This is an archived Horseadvice.com Discussion. The parent article and menus are available on the navigation menu below:
HorseAdvice.com » Equine Business and Law » Legal Discussions »
  Discussion on !!!! LICENSING OF HORSES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE !!!!
Author Message
Member:
hollyw

Posted on Monday, Jan 26, 2009 - 2:01 pm:

Dr. O., if this should be under politics instead of Equine Law, please move to the appropriate department. I couldn't decide.
Thanks.

Please, we must get on this issue right away.
Go to: www.congress.organd type in your zip code to contact the appropriate representatives with your opinions.



HB 427-FN-A-LOCAL – AS INTRODUCED

2009 SESSION
09-0777
08/10
HOUSE BILL 427-FN-A-LOCAL
AN ACT relative to equine licenses.
SPONSORS: Rep. Skinder, Sull 1; Rep. Spaulding, Hills 18; Rep.
Parkhurst, Ches 4; Sen. Roberge, Dist 9; Sen. Cilley, Dist 6
COMMITTEE: Local and Regulated Revenues

ANALYSIS
This bill requires municipalities to license all equine animals.
This bill also establishes a state veterinarian’s fund.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [ ]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted
appears in regular type.
09-0777
08/10

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine AN ACT relative to
equine licenses.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in
General Court convened: 1 New Subdivision; Equine Licenses.
Amend RSA 435 by inserting after section 41 the following new
subdivision:

Equine Licenses 435:42 Procuring License. Every owner or keeper
of an equine as defined by RSA 436:93 4 months old or over shall
annually, cause it to be registered, numbered, described, and
licensed for one year in the office of the clerk of the city or
town in which the equine is kept. The license shall be furnished
by the clerk at the expense of the city or town. Regardless of
when the license is obtained, the license shall be effective from
May 1 of each year to April 30 of the subsequent year.
435:43 Vaccination Required. Before a license is issued under the
provisions of this subdivision, the owner or keeper of an equine
shall furnish to the clerk verification from a licensed
veterinarian that the equine has been vaccinated against rabies
435:44 Part of Year. An owner of an equine may at any time have
it licensed until the ensuing May 1 and a person becoming the
owner or keeper of an equine not duly licensed after May 1 shall
cause it to be registered, and licensed as provided in RSA
435:42.
435:45 Transfer. A license duly recorded shall be valid in any
part of the state, and may be transferred with the equine
licensed.
435:46 Fees.
I. The fee for every license for a year or portion of a year
shall be $25 for all equines.
II. Of the fee described in paragraph I:
(a) $10 shall be retained by the municipality to be used for
animal control costs.
(b) $10 shall be deposited in the general fund.
(c) $5 shall be deposited in the state veterinarian’s fund
established under RSA 435:51.
435:47 Payment of Fees. Clerks of the towns and cities shall
issue equine licenses, receive the money for the licenses, and
pay the same into the treasuries of their respective towns and
cities on or before June 1 each year. The clerks shall return to
their respective town or city treasurer a sworn statement of the
amount of moneys thus received and paid over by them.
435:48 Records.
I. Clerks of towns and cities shall keep a record of all licenses
issued by them, with the names of the keepers or owners of
equines licensed, and the names, registered numbers and
descriptions of all such equines. Clerks of towns and cities
shall furnish yearly to the local governing body a list of those
owners who have failed to renew their license for use in
preparing the warrant of unlicensed equines.
II. With the owner’s consent, a veterinarian may report
the euthanizing or death during treatment of a licensed equine to
the town or city clerk in order to have the record reflect that
the equine was euthanized or died. A veterinarian providing such
a report may also provide the town or city clerk with the mailing
and street addresses of the owner of the equine. Written reports,
if any, shall be destroyed after receipt by the town or city
clerk, and any resulting record reflecting the equine’s
death shall not specify the manner or cause of death.
435:49 Account. Each city and town treasurer shall keep an
accurate and separate account of all moneys received and expended
by such treasurer under the provisions of this subdivision
relating to equines.
435:50 Forfeiture. Whoever is the owner or keeper of an equine
and who fails to license or renew the equine license pursuant to
RSA 435:42 shall forfeit $25 to the town or city clerk of the
municipality in which the equine is kept. If the forfeiture is
not made to the town or city clerk within 15 calendar days of the
notice of forfeiture, the case may be disposed of in a district
court as a violation with a fine not to exceed $50,
notwithstanding the provisions of RSA 651:2, IV. A forfeiture
shall not relieve the owner or keeper of the requirement of
proper licensing of the equine as required by RSA 435:42. Any
forfeitures collected under this section may be retained by the
city or town for the administration and enforcement of this
chapter.
435:51 State Veterinarian’s Fund.
I. There is hereby established in the office of the state
treasurer a state veterinarian’s fund which shall be kept
distinct and separate from all funds. Five dollars from each fee
collected in RSA 434:47 shall be credited to such fund. Such fund
shall be nonlapsing and continually appropriated to the
department of agriculture, markets and food, state veterinarian
for the carrying out of his or her duties.
II. The fee established under RSA 435:47 shall accrue and be paid
to the department on June 1 of each year.
2 New Subparagraph; State Veterinarian’s Fund. Amend RSA
6:12, I(b) by inserting after subparagraph (276) the following
new subparagraph:
(277) Moneys deposited in the state veterinarian’s fund
established in RSA 435:51.
3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect July 1, 2009.
LBAO
09-0777
01/14/09

