Equine Law Blog : Texas Horse Lawyer & Attorney : Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP : Equine Legal Matters, Racing, Thoroughbreds : Dallas, Fort Worth, Texas

On January 23, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that while states may be able to enact laws banning the slaughter of horses, states cannot impose their own laws governing how animals are handled and processed at federally-regulated slaughterhouses.   A link to the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion can be found here.

This opinion was handed down in National Meat Association v. Harris, the “pig case” I discussed back in November 2011 when the case was in the oral arguments phase. This prior post discussed that case’s possible indirect effects on the horse slaughter debate:

Could the U.S. Supreme Court Unwittingly Decide the Fate of Horse Slaughter?

Photo:  Punxsutawney Phil declared today that winter is far from over.

In a nutshell, the Court held in Harris that a state law in California requiring all slaughterhouses to “immediately euthanize” any nonambulatory animal on its premises is preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) because the FMIA regulates slaughterhouses’ handling and treatment of animals upon their arrival at a slaughterhouse. 

The Court was not persuaded by the argument that the treatment of nonambulatory pigs could be regulated by states because the Fifth and Ninth Circuits have upheld state laws banning the slaughter of horses. The court made clear that the FMIA applies to a broad range of activities at slaughterhouses, but it does not address the specific species of animals that are allowed to be processed in the first place. With respect to the federal circuit cases upholding state bans on horse slaughter, Justice Kagan, speaking for the Court, stated:

We express no view on those decisions, except to say that the laws sustained there differ from [the California law requiring the immediate euthanization of nonambulatory animals] in a significant respect…Unlike a horse slaughtering ban, the statute thus reaches into the slaughterhouse’s facilities and affects its daily activities. And in so doing, the California law runs smack into the FMIA’s regulations. So whatever might be said of other bans on slaughter, [the challenged California law] imposes requirements within—and indeed at the very heart of—the FMIA’s scope.”

The question I posed in my prior post about Harris was:

“What if one or more states were to enact laws that made illegal the so-called 'evils' of slaughter that opponents of horse processing find so unsavory? Would the opponents of horse slaughter be opposed to the humane processing of horses in those states?"

The answer to this question, per the Court’s ultimate opinion in Harris, is “it doesn’t matter now, because it is now clear that states cannot make their own laws governing how animals are handled at slaughterhouses that are governed by the FMIA.”

Also, we can now assume that if the processing of horse meat for human consumption is to be resumed in any state where it is still legal under state law, FMIA regulations (and not any regulations that the states may attempt to promulgate) will govern how horses are handled and processed in those states.

For another take on the Harris case and its possible effects on horse slaughter, see the following post by Milt Toby on Horses and the Law:

Horses and Cattle and Pigs, Oh My

Follow me on Twitter @alisonmrowe

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Happy New Year, Equine Law Blog readers!  Here's to the hope that you and yours find all opportunities for joy and happiness, as well as prosperity in abundance in 2012.

2011 brought a number of significant legal events / changes that will affect many people involved in the Texas horse industry.  The "Top Seven of 2011" (it rhymes!), are as follows:

1.  The Texas Supreme Court decided a case involving the Texas Equine Limitation of Liability Act.

• Loftin vs. Lee was the case.  The opinion was handed down on on April 29, 2011.
• The Supreme Court upheld the defendant's immunity pursuant to the Act.
• This was the first time the Texas Supreme Court has taken up a case concerning the scope of the Act.
• Related blog post

2.  The Texas Legislature expanded the immunities provided under the Texas Equine Limitation of Liability Act to cover all farm animals and expanded immunity to cover veterinarians.

• Governor Perry singned the bill into law on June 17, 2011, and it became effective immediately upon signing.
• Warning signs should be updated to reflect the new law.
• The new law is called the Texas Farm Animal Limitation of Liability Act.
• Related blog posts can be found here and here.
   

3.  The Texas Legislature passed a new sales tax exemption certificate requirement for the purchase of tax-exempt agricultural goods.

