The Politics
In 2006, Elizabeth Forel of the Coalition for NYC Animals and
Edita Birnkrant of Friends of Animals form the Coalition to Ban
Horse-Drawn Carriages (CBHDC). This was sparked by an incident a few
months earlier when a spooked carriage horse bolted on a busy New York City avenue
and crashed into a station wagon, leading to such severe injuries that he was
euthanized. The campaign for the phasing out of this trade became a
response to this accident and the fact that proposals to improve it showed
little to no progress and disinterest. “We created an issue- a campaign-where
none had existed,” states the website for the coalition.
The Office of the NYC Comptroller put forth an audit in 2007 on this trade, for the first time, was completed by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) and the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). The audit discussed how these two departments are the key agencies with regulatory roles that oversee and license the horses, drivers, carriages, and stables. In 2006, there were about 221 licensed horses, 293 licensed drivers, and 68 licensed carriages. The Veterinary Public Health Services, which is located in the DOHMH, approves the licenses for horses and the Certificate of Health, which, if it states that the horse is in condition to work, the DCA will issue the license for the horse, driver, and carriage. These two departments work closely with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) for monitoring horse welfare concerns. The audit determined that licensing and horse identification was well accounted for, and that the DOHMH provided training programs and examinations to drivers. The Audit assures that neither the ASPCA or department veterinary consultant determined any serious violations to the health and safety of the horses. The audit, however, admits that the regulations to protect their well-being are quite broad, and the DOHMH veterinarian did not examine the condition of the horses in field, nor did the DCA perform the required number of inspections, relying on the ASPCA to investigate the of the stables, horses, drivers, and carriages without a formal agreement. Thus, the departments are unable to play a part in the monitoring activities of the ASPCA. The audit also notes that an advisory board was to have been established, but since the Administrative Code statute was enacted, the department had not brought the board to fruition. The audit made eleven major recommendations, including the establishment of the advisory board, which should promote clear regulations to protect the carriage-horses. They also recommend that the DOHMH needs written guidelines for the required frequency of veterinary inspections, and formalize the agreement with the ASPCA to perform carriage inspections.
The official statement issued in 2007 by the ASPCA on carriage horses in New York maintains that they are not opposed to using equines for pulling carriages, so long as the animal’s physiological and behavioural needs are satisfied, that they have suitable and humane housing, that their work hours and conditions are regulated with regards to the environment and periods of rest, that they have regular veterinary and farrier care and are given a humane retirement. The ASPCA however does not condone the current state of the carriage horse industry, stating it is not “optimal” and that, at the very least, “the carriage horses and their stables should be limited to operating in Central Park alone. This would keep them safe from motorized traffic and afford them shaded grounds for turn out, where they are unencumbered by tack and free to exercise” (www.aspca.org). Since New York has the lowest-funded animal control association in America, Animal Control does not handle these horses. Rather, the ASPCA, though not under any formal obligation to oversee this industry, has assigned one of its Humane Law Enforcement agents to monitor the horses in Central Park. This agent is tasked with suspending carriages during extreme temperatures, and inspecting the hack-lines. In 2010, a veterinarian was hired to the Humane Law Enforcement division to enforce the carriage regulations and observe any equine health regulations. The ASPCA has been working for decades to pass, unsuccessfully, legislation, which would protect the welfare of involved horses.
The licences of the drivers and carriages are renewed biennially, and each carriage is required to be inspected by the DCA every four months, while also restricting their operation at certain times in the Central Park area. The audit claims that there are five stables where the horses are housed, which are to provide proper bedding and a comfortable environment, subject to inspection. The audit also reviewed the less than half of the 77 violations that occurred over a year, and found that the sample results taken from the violations suggest that it is necessary to review how adequate and effective the licensing and oversight control of the two main departments is. The concern raised by the audit that both the departmental agencies are not making enough of an effort to monitor the industry has led to a response from the DOHMH in defense. The department states that they send a veterinarian at least four times a year to inspect the stables, however they admit that it would “be appropriate to expand [their] inspectional program to include some field activities” to which the auditor comments that the veterinary inspections are on average 25 minutes. A quarter of an hour to review paperwork, travel between stables, and inspect the condition of the facilities is considered by the auditor insufficient to, “observe the overall physical condition of the horses.”
