

And yes I have directed research, designed research projects, judged research competitions. I have submitted this idea for you all to think about. I have no ego tied up in it if it won't work. But it merits some thought because so far nothing has worked.

grif

You submit it for us to think about and we did and we explained to you the flaws in your proposal but you don't listen to us. How is that problem solving? Your proposal does not work. And proving that something HAS NOT BEEN DONE is about as negative as it can get. A NEGATIVE CANNOT BE PROVEN!!!! Again I ask can we please get back to reality if we are going to discuss this at all?

motorgypsy · Last edited by motorgypsy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:05 pm; edited 1 time in total

Negatives can be proven. I can prove my horse doesn't carry lethal white. I can prove the absence of light with a device that can detect one photon. I can prove my horse doesn't carry a red gene. Negatives are tested for all the time. You are of course correct that the ability to test for the absence of something is limited by the testing device. If I test negative on a drug test this only means the device can't detect the forbidden drugs. If my horse tests negative on a hoof soring test, it only means that the horse isn't sore enough to wince. But anything that come in discrete quantities like genes or photons of light or even molecules like drugs can be tested for a negative by a device sensitive enough to detect one molecule. To test for an unaltered tail would mean to test for the absence of scarring and bone change. Just like judges test for the absence of scarring on the nose during a show. This is also testing for a negative.

There are several phases of brainstorming.

The first is to simply throw out ideas regardless of their viability.

The second is to discuss the pros and cons of the different solutions.

I'm very interested in all possible solutions because I'd like to eliminate the desire to alter the tail.

I would gather that right now you, Cindy, are saying there is no point in discussing this problem since there is no diagnostic tool that can determine whether a tail is or is not altered.

I am investigating this right now but am of the belief that there is or will be very soon a device or method that can identify the majority of alterations.

When that device or method has been documented and tested it would be a good idea if we had a plan in place that would not alienate half the show population.

By the way - I tried the anal stimulation technique on Chinook and she nearly pinched my finger off and clamped her tail down so hard on my hand I could hardly remove it. There has to be a better way.

BigJ

BigJ

Please define "illegal". Could you please either quote or provide the sources by which, tail alterations performed on paso finos horses have been determined illegal and in what countries. Tail alterations are quite "legal" in this country and widely accepted. Also for those states that do have legal language in their laws, could you provide the court ruling and evidence concerning any judgments. What type of punishments, fines, fees, imprisonment have occurred as a result of such judgments.

Again, these type of statements are made on purely an emotional level without substantiation. It might be best to refrain from borrowing terms, which do not accurately depict the actual circumstances. Accusing people of performing "illegal" acts is very serious. I hope, MGs, you understand the seriousness of your statements.

motorgypsy

Thank you Candice. I apologize for not being more precise.

The first thing that I noticed was a comment that I said that everyone altered tails. It would be easier if you attached a quote because if I said that I made a typo. I don't just think, I KNOW most paso fino owners do not alter tails. Very few of them in this country do since the majority of paso fino owners in this country do not show. But unfortunately the ones who do are very visible since they are generally in the show ring.

The term barbaric was used to describe the surgical procedure done by non medically trained persons in non sterile conditions. I stand by that description and should have elaborated.

The procedure done by a trained veterinarian under sterile conditions with anesthesia would of course have to heal, has the potential for infection, would be a wound with associated pain, and unless disclosed, would be misrepresenting the animal if used as breeding stock. It is cosmetic surgery to make the horse more attractive to the owner and to hopefully have it place higher in shows. I don't personally know anyone though who has had the surgery done by a vet.

I used the term illegal to mean that there is a law prohibiting the practice of cutting the tail of a horse. There was a rule or bylaw in the PFHA rule book that prohibited altering tails. No it wasn't enforced. You cannot enforce something when there is no measuring device to determine IF it has been done. Someone on APF quoted a NY state law that prohibits tail cutting. Again I do not know if this law has been enforced, how it has been enforced or how often it has been enforced if at all. But there is a big difference between something being illegal and something that is both illegal and enforced or even enforceable.

Again I do not think the judge should be the one who has to make the determination about the tail. This is not their job.

nose scarring

I do want to mention though that I was under the impression that there was a ruling put in place several years ago that judges were supposed to check for nose scarring. And that horses who had nose scarring before the ruling was made were grandfathered so they wouldn't be disqualified. Again I don't think a judge should have to do this but this is just my opinion.

Regarding anal stimulation:

I am not trained in anal stimulation to prove an altered tail. This same horse I tried anal stimulation on was palpated and ultrasounded a few days ago and she did the same thing to the vet that she did to me - trapped her hand and clamped her tail tightly. This leads me to believe that this particular test may not be valid on some horses. Notice I said it leads me to BELIEVE that it MAY NOT be valid on all horses. I have had long time paso fino owners tell me that this clamping of the tail is quite characteristic of a number of paso finos.

regarding a natural J tail

I am well aware that many paso finos have a natural J tail as do many other breeds. I posted one.

ability to identify the majority of alterations

This was referenced back to tail alterations. I would expect that the technology exists to identify cosmetic tail alterations. Of course if any other alteration was suspected the owner of the horse in question could certainly be required to prove otherwise if there was enough evidence to mandate this as has happened in other breeds.

Regarding the usefulness of a test to show the tail has not been altered

If I have been able to validate the fact that the horse I am showing does not have an altered tail and if I choose to publicize this, no, it in no way proves that I don't alter my other horse's tails. What it does is provide "truth in advertising". It allows the buyer/breeder/ showvisitor the ability to choose between horses with medically proven (within reason) unaltered tails and those who are "unidentified" or those who are identified as having altered tails.

have I spoken to people who have altered tails

yes - a number of them. Some did it with their first show paso fino because their trainer told them it should be done. So they did it. I posted this fact because it's not particularly safe to do something just because some tells you that you should do it. I lived in Colombia for two years by the way and while dead tails are forbidden there is no test for a surgical shape alteration that doesn't deaden the tail that I am aware of. Most of the people who have had tails altered were in the US when this was done. So I've talked to people of different backgrounds concerning this procedure.

I am checking on various tests to identify unaltered tails. I will report what I learn. We have a friend who is an orthopedic surgeon who hopefully will have some suggestions.

OK let me stop here. Have to go feed.

I'll answer the second post when I return.

grif

I'm done. See ya.

Paintedhorizon

MGs, having people prove their horses tails are NOT altered just won't work. What about big breeders, like Stella? No WAY she could pay $25/horse to prove something she shouldn't have to.

No, we need to work the other way.

britzlove

Don't ya'll want to have a go at your horses you believe have revolutionized the paso fino in the US?

http://pasovoice.com/about327.html&highlight=