The Need for Improved Regulations/Enforcement in the Walking Horse Industry

1. The Need for Improved Regulations/Enforcement in the Walking Horse Industry

2. USDA

3. My Background • K.S.P. • KMA • Walking Horse experience

4. I don’t care which horse you ride! Performance Flatshod Training philosophy – 1. You cannot get hurt. 2. The horse must not be hurt during training. 3. The horse must be calmer after training.

5. Talking Points • Who is responsible for the Horse Protection ACT (HPA)? • Why are we still talking about after 40 years? • Why has there been so little change? • What do we need to do to generate change? • Regulation - vs - Enforcement

6. Who shares the greatest responsibility to enforce the HPA? • The owner? • The trainer? • The exhibitor? • The judge? • The HIO? • The show management?

7. The answer is……. • The USDA!

8. I am not going to debate this, but • In my opinion, the USDA owns this problem and is the only group with final authority over the HPA.

9. Lessons learned from industry studies. AAR

10. History of Sound Reports 4th paragraph

11. 1994 HPA Review Committee Report • PREFACE • Twenty-four years after enactment of the Horse protection Act (HPA), the • soring of horses continues to be a problem. during its deliberations, • the Committee heard from witnesses who described a variety of problems • with the implementation of the HPA by the United States Department of • Agriculture (USDA) and the horse industry organizations which maintain • programs to train, license and supervise Designated Qualified Persons • (DQP). DQP inspections were said to be inconsistent and inaccurate, in • some cases the product of favoritism toward or discrimination against • certain exhibitors. Allegations of DQP conflicts of interest were said • to contribute to these problems. Penalties -- those imposed both by USDA • and the horse industry organizations -- were not always publicized and • enforced. Industry penalties were inadequate to provide any deterrent to • soring offenses.

12. 1994 HPA Review Committee Report More generally, some witnesses felt that the horse industry organizations were insufficiently committed to the Act's prohibitions against soring. On the other hand, USDA was criticized for failing to provide clear guidance to the horse industry regarding enforcement issues, and for failing to advise the industry of problems and respond constructively to complaints. USDA's inability to analyze and make use of enforcement data effectively was also noted as a problem.

13. 1998 Horse Strategic Plan • Training • Proper training of all participants in horse protection is essential. Training must contain certain elements and be applicable, informative, and uniform so that all USDA-certified HIO participants maintain consistency and accountability in their performance under this plan. • ·Specific areas of training (in addition to above): • New DQP's • Anatomy and physiology of the equine limb • History of soring • Standards of conduct, conflicts of interest • Written test (passing score required) • APHIS veterinarians • DQP evaluations • Legal case preparation • Horse-show judges and apprentices • Criteria for excusing a horse from the show ring (for example: bad image horses, scar rule, abnormal way of going)

14. AAEP White Paper Report Putting the Horse First: Veterinary Recommendations for Ending the Soring of Tennessee Walking Horses The Designated Qualified Persons (DQP) Program should be abolished since the acknowledged conflicts of interest which involve many of them cannot be reasonably resolved, and these individuals should be excluded from the regulatory process. The current duties of the program should be assumed by qualified veterinarians. An unusual outcome of this report was the appearance of the “sympathetic vet”.

15. 2010 OIG Report Recommendation 1 Abolish the current DQP system and establish by regulation that inspectors will be independent, USDA-accredited veterinarians that perform the inspections to assess whether horses are sore at sanctioned horse shows, sales, and other horse-related events and obtain, if needed, the authority to require show managers to pay the higher cost of providing independent, USDA-accredited veterinarians to inspect the horses if their liability is to remain limited. Agency Response APHIS responded that the Agency agrees with the intent of the recommendation. APHIS will propose a regulatory change to abolish the current DQP licensing system and propose that the Agency license DQPs. Under the proposed regulations, APHIS would require and provide a minimum of 14 hours of specialized training to individuals pursuing DQP licensing. The proposed regulations will also establish strict qualification and criteria to prohibit conflicts of interest. DQPs having close ties with the horse show industry would be excluded from licensing. Horse Industry Organizations would continue to be responsible for hiring and compensating the DQPs to inspect horse shows, but would have to use APHIS-licensed DQPs.

16. 2010 OIG Report cont. Additionally, APHIS will provide more outreach and recruitment activities to license independent, accredited veterinarians as DQPs. The Agency will display the USDA Horse Protection Program exhibit at the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) Annual Convention in Baltimore, Maryland in December 2010. APHIS will conduct a tabletop discussion session at the convention to inform the AAEP members about the efforts USDA is making to eliminate soring at horse shows and other related events. APHIS will meet with other associations and organizations such as, but not limited to, the American Horse Council and National Institute of Animal Agriculture. APHIS attended the World Equestrian Games in Lexington, Kentucky in September 2010, to discuss the Horse Protection Act with many of the accredited veterinarians that were in attendance. APHIS will submit the work plan by January 1, 2011, but cannot predict the timing or the final outcome of rulemaking.

17. The Barn Buster • The SCAR Rule Riding the line to win This becomes a risk/benefit equation. In other words: The reward exceeds the punishment (crime pays!) Inconsistent Inspections from DQPs results in conflicts of interest with the entire walking horse industry

18. USDA HORSE PROTECTION PROGRAM 2010 POINTS OF EMPHASIS The industry HIOs are all facing an impending December 1, 2010 deadline to submit their rulebooks to the USDA for approval. The USDA has mandated that those rulebooks contain the mandatory penalty structure that was originally proposed in the 2010 Points of Emphasis.

19. The Horse Protection Act—a case study in industry self-regulation W. Ron DeHaven, DVM A benchmark to identify progress in self-regulation will be when the discussion with industry shifts from the degree of allowable scar tissue on a horse’s pasterns to total elimination of all scars on a horse’s pasterns. Ultimately, the welfare of the horse must become a higher priority than winning in the show ring.

20. Conclusions • The USDA must begin to think outside of the box. • X factor - which HIO will self-regulate and which one will not self-regulate? • The USDA must choose wisely. • The argument that USDA is too under-funded to adequately enforce the HPA is a mute point. • Too much regulation and not enough enforcement will not protect the horse and promote effective change.

21. Conclusions Cont. • Going forward we need: • Good HIOs that will self-regulate and support the USDA. • Support from the Walking Horse Industry. • Selective enforcement • USDA Leadership: The art of influencing and directing HIOs to obtain their willing obedience in enforcing the HPA.

22. 1975 Ames, Iowa study. 1994 HPA Review Committee Report • Horse Protection • Strategic Plan 2008 AAEP White Paper Report 2010 OIG Report

23. In all fairness to the USDA, they have been fighting with one hand tied behind their back. The USDA can only be as strong as the federal government will allow. • Please contact your elected officials to express your support for the USDA and enforcement of the HPA.

24. Thank you for your attention