THOUGHTS - vetman's comments: Oh boy! Ammunition!

Someone claiming to be vetman made a comment on my last two posts. Hello, vetman. Oooooo, you've given me ammunition! Let's have some fun, shall we???? All of vetman's quotes are as written.

"I am saddeneded at your lack of truthfulness and use of 1/2 truths and one-sided commentary to push your anti padded agenda.,"

What are half-truths? Either something is true or it's not. Plus, one-sided commentary is what a blog is. If people want to find HARD, CONCRETE evidence that soring no longer exists, not just someone on the sidelines saying nah, we’re 98% compliant, they can go look for it. Problem is they won't find it. Believe me, I didn’t want to believe that these horses are being abused. I wanted to believe the lies. But after witnessing it first hand and from the hard evidence that is out there, including the formerly sore mare in my backyard who can hardly walk from the abuse she endured, I find that it’s absolutely true that these horses are still sore.

"For example. your comment about NYPD getting a scar rule in 2006. The thing you didnt mention is the ticket being thrown out of court due to lack of evidence."

Well, since no one bothered to make that information public, how was I supposed to know? Please, please, PLEASE find me the court ruling on this and I will believe you. I hear these kinds of stories all the time, but when I ask for the text of the judge’s ruling, wow, no one knows where it is!

Plus, do you know NYPD personally, did you see his legs that day? And are you a trained DQP? Who are you to judge whether he was sound or not?

"you see, the USDA likes to make up"scar rules infractions" when they cannot get a ticket on a horse for anything else. TYhery call a scar anything that MIGHT imply some form of soring. Whether it be some thin hair, dandruff in the hair, etc, etc."

You know, this scar rule crap has got me riled. THE SCAR RULE IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO DETERMINE IF A HORSE IS SORE OR NOT. It is so stupid how the sore horse industry continues to use this as an excuse for their horse being sore or not. If the horse has granulations indicative of a scar and abnormal waves in the skin, then it has been sored. Don't give me the crap that all TWHs have these waves--EVERY SOUND TWH I KNOW INCLUDING THE ONES IN MY BACKYARD DOES NOT HAVE THESE WAVES. Or the garbage of how young horses in the field all have this pattern, or that it's because of the hard work these horses go through because they are "athletes." BULLSHIT. Take a look at the USDA presentation to the public about how horses in all other fields that wear things on their legs DO NOT show this wavy pattern. It is only in the TWH, and only in the horses on pads that wear chains. THIS IS A PROBLEM.

"Also the numbers were rght in line with where they should be. There is ALWAYS more entered than what usually enters the ring in EVERY CLASS."

I agree that there are always a lot more horses in class than what place. But the TWH show industry gives ribbons up to 10th place, so if there were only 5 places tied, then there were only 5 horses in the class. I think I know simple math.

"Thje USDa beefed up their harassment this year...No doubt. They were pilfering thru tack oxes, pulling trailers over on the highways, etc. The funny thing is the compliancy rate is very near where it has been everyyear before."

Harassment? How is it harassment when the Celebration officials said it was okay for them to search the show grounds for evidence? When the Celebration released that big giant list of things they said will be enforced this year? And how do you know this, since the numbers haven’t been released yet? It sounds like you weren't there, since you were online looking for videos of Santana's El Nino. So I assume you heard this through the grapevine.

As to the searching procedures, REALLY? Do you have some video evidence of this, or did you get this hearsay?

This is my thing, people. I hear TONS AND TONS AND TONS of people continuing to say that the USDA is going through people’s tack boxes, pilfering through this and that, YET NO ONE CAN GIVE US FIRM EVIDENCE OF THIS. No videos, NOTHING. Besides, NO CHEMICALS ARE ALLOWED ON THE SHOW GROUNDS, PERIOD. This is in the rule books and the HPA. What the hell? If they find you have tons of lydocaine (SP) in your tack box or green stuff on your horse’s pasterns, then guess what? You’re using something that’s not allowed per HPA law, and you will get ticketed. Simple as that!

BTW, don’t tell me that Kopertox and other green substances are used as lubricants when it says on the bottle NOT to get the stuff on a horse’s skin or it will cause hair loss. When hair loss is indicative of soring, why would you use Kopertox as a lubricant??? Plus, I just used that shit on my horse who is thrushy because we’ve had a ton of rain out here, and I got it all over my legs (I’m a klutz, what can I say). That shit is STICKY. Why would it be used as a lubricant when it’s sticky?????

Then there’s the claim of using their fingernails and pushing them into the horse’s pasterns for 2 to 3 minutes to get a response. I tried this myself—I pushed my fingernail into my horse’s skin, who is not sore, and he never flinched. I pushed as hard as I could with my thumb to get him to flinch, and he didn’t. Hmmmmmm....

"The dirty little secret the USDa wont tell is that this industry is, for the most part, clean and sound."