• The bill was passed during 2011 legislative session, but first became effective on January 1, 2012.
• All persons purchasing tax-exempt ag supplies must now apply for a registration number with the Texas Comptroller.
• Horse and feed sales are still exempt without a number, but some training and boarding businesses may not qualify for a registration number that is now required to purchase other goods.
• Related blog post.

4.  The Texas Legislature passed a bill affecting equine dentistry.

• There is (as of September 1, 2011) a licensing requirement for lay dentists in Texas.
• Related blog posts can be found here and here.
   

5.  Congress and President Obama passed a budget bill that removed ban on federal funding of horse slaughter inspectors.

• Bill was signed by the President on November 18, 2011.
• Horse slaughter is, by virtue of this bill, again a possibility in some U.S. states.
• Related blog post.
   

6.  100% Bonus Depreciation ended on December 31, 2011

• Some believe this tax benefit caused a surge in sales for yearling markets last year.
• For new goods or qualified horses purchased on January 1, 2012 and after, 50% bonus depreciation will be available instead of the 100% rate that was available in 2011.
• Related blog post.

7.  New medication rules were adopted by a number of horse organizations

• Performance and race horse medications were a hot topic in 2011.  Among other organizations, the Breeders' Cup decided to phase out the use of Lasix, and NRHA initiated random testing protocols and adopted a new medications rule in 2011.
• Related blog posts can be found here and here.

 Follow me on Twitter @alisonmrowe

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On December 15, 2011, the American Horse Council (AHC) issued a news release publicizing its opposition to the Department of Labor's (DOL) proposed child labor regulations concerning children working on farms because of its potential negative impacts on the horse community. 

The AHC was organized in 1969 to represent the horse industry in Washington before Congress and the federal regulatory agencies.  It is a non-profit corporation that represents all segments of the equine industry.

According to the AHC, the proposed rule would effectively bar minors under the age of 16 from working in most capacities in agriculture, especially around horses and other livestock.

On November 30, 2011, the AHC filed comments with the DOL expressing its concerns with the proposed rule.  A link to the AHC’s full comments can be found here. 

According to the AHC:

The proposed rule would expand the number and scope of Hazardous Occupation Orders (HOs) to such an extent that young people not working on a farm or ranch owned by their parents would be precluded from working in agriculture.  The proposed rule would prohibit herding livestock on horseback or foot in confined spaces such as pens and corrals.  Furthermore, the DOL would prohibited youth from engaging or assisting in almost all common animal husbandry practices, such as branding, breeding, dehorning, vaccinating, castrating livestock, or treating sick or injured animals including horses.  All these activities combined represent a great deal of the work performed in association with livestock.”  

The proposed DOL rule does include an exemption for children working on farms and ranches owned by their parents, but the AHC believes this exemption is too narrow in scope:

The AHC does not believe the proposed rule recognizes the reality that many family farms and ranches are held as LLCs or partnerships with other family members.  We believe there is no reason to believe it has ever been the intent of Congress to excluded farms owned by two siblings or multiple generations of a family from the parental exemption.  Doing so would impact thousands of family farms and ranches and unnecessarily deprive young people of the opportunity to work on a family farm or ranch and all the benefits associated with such work…”

Texas Farm Bureau has also recently published these blog posts featuring the concerns of family farmers who believe the proposed rule would rob many children of the valuable lessons that they could learn working in agriculture and around livestock:

DOL Could Change the Value of Hard Work

New Rules Robbing Our Kids?

In an age where most kids in the United States spend most of their free time in front of a TV set, an I-Pad or a computer, it is hard for me to imagine that so many kids are getting hurt working on farms that a new federal law is required to protect them from “exploitation”.  Do any of you readers know what the real motivation behind this proposed rule really is?  Please feel free to leave your ideas in the comments section.

In next week’s post, I’ll cover the most significant legal developments of 2011 that affect Texas horse owners.  I wish all of you a very Merry Christmas and safe travels this weekend!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Most of you have already read about the heated legal battle over the horse-drawn carriage industry in New York City, where some groups have been pushing for decades to outlaw carriage rides. On its face, the battle seems to be about whether or not the industry is inherently cruel or dangerous for the horses. But more recently, some facts have surfaced pointing to other interests and agendas that may be fueling the push to banish the carriage industry from New York.

