I am disappointed in the coverage by your paper of the carriage animal proposed ordinance (“Debate rages over carriage regulations,” Jan. 22-Feb. 4).

There was no mention of the concern by many citizens and visitors, who each year call the city and the local humane organization about the treatment of these animals or the hundreds of signatures on petitions presented to the tourism sub-committee urging the city to enact more human legislation than is currently proposed.

A local citizens’ committee, The Carriage Horse Safety Committee, has worked for three years presenting to the sub-committee comparisons of other cities’ ordinances to the one proposed for Charleston. We provided numerous scientific papers from journals and textbooks used in veterinarian schools and referred at sub-committee meetings to the findings of those papers.

The sub-committee seems to have dismissed these scientific papers and comparisons with other ordinances as irrelevant. It has failed to integrate into its proposed ordinance what we believe are significant guidelines of the industry’s trade association (Carriage Operators of North America) in favor of looser standards urged upon the sub-committee by local carriage company owners, which your paper did not mention.

Instead, (the Charleston Regional Business Journal) chose to highlight a statement by an individual who has never, to our knowledge, attended a sub-committee meeting, read the city’s proposed ordinance or alternative, more humane language.

The reporter quoted a carriage operator and his views extensively. Reporting facts only favorable to the carriage industry and the city’s sub-committee is not mere bias; it is questionable journalism.

Ellen A. Harley

Charleston

SUBSCRIBE | REPRINTS | CONTACT US

Phone: 843-849-3100    Fax: 843-849-3122