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We are submitting these comments because, on review of this proposed bill, we feel that many of the provisions are outdated or impractical as applied to horses and other equines.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
No comments:
Post a Comment