The auditors discuss the need for the DOHMH to establish an advisory board, which they believe could tackle some of the following issues. Primarily, there are no clear areas where a carriage may receive a passenger, inadequate shade and lack of water spigots which makes obtaining drinking water for horses harder, poor drainage where the horses line up, and the asphalt is very hard on the horses’ hooves, especially when it becomes hot in the summer. It also suggests stricter regulations on licensing, observing that the paperwork for 57 horses described different horses throughout the years, without a change in license numbers. The audit notes that the requirement for an advisory board is an obvious indication that, “the few requirements contained in the [Administrative Code] statute were inadequate to care for the horses. It should be noted that the existing City regulations over this industry were established more than 25 years ago.” Thus, the 2007 audit of the New York City carriage-horse industry elucidated key points of improvement and contention which the departments agreed to rectify and address, comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. saying, “the agencies entrusted with oversight here have dropped the ball.” Mr. Thompson suggests the city, “should consider creating an actual concession within Central Park to house both carriage and pleasure horses…[to] keep the horses away from city traffic and allow their health and welfare to be more easily monitored” (New York Times).
In the same year as the audit was conducted, and following the third public death of a carriage-horse in the previous two years, Council Member and current Senator Tony Avella introduced the first bill to ban the industry, which was lobbied for and discussed in a council hearing in 2009. A year later, the DOHMH held a public hearing to address and receive comments on their recommended amendments to the carriage-horse regulations; however these regulations were withdrawn due to pressure from the industry. Later that year, a former carriage-horse was identified and rescued from the New Holland auctions, drawing public attention to the “retirement planning” that occurs, or lack thereof, for horses past their prime as working animals.
In 2013, the Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages gained footing in the media and in politics, specifically when The New York Times ran an article about a carriage driver who was charged with animal cruelty. In December of that year, a patrolling policeman observed a horse who was clearly struggling to tow the weight of the carriage. Upon examining the horse, the officer determined it had an obvious injury to its leg, later confirmed to be a condition called Thrush, which arises from improper care and unsanitary living conditions. The driver, who had been previously fined for consuming alcohol while working and driving his horse at unauthorized times among other infractions, was arrested and faces a fine of $1000 dollars and a year in jail. Bret Hopman, spokesperson for the ASPCA, stated, “This incident further reinforces the need for an end to carriage horse operations in the city…the ASPCA believes that the use of carriage horses in 21st-century New York City is unnatural, unnecessary and an undeniable strain on the horses’ quality of life” (NYT, Dec. 2013). Approximately one month later, the coalition’s co-founder Elizabeth Forell published her testimony at the NYC public forum on animal issues, which was led by Senator Tony Avella. She discussed how, since 2006, 34 documented accidents had occurred, yet the law does not require drivers to report accidents, and neither is the ASPCA obliged to reveal them publically, nor must the police department report at the scene of an incident. Forell laments, “There is no transparency in this business and it is very intentional.”
The coalition conducted a study in 2013 which examined the turnover rate over 8 years of 529 carriage horses, whose licenses were not renewed by the DOHMH, meaning that among the 200 horses the DOHMH registers annually, 71 are unaccounted for. What becomes of the horses after their retirement from the carriage industry is an area where much of this lack of “transparency” exists, especially since Section 17-329 of the NYC administrative code does not require the name of a buyer if a horse is sold outside of New York City, nor does the DOHMH have record of the horses which are no longer in the system. While some horses find good homes in sanctuaries, many may be sent to auctions, where suppliers for slaughterhouses may buy them.
The coalition introduced a bill in 2011, Intro 670, to NYC Council, which would require stricter regulations regarding the horses’ retirement, and better records kept by the DOHMH and drivers themselves of where they end up. However, the bill did not gain traction, and since, “more than 116 horses, who would have been protected had it passed, have fallen off the rolls to uncertain fate” (One Green Planet, 2013). The Coalition still advocates for the Avella/Rosenthal bill, introduced to NYS legislature, which is supported by a majority with 75-80% of respondents, polled since 2006 in favour of banning horse-drawn carriages in New York City. Known as Bill S667-2013, it addresses the important and contentious issue surrounding the humane disposition of retired horses to sanctuaries and other good homes.
