€Create a sliding scale of penalties for those DQP's found in violation of HPA and should be uniform across industry. This should include a unilaterally available database accessible to all 6 HIOs, APHIS, and the general public.

€Establish a committee (possible membership would include APHIS, HIO's, American Assoc. Equine Practitioners (AAEP), American Horse Council (AHC) whose primary responsibility would be the conflict resolution between APHIS and HIO's.

€Conduct joint training sessions for VMO's, judges and DQPs. Training would include establishment of an HIO mentoring program.

€Letters of reprimand should require timely notification to the HIO of incident and nature of problem.

€APHIS should address the issue of unaffiliated shows. The overall theme was for increased APHIS attendance.

€USDA personnel will continue to work both affiliated and unaffiliated shows. If and when the horse industry organization partnership successfully demonstrates effectiveness, APHIS emphasis will shift more to unaffiliated shows.

€There must be a clear, enforceable scar rule written.

€It was agreed that penalties should be levied, but no final consensus was reached as to where or at what level they should occur. This is a decision that has to be resolved by further work groups (e.g., who is penalized: trainer, owner, exhibiter, or horse). The intent is to not have the horse go on to next shows. Trainers and owners should be responsible for fines. Fine money should be recycled into DQP education programs.

€Evaluation programs must have concrete, objective criteria to measure effectiveness of the elimination of soring as a training practice.

€APHIS should be present whenever a DQP has a hearing against them.

€Communication channels and partnership avenues need to continue to be developed and enhanced to ensure the interests of all vested parties are met.

There is a need for a third party resolution officer or system to resolve areas of conflict between regulators and industry

APHIS must be present at DQP Hearings. DQPs should still be allowed to appeal removals through an Administrative Law Judge.

Industry would like a mechanism by which feedback may be given to the agency regarding VMO performance.

More specific definition/detection of soreness would eliminate areas of disagreement and conflict. Standards for detecting soreness should be clear, measurable and objective with clear areas of accountability.

Post show evaluations should be the method to define good or poor performance. Evaluations should be continuous. Evaluation forms should be sent to show managers, the general public and HIOs. Results (good and bad) should be advertised.

After receiving a letter of reprimand, it is preferable that a DQP apprentice with APHIS for 2 shows within a 2-4 month time frame. The first letter of reprimand should be handled by the HIOs. Two or more should be handled by APHIS.

The Penalty systems for DQPs should be an escalating system for first, second and third time offense. Bilateral soreness, scar rule and bad image should be covered by the HPA. Industry should manage public complaints.

Forum participants wanted more diagnosis of where and why problems occur in the DQP program. Based on this diagnosis, discipline alternatives (i.e., education, mentoring, apprenticeship, etc.) could be used.

In addition, good HIO performance needs to be objectively defined and awarded when good; not just punished when bad.

Discussion actions taken by organizations against DQP's centered upon the need to have consistent criteria for all organizations, each taking on the concept of "three strikes and you're out".

The participants thought fines (levied by OGC after an administrative hearing) and revocation or suspension of certification were appropriate measures. Fraudulent bookkeeping should be the grounds for immediate revocation; once the organization is told of the problem yet continues to fail to correct.

It was the opinion of the group that APHIS should work closely with the American Horse Shows Association for continued monitoring of the HPA.

Finally, general parameters around acceptable levels of penalties were given. Consensus was reached that the system should be an escalating scale which factored in elements such as number of violations, severity of violation, and points of accountability. Exemplar fines included: (1) for first offense: 3-6 months ban and $250-$500 fine; (2) second offense is 6-12 month ban and $500 $1000 fine; (3) and third offense would be 12 month-2 year ban and $1000-$2000 fine. It was agreed that offenses should be accumulated but time frames ranged from one show year to lifetime.

For the most part, all participants were supportive of a move towards self-regulating with the need for greater specifics to be elucidated.

