Talk:Soring

Ranked this mid-class due to federal law being brought to bear on the issue

Move Section "History of the Big Lick" to the top

Coming to this article as a non-equestrian person I think it would be more comprehensible if the section "History of the 'Big Lick'" were placed above the section "Signs and techniques" so that the reader would have an understanding of the purpose and function of soring and why it seems so difficult to eradicate the practice. This arrangement seems to presume this knowledge on the part of the reader. This article seems otherwise well written. 71.192.47.76 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

We need to update and improve the sourcing on that section. We were concentrating on the upgrade of the Horse Protection Act article, and will get to this one eventually... much to do. Your comment is appreciated, though, and you make a good point about readability. Montanabw^(talk) 19:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, This should be at the top. I came here due to a news article, for a definition of the term, and as a long time Wikipedia editor, it seemed quite unusual to see the history in the wrong place. I am going to make this move -- a simple move, without any other editing. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

conflicting content

@Atsme:@Montanabw: There appears to be conflicting content in the article. In the lead, we are told that soring is illegal. But, further into the article, we are told that chains and stacks are legal. Which is true. Perhaps the lead should say that some methods of soring are illegal? DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Follow up - in researching this article, I'm starting to realise there are a lot of politics about this. If you wish to chat confidentially, please feel free to email me. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Further followup - I think I have the problem sorted now. It appears pads and chains are both legal according to the AVMA - I have edited the article to show this. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll look over the edits. See the Horse Protection Act of 1970 article, which is stronger than this one. (It's an FA). This article was the original from which the HPA was spun off. Yes, the politics are huge for people in Kentucky and Tennessee, at least. They are trying to update the HPA to add chains and stacks (which are not "soring" per se, but could be used with soring techniques...) Montanabw^(talk) 03:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I did a review and corrected the errors. We have a definition problem. Soring is defined, basically, as either caustic substances or use of pressure. Chains and stacks aren't soring, they are (as of now) legal; but soring techniques can be used with them (caustic chemicals under a weighted chain, or deliberately putting objects between the pad and the hoof to hurt the sole of the horse's foot). I hope this clarifies matters. The legal alteration of gait to make the horses step higher comes first from the added weight and then from changes in the angle of the hoof to alter how the foot moves (angle can lengthen or shorten stride, change "breakover" when the hoof leaves the ground, etc.) The illegal part is adding pain to the equation. That said, the ridiculously high pads are probably uncomfortable over time, a horse with stacks can't, for example, be turned out in a pasture for any significant running or jumping around, and long-term use may create concerns about lameness, but done right, they don't cause the horse actual pain while in use. The pending legislation would ban use of chains and stacks, defining stacks carefully so as not to disallow ordinary therapeutic or protective use of pads with normal horseshoes Montanabw^(talk) 04:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: thanks very much for your considerable input here - the article is very much improved. I'm still not entirely happy about the terminology. I have been using as an RS, the source by the AAEP and AVMA.[1] - already used in the article. It states

Chemical agents (e.g., kerosene, diesel or croton oil, hand cleaners, WD 40, oil of mustard, cinnamon oil, other caustic substances) are applied to the pastern and coronary band region. Then bracelet-like chains or rollers (“action devices”) are attached around the front of the pastern to rub against the skin and exacerbate the pain caused by the caustic agents. In the early 80s, Auburn University released a thermographic study on the effects of chains. Researchers found altered thermal patterns after two days of chain application. It took 20 days without chains for thermal patterns to return to normal. A stallion wearing 8-ounce chains developed lesions after brief training periods. “Performance Packages,” include a variety of mechanical pads, “stacks”, bolts, and heel springs that may be attached to the hoof. Pads currently in use may be up to 4” thick in the heel and more than 2” at the toe. Some can be removed without having to re-shoe the horse and are affixed to the hoof with metal bands. Current law permits pads and chains weighing less than 6 ounces on the show grounds

This article indicates that the bracelet-like devices (which they call "action devices") are a part of the soring process. Furthermore, the stacks and pads are termed "performance packages" and are not a part of soring.

I think this distinction is on the basis that performance packages are considered not to produce pain. If this is the case, do you think we need to make this much clearer (whether we agree with it or not)? I would actually be in favour of creating a separate article for these performance packages as they are effectively not (at the moment) considered as soring. DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

A section on pads/stacks/packages could be added to the article on horseshoes for now. I don't know that you can find enough RS for a totally separate article longer than a stub, but if you can, go for it. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the number of RS is also a concern of mine. I just feel it is rather confusing at the moment to have these described only in an article about an illegal practice when they are legal. (Please note, I'm not trying to push a point of view here, I'm simply trying to point to a fundamental difference.) DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, basically, while chains are used on sored horses, they are not soring -- they are also used on non-sored horses. Basically, they are included because they are modalities by which soring is enhanced. Chains and rolllers are not illegal under the HPA and used properly, they just make a horse lift its feet higher, they do not cause pain. (Other breeds use them in training but not in the ring, even the flat-shod folks may use them as a training tool) The stacks (basically, a pile of hoof pads with a shoe) are also not inherently pain-causing, but bad people can hide shit in them to put pressure on the hoof (though if a horse biffs himself with one foot hitting the other leg, they can sure do a number on themselves by accident). Really high stacks and heavy chains could be added to the HPA under the proposed new laws (the PAST act), but that's been languishing for a couple years) It's a content fork to split off action devices at this point, though stacks could be added to the horseshoe article. There is an argument to be made for an article on ALL the stuff they use to train action horses (a lot of stuff back at the barn... stretchies, shackles, etc...) Would be very tricky because of the controversy and because NO ONE writes about it; it's all word of mouth. Also, we already have trouble with drivebys who remove all the stuff on soring from the Tennessee Walking Horse article. Montanabw^(talk) 23:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe an article on action devices as a group, like curb or snaffle bit? I agree about the concerns of not having separate content about something that isn't illegal. There are a lot of complainers on forums but not a lot of sources because most people learn how to train in the barn or arena and don't write it down. The chains, or sometimes weighted bands, are used on Saddlebreds for sure, and may be used on Morgans too ( there are very few Morgans in the south, so I don't see a lot of them, much less see those that do action stuff) and as far as I know, soring isn't an issue with those breeds. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Soring