Emily B. Hager authored a story published last week in the New York Times that delves into underlying interests of some who are attempting to ban carriage rides in New York City. A link to the article can be found here.

One issue raised in the Times article are allegations of foul play related to the ASPCA’s involvement in the efforts to outlaw the horse-drawn carriage industry. According to Ms. Hager’s article, Dr. Pamela Corey (chief equine veterinarian for the ASPCA), said her supervisors pressured her to distort her findings about the death of a carriage horse in order to turn public opinion against the carriage industry. After Dr. Corey spoke out, the ASPCA suspended her. Dr. Corey has since filed a complaint with the state attorney general’s office, in which she states that she had been pressured on several occasions to slant her professional opinion to help achieve a ban.

Ms. Hager also points out that while the ASPCA is one of the groups leading the effort to ban horse-drawn carriages, it is also one of three entities that regulate the carriage industry in New York. 

The ASPCA’s president, Ed Sayres, is also reported in the Times to have teamed up with Stephen Nislick, chief executive of the development company Edison Properties, to develop a plan to replace carriage rides with electric-powered replicas of antique cars. Sayres and Nislick are reported to have started a nonprofit organization, known as NY-Class, that has collected more than 55,000 signatures backing city ordinances that would end the carriage horse industry in New York. NY-Class was allegedly started up through a $400,000 donation from the ASPCA and a contribution from Mr. Nislick.

With respect to these potential conflicts of interest, Ed Sayres is quoted in the Times as saying, “I don’t see it as a conflict. If we don’t bring forward the risk factor that we are observing, then it would be negligent.”

Real estate developers (including Mr. Nislick) are alleged to be involved in the movement to outlaw the carriage industry because they covet the land on the Far West Side where the horses have long been stabled.  

According to Ms. Hager’s article, some carriage owners acknowledge carrying out a campaign to infiltrate the activist groups and secretly record their strategy sessions. In one recording, Mr. Nislick is said to describe efforts to gain the support of city politicians by giving them campaign contributions. 

The carriage industry is reported to have filed its own complaints with the city and state agencies against the ASPCA and NY-Class.

The Times article includes some stats on drivers’ earnings, which reportedly range from $40,000 to $100,000 annually, depending primarily on whether they own their horses, whether they work the day or night shift, and how bad the weather and economy are.  If you know how much it costs to live in Manhattan, you know that even $100,000 per year before taxes can be hard to live on there. One would think that the last thing the carriage drivers would want to do is abuse or mistreat their horses if their livelihood depended upon them.

These latest allegations are definitely thought-provoking.  One must wonder whether those who donate money to the ASPCA hoping to fund food, medicine, and shelter for unwanted animals know that the Society has spent at least $400,000 on this political campaign.

Also, should the ASPCA still be one of the regulatory bodies governing the NY carriage industry, given the conflicts and allegations that have now arisen?

Finally, what would happen to the horses if those pushing for a ban were successful? According to Dr. Nena Winand, an equine veterinarian from upstate New York who is a member of the American Association of Equine Practitioners, “If we banned the carriage horse industry tomorrow, they would go straight to slaughter. There is no big field out there, there is no one to pay the bills.”

As discussed in this prior post, mistreatment of or cruelty to horses is already illegal in State of New York. Given these latest allegations, this fact does cause one to ponder whether animal welfare is the real impetus behind the movement to outlaw the carriage industry in New York City.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Pigs are flying, or they must be somewhere in the world. President Barack Obama (while campaigning for his second term in office, I might add) has signed a bill essentially re-legalizing horse slaughter, and PETA is happy about it!  Had you told me this a couple of weeks ago, I would have thought these events as likely an Occupy Wall Street protester taking an investment banking job at Goldman Sachs.