HB 427-FN-A-LOCAL AN ACT relative to equine licenses.
FISCAL IMPACT:


The Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food and the New
Hampshire Municipal Association estimate this bill will increase
state and local revenue, and increase local expenditures by an
indeterminable amount in FY 2010 and each year thereafter. There
will be no fiscal impact on county revenue or state and county
expenditures.
METHODOLOGY:

The Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food states that this
bill will require that all equines in the state are licensed
annually for $25 collected by the town or city clerk in the
municipality in which they are kept, with the licensing fee
revenue being distributed amongst the municipalities involved
($10), the state general fund ($10), and a newly established,
continually appropriated State Veterinarian’s fund ($5).
Using 2 different formulas, the Department estimated between
19,000 and 24,000 horses will require licensure in the state,
with the number remaining static from year to year. The
Department further assumed an estimated owner compliance of 80%.
The range of the estimated revenue increase annually is as
follows:
Department’s

Estimates of 80% of Municipal State General State
Veterinarian’s
Equines Estimate portion ($10) Fund portion ($10) Fund portion
($5)
19,000 15,200 $152,000 $152,000 $76,000
24,000 19,200 $192,000 $192,000 $96,000
The Department also states the bill will require administrative
work to process the receipts. It assumes that this work will be
undertaken by a Data Control Clerk II (LG 12, Step 5) currently
on staff at the Department and will require approximately a
week’s worth of time. While this bill is not requesting
additional positions, the Department states the additional work
required under this proposal may impact the existing duties of
the Department’s current staff member. The Department also
estimates that there would be an indeterminable increase to local
expenditures, as the various town/city clerks would be
responsible for collection of the fees and its associated cost.


LBAO
09-0777
01/14/09
The New Hampshire Municipal Association states that this bill
would increase local revenue by $10 for each license granted (to
be used for animal control costs) and $25 for each forfeiture
collected for non-compliance (may be used to fund enforcement of
this bill), but maintains that it cannot estimate the total
impact on local revenue. The Association also states that the
proposal would increase local expenditures by an indeterminable
amount for collection costs.
Member:
hollyw

Posted on Monday, Jan 26, 2009 - 2:51 pm:

Sorry . . . this IS a state bill, supposedly concerned with rabies licenses . . . but read it over, please.. . . Many of us feel it is a foot in the door for NAIS, so please, if you know any horse owners in New England and especially New Hampshire, forward this info to them and have them be aware of the start of licensing. It's not a far cry from what NAIS wants to do on a national scale.
Member:
imogen

Posted on Monday, Jan 26, 2009 - 6:28 pm:

Holly, we have national licensing and all horses are chipped. It is a good thing. You can find stolen horses and also the registered owner for abandoned horses...

People complain about the one-off cost of getting a vet to chip the horse and mark up a diagram for the passport (about 60 euros) but it's been a good system introduced under European Union, not national law, over a period of years.

It actually helps the welfare people because if the horse isn't chipped, the neglectful owner is more likely to give it over to the charity.

Just another view.