In 2008, the President and CEO of the ASPCA One founded, as a 501c4 political lobbying organization, the New Yorkers for Clean, Livable and Safe Streets (NYCLASS), which works on alternatives to the carriage industry. In 2010 a bill by the name of Intro 86A was introduced to city council by supporter Melissa Mark-Viverito, which suggests the replacement of carriage horses by electric cars. City council considered this bill, in addition with Intro 92 (which would ban carriages) and Intro 35A (to improve regulations and raise fares). Intro 86A and 92 are not passed out of committee, but 35A is passed to vote and is enacted into law as Local Law 10, mandating for biannual veterinary inspections, a rate increase, box stalls, blankets, five-week furloughs, and more training for drivers. Intro 86A evolves into Intro 310 some months later, which would allow the use of electric cars separate from banning horse-drawn carriages.
The ASPCA supports NYCLASS, donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to their effort. In 2011, Melissa Mark-Viverito brings the aforementioned Intro 670 to council, which anti-ban advocates such as Save NYC Horse Carriages does not support, stating it would not only keep carriage horses from going to slaughter, but make use of former licensed rental horses illegal. In fact, Stephen Malone, spokesperson for the Horse and Carriage Association filed a complaint with the Attorney General on account of a conflict of interest regarding the close connections between NYCLASS and the ASPCA, specifically that NYCLASS founder Steve Nislick donated thousands of dollars to Bill de Blasio’s campaign. He noted, “Both the ASPCA and NYCLASS have made false, misleading and/or deceptive statements about the carriage industry…and we believe that this activity constitutes a potential to defraud the public,” Malone said (horsebackmagazine.com). Then Public Advocate, Bill de Blasio dismisses this complaint, stating,
“This is clearly a knee-jerk backlash…The ASPCA and NYCLASS are strong, independent organizations that are doing their duty to protect animals in our city—a goal the Horse and Carriage Association claims to support. I stand with NYCLASS and the ASPCA, and urge the State Attorney General’s Office, the New York City Department of Investigation and the Health Department to dismiss this brazen, politically motivated complaint.”
That same year, however, the New York Times revealed that NYCLASS was founded with the ASPCA’s funding, followed by the New York Post then publishing an article about a charge made against the ASPCA for “cutting ethical and legal corners in its attempt to abolish the city’s horse-carriage industry.” The ASPCA veterinarian, who had been assigned to the Humane Law Enforcement was let go from the association, which the article states coincided with her trying to correct a press release which declared a carriage horse had died on a street “suffering from pain” and was forced to work, while the Animal Health Diagnostic Center at Cornell determined that it showed “no signs of illness,” though evidence of gastritis and other internal issues. The cop-turned-animal-welfarist, Henry Ruiz, who charged the ASPCA, notes that the organizations “dual role of trying to abolish the horse carriage industry and overseeing it” is not effective.
Two years later, in February 2013, a supporter of the carriage industry went undercover in a NYCLASS agenda meeting held at ASPCA’s headquarters. She noted that the founder of NYCLASS, Steve Nislick, made clear that electric cars would not be produced until there was enough political support to ensure the bill would be passed, and that the cars would replace the carriages, not just offer an alternative. In other words, until the ban on carriages is effectively imposed, Nislick would not see the production of electric cars. One year later, in April of 2014, the Daily Mail penned an article examining Mayor Bill De Blasio’s proposal to ban the carriages and replace them with electric vintage cars, and how during his campaign, a union (which is linked to De Blasio’s cousin) donated to NYCLASS, which is now being investigated by the FBI for possibly extorting his mayoral opponent Christine Quinn. Quinn did not support the ban, and records show that NYCLASS contributed hundreds of thousands to a political action committee, which supported a smear campaign against Quinn. Mayor De Blasio denies that he participated in maligning Quinn in this way, and he still pursues “more humane alternative” to the carriages (theguardian.com).
