The following information was provided by Tim Cordes, DVM, Senior Staff Veterinarian, USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services. The Horse Protection Act was put in place and is being modified in order to prevent the act of soring, whereby caustic chemicals, foreign materials, or mechanical devices are used on horses in order to enhance gait. The following is the USDA’s current plan for enforcing the Horse Protection Act to prevent soring of horses. For further information on the Horse Protection Act, or to comment on regulations, contact Dr. John V. Zisk, Director, Horse Protection, Animal Care Staff, REAC, APHIS, USDA, 4700 River Road, Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234; 301/734-7833. Copies of the Strategic Plan are available through that office.

I. Mission Statement

The USDA seeks to enforce the Horse Protection Act and to continue to strengthen its relationship with the horse industry through a cooperative partnership and a comprehensive plan of “self-regulation.”

In order to achieve the elimination of soring, this proposal requires acceptance of elementary principles and the elements contained within. It is set forth with a programmed vision and expectation for the welfare of horses. Without compromising Horse Protection Act regulations or USDA enforcement expertise, this proposal utilizes and incorporates historical enforcement perspective and forethought on evaluations, audits, and the utilization of research to develop innovative policies and regulations to assure the protection of horses.

II. Statement Of Philosophy

The Congress of the United States and their constituencies have sought to eliminate the practice of soring through passage and execution of the Horse Protection Act (HPA).

Unquestionably, the welfare of horses has been and continues to be the primary concern of Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) veterinarians responsible for the enforcement of the HPA. APHIS believes that its role in enforcing the HPA should be specifically tailored toward the eventual elimination of soring. To that end, APHIS now seeks to strengthen USDA certified horse industry organizations with a proactive regulatory program geared toward the curtailment of both blatant and inconspicuous methods of soring. APHIS recognizes the challenges that such a proposal will place upon the program, however, it believes these can be overcome through a cooperative, non-partisan approach.

Just as APHIS veterinarians abide by their veterinary oath taken upon entry into their profession, we believe and have expectations that horse industry organizations should adhere to our standards of commitment, knowledge, and skill to relieve the suffering of sored horses.

The ideal strategy for the eventual elimination of soring would be the establishment of an effective program of self-regulation for USDA certified horse industry organizations. Such a program would make the best use of available resources. Self-regulation would have the added challenges of:

• Minimizing conflicts of interest within and among various industry organizations.
  
• Establishing an effective penalty system for offenders.
  
• Strengthening of the horse industry and betterment of the affected breeds.
  
• Providing educational programs to strengthen HPA enforcement and compliance.

Trained inspection professionals familiar with industry procedures and possessing proven inspection skills for the detection of sore horses are not just a requirement, but a necessity. Detection methods must continuously advance, becoming increasingly more sophisticated as soring techniques change and take on new applications. Continuous research on soring practices and the effects on horses is essential to achieving this goal.

III. Rationale

1. Enforcement History

The Horse Protection Act was passed by Congress in 1970, and Federal veterinarians began its enforcement by attending horse shows in 1972. Despite over 20 years of government intervention and regulation, and an amendment to the Act to incorporate Designated Qualified Persons (DQPs), the practice of soring continues.

Enforcement statistics garnered from Congressional reports support USDA contentions that the time for adoption of the Horse Protection strategic work plan is now. Recent DQP assessed violations when APHIS is not in attendance at a show/sale have approximated DQP assessed violations when APHIS is in attendance. Although a discrepancy still exists with the number of issued DQP violations based on USDA presence, APHIS believes this “gap” can be further reduced through Horse Protection strategic plan adoption and implementation.

2. Program Concerns

APHIS continues to support the elimination of soring practices and the work of DQPs to that end. APHIS and industry inspectors have expressed similar discontent over Horse Protection items such as:

• Scar rule enforcement inadequacies.
  
• Inadequate penalty system for industry violators.
  
• APHIS concern that the elimination of soring is not equally shared by all of industry.
  
• Dissatisfaction with lack of exploration of alternative methods of evaluating/detecting soring through research.

3. Public Concern/Special Interest Groups

A proactive, self-regulated enforcement plan is a tool successfully used by APHIS in other regulatory programs. APHIS believes this approach for the Horse Protection program would capture the support of professional equine organizations and build an accurate and representative picture of enforcement and success in the public view.

4. APHIS Vision And Program Review

The enforcement of the HPA through a self-regulatory work structure is consistent with the APHIS vision. Team-based leadership between APHIS and the horse industry is the first step in achieving our mutual goal of eliminating the illegal practice of soring.

APHIS is cognizant of the tremendous public interest in the Horse Protection program and is committed to deliver services of the highest quality. APHIS can accomplish this goal through a process of open communication, continual program evaluation, responsiveness to changing times, and strong proactive leadership. We welcome the challenges that lie ahead as we focus on continued achievements and advancements in Horse Protection.

IV. Self-Regulatory Enforcement Plan

1. Partnership In Enforcement Of The Horse Protection Act

Through the cooperative concept of self-regulation, USDA certified horse industry organizations would enter into an enforcement partnership with APHIS.

Enforcement (through inspection efforts) of the Horse Protection program would be placed primarily upon the horse industry DQP systems.

APHIS would not relinquish its authority under the Act of regulations, but seek to empower the industry through advisory, audit, and consultant roles.

Horse industry organizations would be held accountable for the action of their DQP inspection programs.

USDA certification would be contingent, in part, upon the satisfactory fulfillment of DQP program operations.

Measurable performance standards for horse industry organizations and APHIS would be developed and continually reviewed to ensure accuracy and reliability.

Communication between APHIS program managers and horse industry representatives would be formalized through specified meetings, direct involvement of APHIS regional offices with industry representatives, strategic planning committee workshops with industry personnel, and specialized training for industry organizations.

2. USDA Oversight Of Industry Staff

a. Certify horse industry organizations.
b. Decertify horse industry organizations.
c. Review and approve industry rule books.
d. Organize public meetings with industry representation.
e. Initiate and review program projects, work plans, policy, and regulatory initiatives.

Regions

a. Assign Horse Protection inspection teams to shows.
b. Receive reports/data generated by DQPs.
c. Act on reports of noncompliance and issue letters of reprimand (i.e., Letters of Caution/Warning).
d. Communicate directly with industry representatives in areas involving training, daily operations, dispute resolution, and regional requests by industry officials.

APHIS Veterinarians

a. Audit industry records.
b. Participate and execute training courses in their region.
c. Observe and evaluate DQPs in the performance of their duties.
d. Inspect horses and document Federal cases when necessary.

3. Horse Industry Organizations’ Responsibilities

a. Formulate rule books and submit them for APHIS approval.

• Phase I: Submit for approval after
  adoption of the StrategicPlan.
  
• Phase II: Submit for approval after any
  industry changes.
  
• Phase III: Submit for approval when
  requested by APHIS.

b. Enforce standards of conduct for DQPs and industry officers.
c. Issue DQP licenses to qualified candidates and provide uniform and consistent training.
d. Submit show schedules and DQP assignments to APHIS regional offices in a timely manner.
e. Make records available for APHIS audits.
f. Evaluate individual DQP performances and take appropriate administrative action as necessary

Create a free account with TheHorse.com to view this content.

TheHorse.com is home to thousands of free articles about horse health care. In order to access some of our exclusive free content, you must be signed into TheHorse.com.

Start your free account today!

SIGN UP

Already have an account?
Login and continue reading.