APPENDIX B

Executive Summary: Self Regulatory Enforcement Plan Workgroup
Submitted by: Randy Luikart

Over all, the reception of the proposed plan was positive. Most people expressed skepticism about any relationship with the government, mostly due to past performances on both sides of the issue. As the meetings progressed participants became involved with how to solve the obvious problems and ensure that each role player in the partnership knew their jobs and were held accountable. Some lengthy discussion on the communication aspect required some serious comment. They felt timely and accurate communication essential. Recommending the USDA being the clearinghouse for all information. This communication network should extend to the state and local level eventually. Communication of suspension lists, show dates, DQP lists, etc., should be done on a regular basis. Having the USDA being the clearinghouse for information would lend accountability from the field to the top. Accountability for actions in the field would be accomplished more expeditiously with a thorough and up-to-date communications system. Communication extends to education and strong support was shown for recurrent training for all people involved with enforcement. All groups are willing to assist in structuring training programs for VMO's to spectators. Utilization of other horse industry groups for expertise and cooperation in formulating these programs was suggested. If this process is to be successful, then each individual's responsibilities must be clearly defined. Included with these definitions should be the availability of these organized training sessions to enhance their performance in the field. Enthusiasm for the proposal began to grow and many suggestions of stricter guidelines of responsibilities coupled with a timely review of all the programs within the partnership be accomplished to ensure compliance with the HPA. It was gratifying to see members of each segment of the industry state their concern was for the welfare of the horse, and to enhance compliance with the HPA.

All groups acknowledged that the ultimate responsibility of enforcement of the HPA belongs to the USDA. Each participant in the enforcement chain of command brings something unique to the team concept. Support for the field personnel should be strong and unyielding. Conflicts, when encountered, should be handled swiftly and impartially, away from public scrutiny. Training programs to help minimize the conflicts in judgment among enforcement personnel should be designed. Inspection guidelines should be enhanced so they are more uniform and comprehensive. Considerable discussion was encountered to have USDA attend multi-breed shows and shows not currently affiliated with any certified organization. Some discussion centered around helping the USDA fund the enforcement of the HPA. Realizing that the money available for enforcement was inadequate, some brainstorming occurred which could help the financial situation.

Horse Industry Organizations responsibilities would be expanded allowing them to become more of a participant in enforcement. These organizations felt they were willing to be more accountable for their actions even with stricter guidelines. Sessions focused on the necessity for USDA approval of rule books, and felt the USDA responsibility should focus more on the rules pertaining to the HPA. They have no problem with USDA having the information contained in the rule books as general knowledge. Some concern about USDA considering horse show rule violations as violations of the HPA was expressed. Problems of this nature would be reduced by accurate accountability and disclosure of information. All groups expressed strong support for the DQP system. This DQP system is a workable system, and with proper training, support and guidelines, it would enhance the HPA enforcement. Mentoring of DQPs/VMOs could be a viable adjunct to training, standardizing inspection procedures, and could reduce "in the field" conflicts. Local conflict resolutions need timely and impartial settlement and should be handled by the HIO with full accountability to the other partners.

As group leader for the Self Regulation aspect of these public meetings, I found these discussions to be positive. It was interesting to note that apprehension was expressed strongly about the ability of a partnership to exist, but all groups represented felt it would work if all players played by the same book. Self-regulation extends from groups to individuals, it also means self responsibility. We as an individual have a responsibility to another not to break the rules. When we see a rule broken we all have the knowledge to know it, and the responsibility to do something about that person who broke it. As a child crosses the road, and makes a decision to go bar hopping or to the library. What this child chooses is dependent on what training and self regulation (control, responsibility) the child has. The parent watching the child for the first few times, to ensure the child makes it across the road safely and then makes the right decision, is the role the USDA has to play in this partnership. I am optimistic that the horse industry will rise to the challenge. Formulating goals from each aspect of the partnership should be accomplished. This allows each partner to have the luxury of formulating their decision-making process to enhance the compliance of the HPA. A strong leadership role of the USDA, setting the example of "team captain" while providing training, accountability, and timely communication would enhance the cooperative spirit of the industry. I feel the rewards would be terrific. I support the concept of self-regulation and would be happy to help achieve this goal in HPA enforcement.