This scandal and debate became even more publicized when actor Liam Neeson contributed an article to the New York Times simply titled, Carriages Belong in Central Park. In it, he reminisces, “it has been my experience, always, that horses, much like humans, are at their happiest and healthiest when working,” believing it is “humane” and “well-regulated.” Despite the fact the four horses have been killed in traffic collisions already, as a supporter of Save New York City Horse Carriages, Neeson maintains that it is an important “living landmark” of the city’s culture and history (New York Times).
The call for a ban does not exist solely in New York City, but also in other American cities such as Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Cincinnati. Just this year city Alderman Edward Burke proposed to ban horse-drawn carriage rides in Chicago, and he is supported by Mayor Rahm Emanuel who calls it, “a step forward” (Chicago Tribune). As well, Salt Lake City saw the death of a 13-year-old carriage horse in the past year, which led the city to implement new legislation which mandates that horses cannot work in temperatures below 10 degrees Fahrenheit or above 104 degrees. While other cities in the United States have banned horse-drawn carriages, they still operate in major metropolises such as London, Toronto, and Paris. However, this past May an accident occurred in Victoria, British Columbia when a horse bolted into a lane and collided with two cars and a motorcycle. Anti-carriage groups such as Carriage-Free Victoria were quick to emphasize their support to ban horse-drawn carriages in the city, and the introduction of “horseless” carriages, which are essentially vehicles. The head of this group states, “New York is obviously ahead of the curve here and Victoria needs to follow suit.” Victoria horses work around 8 hours a day 5 times per week, and are protected by outdated legislature that results in few, if any, records of incidents, as the carriage companies are essentially self-regulated and interested. Charlayne Thorton-Joe, Victoria city councillor who works with animal welfare issues believes, “I think the horse-and-carriage industry, we definitely get a lot of people who have concerns about it. But there are others who feel these are working horses and, as long as the treatment is humane, we should continue it.” Working with the SPCA to develop the bylaw that enforces the necessity for all animals to possess veterinary certificates, Thorton-Joe is looking to also restrict horse-drawn carriages at certain times. She has tasked her staff to amalgamate a compendium of incidents over the last five years to look for “’any common denominators,’ such as a time of day or particular street where problems tend to occur” (Times Colonist). Despite the support and introduction of parallel legislation in other cities, a Quinnipiac University Polling Institute indicated that around two-thirds of voters do not support the ban in New York, and that it could result in the loss of hundreds of industry jobs.
The Office of the NYC Comptroller put forth an audit in 2007 on this trade, for the first time, was completed by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) and the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). The audit discussed how these two departments are the key agencies with regulatory roles that oversee and license the horses, drivers, carriages, and stables. In 2006, there were about 221 licensed horses, 293 licensed drivers, and 68 licensed carriages. The Veterinary Public Health Services, which is located in the DOHMH, approves the licenses for horses and the Certificate of Health, which, if it states that the horse is in condition to work, the DCA will issue the license for the horse, driver, and carriage. These two departments work closely with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) for monitoring horse welfare concerns. The audit determined that licensing and horse identification was well accounted for, and that the DOHMH provided training programs and examinations to drivers. The Audit assures that neither the ASPCA or department veterinary consultant determined any serious violations to the health and safety of the horses. The audit, however, admits that the regulations to protect their well-being are quite broad, and the DOHMH veterinarian did not examine the condition of the horses in field, nor did the DCA perform the required number of inspections, relying on the ASPCA to investigate the of the stables, horses, drivers, and carriages without a formal agreement. Thus, the departments are unable to play a part in the monitoring activities of the ASPCA. The audit also notes that an advisory board was to have been established, but since the Administrative Code statute was enacted, the department had not brought the board to fruition. The audit made eleven major recommendations, including the establishment of the advisory board, which should promote clear regulations to protect the carriage-horses. They also recommend that the DOHMH needs written guidelines for the required frequency of veterinary inspections, and formalize the agreement with the ASPCA to perform carriage inspections.
