|
Horse Protection Program Public Meetings, 1996 Murfreesboro, Tennessee July 26, 1996 St. Louis, Missouri August 2, 1996 Sacramento, California August 16, 1996 Compiled by: Carolyn L. Stull, Ph.D. School of Veterinary Medicine University of California Davis, California Table of Contents Strategic Direction Summary: Horse Protection Program Public Meetings 1996
Appendix A:
Appendix B: Executive Summary: USDA Certification
of the Horse Industry Workgroup Executive Summary: Uniform
Rules, Regulations and Sanctions Executive Summary: Training
and Research Workshop Appendix C: Proposed Scar Rule (drafted by APHIS/USDA)
Strategic Direction Summary Horse Protection Program Public Meetings, 1996 Background Twenty six years after Congress declared that soring is cruel and inhumane with the enactment of the Horse Protection Act (1970), soring still exists and the horse's welfare is compromised. The 1976 amendment to the HPA established the Designated Qualified Person (DQP) program administered through the Horse Industry Organizations (HIOs) as a mechanism for detecting sored horses; however, a discrepancy continues in the number of reported violations with and without USDA presence at the shows. Thus, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) hosted a series of public meetings to discuss proposed changes to the current Horse Protection Act (HPA) and seek recommendations to reduce the incidence of soring. Three public meetings were held in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, St. Louis, Missouri, and Sacramento, California on July 26, August 2, and August 16, 1996, respectively. Attendees totaled 271 people for the three meetings and included concerned individuals, breeders, owners, trainers, exhibitors, veterinarians, farriers, and representatives of the certified HIOs, animal protection organizations, breed registries, university researchers, and horse show organizations. At each meeting site, workgroups were conducted by the leaders Randy Luikart, M.A. Thomas, Tim Cordes, and Carolyn Stull on the topics of Self Regulatory Enforcement, USDA Certification, Uniform Rules and Sanctions, and Training and Research, respectively. Vision
Using the draft document entitled "Strategic Direction for the Horse Protection Program" (USDA,
July, 1996) as a discussion platform, a proposal suggested the establishment and implementation
of an effective plan through a partnership of the USDA and certified HIOs to achieve a high level
of compliance and enforcement of the HPA, with the realization of budgetary constraints. This
report will attempt to compile and summarize the recommendations and opinions aimed at
determining if revisions of the HPA program are necessary and appropriate to reduce the incidence
of soring and enhance enforcement. Both written comments from organizations and individuals
(Appendix A) and the summaries submitted by workgroup leaders from each of the three hearing
sites (Appendix B) were utilized in the compilation of this report.
Philosophical Platforms and Concerns
Conflict resolution procedures must be developed for a fair hearing process, which includes due
process, checks and balances, and ability to demonstrate accountability by reporting outcomes.
The identification of a committee or third party resolution officer whose primary responsibility
would be the conflict resolution between USDA and HIOs should be assessed. Possible
membership could include USDA, HIOs, American Association of Equine Practitioners, American
Horse Council, or other stakeholders. Role of HIOs The HIO's responsibilities must be based on the acknowledgment that USDA has the ultimate authority in the enforcement of the HPA. The HIO's responsibilities would be expanded allowing them to be more of a participant in the enforcement of the HPA than is currently in existence. Additional enforcement stipulations, commitment, enhanced performance, and expectations by the USDA would be required from the participating HIOs and are necessary for an effective working relationship. Stricter guidelines, disclosure of information, and accountability would be a integral role of the HIOs.
Most opinions supported the DQP system as a workable system, but not sophisticated enough to
meet operating needs. The DQP system must be improved. HIOs would be responsible for
enhanced training of DQPs, judges, show management, and exhibitors/trainers/owners to the
HPA. Other DQP issues which the HIOs should be expected to administer included more stringent
selection of DQPs, minimizing conflicts of interest, establishing a conflict resolution mechanism on
the local level, and performance evaluation of DQPs. HIOs would be responsible for formulating
rulebooks for adherence to HPA and submitting rulebooks to USDA for approval. Accurate and
timely record keeping should be developed by the HIOs and be easily accessible by USDA for
audits.
Utilization of other horse industry groups for their expertise and cooperation on formulating welfare programs was suggested. One group suggested that suspension lists be circulated to the public much like the American Horse Shows Association does in their newsletter. Accountability of these lists by USDA would enhance the credibility of the HIOs and identify the HPA violators. Communication is required for the continued success of any partnership, and informal and formal meetings will be required to evaluate procedures and correct problems on a timely basis between and within all levels of the HIOs and USDA. Conflicts, when encountered at the local level, should be handled swiftly and impartially, away from public scrutiny. Conflict mechanisms need to be developed and included in training programs. HIOs should be held fully accountable to the other partners over conflicts. Accurate accountability and disclosure of all information by both the USDA and HIOs would reduce these types of conflicts.
