NEWS &VIEWScontinued...


• July 1, 2016 – 3.8 cents/gallon increase (if Congress does not pass interstate sales tax; if Congress passes the tax, the increase will only be 0.5 cents/gallon) • Every year on July 1st thereafter – 0.5 cents/ gallon increase


Equine Neglect Trial in September James Houseman III (a resident of


Littlestown, PA) appeared Wednesday, May 29 in Maryland’s District Court for Frederick County for a preliminary hearing to answer to two counts of animal cruelty, with one count specifying that he failed to provide proper veterinary care (see Maryland Criminal Law Title 10, Subtitle 6). T e Houseman case was but one of many on


a crowded, busy docket, to be heard in between restraining orders,


drug charges, underage


drinking charges and a variety of other criminal cases. T e prosecution, which intends to present as many as 10 witnesses (including four vets), asked that the judge grant a special trial day devoted specifi cally to this one case. T e judge complied, and Wednesday, September 4, 2013 has been established for a trial in two misdemeanor counts of equine neglect.


Who is Houseman? Who is this man? Is this a case of a neophyte not knowing how to care for horses? A collector turned hoarder now in a crisis situation? A review of Houseman’s court records spanning the course of twenty years (just in Maryland) indicate that Houseman is something of a fl im-fl am man, a petty con man, always working an angle. A close examination of the cases reveals that Houseman is adept at playing the system, drawing out a case with a variety of delay tactics until the plaintiff or the prosecution gives up. Houseman has been prosecuted by the State of Maryland or sued by private citizens for theft (petty and felony), forgery, counterfeiting documents, acting as a contractor without appropriate licenses, for failure to execute contracts, forcible entry, and detention. Records show a variety of bankruptcy fi lings and a smattering of traffi c violations. In addition to the current charges, records


indicate a series of charges in 2012 for allowing horses to run loose. On January 9, 2012 Frederick County charged him with allowing a horse to run at large, but the District Court for Frederick dismissed the charge on May 17 of the same year. Again, on January 12, he was charged with failure to restrain horses, and this charge was dismissed on May 16. On January 18, 2012, there was another charge for failure to restrain horses. T is was also dismissed on May 16. Ironically, on March 20 of 2012, the county cited him again for allowing horses to “run at large.” On April 24, 2012, Houseman pled guilty to that charge, which entailed a fi ne of $200. No one in the horse world really seems to know


www.equiery.com | 800-244-9580


him, but apparently he presented himself as a professional who boarded horses, including more than a dozen T oroughbreds for a Florida man.


Houseman Hits the Horse Industry’s Radar Equiery readers will fi rst remember Houseman when he appeared in our pages in November 2011 after Pennsylvania seized 21 neglected horses at a Littlestown, PA farm he was renting. At that time, he had 35 horses in T urmont, and Frederick County offi cials assured the media that they were closely monitoring him. In February of 2012, Pennsylvania convicted him on 14 counts of animal cruelty. Houseman received probation and was ordered to pay $35,000 in restitution to the local SPCA. Meanwhile, during this time, Frederick


County had issued Houseman several citations for allowing horses to run at large, and failure to restrain horses. Houseman pled guilty to one, and the others were dismissed. And then, in November, witnesses complained to Frederick County Animal Control that a halter was embedded in the face of one of the horses. T ey investigated, and on November 9, animal control sedated the horse and a vet removed the halter, verifying in the process that the halter had, indeed, cut into the horse’s face down to the bone. According to Assistant States Attorney Jacob


Craven, who is prosecuting the case, the horse died ten days after the halter was removed, and Animal Control had a necropsy performed. Necropsy results indicated that the horse suff ered from parasites and an ensuing infection as a result of those parasites compromised the horse’s health and—ostensibly—the horse’s ability to recover from the procedure to remove the halter. After a little bit of paper shuffl ing, the county fi led


two charges against Houseman for neglect, cruelty and failure to provide proper veterinary care. According to Brian Englar, a reporter for the


Frederick News-Post, Houseman disputes that the horse died as a result of complications due to the embedded halter, and claims that the horse really died as a result of “a tranquilizer dart left in her intestine by Animal Control offi cers, who accounted for only two of the three darts they used.” According to Englar, Animal Control


acknowledges that the dart was left in the horse, but said the necropsy revealed it had nothing to do with the animal’s death, and that the horse’s death was as a result of health complications due to neglect. Furthermore, Houseman claimed to Englar that he knew about the problem with the halter and had tried several times to catch the unruly horse, he said, even bringing in an expert from a local ranch to try to lasso the animal, without success. Since then, Houseman has voluntarily


relinquished his horses to an equine rescue and sanctuary, so prosecutors are not in a position


to leverage in court the seizure of the horses. Nevertheless, ASA Craven promises more than a dozen witnesses who will be called testify against Houseman in the September trial on the two current counts of neglect.


Maryland’s Senator Tydings & MHC Back Federal Equine Anti-soring Bill


Harford County resident Joseph Davies


Tydings, who served as a U.S. Senator from 1964 to 1970, is taking a lead position supporting a federal equine anticruelty bill, H.R. 1518, which is another attempt to abolish the practice known as “soring” found in some of the gaited horse show worlds. On May 22, 2013, Tydings received the full support of the Maryland Horse Council with a unanimous resolution endorsing H.R. 1518. T e Maryland Horse Council is the umbrella association for all horse organizations in Maryland, and is active in state legislative and regulatory issues aff ecting the horse industry and the equestrian community. T e bill was brought to the attention of the Maryland Horse Council by two of its board members, those representing the seats held by the Plantation Walking Horses of Maryland and the Chesapeake Plantation Walking Horse Club. Both organizations promote the natural gait of the Walking Horse breeds. A resolution to endorse H.R. 1518 was entered by the representative for the Maryland Association of Equine Practitioners (vice president Pete Radue, DVM); the motion to support the resolution was made by the representative for the Maryland Steeplechase Association and quickly seconded by numerous other organizations. H.R. 1518, known as the “Prevent All


Soring Tactics Act of 2013,” was introduced by Congressmen Ed Whitfi eld (R-KY), and is intended to strengthen the Horse Protection Act (HPA) to prevent soring. T e HPA was enacted in 1970 (with then Senator Tydings as a sponsor) to prohibit the showing, exhibiting, transporting or sale at auction of a horse that has been sored. T e U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which enforces the HPA, deems soring as involving the use of action devices, chemicals, pads, wedges or practices like trimming a horse’s hoof to expose sensitive tissue, so that it causes pain in the horse’s forelegs and produces an accentuated show gait for competition. According to the USDA, soring has been primarily used with Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, and Spotted Saddle Horses and continues in some regions despite the existence of a federal ban for over forty years.


If there is already a law to prevent soring, why do we need H.R. 1518? Technically, the horse show industry has been


continued on page 10 JULY 2013 | THE EQUIERY | 9


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96