Imogen
Member:
hollyw

Posted on Monday, Jan 26, 2009 - 8:00 pm:

Thanks, Imogen, for your input. I respect you and your opinions.

I understand the good reasons for having licenses, but in this case, since some of us have been fighting the National Animal Identification System here, I see this as a subtle "in" for the proponents of NAIS who want to have every animal chipped and tracked . . . (even poultry) . . .

If I were in New Hampshire, and this law passed, as I understand it, I'd have to license each of my 11 horses for 25 dollars a pop . . . that's a big bunch of money to add to the bills I already pay to care for my guys. In my opinion, it will be just another reason for people to dump their horses . . .

It's obviously a revenue "thing" for the gov't, too.
Moderator:
DrO

Posted on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 - 7:36 am:

Thanks for the heads up Holly,
I agree this is an area where state government is being more intrusive than is necessary or good for the general welfare of the citizens. It will be interesting in how the tax-adverse citizens of NH will view this: horse owners holding up their fair share of State Animal Health fees or another intrusive government institution to shake down the public with.

Imogen when you give over the power to require licensure you give them the power to take away your horses if you don't comply. You agree with the procedure of "passport and chip" but what if the next requirement is so onerous that you no longer enjoy or are capable of keeping horses? Is your experience that the European Union always makes reasonable laws? I would also note that by it being a EU you suffer from an ability to address your complaints to those who are indebted to your vote.
That Lawless American,
DrO
Member:
ajudson1

Posted on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 - 8:44 am:

DrO,

Besides the fact that this is another attempt by the government to have their hands in our private lives and pocket book, I am confused about the mandatory rabies vaccination.

A) How often do horses contact rabies?
B) Are there cases of horses passing the rabies on to people?

I thought in most cases if a horse contacted rabies they got depressed, not aggressive. Woudn't they have to bite someone to pass it on?

Boy, this one would get me p.o.'d if it were law here, my horses all have such awful reactions to the rabies that I quit giving the shots.

I'd be one of the lawless ones too if that were passed here. And these types of laws have a way of creeping up on us, so thanks Holly for the info.
Member:
stevens

Posted on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 - 11:47 am:

I'm with Imogen on this.

I'm curious as to the opinion those opposing this regarding the current laws regarding licensing of dogs? I believe that there are people who should have their horses taken away; don't you?

What about requiring drivers' licenses? Vehicle registration? Requiring insurance? Living in Southern California, I'm very glad that the government is interfering in these particular matters.

$25 extra a year per horse does add up for multiple horses but I would be surprised if it's more than 1% of the total annual cost if that.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you want to argue against this proposal based on personal privacy and liberities, that's fine. Cost is not a valid argument.

Dr. O: There's a great book that you may have already read called "Everything I want to do is Illegal". I don't remember the author.
Member:
hollyw

Posted on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 - 12:14 pm:

Dogs are prone to rabies, attacking neighbors' animals, biting delivery men, etc.

Drivers require training for being able to drive big machines that can kill. Living in So. Cal. with the number of illegals who drive without insurance . . . well, of course, licenses and insurance are good ideas.

Cost is always a consideration with everything we do. That's why capitalism works. We shop around for the best price. We aren't all told that we have to pay $xx amount for everything.

Requiring $25 per horse to register a rabies tag with the municipality is a terrible expense on top of the regular vet costs and feed costs and boarding costs and farrier costs, etc., especially for those of us who have multiple horses. The attitude that "it's only an extra 1%" is the attitude that allows taxes (and therefore, government) to grow and grow and grow and grow . . .

Every time a law is passed, we lose a little bit more of our liberty. Every time.

Removing horses from the care of incompetent owners will not come about from licensing. Plenty of licensed dogs have cruel, abusive, neglectful owners.
Member:
hollyw

Posted on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 - 12:22 pm:

LOL . . . ummmm . . .
My heartrate just increased . . . lol . . . I hope we don't have to move this to the Lounge . . . under "heated discussions."

(Aside: Just yesterday a friend apologized for making a political statement and added, "I shouldn't talk to friends about politics." My response was, "Of COURSE, we should talk to friends about politics, religion, philosophy . . . anything . . . because we're FRIENDS!")
Member:
stevens

Posted on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 - 12:54 pm:

Holly,

First of all, let me say that I agree that we can have even a heated discussion and remain friends that respect each other.