The recent bill reinstituting federal funding for horse slaughter plant inspections has been covered ad nauseam in a number of news stories, so I won’t belabor the details.  It is important to note at the outset that there was never a federal law "banning" horse slaughter in the U.S.  In a nutshell, there was law prohibiting federal funding of USDA horse meat inspections put in place in 2006, and that law esentially ended horse slaughter for human consumption in the U.S.  The 2006 "USDA defunding" provision was lifted on November 18, 2011 as part of a Congressional bill signed by President Obama. As a result, horse slaughter plants are already being considered several states and may be operational in 30 to 90 days. But plants specifically designed for horse slaughter cannot be developed in Texas, California, Illinois and Oklahoma, where state laws specifically prohibit horse slaughter plant operations. For more information, see this article.

But the real news story, to me, is the astounding fact that PETA believes resuming horse slaughter in the U.S. will reduce overall horse suffering, and supports the move. Yes, we’re talking about PETA--the same, often controversial animal rights group known for campaigns like “fur is murder” and the lawsuit filed against Sea World for "enslaving" killer whales. 

In a Christian Science Monitor interview, PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk said PETA believes the United States never should have banned domestic horse slaughter because “the amount of suffering that it created exceeded the amount of suffering it was designed to stop.” 

According to the Christian Science Monitor article, “PETA says the optimal solution is to ban both consumption slaughter and the export of horses, but it supports reintroducing horse slaughterhouses in the U.S., especially if accompanied by a ban on exporting any horses at all to other countries.” Really? A ban on exporting any horses at all to other countries? Does anyone know if PETA really proposes that we make it illegal to export any horse to any country outside the U.S., for any purpose? If so, how would this possibly work and what would it do to our horse industry? 

These questions aside, at least proponents of horse slaughter can be glad that for once, an association like PETA agrees with them. 

Compare PETA’s position to that of Forbes contributor Vickery Eckhoff, who blasts the Thoroughbred industry in an article this week for allegedly being “silent” with respect to the fate of ex-race horses that end up being slaughtered (and tortured in the process, according to Ms. Eckhoff). 

As an aside, it should be noted that many Thoroughbred racing industry associations are members and sponsors of the Unwanted Horse Coalition (UHC), whose goal it is to reduce the numbers of unwanted horses in the U.S. so that fewer end up being slaughtered…or worse (yes, I consider many fates worse than slaughter, such as dying of starvation, dehydration, or illness in the back pasture). For a list of the current member associations of the UHC, click here.

Ms. Eckhoff, like many in the “anti-slaughter” camp, believes horse slaughter should be banned because is inherently cruel and abusive and it cannot be made humane, even if it is done in accordance with USDA regulations.  Anti-slaughter groups and individuals often place the blame on breeders, and urge the government or others to penalize people for over-breeding instead of allowing horses to be slaughtered. How would this be done, I wonder, and at what cost? And is there really no way a horse slaughter facility can be designed to make the slaughter process as humane for horses as it is for other livestock? I welcome your thoughts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (15)
• Trackbacks

Next Wednesday (November 9, 2011) the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a case where the main issue is States’ rights to impose their own regulations on federally-inspected slaughterhouses. The case is National Meat Association v. Harris (Docket No. 10-244). Though the case involves swine instead of horses, the Court’s decision might ultimately affect the horse slaughter debate currently being waged in Congress.

The issue before the Court is whether a state law in California requiring all slaughterhouses to “immediately euthanize” any nonambulatory animal on its premises is preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). The National Meat case deals with a California law governing slaughterhouses in that state that was passed in 2008, after the Humane Society of the United States released a video of so-called “downer cows” being pushed with a forklift, kicked, electrocuted, and dragged with chains at a slaughterhouse.

If the Court ultimately finds that California (and, presumably, all other states) can impose its own regulations on slaughterhouses to which the FMIA applies within their respective states, this might ultimately affect the current battle over horse slaughter being waged in the United States. An interesting question raised by this case, in my mind, is this:

What if one or more states were to enact laws that made illegal the so-called 'evils' of slaughter that opponents of horse processing find so unsavory? Would the opponents of horse slaughter be opposed to the humane processing of horses in those states?"

