WSSC still largely rebuffs trail riders' pleas

Here is a good Gazette article on the latest WSSC Commission meeting concerning their decision to reduce trail access:

http://www.gazette.net/article/20111118/NEWS/711189591&template=gazette

Baltimore City proposed legislation relating to horses

The City of Baltimore will vote soon on a bill introduced by Councilperson Curran, that will re-authorize Health Department rules governing animals in the city, including horses. Here are comments submitted by the Horse Council:

The Maryland Horse Council respectfully submits the following comments on proposed bill #11-0766.

The Maryland Horse Council is the umbrella organization representing equine interest associations, farms, businesses and individuals in Maryland. We have 40 member associations, and together with them and our farm, business and individual members, the Horse Council represents over 30,000 people throughout Maryland.

We are submitting these comments because, on review of this proposed bill, we feel that many of the provisions are outdated or impractical as applied to horses and other equines. While we understand that these provisions may not have been enforced in recent years, this seems like a good opportunity to "clean up" the law and make it more relevant in its application. Also, we understand that the resident population of equines in Baltimore City may be very low, but in at least some respects its provisions apply to horses that come into the city for parades, shows and exhibitions, so it would make sense to ensure that the applicable law is practical in the modern day context.

Finally, we understand that some amendments have been submitted subsequent to the draft we have reviewed, so perhaps some of the concerns we raise here have already been addressed.

Here are our specific comments:

From our perspective, the most problematic sections of the proposed bill are contained within Subtitle 9: Horse Riding and Driving. These problems in large part stem from the fact that the term "driving" is defined to include "riding." 10-901(C). From that definition flows the conclusion that anyone riding a horse within the City of Baltimore must be 18 years of age and have a license. 10-905. We recommend deleting the reference to riding in both the definitions of Driving, 10-901(C), and Driving License, 10-901(D).

The annual examination and record keeping requirements of sec. 10-912 should not be made to apply to horses privately owned and in private use. We recommend adding here the language that appears in 10-913, i.e., that requirement only applies to horses " BEING USED FOR ANY PURPOSE ON THE STREETS OF THE CITY." I would make a similar suggestion for the sections governing quarters (10-917-note that, most likely, the definition of horse riding and rental stables under state law will change this year; MDA is working on a draft bill), and sick or injured horses (10-918). This change would bring these sections into line with sec. 10-921, which requires identification papers and vet certification for horses on the City streets.

MARYLAND HORSE COUNCIL

P.O. BOX 233 LISBON, MD 21765

The requirement in sec. 10-916 "MAY NOT USE CURB BITS, TWISTED WIRE, TWISTED WIRE SNAFFLES, SPURS, BUCKING STRAPS, FLANK STRAPS, OR SIMILAR DEVICES," should be deleted. Many english show riders use spurs of some sort. They are required at certain levels of Dressage competition. Outlawing bucking straps would eliminate Rodeos from the city. Flank straps on western saddles equipped for them are a safety item; not properly fastening a flank strap can turn the saddle into an ejection seat if the horse bucks or stops abruptly leading to injury to the rider. The United States Equestrian Federation and its affiliates have detailed rules governing the humane use of equipment, so the City should leave that regulation to them.

In other sections of the bill, there are some issues that should be cleaned up to make them more current and practicable as applied to horses: Definitions (10-101): (G) ANIMAL FANCIER.

“ANIMAL FANCIER” MEANS A PERSON WHO OWNS OR KEEPS, WITHIN OR ADJOINING A PRIVATE RESIDENCE, 2 OR MORE ANIMALS FOR THE NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES OF: (1) BREEDING; (2) HUNTING; (3) TRACKING; (4) EXHIBITION IN SHOWS; OR (5) EXHIBITION IN FIELD OR OBEDIENCE TRIALS. This defined term, which we believe is new in this bill, could be read to include an individual horse owner who keeps two or more show horses or foxhunters on his property. The inclusion of horses in the term "animal fancier" has further implications under the law, including subjecting the owner to a licensing requirement. Under current Maryland state law, only lesson, rental or boarding stables and rescues are required to have licenses. Similarly, the definition of "pet" 10-101(AA) is also problematic (“PET” MEANS ANY ANIMAL KEPT PRIMARILY FOR PLEASURE RATHER THAN UTILITY.) Under Maryland state law, horses and other equines are considered livestock, not companion animals. We would recommend adding an exclusion for livestock to the definitions of both animal fancier and pet.