Attendance was 35-37 (AM), 9-11 (PM). Those in attendance ranged from industry organization leaders, horse trainers, veterinarians, horse owners, and one groom.

The two meetings focused on the three sections under self-regulation contained in the 1996 Strategic Plan of USDA-APHIS/REAC. Specific items of concern were expressed and weighed during the meetings. Suggestions from industry to improve particular items of the plan were also noted.

Section one of Self-Regulation concerns the concept of the partnership in enforcement for the industry. Representatives felt the whole section deserved a high degree of support. They were quick in adding that a major degree of self-regulation currently exists. Additional enforcement stipulations and enhanced expectations from USDA would require a sound working relationship. This relationship would have to incorporate the necessary ingredients of trust, accountability and communication. They noted that all partners must have the same requirements of accountability. USDA, HIOs, and DQPs, must share the partnership equally. They supported and suggested training sessions and increased communication to and from the USDA as important tools in reaching this level of partnership.

USDA oversight of the industry is essentially the same, but with enhanced enthusiasm over several areas. Non-affiliated shows were suggested as target areas for USDA. All areas of "Staffing" reflected strong support with the exception of "rulebook" reviewing and approval. Concern expressed was as to what was required for compliance with the HPA and what was informational that was to be approved. One group was against having the USDA assigning DQPs and inspection teams to horse shows. Conflict resolution, from DQP to VMO and HIO to USDA, suggested by both groups, should be immediate and done by an impartial committee. One group suggested holding training sessions so that infield conflicts that arise between VMO and DQP may be avoided, or that conflict resolution sessions be held away from the horse show. Of high importance was that guidelines of inspections be uniform industry wide. One group (consisting more of HIO members) suggested that more stringent requirements be established for HIOs to become certified (this might require HPA amendment). Both groups suggested expansion to non affiliated shows, and one group suggested inspections of other breeds at multi-breed horse shows.

Responsibilities of the HIOs are to be enhanced by the enforcement of the act by the HIO. Commentors expressed the same concern of the rulebook noted above during this section and likened it to approval of the AHSA rulebook. One group suggested circulating the suspension lists to the public much like the American Horse Shows Association does in their newsletter. Accountability of these lists by USDA, commentors felt, would enhance the credibility of the HIOs and help in identifying the HPA offenders. Both groups felt the DQP system is a workable method to accomplish the objectives of the HPA. Training, which should include information of where and when the HPA is applicable, of all individuals at all levels is paramount. USDA should administer the training sessions. There was more concern placed on the "how" of the partnership rather than the "why". This would lead one to believe the strategic plan is on the right track, but needs the details worked out.

28-30 people in the AM session, 18 in the PM. Those in attendance ranged from industry leaders, leaders of welfare organizations, DQPs, VMOs, trainers, and horse owners.

The two meetings focused on the section of the USDA strategic plan concerning self regulation. Self regulation being divided into Partnership, USDA Oversight, and Horse Industry responsibilities. Since some of the same "players" were in attendance as the past meetings, some of the same opinions were heard.

The first section of the plan, Partnership, takes a considerable amount of the report. Those in attendance considered a high degree of partnership exists in the current atmosphere. Indeed they were constructive and positive in the concept of an enhanced level of partnership. It was noted more at this meeting that considerable animosity exists about the trust that each must have for the other partners. Past practices of not supporting those assigned with tasks has contributed to this distrust. Both groups were confident if mutual working relationships are to be enhanced, then of utmost importance is communication, timely and clear. Obviously accountability for the communications and performance of task is imperative. One group even suggested taking the communication to the local level if necessary. Conflict resolution should be expedient, mediated impartially, and away from public scrutiny. Clear definitions of each partners responsibilities coupled with training sessions to ensure knowledge of each partners responsibilities. USDA and show managers should support more enthusiastically the decisions of the DQP's. One group suggested a time schedule for the continued review of this dynamic partnership. Both groups suggested that judges for horse shows be required to attend the same regulatory enforcement training sessions as DQPs/VMOs and other industry people do.

