Just as New York City pols are reworking legislation that would ban our horse-and-carriage industry, a Chicago pol has moved to one-up us. In introducing his own ordinance last week, Alderman Edward Burke of Chicago’s 14th Ward says he was motivated in part by an itch to “beat New York City to the punch.”
Let him. Because before their breadwinners find themselves out of work, the hard-working families supported by an industry that has served New York since 1858 deserve a more honest and open debate.
Thus far, the debate has been dominated by the accusers, who claim the horses are being abused. Seldom, however, do those shouting abuse lay out specifically what they mean by it — and what they don’t.
Why is that? One reason might be that what animal-rights activists mean by animal abuse is more radical than what most New Yorkers mean by animal abuse.
Most New Yorkers regard animal abuse as an outrage and favor punishment for the guilty. We are among them. By abuse, we mean real maltreatment or cruelty: whipping an animal, starving an animal, hurting an animal, neglecting an animal, etc.
Instances of this behavior among our carriage drivers are rare, though in December the police did cite one man for working a horse with a hoof infection. By contrast, the veterinarians who have inspected the horses and their stables have largely found the animals content and well-treated.
That’s not good enough for those who believe simply owning an animal and putting it to work is itself abuse. Or for those who say it is abusive to work a horse in a big city (in which case they should also be opposed to New York’s mounted police unit).
The point is, if this is the real basis of their opposition, nothing the horse-and-carriage drivers do to improve conditions for the horses — already among the most regulated animals in the country — will ever persuade them there’s no abuse.
So before New York’s mayor and council claim they are ending an abuse, let them give us a clear definition of what it is.