Stricter rules and elevated credibility of the leaders of the organizations was suggested to enhance
the partnership and provide accountability to the industry. There was apprehension expressed over
the USDA approving all show rules, but that USDA's approval of rulebooks should focus only on
the rules pertaining to the HPA. However, there was willingness expressed to submit show rules
for informational purposes. There was some concern over the USDA considering horse show rule
violations as violations of the HPA. These rules need to be clearly delineated. A primary concern in the certification is that all HIOs should be treated as equal by the USDA regardless of their size or political influence. All USDA documents and other communications should be available to all HIOs on a equivalent basis. Preferential treatment will only serve to erode the accountability and leadership of the USDA. Regularly scheduled consultations between the USDA and HIOs should be held to improve communication, build rapport, and resolve conflicts in an impartial and timely manner. Representatives of both the HIOs and USDA should be accessible on an informal basis in a timely manner. USDA should establish a review team with the responsibility for the certification and auditing of all HIOs. This team would review initial (provisional) certification programs and conduct periodic reviews on a yearly basis. The suggested certification levels would include provisional or apprentice, certified, probationary and decertified. An appeal process should be in place at time of implementation. VMOs should be responsible for the evaluation of the DQP programs in the field. If chronic noncompliance problems exist, the licensing of the HIO should be revoked. All HIOs must have a rule book that addresses the HPA and be approved by the USDA. Conflict of interest at the individual, management, and HIO levels must be addressed in the rulebook. Certification standards should consider the following elements including a designated DQP coordinator, the ability to understand and enforce the HPA, an evaluation mechanism for identifying improvement areas, HIO's mission statement with goals, objectives and time lines, published comprehensive rulebook of the bylaws, financial statements using GAAP (generally accepted accounting procedures) standards, a training and education function, both written and practical evaluations should be required of new and refresher courses for DQPs, DQPs' resumes must be on file and accessible, documenting of veterinary consultants, and the DQP programs should be standardized between HIOs.
The DQP program requires substantial enhancement in order to successfully meet the vision. Each
HIO's DQP program requires a designated coordinator who can devote the required time necessary
to manage their specific program. This will aid in effective communication and may network the
HIO with some synergetic benefits. A definitive scar rule is the platform of uniform rules and possibly the effectiveness of the program. The scar rule as presently written has various interpretations among HIOs, USDA, and other stakeholders. An improved scar rule was submitted by written comments and is provided in Appendix C. Close scrutiny by the USDA must be given for its application and timely incorporation into the HPA or the drafting and adoption of more suitable specific language. The USDA should establish minimum standards for violations, penalties, and sanctions which must be accepted amongst all HIOs. This will assist in standardizing penalties, decreasing disputes, and enhance compliance. Many of the specific topics concerning the uniform rules centered around the DQPs. The number of entries rather than the number of horses should be considered in the assignment of the number of DQPs at a show. The penalty system for DQPs should be an escalating system for first, second, or third time offense, and the concept of "three strikes and you're out" was supported. After receiving a letter of reprimand, it is preferable that a DQP attends as an apprentice with APHIS for 2 shows within a 2-4 month time frame. The first letter of reprimand should be handled by the HIOs; whereby, two or more letters of reprimand should be handled by USDA. DQPs should still be allowed to appeal through the Administrative Law Judge. The USDA must be present at the DQP's hearing. Acceptable levels of penalties should be based on an escalating or progressive scale which factors in elements such as number of violations, severity of violation, and points of accountability. It was agreed that offenses should be accumulated but time frames should range from one show year to a lifetime. Broadening the penalties to be inclusive of the owner, trainer, and exhibitor should be considered. Rules should also effectively address the following topics since these have been indicated as areas of conflict in obtaining compliance to the HPA. These areas include use of acrylic or other substances on hoofs, swollen coronet bands and loss of hair in the pastern area during inspection, tack trucks and other equipment in the holding area, more emphasis and penalties on unilateral sore horses, the allowance of stewarding of a horse to minimize its reaction to palpation, allowance of inspection of legs under leg wraps in barn areas for the detection of foreign substances, tighter control of warm-up area and exit ring, and penalties associated with threatening a VMO or DQP (mandatory 5 year to life suspension was suggested). Commendable HIO performance needs to be objectively defined, measured using statistically valid methods, and awarded- not just punished when deficient. Industry would like a mechanism by which feedback (both positive and negative) may be given to the agency regarding VMO performance.