USDA oversight received strong support by both groups with each remarking their cooperation is required for the welfare of the horse. They felt strongly about communication and the complete disclosure of all information. Each facet of the partnership brings something unique to the "team." One group commented that should USDA broaden the scope of inspections to include non affiliated shows that they would be willing to enhance funding for assisting the USDA in that arena. This would allow the USDA to broaden the scope to include all shows that they would be willing to enhance funding for assisting the USDA in that arena. This would allow the USDA to broaden the scope to include all horses, as both groups interpret the HPA. Training sessions organized by USDA and including all segments of the industry should include HPA training and when it applies. Both groups felt strongly about increasing training sessions for DQPs.

HIO responsibilities will include the acknowledgment that USDA has the ultimate authority in the enforcement of the HPA. Both sessions were uncomfortable with USDA approving all show rules. They felt only rules that apply to HPA should be approved, while they were willing to submit show rules for information. One group noted that violations of show rules should not be reflected as violations of HPA by USDA. One section wanted to limit the Certified HIOs from using certified programs from raising money for political action uses. Conflict resolution was important to both groups, with impartiality and quickness being extremely important.

22-24 people the AM section, PM section moved to Certification as no one signed up. Those attending were industry representatives, veterinarians, farriers, horse owners and trainers.

This meeting focused on the section of the USDA strategic plan concerning self-regulation. This section divides into Partnership, USDA oversight, and Horse Industry responsibilities. Many people in attendance were present at prior meetings, with additional people from welfare organizations. Many expressed essentially the same information as the previous meetings in St. Louis and Murfreesboro.

Understanding of this group regarding the partnership being formed by the USDA and the HIOs was positive and constructive. Comments were heard concerning all parties accountability which requires all players to adhere to the future guidelines for successful implementation. All participants agreed the welfare of the horse is paramount. Participant's comments remained positive and little time was spent discussing the past enforcement history of the HPA. This positive atmosphere reflects that the horse industry representatives are aggressively thinking of the future rather than the past. In these discussions, of primary importance was training and education. Simplified, comprehensive training ranged from VMOs to spectators. Programs should include the training of show management regarding the enforcement of the HPA. Judges, farriers, trainers, everyone connected with the horse industry should have available training to ensure more equitable enforcement. Guidelines for each groups roles in enforcement should be developed, which would include cooperative methods at the state, local, and federal level. Utilize other horse associations that have generated welfare programs within their guidelines. Communication is required for continued success of any partnership. This group also suggested follow up meetings to evaluate procedures and correct problems on an annual basis. Sharing of violations lists, credibility of leaders of the organizations, stricter rules, all will enhance the partnership and provide accountability to the industry. A method for fair due process of conflict resolution needs to be established.

USDA oversight must include remaining an active and equal player in the partnership by expanding it's mandated enforcement to unaffiliated shows and other breed shows. Show rule books should be approved for adherence to HPA, and reviewed for items not covered by HPA. USDA should be the organizer for all training programs educating for compliance with HPA. List ticketed violators on newly formed web site and other mediums. Ongoing training program reviews and enhancements for VMOs and DQPs, which could incorporate a mentoring system. Training programs should be comprehensive for knowledge and specific towards enforcement. Recognizing different breeds have different issues, and being cognizant of across the board actions.

HIO responsibilities extend from cooperating with USDA in organizing training programs, establishing rule books, to establishing recording methods demonstrating their accountability in enforcement. Sharing any and all information with any horse organization. Comments suggested spending money to enhance the DQP training programs, implement a mentoring system, and money available for USDA to enforce the HPA. HIOs would formulate a plan to remove the actual and perceived conflict of interest in inspections and enforcement. This would extend to reviewing procedures for DQPs responsibilities to the Act. Assist the USDA in designing a procedure for a fair hearing process, which includes due process, checks and balances, and ability to demonstrate accountability by reporting outcomes.