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Soring's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "USDA":

• From Horse: "U.S.D.A. Promotes Horse & Goat Meat". I.G.H.A./HorseAid's U.S.D.A. Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved 2008-04-03.
• From Spotted Saddle Horse: "Horse Protection Act Review of Spotted Saddle Horse Exhibitors and Breeders Association" (PDF). United States Department of Agriculture. April 3, 2009. Retrieved 2013-03-22.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

2017 USDA site removes McGartland soring case

I came to this article because soring was used in the following news report from the Washington Post and i wanted a definition. I think that these news stories should be referenced in the "current status" section of the article, but i am not an expert on equestrian matters, so i defer for now to the article's regular editors:

(1)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/02/09/usda-animal-welfare-records-purge-may-have-been-triggered-by-horse-industry-lawsuit/?postshare=1711487353203645&tid=ss_tw

USDA removed animal welfare reports from its site. A showhorse lawsuit may be why.

By Karin Brulliard - February 9, 2017

Washington Post

The above-cited news story is about the unexpected removal of documents at the official USDA government web site that related to animal protection laws and legal cases.

The McGartland soring case is mentioned. This case does not appear in the Wikipedia article, but it should.

From the news story:

Three summers ago, Lee and Mike McGartland entered a horse named The Royal Dollar in the 74th annual Red Carpet Show of the South. A veterinary medical officer from the U.S. Department of Agriculture was there, too. The animal placed third in its class in the competition for Tennessee walking horses, which have a high-stepping gait that enthusiasts say comes from breeding and training. But it can also come from the application of caustic chemicals to a horse’s legs and other painful practices called “soring.” These are outlawed under the federal Horse Protection Act, and the Agriculture department is responsible for horse owners’ compliance. During a post-show inspection, the veterinary officer determined that The Royal Dollar was sore.

The finding resulted in one of several official warnings between 2013 and 2016 that identified the McGartlands as “violators” — warnings that appeared on a public USDA database and that now underpin a legal battle between the Texas couple and the department. The McGartlands sued, arguing that the enforcement program denies due process to those accused of violations and breaks privacy laws by publishing personal information.

(2)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/02/17/amid-outcry-some-animal-welfare-documents-restored-to-usda-website/

Amid outcry, some animal welfare documents restored to USDA website

By Sarah Kaplan - February 17 at 3:56 PM

Washington Post

The above-cited news story is about the partial reinstatement of a few documents at the official USDA government web site that related to animal protection laws and legal cases. This news story again is about soring. A possible reason for the removal of soring material from the USDA site of documents is described by the journalist; again, this concerns the McGartland case.

Quote from article:

"Among a community of showhorse trainers, many believed that this was a response to a lawsuit by Lee and Mike McGartland, two attorneys who enter Tennessee Walking Horses in various competitions. Their names had been posted on a list of “violators” in the USDA database after a government veterinary officer determined that they had used an illegal practice called “soring” to produce their horse’s high-stepping gait. The McGartlands sued the agency, arguing that the enforcement program denies due process to those accused of violations and breaks privacy laws by publishing personal information."

I think this important, and the source is the WP, which is reputable.

(catherine yronwode, posting from work, not logged in) 75.101.104.17 (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• • We can and should add some of this material, but the topic is very controversial and needs to be meticulously sourced. The total rewrite removed sources and added unsourced content, plus introduced inaccurate information. (For example, stacks and straps are not soring, per se, though they would be banned if the new rules ever go into effect)

I know you claim i did a "total rewrite" but i did not. Look at my summaries -- for every one i said i added nothing and subtracted nothing. I moved the history section, as requested, and then i wanted material in chronological order and with subheads.

I see you have gracefully agreed to the moving of the history section. Thank you.

I have now added the McGartland legal case as it occurred from 2013 - 2016, per the two WP articles. I did not add anything about the current 2017 status of the McGartland legal case against the USDA, as there are no recent sources on its status that i know of.

cat 75.101.104.17 (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Intro

This last sentence in the intro:

"While some people, and the public, think that Tennessee Walking Horses are all sored and want the horse shows to be shut down"

This is a terrible sentence. What people? The WHOLE public? I'm pretty sure most of the public aren't even aware of this practice. Kronos o (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Legal section – Undue weight

The “Legal cases” section is important to include in this article, however, the section is too large in relation to the size of the rest of the article. It also focuses almost exclusively on Jackie McConnell. If this amount of detail needs to be included about this particular case and individual, the topic should be given its own page. WP:UNDUE“…Articles that discuss one aspect of the article in too much detail… Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that we don't give undue weight to any particular subtopic in an article. Additionally, the information in the "Legal cases" section does not contain sufficient inline citations to support what is being stated, therefore the information is subject to removal. – Down time (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, the legal section isn't large enough, considering the many legal cases involving soring. The Jackie McConnell case was the largest and most detailed investigation and prosecution (and longest running disclosed "violation") of the Horse Protection Act that was ever brought against an individual. Failing having any "other" content about the man (except for his soring violations) it is unlikely he would have his own article. It is not uncommon to put a subtopic inside other articles. At some future point, maybe he'll get his own Wikipedia article; in the meantime, there's no reason the content cannot stay in this one.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)