The official statement issued in 2007 by the ASPCA on carriage horses in New York maintains that they are not opposed to using equines for pulling carriages, so long as the animal’s physiological and behavioural needs are satisfied, that they have suitable and humane housing, that their work hours and conditions are regulated with regards to the environment and periods of rest, that they have regular veterinary and farrier care and are given a humane retirement. The ASPCA however does not condone the current state of the carriage horse industry, stating it is not “optimal” and that, at the very least, “the carriage horses and their stables should be limited to operating in Central Park alone. This would keep them safe from motorized traffic and afford them shaded grounds for turn out, where they are unencumbered by tack and free to exercise” (www.aspca.org). Since New York has the lowest-funded animal control association in America, Animal Control does not handle these horses. Rather, the ASPCA, though not under any formal obligation to oversee this industry, has assigned one of its Humane Law Enforcement agents to monitor the horses in Central Park. This agent is tasked with suspending carriages during extreme temperatures, and inspecting the hack-lines. In 2010, a veterinarian was hired to the Humane Law Enforcement division to enforce the carriage regulations and observe any equine health regulations. The ASPCA has been working for decades to pass, unsuccessfully, legislation, which would protect the welfare of involved horses.
The licences of the drivers and carriages are renewed biennially, and each carriage is required to be inspected by the DCA every four months, while also restricting their operation at certain times in the Central Park area. The audit claims that there are five stables where the horses are housed, which are to provide proper bedding and a comfortable environment, subject to inspection. The audit also reviewed the less than half of the 77 violations that occurred over a year, and found that the sample results taken from the violations suggest that it is necessary to review how adequate and effective the licensing and oversight control of the two main departments is. The concern raised by the audit that both the departmental agencies are not making enough of an effort to monitor the industry has led to a response from the DOHMH in defense. The department states that they send a veterinarian at least four times a year to inspect the stables, however they admit that it would “be appropriate to expand [their] inspectional program to include some field activities” to which the auditor comments that the veterinary inspections are on average 25 minutes. A quarter of an hour to review paperwork, travel between stables, and inspect the condition of the facilities is considered by the auditor insufficient to, “observe the overall physical condition of the horses.”
The auditors discuss the need for the DOHMH to establish an advisory board, which they believe could tackle some of the following issues. Primarily, there are no clear areas where a carriage may receive a passenger, inadequate shade and lack of water spigots which makes obtaining drinking water for horses harder, poor drainage where the horses line up, and the asphalt is very hard on the horses’ hooves, especially when it becomes hot in the summer. It also suggests stricter regulations on licensing, observing that the paperwork for 57 horses described different horses throughout the years, without a change in license numbers. The audit notes that the requirement for an advisory board is an obvious indication that, “the few requirements contained in the [Administrative Code] statute were inadequate to care for the horses. It should be noted that the existing City regulations over this industry were established more than 25 years ago.” Thus, the 2007 audit of the New York City carriage-horse industry elucidated key points of improvement and contention which the departments agreed to rectify and address, comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. saying, “the agencies entrusted with oversight here have dropped the ball.” Mr. Thompson suggests the city, “should consider creating an actual concession within Central Park to house both carriage and pleasure horses…[to] keep the horses away from city traffic and allow their health and welfare to be more easily monitored” (New York Times).
In the same year as the audit was conducted, and following the third public death of a carriage-horse in the previous two years, Council Member and current Senator Tony Avella introduced the first bill to ban the industry, which was lobbied for and discussed in a council hearing in 2009. A year later, the DOHMH held a public hearing to address and receive comments on their recommended amendments to the carriage-horse regulations; however these regulations were withdrawn due to pressure from the industry. Later that year, a former carriage-horse was identified and rescued from the New Holland auctions, drawing public attention to the “retirement planning” that occurs, or lack thereof, for horses past their prime as working animals.