The requirement in Sec. 10-215 that any facility that sells or gives away an animal must keep certain records is newly applied to horses, and therefore could include a person who sells his horse to another. (The impact of this provision is not clear, since "facility" is not defined. This problem could be cured by adding the phrase "facility as listed in Sec. 10-210" (which

are (1) ANIMAL CLINIC; (2) ANIMAL SHELTER; (3) COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT; OR ANIMAL FANCIER) (assuming that "animal fancier will be redefined to exclude livestock).

MARYLAND HORSE COUNCIL

P.O. BOX 233 LISBON, MD 21765

Sec. 10-303(1)(I), EVERY OWNER OR CUSTODIAN OF AN ANIMAL MUST PROVIDE THE ANIMAL WITH HUMANE CARE AND TREATMENT, WHICH INCLUDES PROVIDING ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

(1) SUFFICIENT AND WHOLESOME FOOD AND WATER, WHICH MEANS: (I) AT LEAST ONCE A DAY, THE ANIMAL MUST BE FED FOOD OF A SUFFICIENT QUANTITY AND WITH ADEQUATE NUTRITIVE VALUE, IN CLEAN AND SANITARY RECEPTACLES; should have added an exception for livestock that are maintained on adequate pasture.

Sec. 10-313 is problematic, especially as it applied to horses kept on private property, as well as horses that may be ridden on any current or future approved bridle trails in public parks: (A) IN GENERAL.

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (C) OF THIS SECTION, THE OWNER OR CUSTODIAN OF AN ANIMAL MUST: (1) HAVE IN HIS OR HER POSSESSION A MEANS FOR THE REMOVAL AND SANITARY DISPOSAL OF THE ANIMAL’S FECES; AND

(2)(I)IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL FECES LEFT BY THE ANIMAL: ON THAT PERSON’S OR ANY OTHER PERSON’S PRIVATE PROPERTY; OR ON ANY PUBLIC PROPERTY, INCLUDING ANY STREET, SIDEWALK, FOOT PATH, (II) MEDIAN, GUTTER, ALLEY, PARK, OR RECREATION AREA.

(B) DEPOSIT IN STORM DRAIN, ETC., PROHIBITED. THE OWNER OR CUSTODIAN OF A ANIMAL MAY NOT DISPOSE OF THE ANIMAL’S FECES BY PLACING THEM IN A STORM DRAIN OR WATERSHED AREA. We would suggest adding in subsection (C) an exclusion for horses kept or ridden on private land or on approved public bridle trails.

Secs. 10-501(B)(3) & (4) should contain an exclusion for livestock in parades, and kept on private property, as well as horses that may be ridden on any current or future approved bridle trails in public parks: “PUBLIC NUISANCE ANIMAL” MEANS AN ANIMAL THAT: (3) DEFECATES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY; (4) URINATES OR DEFECATES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY;

The criminal penalties outlined in sec.10-1105 (misdemeanor conviction and $1000 per day fine) seem disproportionately harsh as applied to, for example,

MARYLAND HORSE COUNCIL

P.O. BOX 233 LISBON, MD 21765

some of the record keeping provisions of the law. Perhaps some sliding scale should be added.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments, and for your consideration of them.

MARYLAND HORSE COUNCIL

P.O. BOX 233 LISBON, MD 21765

The IRS has announced a new settlement program that may be a benefit to employers who have misclassified employees as independent contractors. For more information, see this article by Pam Saul for equestrianprofessional.com: http://www.equestrianprofessional.com/public/1124.cfm

According to the American Horse Council, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed new child labor regulations applicable to agriculture. The proposed rule would place new limits on the work “hired farm workers” under 16 (and in some cases 18) would be allowed to do – and this could severely impact horse farms, auctions and sales that employ young people to work hands-on with horses.