The next topic discussed was actions that might be taken against poorly performing DQPs by their organizations. Both the AM and PM groups again stressed that they were confident that their DQP system(s) were working. Both emphasized that HIO training and re-training was preferred to license suspension and revocation. It was concluded that training workshops should be established for DQPs, VMOs, and judges.

Actions that might be taken against HIOs for poorly performing DQP programs was discussed next. Both groups felt that all six (HIO) DQP programs must follow the same guidelines, with a standard record keeping process (or database). The AM group thought that APHIS and the HIOs could jointly define a quality DQP program. The PM group was less optimistic; they conceded that infractions occur and need to be dealt with by a system that notifies, permits compliance, and then affords due process to the non-compliant HIO program.

Total agreement prevailed with the issue of actions taken against unaffiliated shows. It was recommended that APHIS spend all of its designated field time at unaffiliated shows, with full coverage for all breeds of horses.

Unlike the groups in Murfreesboro that opted for a DQP system of specific graded penalties for infractions committed by the industry, the groups in St. Louis chose to be more philosophical. They agreed on three points. All six HIOs needed to create a system for uniform penalties and rewards. Violations should be judged ostensibly by the severity of the offense and the history of the offender. The use of heavy penalties will only serve to drive exhibitors to unaffiliated shows and increase the practice of soring.

In summary, the above five topics covered in our breakout session combined a wide spectrum of priorities; those described in the preceding paragraphs are only those of highest priority status. Areas of agreement/disagreement have been accurately portrayed. The impact of these prioritized suggestions on the strategic plan of the horse protection program is significant; in review, they are as follows:

1.The DQP system will continue to work well with HIO unilateral control, held accountable by APHIS audits.

2.All six HIOs should develop a uniform penalty and reward system for their DQP program(s).

3.All six HIOs should develop a database for the aforementioned system to be shared freely with each other and APHIS.

4.APHIS should increasingly direct field investigations to unaffiliated shows and sales.

As with previous break out sessions, the concept of creating a review or conflict resolution committee was discussed. While in previous sessions, this included only HIO's and APHIS representatives, it was now expanded to include the American Horse Council (AHC) and the American Association Equine Practitioners (AAEP). These four groups (APHIS, HIOs, AHC, AAEP) were discussed, in various combinations, as comprising the third party resolution group.

The next point of discussion centered upon actions taken against poorly performing DQP's by their organizations. Unlike the guidelines proposed in the draft strategic direction, the group strongly felt that suspensions and license revocations should take a back seat, that is to come after, a mentoring and training program conducted by and for the HIO's. After the re-training of a DQP by an HIO, DQP would be expected to perform appropriately. If non-performance continued, the DQP program head would then apply certification revocation, when necessary. The concept of "three strikes and you're out" was widely accepted.

The group felt that in actions taken against industry for poor performance of DQP programs, notification of non-compliance was the important first step. This should be followed by fines, and revocation or suspension of horse industry organization certification based on chronic inaction of the DQP's or fraudulent bookkeeping. Again, a review or conflict resolution committee would be involved in an impartial hearing with a clear definition of poor performance. The group thought a clear definition of poor performance should be unilaterally agreed upon by APHIS and HIO's in a future meeting.

The topic "Actions taken against unaffiliated shows" sent a clear message to APHIS. It doesn't take too many VMOs to review an HIO that is performing well. Instead, APHIS VMO's should be attending unaffiliated shows and sales.

The group agreed with the wording in the strategic document, "if and when horse industry organization partnership successfully demonstrates effectiveness, USDA emphasis will be shifted more to unaffiliated shows."

And finally, the topic of designated qualified person system proposal was discussed. Rather than establishing a specific system of penalty categories and suspensions, the group felt that the penalty should fit the crime. That is, other than specific HPA violations, the individual HIO will establish penalty programs that will permit the individual to improve. Again, the "three strikes you're out" was agreed upon by all parties. It was further agreed that any penalty system should be a uniform system amongst all 6 HIOs. This system could serve as the foundation for a cross-organization DQP database and function as a common method for future communication and program conduct.