Pierce County Animal Control (PCAC) The case of Magic: A Tennessee Walking Horse in Roy, Washington Pierce County Animal Control appreciates animal advocates. Too often, we see cases that have taken years for a neighbor or passerby to report. These preventable events are always heartbreaking. While we’ve appreciated the opportunity to investigate this allegation of equine abuse, the volume and tenor of the complaints is no longer helpful. And some of the assertions are completely inaccurate. PCAC’s Actions to Date Pierce County Animal Control takes every allegation of animal cruelty seriously. All of the Pierce County Animal Control Officers are nationally certified Equine Abuse investigators, and our office has extensive experience with equine cruelty investigations. In Pierce County, which has the highest standard in Washington State, “adequate care” means: 1. Food or feed appropriate to the species for which it is intended. Both food and water must be in sufficient quantity, quality, and form appropriate to sustain the animals and should be in containers designed and situated to allow the animal easy access; and 2. A shelter that keeps the animals in a healthful, sanitary, warm, dry, and safe condition, and allows the animal to turn around freely, sit, stand, and lie without restriction, and by application does not cause injury, disfigurement, or physical impairment to the animal. 3. Adequate veterinary medical care. The horse in question is receiving adequate care, as defined by law. Between June 2015 and March 2016, Pierce County Animal Control (PCAC) visited Magic (the horse) and his owners on more than six occasions. o o o A majority of visits were unannounced inspections, in response to citizen complaints. Three different Animal Control Officers (ACOs) have made hands-on examinations of the horse. The horse is kept in a 14’ x 16’ stall which has been clean and dry at the time of ACO visits. The animal owners have cooperated with each investigation and allowed PCAC on site for repeated visits. o The horse is seen regularly by a trained farrier who has specialized knowledge of performance “stacks” worn by some Tennessee Walkers.1 “Stacks” are not illegal and the horse does not appear to be in pain from wearing these shoes. Inspection of the horse and the premises indicate that the horse is receiving adequate care. PCAC Supervisor Boman made these notes on a visit at the end of February: “Officer Page and I made a visit to see Magic today. The horse was not in his stall. The owner was working with the horse. The stall of the horse was being cleaned. I went hands on with the horse and scored it at a 6. The horse had good muscle tone and in very good shape. The horse did have on performance stacks and but the legs were not wrapped. I lifted the horses legs to check for soring and there was no evidence that this horse was sored. There were no scars, wounds or injuries on the horse. The horse was in very good condition and well cared for.” Unresolvable Issues There are two issues that cannot be resolved by Animal Control:   Techniques used to train Tennessee Walking Horses. Exercise and socialization of animals. Tennessee Walking Horses Some horse enthusiasts object to the training methods used to create “the big lick” gate of the Tennessee Walking Horse. In the case of Magic, a performance shoe is used. It is not illegal and it is not causing him injury or pain. For citizens who are concerned about the training and treatment of Tennessee Walking Horses, we suggest contacting their United States Congressional Representative or Senators. Ask Congress to support the PAST Act that has been stalled in committee since April 2015. Exercise and Isolation There is no doubt that regular exercise and socialization is beneficial to cats, dogs, horses, and many other animals that PCAC sees. However, there is no law that regulates exercise or isolation for animals in a case like this2. Cruelty or neglect is only proven when an animal begins to suffer from injury, physical impairment, or unnecessary / unjustifiable physical pain as a result of the lack of exercise or isolation. 1 According to the Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders’ and Exhibitors’ Association, performance horses of the walking horse breed are commonly shown with double nailed and triple nailed pads [stacks] to add dimension of the hoof, provide a sounder base and change certain angles and paths in the motion of the hoof. Pads are an integral part of the training of the performance Tennessee Walking Horse. They assert that showing the horse suffers no harm caused by “stacks,” if properly maintained and utilized. 2 RCW 16.52.310 Dog breeding—Limit on the number of dogs—Required conditions This statute does require commercial kennels / commercial dog breeders to provide each dog that is over the age of four months with a minimum of one exercise period during each day for a total of not less than one hour of exercise during such day. The majority of complaints we are receiving focus on the horse’s isolation and lack of exercise. We have no evidence that the horse is suffering. There have been demands that Animal Control hire an “independent veterinarian” to evaluate the horse. This would require a warrant and we have no evidence that would support a warrant. In summary, PCAC acknowledges that everyone has different personal standards for how to treat animals. Many people consider animals to be members of their families. Others do not. We deal with these differences every day. But, PCAC must adhere to the law, not personal standards. Whether it’s a dog ignored in a backyard, or a horse kept in a stall, unless conditions create physical harm or pain, it is not illegal. Applicable Laws PCC 6.02.010 “Adequate care” means providing the following to animals: 1. Food or feed appropriate to the species for which it is intended. Both food and water must be in sufficient quantity, quality, and form appropriate to sustain the animals and should be in containers designed and situated to allow the animal easy access; and 2. A shelter that keeps the animals in a healthful, sanitary, warm, dry, and safe condition, and allows the animal to turn around freely, sit, stand, and lie without restriction, and by application does not cause injury, disfigurement, or physical impairment to the animal. 3. Adequate veterinary medical care. PCC 6.03.010 (J). Failure to Provide Adequate Care. It is unlawful for any owner or person having control or custody of any animal to fail to provide adequate care as defined in PCC 6.02.010 under circumstances not amounting to animal cruelty as defined in RCW 16.52.205 or 16.52.207. A violation of this subsection is a Class 3 Civil Infraction. (Circumstances that amount to animal cruelty as defined in RCW 16.52.205 and 16.52.207 are addressed pursuant to those provisions.) RCW 16.52.207 Animal cruelty in the second degree—Penalty. (1) A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree if, under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty, the person knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence inflicts unnecessary suffering or pain upon an animal. (2) An owner of an animal is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree if, under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty, the owner knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence: (a) Fails to provide the animal with necessary shelter, rest, sanitation, space, or medical attention and the animal suffers unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain as a result of the failure; (b) Under circumstances not amounting to animal cruelty in the second degree under (c) of this subsection, abandons the animal; or (c) Abandons the animal and (i) as a result of being abandoned, the animal suffers bodily harm; or (ii) abandoning the animal creates an imminent and substantial risk that the animal will suffer substantial bodily harm. (3) Animal cruelty in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor. (4) In any prosecution of animal cruelty in the second degree under subsection (1) or (2)(a) of this section, it shall be an affirmative defense, if established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant's failure was due to economic distress beyond the defendant's control. RCW 16.52.205 Animal cruelty in the first degree. (1) A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree when, except as authorized in law, he or she intentionally (a) inflicts substantial pain on, (b) causes physical injury to, or (c) kills an animal by a means causing undue suffering or while manifesting an extreme indifference to life, or forces a minor to inflict unnecessary pain, injury, or death on an animal. (2) A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree when, except as authorized by law, he or she, with criminal negligence, starves, dehydrates, or suffocates an animal and as a result causes: (a) Substantial and unjustifiable physical pain that extends for a period sufficient to cause considerable suffering; or (b) death.