Training of DQPs from all certified HIOs and VMOs should be conducted in joint sessions on a regional basis, thus aiding in the standardization of inspections, utilization of consistent terminology, and enhancement of communication between the VMOs and DQPs, which may lessen tension and build rapport. There was strong support for the development of a mentoring system in which a "new" DQP would mentor with an experienced VMO. Contributors of training resources and expertise included the VMOs, HIOs, and animal protection groups. There should be consistency of instructors on a year-to-year basis. Training goals and agendas for VMOs and DQPs must be augmented to a much higher level. Training must be comprehensive and focus on standardization of inspection techniques among all inspectors. Topics which should receive serious consideration include current techniques in soring or pressure shoeing horses, use of digital pulse/pressure during inspections, and the development of interpersonal skills and issue resolution. Training should include more "hands-on" experience, with VMOs and DQPs sequentially examining the same horse in an effort to standardize inspections. Greater availability and use of visual aids such as videotapes and slide sets would be beneficial to the participants. Consistent terminology (i.e., sore vs sensitive) should be addressed so everyone is "speaking the same language."
Qualifications of the DQP were addressed since this is an area of past controversy. Qualifications
of the DQP should include that the individual be physically capable, knowledgeable of horses in
the areas of anatomy, behavior and the biomechanics of gaits, and free from conflicts of interest.
There was no consensus reached on whether past violators of HPA should be considered in the
selection of DQPs. However, some strongly expressed the view that the DQP should be a role
model for the industry and therefore should not possess any violation of the HPA. Immediate and
permanent revocation of a DQP's license upon receipt of a HPA violation ticket is valid. Broad-based education, especially targeted for youth, may be instrumental in changing the participant's attitude, and benefitting the welfare of the horse both inside and out of the arena. Educational programs could be fashioned after the "no smoking" or "anti-drug" media campaigns. Education and/or training programs additionally should be developed for the veterinary community, farriers, exhibitors/trainer/owners, and show management with the goal of changing consciousness, elevating the respect for the DQPs and VMOs, and increasing compliance. Data generated through research was generally agreed upon to enhance compliance of the HPA. Topics of research with high priority included the utilization of modalities (thermography, fluoroscope, digital pulse/pressure, ultrasound) to develop objective methods for detection of soring and pressure shoeing. An objective technology, even with some known deficiencies, should be embraced by the HIOs and USDA to be utilized as an adjunct to inspection or as a screening mechanism in identifying violators. Support was also received for the identification of methods of chemical analysis for urine, blood or hair, and the effects of action devices, shoes, and pads. University faculties were considered the most credible source to perform the research, although collaboration among other disciplines may be synergetic to the design, data collection, and application of the results. Funding sources for research should be sought from USDA, HIOs, animal protection groups, and allied industry.
The welfare of the horse was the primary driving force behind the current regulations and much of the concern expressed during the discussions and from written comments. With an increase in societal awareness and sensitivity towards animal welfare issues, a sincere and coordinated effort between the USDA, HIOs, and other stakeholders is necessary in protecting the welfare of the individual horse and the future of the industry.
School of Veterinary Medicine
APPENDIX A Written comments were received from the following organizations: American Association of Equine Practitioners, Lexington, KY (Gary L. Carpenter) American Horse Council, Washington, DC (James J. Hickey, Jr.) American Horse Protection Association, Inc., Washington, DC (Robin C. Lohnes) American Horse Shows Association, Inc., New York, NY (Eric L. Straus) American Humane Association, Washington, DC (Adele Douglass) American Quarter Horse Association, Amarillo, TX (Bill Brewer) Fund for Animals Inc., San Francisco, CA (Virginia Handley) Horse Power Project, Inc., Monterey, CA (Sharon Johnston) Hooved Animal Humane Society, Woodstock, IL (Donna Ewing) International Plantation Walking Horse Association, DQP Regulatory Commission, Burbank, CA (Larry Connelly, D.V.M.) National Horse Show Commission, Washington, DC (Tom Blankenship and Niels Holch) National Plantation Walking Horse Association, Inc., Anaheim, CA (Karen Ayres) Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association, Colorado, Springs, CO (Terri Greer) Written comments were received from the following individuals:
Top Next: Executive Summary: Self Regulatory Enforcement Plan Workgroup |