Related Posts with Thumbnails

Monday, October 03, 2016

American Horse Council Statement on Nonspecific Language in USDA Horse Protection Act Amendment

For the past few months, the US Department of Agriculture has been hosting "listening sessions" around the country and gathering input about a proposed amendment to the American Horse Protection Act, which bans the "soring" abuse techniques used on some Tennessee Walking horses to gain an advantage in the show ring in some classes, particularly where the horse is asked to do the famous "big lick" walking gait. 

Among the features of this amendment is complete outlawing of pads, action devices such as pastern chains, and weighted shoes.

The amendment is an attempt to bypass the inability of Congress to pass the PAST Act, which would similarly attempt to stop soring. Congress has not held a vote on the PAST Act in spite of a large number of Senators and Congressional representatives sponsoring it. The amendment would use executive powers to enact the amendment through its cabinet powers.
Throughout the PAST Act's history and the recent introduction of the amendment, Hoofcare Publishing has sought clarification of the language it uses to describe the hoof equipment. Also disturbing is the unclarified intent of what breeds are affected by the ban; it simply specifies "related breeds" will fall under the amendment's bans.

Several breeds, including Morgans, Saddlebreds, Hackney ponies, National Show horses and Arabians are shown in weighted shoes and/or pads. No definition of what constitutes a "weighted" shoe is included in either the PAST Act or the USDA amendment. The two documents do not use the same language in describing hoof equipment. The amendment suggests that all horses be limited to a "keg" or conventional horseshoe, which would compromise the welfare of many show horses that benefit from urethane or composite shoes, bar shoes, and support materials designed for therapeutic application, not to specifically enhance movement.

While soring is universally abhorred, the passing of a law that would affect other breeds is not necessary, nor is there evidence that the welfare of any padded horses is affected by the practice of weighted shoes or pads. Although welfare or soundness may be impacted in some way, this has not been specifically documented nor have the individual components (weight of shoe, length of hoof, height of heels, effect of wedging, etc.) been individually tested. 

Further, it is not fair to Walking horses that they be held to a higher standard than other breeds, which are allowed to have pads and weighted shoes. However,  the other breeds are, for the most part, limited to specific toe lengths, shoe weights, shoe materials or designs, pad specifications or other limitations, and the argument for banning pad packages in the Walking horse are based in abuse of the pad stack for pressure shoeing or hidden manipulations within the stack. Most of the long-footed or padded breeds operate under the rules of the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) for that breed; Tennessee Walking horses were once part of that organization, as well.

Last week, the American Horse Council (AHC) formally voiced its concerns over the unclear language in the Act. AHC has requested more information from the USDA.

On behalf of readers, Hoofcare Publishing has sought clarification from the USDA and has contacted the Humane Society of the United States, which lobbies to stop soring. HSUS was not able to comment on the vague shoeing language in the amendment since it did not author the amendment.

In the 1980s, a similar situation resulted in a panic among show horse breeders and exhibitors and required federal courts to clarify the language. Here we are again.

This amendment is a bold move on the part of USDA. It is a "Hail Mary" pass to once and for all end soring by putting a Walking horse's hoof back on the ground via executive action. But like all daring strategies, its execution begins in the huddle. The quarterback's signals must be clear and inarguable, or the Horse Protection Act enforcement plans could be delayed for years in the courts and other unrelated horse breeds and disciplines could become collateral damage. 

USDA will accept comments until October 26, 2016.  USDA will then review all comments and release a final rule.  The proposed rule has been published in the Federal Register and can be viewed here:

From the American Horse Council:

(Washington, DC)- Many individuals in the horse industry are aware the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has published proposed changes to the regulations governing enforcement of the Horse Protection Act (HPA). The proposed rule would make several major changes to current HPA regulations with the goal of ending soring, including a new licensing program for HPA inspectors and a ban on action devices, pads, weighted shoes and foreign substances at walking horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions.

The American Horse Council (AHC) strongly opposes soring and believes action must be taken to stop the soring of “big lick” Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses and Spotted Saddle Horses. However, the AHC is concerned that certain provisions of the proposed rule are too broadly written, not sufficiently defined, and could cause confusion for the horse show industry. Like all industries, the horse show industry requires clarity in any regulatory regime that impacts its operation. Soring is a problem that is well defined and limited to a very specific segment of the walking horse industry and any new regulations should reflect this fact.

