Hypocrisy Abounds Amid Animal Rights Agenda to End Horse-Drawn Carriages in Dallas

In recent years, the debate over the use of horse-drawn carriages has intensified, particularly in cities like Dallas, Texas most recently. Animal rights groups, led by ideologues such as Jodie Wiederkehr of the Chicago Alliance for Animals and Ban Horse Carriages Dallas, have been at the forefront of efforts to ban these lawful businesses simply because they do not align with their beliefs.

While Wiederkehr and her cohorts have consistently decried the treatment of carriage horses, citing concerns over their well-being in anti-carriage campaigns across the U.S., Wiederkehr is now claiming that regardless of adherence to regulations—such as not overworking the horses or providing sufficient breaks and horses having access to water, their latest argument introduces a new twist: Now, Ms. Wiederkehr contends that even if carriage operators follow every law and regulation to the letter, accidents are the real threat. Wiederkehr sites the tragic incident in Oklahoma City last week, where a drunk driver collided with a horse-drawn carriage, resulting in hospitalization of the carriage driver and the euthanasia of the horse due to serious injuries.

Yet, while this event undoubtedly highlights the dangers of impaired and irresponsible driving, it is a flawed premise upon which to base an argument against horse-drawn carriages. The focus shifts from addressing the root cause of the accident—drunk driving—to demonizing the lawful horse-drawn carriage companies. 

What's more, it raises questions about the true motivations behind these protests from Wiederkehr and her fellow animal rights followers. While Wiederkehr and others claim to advocate for animal welfare, their actions suggest a broader agenda aimed at dismantling industries they deem incompatible with their beliefs. And by leveraging emotionally charged incidents like the drunk driving accident in Oklahoma City, they seek to sway public opinion and garner support for their ultimate cause which is the abolition of all animal use.

Wiederkehr’s shallow approach ignores the complexities of the issue at hand which is the fact that horse-drawn carriages hold cultural and traditional significance for many urban communities, serving as both a tourist attraction and wholesome family activity, as well as a link to the past, and a connection to urban horses. Moreover, it should go without saying, but countless carriage operators take pride in their animals' well-being, going to great lengths to ensure they are treated with care and respect.

Rather than targeting a specific industry, efforts would be better directed towards addressing systemic issues such as drunk driving which poses a great danger to everyone on the road. 

The debate over horse-drawn carriages in Dallas, Texas has revealed that for animal rights ideologues like Jodie Wiederkehr, it's not simply about the treatment of horses, but rather a focused plan to eliminate urban horses and law-abiding horse drawn carriage businesses regardless of how humanely the horses are treated.

Mindy Patterson is the president of The Cavalry Group, a member based company protecting and defending the Constitutional and private property rights of law-abiding animal owners, animal-related businesses, farmers and ranchers legislatively and legally nationwide.

Equine are Livestock, Not Companion Animals

In today's animal rights driven legislative reform working through at the local, state, and federal levels, it is important to understand why the legal definition for all domesticated equines to remain as livestock and oppose the current social trend of referring to them as pets or companion animals. 

The horse has long been considered livestock in the United States and throughout the world and changing the legal definition of horses to companion or other non-livestock animal would adversely affect not only the owners, but the animals themselves.

On the federal level, the care and regulation of horses and horse related activities come under the purview of the United States Department of Agriculture. It is the responsibility of the USDA to improve and maintain farm income and to carry out agricultural research. The USDA provides technical expertise and monetary support for research into the prevention of many equine diseases. The USDA is also responsible for the development and enforcement of the Horse Protection Act and the Safe Commercial Transportation of Equine to Slaughter Act. 

On the state level, each state department of agriculture is charged with the regulation of horse related activities and assists the horse industry through research and regulatory programs. Changing the livestock status of horses could result in losing financial support for research, regulation and disaster relief on both the federal and the state levels.

Livestock anti-cruelty laws are usually written to ensure humane treatment and care while still providing for the use of the animal. If horses were to be legally considered non-livestock, these laws would no longer apply. This status change would also have a major impact on limited liability laws and would no longer provide the much needed protection for stable owners, equine owners, event organizers and service providers.

Currently, under federal tax law, commercial horse owners and breeders are treated as farmers. Certain tax ramifications could be changed and have a negative impact if horses were not considered as livestock. In addition, horse owners and breeders are treated differently by state excise and sales taxes because horses are now considered livestock. These advantages could be lost. 

If horses were no longer livestock, horse breeding would no longer be an agricultural endeavor and federal and state taxes for horse operations could increase.

The terms livestock and companion animal are becoming interchangeable by the media and even in veterinary literature. Words are power and as we become accustomed to the flip-flopping of the terms and the hijacking of words by the animal rights movement.  First the public takes hold of the new term, then the legal community will come to accept the status change and the legal classification might follow.  We must understand why equine must remain classified as livestock in order to protect this classification. It all boils down to ownership of private property.

It is for these reasons that The Cavalry Group opposes any efforts to change the status of horses from agricultural livestock to companion animals.

Please be alert of any legislative efforts in your area at the local and state level to change this classification and notify us immediately. 

Mindy Patterson
President
The Cavalry Group