What makes you think dogs are "prone to rabies"? Rabies is pretty much unknown in the UK and there certainly are plenty of dogs there. I would also assert that the vast majority of dogs don't attack livestock or bite delivery men.

As far as the "attitude" that it's only an extra 1% contributing to a growth in taxes, I would submit that it's businesses operating on inadequate margin that results in them failing and some looking to the all evil government for bailouts. My point was that if someone can't afford $25 a year to license a horse, they should be taking a closer look at their overall ability to afford a horse at all particularly to provide a minimum level of health care.

I believe that it's the attitude of entitlement that causes problems. I'm entitled to drive a car (even if I don't have a license or insurance). I'm entitled to have a horse or dog (even if I can't afford to take care of said animal).

There are plenty of laws that protect our liberty instead of taking them away. Say for instance the one that makes it illegal for the government to conduct unwarranted wiretaps on US citizens.
Member:
hollyw

Posted on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 - 1:31 pm:

Dogs are most commonly vaccinated against rabies (and now some places are requiring it for cats, too) because they are more prone to getting rabies than other pets.

In areas concentrated with rabies, horses are often recommended to get the shots, but not required.

Dogs are much more prone to bite people than are horses, Chris. I don't understand the UK connection about dogs and rabies. I do know that Europeans are much more used to having government intervention in their lives than are most Americans. It's just the way it is.

Again . . . I say that $25 dollars per horse is a lot when you x it times the number of horses, and I have to also say that assuming that everyone should be able to afford what others decide they should be able to afford, isn't a good test. Some folks may think horse owners should be able to afford blankets and boots and the best tack for their horses and the best grain and alfalfa . . . while others may only be able to afford a used bridle, hay from the farmer next door, and a stand of cedar trees in a pasture.

$25 dollars for licensing with the municipality doesn't = being able to afford and care for said animal, but requiring horse owners to cough up that extra money might make it harder for them to afford having horses. What one person can afford shouldn't be used as the standard for what everyone can afford.

Taxes are taxes. Taxes take money out of OUR pockets and put them in the coffers of the gov't. In this case, for what?? I'd prefer to allow horse owners to keep the $25 per horse in their own pockets and, thus, be better able to afford better hay and more grain for the horses.

You are right on the last paragraph, I think. Most laws, though, are an attempt to limit us in what we can do.
Member:
stevens

Posted on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 - 2:44 pm:

Holly,

I appreciate your passion, however, you are not backing up your statements with facts.

You say that "Dogs are much more prone to bite people than are horses" I have personally been bitten by a dog exactly once. I have personally been bitten or nipped by horses so many times I've lost count. Granted, not a statistically significant sample size, but real data. This probably also says more about me than either dogs or horses.

The UK connection was intended to refute your claim that dogs are prone to rabies. The UK has many dogs, the UK does not have rabies. There is nothing specific about dogs that implies any tendency towards rabies.

As far as Europeans having more government invention in their lives, well, they certainly don't have to worry about having health care like folks in the US do. Also, they are not subjected to the personal liability lawsuits we see in the US. Baby, bathwater, ...

Yes, if you have 100 horses, it's going to cost you $2500 a license them in New Hampshire. If the owner of said 100 horses has 100 acres and provides adequate feed and water to 100 horses, I'll bet that extra $2500 isn't going to break the bank. If on the other hand, the owner has 100 scarecrows on a 5 acre dirt lot, then maybe an extra $2500 is a real problem. Who do you think is the responsible horse owner?

It's not a matter of buying blankets or treats or supplements or expensive tack or what one person can afford compared to anyone else. I'm looking at this from a strict business perspective. If someone is engaged in some activity that stretches their finances to the point that they cannot afford a 1% increase in expenses, then I believe that they are walking a very tight line and should re-examine what they are doing. People make choices. My opinion; yours may differ.

Taxes also pay for roads and other infrastructure. Taxes pay our police and firefighters and the military. In my neck of the woods, $25 buys 1 100 pound bale of bermuda hay that lasts my horse 1 week. Again, if I can't afford $25/year to license a horse I have much bigger equine expense issues to worry about.

All laws limit someone in someway. If a law mandates that you do something, it's limiting you from doing something else. The point is that it's supposed to be for the greater good. Name me a law that you find offensive and I'll counter it with an example of a good one.

I'll grant you that some laws seem overly restrictive. Personally, I can't stand the whole speed limit thing. You should get to "test" to determine your personal speed limit. I've worked hard to afford a car that's built to go fast, I've gone to performance driving school and I maintain my car/tires/brakes. I should be allowed to drive faster than the yahoo in the busted down Corolla belching smoke careening between lanes between LA and Las Vegas. No offense intended towards any Corolla drivers, unless your car is belching smoke and you're driving like a maniac between LA and Las Vegas in which case yes, I mean you!!!
Member:
imogen

Posted on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 - 5:07 pm:

Dear all

Our politicans are just as capable as yours of making dotty laws but in general things can usually be remedied!

I sent a reply earlier which didn't take for some reason - which said I agree a license would have caused a lot more resistance than the one-off passport/chip which we have which has been pretty much uncontroversial.

Best wishes

Imogen
Member:
ajudson1

Posted on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 - 5:37 pm:

I still haven't got an answer backed with facts as to how many cases of rabies there were in NH, how many cases of people getting them from dogs, and how many cases from horses.

No one needs another tax/license fee to add to the burden of caring for their family, or their pets. When is the last time a tax went down on anything? Our property taxes go up yearly, but our road is still a wreck.

Chris,

Just because someone can care for their 100 horses does not mean that the extra $2500 isn't going to hurt like H$LL. Especially when nowadays it's hard in many areas to even GIVE a horse away.

Politicians dream up a lot of things that they twist around as being in our best interests. BULL.

Somewhere there was something I read that like 100 years ago we had like 10 taxes. Now I swear it seems like there are taxes on taxes!

A drivers license to keep the roads safe, good idea. And many who have them, need to revoked, lol! A rabies vaccination...for horses that never leave the property? That would be the case for many owners.

A test to see what your personal speed limit is? Hmmmm...well, o.k., you can go 90 mph...and I wish you luck on our roads! And if you kill someone, you can say, "well, I am tested to go 90 mph, it's not my fault gramma there was only going 40 and got in my way?"

So your idea of the speed limit test says extra schooling makes you safer and you get some perks. And you've been fortunate in life, through hard work to afford a race car, and so you should be allowed to drive like a race car driver on the road ways.

And the poor soul who has worked hard also, but never made the same income and can only afford an older car...

Just to lighten this discussion a bit...I don't want fur flying here...in town this afternoon, I was waiting to pull out onto the main street, and an older very beat up car went by me, spewing out so much smoke I was afraid to pull up behind it at the intersection for fear it was going to start on fire! After the car went through the intersection, no one moved for about a minute, because no one could SEE!

And then I come home and read that last paragraph...funny!
Member:
hollyw

Posted on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 - 6:37 pm:

Suffice it to say that I don't want more gov't intervention, regulations, permit processes, or taxes in my life, and I hope there are enough voters in New Hampshire who actively hold the same philosophy.

I am a Jeffersonian . . . and resent it when the gov't feels it has to take care of me and everything that concerns me. I'd rather do it myself, with or without health care. No one else should have to take care of me or my horses, and I shouldn't have to do it for anyone else . . . unless I choose to do so . . . That's what FREEDOM is . . .

I see the licensing as gov't nosiness and as setting a precedent for more and more of its control on our lives. It's a subtle and dangerous encroachment . . . in my opinion. I don't like to be forced into anything, and if I were in New Hampshire, I'd be holding up the state flag saying, "DON'T TREAD ON ME!"
Member:
stevens

Posted on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 - 6:51 pm:

Ladies,

It's all about choices. I do agree with Holly that we should make our own choices. I also believe that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin, back to that greater good idea.

Regarding how "fortunate" I may or may not have been in life; well, nobody handed anything to me. I earned it all myself, making choices along the way. I don't believe in luck other than that you make yourself.
Member:
hollyw

Posted on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 - 8:26 pm:

Thank you, Chris. Amen . . . on the freedom to make personal choices that don't cause harm. And, of course, America's founders agreed that tyranny was not acceptable . . . and that good will should guide our principles of conduct under the Almighty's merciful benevolence (Note the opening statement of the bill "in the year of OUR LORD . . . talk about mixing religion with politics . . . another subject) . . . which happens to fall on both the good and the evil . . . but choices DO have consequences, and we reap what we sow. The majority wanted LESS gov't than what they had under British rule. Many of us still do.

Therefore, since we are all taxed out of our skins already (California, I hear is due for a tripling of state taxes within the next 10 years) then I propose that this piece of legislation is coming at a very bad time.

As to why we are required to give rabies vacs to dogs more than to other animals, I would like the vets on the board to comment. I do think that there is a more prominent connection between rabies being contracted and passed between dogs and people than between horses and people, isn't there?
Member:
ajudson1

Posted on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 - 9:44 pm:

Another thing I didn't see mentioned anywheres above:

On top of the $25.00 fee for license, there would be the farm call for the vet to give the rabies vaccination, and the fee for the actual shot itself. I know here in MI I can give rabies shots to the dogs and horses, but in the event of one of our dogs biting someone, that vaccination would not be considered valid. As far as I know, there are not very many states which allow shipment of rabies vaccines to pet owners. More being forced on the horse owners then.
Moderator:
DrO

Posted on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 - 10:50 pm:

Hello All,
As a free people we are entitled. This is elegantly stated in the Declaration of Independence. History suggests that the best purpose for a government is to protect our entitlements from being removed by force. Our founding fathers knew this and also knew the problems created by a government which exceeded this mandate so created a constitution to circumscribe the governments power. Unfortunately it has become a common thought that the government is "kind, good, and wise" enough to decide what we should be allowed to keep and so the government grows larger and more powerful. More and more they are becoming the thieves and if your tax rate does not convince you, study the recent Supreme Court decision of Kelo vs New London. Important to note is the political leaning of the justices who voted for private property rights and those who voted against. But this is a self indulgent digression since we are talking about state governments and I do not know what NH constitution says.

From a epidemiological stand point dogs are more predisposed to contracting rabies when compared to horses. This is easily seen in areas where there are dogs and horses. The incidence of rabies is far higher in the dog population. There are many reasons for this and it is uncertain that horses are more resistant to rabies. Concentration is certainly one factor but also a dogs habit of attacking smaller animals that may have rabies certainly predisposes him to the disease when compared to the horse. Once rabies is contracted dogs are far more likely to transmit it. The aggressive form of the disease is uncommon in horses so humans are exposed to horses usually during an examination for unknown neurological disease. Human rabies contracted from a rabid horse is essentially unreported. On the other hand the rabid dog will aggressively attack folks. Licensing horses based on protecting humans from disease is a bit of a stretch and the 25 dollars is just where it starts, the veterinarian will want to be paid for the vaccination and then you must make a trip to the court to get the license. Note having been exposed to rabies by a horse, I won’t work on febrile horses with neurological symptoms that has not been vaccinated for rabies and my clients know it.

Rabies vaccination of dogs and cats has greatly lowered the rate at which humans are exposed to the disease. What is not clear is whether this would have happened with or without license or even if license requirements may have gotten in the way. I would note the vast majority of our clients vaccinate their dogs and cats for diseases far less horrendous and not near as dangerous, yet these are not required by law. The small percentage who choose "rabies only" seem chiefly motivated by concern for their own health and the idea that their dog will be euthanized for rabies testing if he bites someone and his rabies vaccination not current.

Is it possible that community pressure and self interest might be a greater motivator than a law to do the right thing? Is it possible to conjecture a scenario where such laws might be counterproductive to their goal? It is always important to remember that when you pay for one thing you sacrifice others. What better use of these taxes could the government have found? Rabies clinics? Or more to the point what better use could the citizen have found for those taxes? Paying for rabies vaccines?

Licensing cars is different since you must drive your car on a public road so must follow the public rules.

Imogen, from one distant kindred Irish person to another, how easy will it be to correct the EU foibles that are sure to be in your future?
DrO
Member:
imogen

Posted on Wednesday, Jan 28, 2009 - 2:40 am:

Dr O, I personally am sceptical about closer European Union for the reason that having different national systems acts as a bureaucratic brake on odd laws. However, I am very much of the opinion that for the same reason, the European Parliament needs more power to weight it compared to the Council of Ministers and the Commission.