It’s an interesting question, and I’m torn. While I generally don’t like to see new red tape and new regulations unduly imposed on any industry, I tend to think that most issues such as this are best dealt with on the state level. If the Supreme Court finds that states can, in fact, impose their own laws on federally-inspected slaughterhouses, I am somewhat encouraged that this might ultimately provide vehicle whereby a “win-win” resolution of the horse slaughter battle may be reached.  If humane horse slaughter can be reintroduced in the United States, many horse industry groups believe that that this would have a positive economic impact on the overall horse industry.

Follow me on Twitter @alisonmrowe

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

You rarely ever see a trial court sign an 80-page order…especially in a horse case. 

But on September 12, 2011, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the Middle District of Florida signed an 80-page order on a motion for permanent injunction in a case stemming from an April 2009 incident involving 21 Venezuelan polo horses that died in Florida. The 21 polo horses died after receiving a compound prepared by Franck’s Compounding Laboratory of Ocala, Florida. A link to the 80-page order can be found here.

In the lengthy order, Judge Corrigan denied the Food and Drug Administration’s petition for a permanent injunction to keep Franck’s from producing and distributing animal medications compounded from bulk ingredients without the FDA’s approval.

Judge Corrigan ruled that the FDA does not have the authority to regulate state-licensed veterinary pharmacy compounding, stating:

The FDA has long been on notice that its statutory authority to regulate traditional, state-licensed veterinary pharmacy compounding was questionable. It has decided to proceed with this enforcement action, asserting a ‘maximalist’ interpretation of its authority.”

Follow me on Twitter @alisonmrowe

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As discussed in a prior post, reining has hit the international scene like wildfire. Not unlike the sports of Thoroughbred racing and eventing, high-level reining events are now being held in a number countries outside North America that have differing customs regarding acceptable medications and dosage levels for equine athletes during performances.

The National Reining Horse Association (“NRHA”) issued a press release on Sunday announcing the vote of their Board of Directors to implement an “Animal Welfare and Medications” rule. This vote occurred after many discussions with NRHA membership both in the United States and abroad. 

This move is widely viewed as being in the best interest of the reining horse and the Association as a whole. The additional benefits are that it accommodates the internationalization of the sport of reining, and it will provide more clearly-understood and uniform medication rules applicable in all nations participating in NRHA events.

The NRHA will soon begin a multi-phase testing and research program to collect data specific to reining and help the Association implement a program that is suitable for the reining industry. Horses at NRHA-sanctioned events may be tested at random to determine which medications reining horses are currently competing on, and the amount of medications that are typically being used. The tests will include physical exams and drug testing by licensed veterinarians or technicians. 

The new rule includes a description of substances that horses are not allowed to compete on, as well as the acceptable limits for approved medications. Christa Morris, NRHA Sr. Director of Marketing, says of the new rules:

The prohibited substances include drugs that are considered to be in the category of a stimulant, depressant, tranquilizer, local anesthetic, psychotropic substance, or other drug which might affect the performance of a horse. Providing a complete list of forbidden substances is problematic, because new drugs frequently come onto the market. For that reason, this definition in the rule will act as a guideline for members.  We will provide an example list of prohibited substances, but it is not intended to be an exhaustive list.” 

The full rule has not been released to the public to-date, but members can access it on the NRHA website by logging in.

The new rule will be included in the 2012 NRHA Handbook. According to Morris, a “medications handbook” providing additional guidance to members to help them navigate the new rules will be provided to members along with the 2012 NRHA Handbook. 

NRHA exhibitors should remember to read labels on herbal and other over-the-counter supplements, to make sure they don’t contain any of the substances prohibited by the new rules.

Follow me on Twitter @alisonmrowe

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

"Absolute insurer rules" and "trainer liability rules," common in horse racing and other equine sports, presume that trainers are responsible when their horses test positive for illegal substances.  In effect, the rules make trainers guilty unless proven innocent.

The effect of this presumption is to shift the burden of proof from the governing body to the trainer, who must prove innocence by showing  that he or she did not negligently administer a prohibited substance to the horse or did not negligently allow someone else to interfere with the horse.  These rules can result in the imposition of a penalty against the trainer and/or the horse's owner without actual proof of guilt.

Courts have uniformly upheld the absolute insurer rules, despite the fact that they appear to violate the due process of law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks