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: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/07/26/2016-17648/horse-protection-licensing-of-designated-qualified-persons-and-other-amendments
From the American Horse Council:
© 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.