Currently, young people under 16 are prohibited from working in most occupations. However, the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA), which established American child labor laws, includes an exemption for agriculture that allows children under 16 to work on farms and ranches.

“This proposed rule would radically restrict the work employed young people would be allowed to perform,” said AHC President Jay Hickey. “We are very concerned the DOL is attempting to so limit what young workers can do on farms and ranches that it would be impossible to usefully employ young people.”

The proposed rule would exclude employed workers under 16 from most animal husbandry activities such as breeding, vaccinating and treating sick or injured animals, including horses. It would prohibit teenagers under 16 from working near breeding stallions. The proposed rule would also prohibit workers under 16 from herding livestock from horseback or on a motorized vehicle (no gatoring of horses) or on foot in confined spaces such as pens or corrals. The operation of almost any type of tractor or power equipment would be prohibited. The proposed rule would prohibit employed workers under 18 from working in feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges or auctions. More on the proposed changes can be found on the AHC website.

“The DOL is saying most work around livestock is too dangerous for anyone under 16. I don’t believe most people who have grown up on a farm or ranch would agree with that opinion. These rules are so extreme operating a lawn mower wouldn’t be allowed,” said AHC Legislative Director Ben Pendergrass.

Ostensibly, the proposed new rules would not apply to young people working on farms and ranches owned or operated by their parents.

“While the ‘parental exemption’ is supposedly left intact we are concerned family farms and ranches that are owned as partnerships, even with other family members, such as grandparents, or bothers and sisters, or operated as LLCs would not qualify under the ‘parental exemption’ in these proposed rules,” said Pendergrass. “We don’t believe these proposed rules recognize the reality or traditions of agriculture. Basically if you have a nephew, niece or grandchild or other young person who is 15 and wants to work on your farm or ranch you can hire them, but there is not much farm work they would technically be allowed to do. We are also very concerned that these rules could bar anyone under 18 from working in any capacity at a horse sale or auction.”

It also does not apply to young people doing unpaid “chores” or recreational activities, but it is unclear whether work that receives compensation in the form of lessons or other farm services would be “paid” or “unpaid.” Some jurisdictions considered any compensation through services (such as lessons or board) to be taxable income.

Comments on these proposed new rules were due November 1, 2011. “The AHC and other agricultural industries have asked the DOL for a 60 extension of the comment period. It is unclear whether or not this extension will be granted,” said Hickey. “We are currently drafting comments to submit to the DOL, if anyone in the horse community has examples of how the proposed rule would impact their horse farm or ranch please email us at bpendergrass@horsecouncil.org”

The next session of the Maryland General Assembly is only a few short months away, so now is a good time to make sure that you will be ready to make your voice heard in Annapolis.

Although it's fine to contact any public official about an issue, your opinions will carry particular weight with the representatives of your own district.

First, you will need to make sure you know who your representatives are. Here is a very handy link: http://mdelect.net. Just type in your home address; the names and contact info for both your state and federal representatives will be provided to you.

If you are writing about a particular piece of legislation, it's also good to contact the Committee members who will initially be considering the bill. You can find the list of committees and their members here: http://mlis.state.md.us/Other/Roster/Roster.htm. You can find out which Committee has been assigned a particular bill by entering its number on the Bill Information and Status link here: http://mlis.state.md.us/#gena. Note that this link will only begin to work after bills have been introduced for the 2012 session. You can also click on the Bill Indexes link on this page to search for proposed legislation by subject matter.

When contacting a legislator, be sure to identify yourself, where you live, and how and why you personally are affected by the issue. Be sure to include as many hard facts and figures as you can to back up your opinion, and be sure to state specifically what you want the legislator to do, e.g., "vote yes for SB 100."