The AHC’s formal comments to USDA will strongly urge USDA to explicitly limit all new provisions to Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, and Spotted Saddle Horses, mirroring the PAST Act. Making this change will address most concerns the horse industry has with the proposed rule and will fulfill the purpose and intent of the HPA.

The AHC wants to be clear, many of the proposed changes to the HPA regulations are needed such as replacing the ineffective Designated Qualified Person (DQP) program with a new independent inspection program. Additionally, because of a long history of utilizing action devices, stacks, weighted shoes, and foreign substances to sore horses, a ban of these items on Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, and Spotted Saddle Horses is justified and needed.

However, the AHC believes it is equally important that any new regulations be narrowly focused on the problem of soring and do not inadvertently impact or unnecessarily burden other segments of the horse show industry that have no history of soring horses.

The AHC will be submitting detailed written comments to USDA in the coming weeks.

© Fran Jurga and Hoofcare Publishing; Fran Jurga's Hoof Blog is the news service for Hoofcare and Lameness Publishing. Please, no re-use of text or images on other sites or social media without permission--please link instead. (Please ask if you need help.) The Hoof Blog may be read online at the blog page, checked via RSS feed, or received via a headlines-link email (requires signup in box at top right of blog page). Use the little envelope symbol below to email this article to others. The "translator" tool in the right sidebar will convert this article (roughly) to the language of your choice. To share this article on Facebook and other social media, click on the small symbols below the labels. Be sure to "like" the Hoofcare and Lameness Facebook page and click on "get notifications" under the page's "like" button to keep up with the hoof news on Facebook. Questions or problems with the Hoof Blog? Send email to  
Follow Hoofcare + Lameness on Twitter: @HoofBlog
Read this blog's headlines on the Hoofcare + Lameness Facebook Page
Disclosure of Material Connection: The Hoof Blog (Hoofcare Publishing) has not received any direct compensation for writing this post. Hoofcare Publishing has no material connection to the brands, products, or services mentioned, other than products and services of Hoofcare Publishing. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.


George Geist said...

On this issue of soring and or unethical shoeing methodologies, It reminds me of one noted Supreme Court justice when speaking about the issue of obscenity as relates to pornography. He said "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it". Essentially community standards were allowed to prevail.

This I find very similar. What most horsemen find pretty reprehensible is pretty normal in that community. This issue has been argued about since at least the '70s. Legislation was passed yet it's still going on. What exactly would be acceptable language? How can these things be worded so it won't be DOA as soon as it hits committees chaired by people from Kentucky and Tennessee? How does one define a DQP? Who in the world would even want to be a DQP except somebody involved in that industry? So much for impartiality then.

It would indeed be unfortunate if other breeds and disciplines became collateral damage in an attempt to clean this mess up but unless another way can be found it might be unavoidable. If I were going to wager on it I'd bet all this arguing over language will again derail the legislation, nothing will happen and Walkers will continue to be tortured into the foreseeable future.

Public pressure and boycotts to the corporate sponsors of their shows depriving them of money has shown itself to be a much more effective tactic which I wholeheartedly endorse and support.
George Geist

Fran Jurga said...

Thanks for checking in, George. Well said!

Joy Smith said...

Out of thousands of xrays of Tennessee Walking Horses wearing pads, the USDA has NOT found 1 single incident of pressure shoeing in well over a decade, probably much longer. The only pressure shoeing incident that I am aware of involves a flat shod horse.

Other breeds, especially breeds with animated gaits who are fearful of this proposed regulation, love to make the claim that their breed doesn't have a history of soring as an excuse to be excluded from the proposed federal regulation. That claim is unsubstantiated simply because those breeds do not undergo the same lengthy inspections that the Walking Horses do. I'd bet the Walking Horse compliance rate of 98+% would be higher than any other breed if the same tactics and techniques were used.

When the USDA or more so HSUS speak of violations, people should use caution because they are misleading you. A violation of the Horse Protection Act requires a finding of guilt. Those numbers tossed around have not had a finding of guilt. In fact, only approximately 3-5% of alleged violations are actually prosecuted. The Tennessee Walking Horse industry has a lawsuit pending against the USDA which will remove thousands of illegally listed "violations" if we win. Hopefully, the Court will support the right to due process.

It's the Horse Protection Act. It applies to all breeds. Any amendment or federal regulation which applies to the Horse Protection Act should apply to all breeds.