WHAT???? Then why it is all over the TWH chat boards that horses were being pulled from their stalls at the show grounds (which is allowed per the HPA and show rules) and found to have plastic wrap, chemicals, and all kinds of evidence indicative of soring? Why did Scott Benham get ticketed for his horses? That doesn’t sound clean and sound to me.

"Their bloated budget has been on the chopping block for 2 years now ever since their sniffer machine was proven to be a dismal failure when all it proved was 99% of the horses are chemical free."

Um, no. Let's take a look at the 2007 statistics that were gathered, shall we? Let's see: of 353 horses tested at 14 different events, 175 were found positive for foreign chemicals. That's 49.5%! WOW, that's a lot more than only 1% of the horses having chemicals! In 2005 at the Kentucky Celebration, 25 horses were randomly selected to use the sniffer on. ALL 25 HORSES WERE FOUND TO HAVE CHEMICALS. The sniffer just isn’t being used as heavily anymore because now the “trainers” have switched to pressure shoeing because it’s harder to detect.

"They have to try and jsutify their $500,000 dollar a year budget. And they are creating hype and tickets to make them seem worth their pay.“yet, they failed again."

Justify? No they don’t. $500,000 is not nearly enough for them to get to all the shows they need to get to. They are spending money on research and development, so they can continue to give all the bad guys a "chance" to clean this up (which of course none of them deserve). Just go to the USDA APHIS website and see where the money is going. Besides, the HPA was supposed to get a $2 million budget when the anti-slaughter bill passed. Why hasn’t that money been handed down? If the gov’t were really trying to sabotage what you call a “clean” industry, then wouldn’t the money be there to do it?

"All these changes proves just what the USDA didnt want them to prove. th hroses are overwhelmingly sound. They rarely can get a horse for being sensitive and have to resort to falisfying or stretching the "scar" rule guidelines to get a ticket to make it seem some horse sarent compliant."

OH WHATEVER. See my above comments on this garbage. I again ask: why were horses found sore in the barns if it's so compliant?

"The truth is most scar rules violations come after the class when the horse was re-checked. jsut like a man who works with his hands strenuosly for a period of time, he wil develop some raised, thickened skin from repeated , repetitivit actions.these "scars" the USDA like to write ticjets on are nothing more than thickened skin, just like a callous or rough skin you get on your hands from a few minutes of slingong horse manure with a pitch fork while cleaning a stall."

Well, guess what, kiddies, ANY KIND OF CHANGE IN THE SKIN IS CONSIDERED A SCAR PER THE SCAR RULE. So if that's happening, then obviously something is wrong. Um, I don't know about any of you, but I don't get a callous or rough skin from scooping manure after just a few minutes. If I did, something would seriously be wrong.

"Tjhe sad part is, most people, like yourself and the followers of your blogs, are so ignorant and gullible about this industry that you believe anything you are told and take it as gospel.Likek the pics you have posted that show abuse..WHERE IS THE ABUSE??"

I can go on and on with that one. For detailed information on those photos, click here.

"One of the horses you say is being abused has protective sticking on it;s feet to keep its hair and skin in good shape, and has lubricant grease and kopertox to help keep anything from starting that the USDA could fabricate as being a scar."

See above my comments on Kopertox: WHY WOULD YOU USE THIS AS A LUBRICANT WHEN IT CAUSES HAIR LOSS PER THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE BOTTLE? Click here for the label for Kopertox. If it doesn't work, click here then scroll down to Manufacturer/Label Information.

"Yo folks realy need to get out and do some persoanl, realy life, research and quit being a mouthpiece for some ignorant, demonizing anti padded horse website that likes to use pics from 20 years ago and fool people with lies and innuendoes. "

The pictures were taken in 2002. Can't you read? Oh wait, you can't spell, so how could you possibly know how to read? Also, please guide me in this real-life research you talk about. I can't find any solid evidence that horses AREN'T being sored, just hearsay and the usual crap that you're spewing out. If someone can provide it, please do so! And don't quote me that 1982 study done on the whether or not pads hurt horses. That study was bought and paid for by the sore horse industry when horses were going around the ring with their legs BLEEDING, and it hasn't been repeated since. Plus, the study showed a higher incidence of thrush and laminitis in TWHs than any other breed. Gee, do ya think that's a problem?

Now, vetman, please, please, PLEASE answer me this question. I pose this of every person who tells me the same crap you're saying, yet no one has so far bothered to answer it. Let me challenge you to do so. You will probably agree that the TWH industry is 98% compliant since you think horses are 99% chemical free, etc. I ask you this: Why not 100% compliant? Why can't the industry be 100% compliant like all other sound horse venues are? I'm sure I can answer why, but really it's not that hard to figure out: MONEY. Why change what works to continue to put money in their pockets?

Good luck trying to convince those of us who know the truth and giving us crap about this. And I am sorry if you do believe the industry is sound. I also am sorry if you truly are a vet because you can't spell.