Horse Carriage Hearing -- An Embarrassment for Animal Rights and the Mayor

New York City carriage horse. "Sad, miserable and dispirited?"

 

I did not physically attend yesterday's City Council hearing on Intro 573-A, Mayor deBlasio's "Compromise in concept" bill to "reduce and limit" carriage horses in New York City.

.

But I watched the entire proceedings on Podcast.

.

It was a fiasco.

.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2016/01/8588891/de-blasios-horse-plan-meets-city-council-jeers

.

http://nypost.com/2016/01/22/council-stalls-on-horse-carriage-vote-over-lack-of-details-in-de-blasio-plan/

.

It was obvious from the get go, that the administration officials attempting to ram rod the Mayor's bill through the City Council had not done their homework, causing one Councilmember to sarcastically refer to it as a, "shotgun wedding."  Another quoted a New York Times article citing it as "a solution seeking a problem" and still another labeled the measure, "An empty bag with a hole."  

.

Considering that the councilmembers peppering the administration officials with pointed and derisive questions were all members of his own democratic party, such does not bode well for this bill getting out of the Transportation Committee, much less voted on anytime soon.

.

Among the dozens of questions that officials were unable to answer, were how many horse carriage drivers and pedicab operators would lose their jobs were the measure to pass, the actual costs of the estimated 25 million dollar stable to be built (one councilmember calling it a "blank check."), actual sites under consideration for the Central Park stable (the officials could only name one) and the logic of reducing horses and restricting carriage rides to Central Park long before a stable could actually be built to accommodate them -- if indeed, it would ever be built.  

.

Perhaps, most embarrassing for city officials was that while accusing horse carriages of "negatively impacting public safety and quality of life," they could only point to four documented accidents over the past five years causing injury to horses, but not to humans. (Two people were killed by bicycles just last year.) These out of roughly 300,000 carriage rides a year. Of all modes of transportation in the city, horse carriage rides are among the safest for both, animal and human.

.

Among the many opponents to the bill, were Park Advocates, Pedicab operators, horse carriage drivers, stable owners and numerous Animal Rights advocates.

.

The public comment period in fact, demonstrated a serious rift among Animal Rights proponents, with some groups and individuals opposing the measure because it was "not an outright ban on the carriage horse industry," while others supported the bill as a "step in the right direction."

.

But, even these caused skepticism in one of the councilmembers who asked if the measure was passed, "would this be the end (of the issue)?"

.

Another councilmember asked a group of five Animal Rights advocates (representing different organizations) to raise their hand if "agreeing with the ASPCA that there was nothing inherently wrong with a horse pulling a carriage" and only two did.  (Not a smart PR or strategic move before a city council hearing as it leaves no room for negotiation.)

.

This might explain why most of the councilmembers of the committee left the hearing before most of the comments were even read.

.

As an Animal Rights advocate, I was both, mystified by the proceedings as well as embarrassed for my cause.

.

Mystified by the lack of preparedness of the officials representing the mayor's goals.

.

Embarrassed, not only by the obvious division among Animal Rights proponents, but more so, by their startling lack of professionalism, reasonableness, critical thinking and strategic skills and reliance on emotionalism.   

.

Alli Taylor, Executive Director of NYCLASS, expressed as her main reason for opposing horse carriages, "sadness" when seeing the horses in Central Park. (I could say I am "stressed and inconvenienced" when encountering marathons in Central Park, but such is not credible reason for banning or even reducing them. Feelings are subjective and mostly irrelevant at fact-finding, political hearings.)

.

Many of the Animal Rights proponents in fact, relied on feelings and interpretations as primary reason for opposing carriage horses, one woman even on the verge of tears when relating how "miserable and dispirited" the horses appeared to her.

.

Several others referred to the horse carriages as "enslavement."

.

While such declarations made me personally cringe, there were some animal rights people who thankfully came across reasonable and thoughtful, chief among them, Jane Hoffman of the Mayor's Alliance for New York City Animals.

.

Expressing support for the compromise bill, Ms. Hoffman illuminated on the natural "attractant" that a few grazing carriage horses could provide for the public if allotted some pasture space in the park (presumably next to the newly created stable).  

.

I loved this image and have personally fantasized about it.  Who, after all, wouldn't feel sense of peace and tranquility watching a few horses grazing as they would do in the wild or on a farm?  Even the most ardent Animal Rights activist couldn't argue with or feel "sad" seeing that.

.

However, considering the opposition to even creating the stable in the park (which doesn't mandate turnout space), it's hard to perceive the park giving up one more inch than it absolutely has to. Space is at premium in Central Park.

.

As lovely as the idea expressed by Ms. Hoffman, it is, unfortunately, likely to remain fantasy.

.

Other fantasies put forth by Animal Rights activists were those bucolic "sanctuaries" supposedly waiting for displaced carriage horses. Both, NYCLASS and the ASPCA offered to "help carriage drivers find sanctuaries" for horses they would be forced to give up, should the bill pass.

.

I chuckled at this.

.

What human being would hand an animal over to the very people who have waged "war" against you for years and attempted to destroy your livelihood?  Such is not a basis for fuzzy, warm feelings of trust and cooperation.

.

What is lost and never mentioned in the banter about "waiting sanctuaries" is the fact that virtually all horse sanctuaries are full and cannot save all the young, fit and docile horses being trucked to foreign slaughterhouses every day. How would these sanctuaries suddenly have room to take in 145 horses left jobless by the passage of this ill conceived and misguided bill?

.

Reality is that the horses -- like all animals -- are legally, owned "property."   

.

As such, there is no law that can require any animal owner to "guarantee" lifelong care of an animal -- even pet cats and dogs. A horse is far more expensive to maintain than a cat or dog and are generally kept as animals with specific purpose or "work."

.

Remove the purpose for a horse and his/her life is then placed in jeopardy.

.

Reality is that the 145 carriage horses "removed" from carriage work are likely to either be euthanized or returned to Amish farms where they will work with few regulations and oversight and later sold at auction. (i.e. slaughter).

.

I don't understand "love" for animals that removes them from our world and sets them on precarious course and unknown fate.

.

In an ideal world where every horse was guaranteed lifelong, committed home and there was no such thing as a slaughterhouse, I might think differently about the bill.  

.

But, even then, I might think (like the NY Times), this was a solution seeking a problem.

.

Every carriage horse I have seen appeared relaxed and content to me.

.

Plus, I like the presence of all animals in New York City. -- PCA

.

.

.

                                              ***********