You will no doubt be aware that we Irish messed it all up by voting "no" to the Lisbon treaty (our constitution says there has to be a referendum on new EU treaties) therefore we are shortly to be asked to vote, and vote again, until we give the "right" answer... :-)

But to return to the point in question. A lot of it depends on enforcement which is both the strength and the weakness in Ireland. It will be hard for a lot of you to understand the respect and goodwill there is between our Guards and the people in general (Cheryl A might wish to give an outsider's view here...).

The only way our passports are enforced are by Guards stopping trailers (the law is you must have a passport to move an equine) or at the larger shows or when horses are found wandering on roads. The only time it causes hassle is when it should - at horse fairs (which are specifically Irish and largely lawless occasions when cruelty sometimes occurs).

So it works in practice in Ireland mainly because it's not enforced very much but it does work!

Best wishes

Imogen
Member:
wgillmor

Posted on Wednesday, Jan 28, 2009 - 7:51 am:

South Dakota, Wyoming, Nevada, Colorado and Utah all have mandatory brand inspection that seems to differ little from this. By reputation, some of these are the most anti-government states in the country.

At least in my area of Colorado and for sport horse owners this is little enforced. I know of two cases where it proved useful. One settled an ownership dispute. In the other, two horses evacuated in a recent fire here in Boulder county were identified by the Brand Inspector and reunited with there owners.

Maybe the authors of the New Hampshire law should call them Brand Inspections rather than licenses.

Wiley
Member:
ajudson1

Posted on Wednesday, Jan 28, 2009 - 8:28 am:

Very well written response DrO. Thank you for clarifying the rabies & horses questions I had asked.

Some additions thoughts I have:

A better program would be one that gives free or low cost neutering to cats and dogs. Paid for with dog licenses.

Any time we start thinking the government has our best interests in mind, I suggest we slowly and carefully pull our heads out of....the sand.

When our focus is on the big issues, like the economy and bail outs right now, we need to pay attention to the little things that the government is trying to sneak by us.

Wiley,

Other than the brands, do those states mandate that certian vaccinations be given also in order to get the brand? If so, how do they reinforce it year to year?
Member:
wgillmor

Posted on Wednesday, Jan 28, 2009 - 8:37 am:

Hi Patti,

I can only speak for Colorado, which does not require vaccinations.

Here is a link to some information and further links on Brand Inspections:

https://www.horseandmuletrails.com/brandinspection.htm

Wiley
Member:
wgillmor

Posted on Wednesday, Jan 28, 2009 - 8:44 am:

By the way, you are not required to have a Brand in order to get a Brand Inspection, although it may be recommended. The Inspector just records the markings on the horse, which may or may mot include a brand, and inspects the documentation (e.g. bill of sale) showing the transfer of the horse. If the horse has already been inspected or is moving in from a non-inspection state, it is easy and takes just a few minutes, most spent admiring you horse.

If your horse has never been inspected and you are just trying to get him legal it takes longer, but not usually a problem.

Wiley
Moderator:
DrO

Posted on Wednesday, Jan 28, 2009 - 9:45 am:

Good for the Irish I say! Laws made in haste are often later regretted. The EU certainly has beneficial goals of inter-country cooperation but when it begins to regulate a countries internal affairs I think it will be hard to get good legislation and even harder to correct the bad.
DrO
Member:
wgillmor

Posted on Thursday, Jan 29, 2009 - 2:42 pm:

For Holly, DrO and others with their opinion:

https://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=13526

Wiley
Member:
ajudson1

Posted on Thursday, Jan 29, 2009 - 7:10 pm:

GOOD!!

Thanks Wiley, made my day.
Member:
hollyw

Posted on Thursday, Jan 29, 2009 - 9:43 pm:

Thanks for the info, Wiley.
Member:
zarr

Posted on Friday, Jan 30, 2009 - 5:29 pm:

As for the Good news this whole idea was shot down by a Large outcry from all of New Hampshire! Did not take them long to make theirs voices heard! Good Job!
Member:
erika

Posted on Saturday, Jan 31, 2009 - 10:30 am:

Sanity and freedom triumphant!

Erika
Home Page | Top of Page | Join Us!
Horseadvice.com is a BBB Accredited Business. Click for the BBB Business Review of this Horse Training in Stokesdale NC