In 2013, the Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages gained footing in the media and in politics, specifically when The New York Times ran an article about a carriage driver who was charged with animal cruelty. In December of that year, a patrolling policeman observed a horse who was clearly struggling to tow the weight of the carriage. Upon examining the horse, the officer determined it had an obvious injury to its leg, later confirmed to be a condition called Thrush, which arises from improper care and unsanitary living conditions. The driver, who had been previously fined for consuming alcohol while working and driving his horse at unauthorized times among other infractions, was arrested and faces a fine of $1000 dollars and a year in jail. Bret Hopman, spokesperson for the ASPCA, stated, “This incident further reinforces the need for an end to carriage horse operations in the city…the ASPCA believes that the use of carriage horses in 21st-century New York City is unnatural, unnecessary and an undeniable strain on the horses’ quality of life” (NYT, Dec. 2013). Approximately one month later, the coalition’s co-founder Elizabeth Forell published her testimony at the NYC public forum on animal issues, which was led by Senator Tony Avella. She discussed how, since 2006, 34 documented accidents had occurred, yet the law does not require drivers to report accidents, and neither is the ASPCA obliged to reveal them publically, nor must the police department report at the scene of an incident. Forell laments, “There is no transparency in this business and it is very intentional.”
The coalition conducted a study in 2013 which examined the turnover rate over 8 years of 529 carriage horses, whose licenses were not renewed by the DOHMH, meaning that among the 200 horses the DOHMH registers annually, 71 are unaccounted for. What becomes of the horses after their retirement from the carriage industry is an area where much of this lack of “transparency” exists, especially since Section 17-329 of the NYC administrative code does not require the name of a buyer if a horse is sold outside of New York City, nor does the DOHMH have record of the horses which are no longer in the system. While some horses find good homes in sanctuaries, many may be sent to auctions, where suppliers for slaughterhouses may buy them.
The coalition introduced a bill in 2011, Intro 670, to NYC Council, which would require stricter regulations regarding the horses’ retirement, and better records kept by the DOHMH and drivers themselves of where they end up. However, the bill did not gain traction, and since, “more than 116 horses, who would have been protected had it passed, have fallen off the rolls to uncertain fate” (One Green Planet, 2013). The Coalition still advocates for the Avella/Rosenthal bill, introduced to NYS legislature, which is supported by a majority with 75-80% of respondents, polled since 2006 in favour of banning horse-drawn carriages in New York City. Known as Bill S667-2013, it addresses the important and contentious issue surrounding the humane disposition of retired horses to sanctuaries and other good homes.
In 2008, the President and CEO of the ASPCA One founded, as a 501c4 political lobbying organization, the New Yorkers for Clean, Livable and Safe Streets (NYCLASS), which works on alternatives to the carriage industry. In 2010 a bill by the name of Intro 86A was introduced to city council by supporter Melissa Mark-Viverito, which suggests the replacement of carriage horses by electric cars. City council considered this bill, in addition with Intro 92 (which would ban carriages) and Intro 35A (to improve regulations and raise fares). Intro 86A and 92 are not passed out of committee, but 35A is passed to vote and is enacted into law as Local Law 10, mandating for biannual veterinary inspections, a rate increase, box stalls, blankets, five-week furloughs, and more training for drivers. Intro 86A evolves into Intro 310 some months later, which would allow the use of electric cars separate from banning horse-drawn carriages.
The ASPCA supports NYCLASS, donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to their effort. In 2011, Melissa Mark-Viverito brings the aforementioned Intro 670 to council, which anti-ban advocates such as Save NYC Horse Carriages does not support, stating it would not only keep carriage horses from going to slaughter, but make use of former licensed rental horses illegal. In fact, Stephen Malone, spokesperson for the Horse and Carriage Association filed a complaint with the Attorney General on account of a conflict of interest regarding the close connections between NYCLASS and the ASPCA, specifically that NYCLASS founder Steve Nislick donated thousands of dollars to Bill de Blasio’s campaign. He noted, “Both the ASPCA and NYCLASS have made false, misleading and/or deceptive statements about the carriage industry…and we believe that this activity constitutes a potential to defraud the public,” Malone said (horsebackmagazine.com). Then Public Advocate, Bill de Blasio dismisses this complaint, stating,
“This is clearly a knee-jerk backlash…The ASPCA and NYCLASS are strong, independent organizations that are doing their duty to protect animals in our city—a goal the Horse and Carriage Association claims to support. I stand with NYCLASS and the ASPCA, and urge the State Attorney General’s Office, the New York City Department of Investigation and the Health Department to dismiss this brazen, politically motivated complaint.”
That same year, however, the New York Times revealed that NYCLASS was founded with the ASPCA’s funding, followed by the New York Post then publishing an article about a charge made against the ASPCA for “cutting ethical and legal corners in its attempt to abolish the city’s horse-carriage industry.” The ASPCA veterinarian, who had been assigned to the Humane Law Enforcement was let go from the association, which the article states coincided with her trying to correct a press release which declared a carriage horse had died on a street “suffering from pain” and was forced to work, while the Animal Health Diagnostic Center at Cornell determined that it showed “no signs of illness,” though evidence of gastritis and other internal issues. The cop-turned-animal-welfarist, Henry Ruiz, who charged the ASPCA, notes that the organizations “dual role of trying to abolish the horse carriage industry and overseeing it” is not effective.
Two years later, in February 2013, a supporter of the carriage industry went undercover in a NYCLASS agenda meeting held at ASPCA’s headquarters. She noted that the founder of NYCLASS, Steve Nislick, made clear that electric cars would not be produced until there was enough political support to ensure the bill would be passed, and that the cars would replace the carriages, not just offer an alternative. In other words, until the ban on carriages is effectively imposed, Nislick would not see the production of electric cars. One year later, in April of 2014, the Daily Mail penned an article examining Mayor Bill De Blasio’s proposal to ban the carriages and replace them with electric vintage cars, and how during his campaign, a union (which is linked to De Blasio’s cousin) donated to NYCLASS, which is now being investigated by the FBI for possibly extorting his mayoral opponent Christine Quinn. Quinn did not support the ban, and records show that NYCLASS contributed hundreds of thousands to a political action committee, which supported a smear campaign against Quinn. Mayor De Blasio denies that he participated in maligning Quinn in this way, and he still pursues “more humane alternative” to the carriages (theguardian.com).
This scandal and debate became even more publicized when actor Liam Neeson contributed an article to the New York Times simply titled, Carriages Belong in Central Park. In it, he reminisces, “it has been my experience, always, that horses, much like humans, are at their happiest and healthiest when working,” believing it is “humane” and “well-regulated.” Despite the fact the four horses have been killed in traffic collisions already, as a supporter of Save New York City Horse Carriages, Neeson maintains that it is an important “living landmark” of the city’s culture and history (New York Times).
The call for a ban does not exist solely in New York City, but also in other American cities such as Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Cincinnati. Just this year city Alderman Edward Burke proposed to ban horse-drawn carriage rides in Chicago, and he is supported by Mayor Rahm Emanuel who calls it, “a step forward” (Chicago Tribune). As well, Salt Lake City saw the death of a 13-year-old carriage horse in the past year, which led the city to implement new legislation which mandates that horses cannot work in temperatures below 10 degrees Fahrenheit or above 104 degrees. While other cities in the United States have banned horse-drawn carriages, they still operate in major metropolises such as London, Toronto, and Paris. However, this past May an accident occurred in Victoria, British Columbia when a horse bolted into a lane and collided with two cars and a motorcycle. Anti-carriage groups such as Carriage-Free Victoria were quick to emphasize their support to ban horse-drawn carriages in the city, and the introduction of “horseless” carriages, which are essentially vehicles. The head of this group states, “New York is obviously ahead of the curve here and Victoria needs to follow suit.” Victoria horses work around 8 hours a day 5 times per week, and are protected by outdated legislature that results in few, if any, records of incidents, as the carriage companies are essentially self-regulated and interested. Charlayne Thorton-Joe, Victoria city councillor who works with animal welfare issues believes, “I think the horse-and-carriage industry, we definitely get a lot of people who have concerns about it. But there are others who feel these are working horses and, as long as the treatment is humane, we should continue it.” Working with the SPCA to develop the bylaw that enforces the necessity for all animals to possess veterinary certificates, Thorton-Joe is looking to also restrict horse-drawn carriages at certain times. She has tasked her staff to amalgamate a compendium of incidents over the last five years to look for “’any common denominators,’ such as a time of day or particular street where problems tend to occur” (Times Colonist). Despite the support and introduction of parallel legislation in other cities, a Quinnipiac University Polling Institute indicated that around two-thirds of voters do not support the ban in New York, and that it could result in the loss of hundreds of industry jobs.