But the methodology they use is deeply flawed. Their calculation: # of sore horse violations (industry-identified only) = % of entries found sore

Transcription

1 Opponents of the PAST Act want you to believe that horse soring is a vanishingly small problem and they have it all under control with their industry self-policing. They ve trotted out various numbers to portray a very high rate of compliance with the Horse Protection Act. But the methodology they use is deeply flawed. Their calculation: # of sore horse violations (industry-identified only) # of Big Lick horse ENTRIES + # of flat-shod horse ENTRIES = % of entries found sore Accurate calculation: # of sore horse violations (industry- and USDA-identified) # of Big Lick horses actually presented = % of horses found sore They inflate the denominator in 2 key ways: They use number of entries instead of number of horses actually presented. Each horse typically is entered in multiple competitions at a show, so a single horse accounts for several entries. Further, they mix apples and oranges, blending the various classes together to include horses not using action devices, stacked, or weighted shoes. By doing this, they obscure the high rate of violations among horses in the Big Lick category and inflate the overall compliance rate by including the entries of the many sound flat-shod horses who are exhibited several times per show. The numerator is artificially low because: There s very little meaningful inspection now. The violation rate is consistently much higher when USDA is present at shows, but USDA only attends a fraction of shows (roughly 10%). Industry inspectors pass non-compliant horses through inspection, especially when USDA is not present. Violation rates can soar 300% or higher when USDA is present. 80% of all violations are found at the small percentage of shows attended by USDA. Unbelievably, they only count violations found by their own inspectors, not those found by USDA. They don t account for the large number of horses scratched (pulled from the show before inspection), likely because they ve been subjected to soring and their owners/trainers are afraid they ll get caught. At the 2013 Celebration, about 20% of entries were scratched. Among those who use devices prohibited under the PAST Act and who would be affected by it, soring remains rampant. During the 2012 show season, the top 15 trainers named in the industry s Riders Cup award program were all cited for violations of the Horse Protection Act. One of the few trainers convicted under the law, Barney Davis, told prosecutors: every trainer sored horses You have to.without the soring, without some kind of soring, the horse, they re not going to do the Big Lick. At the 2012 Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration, 76% of horses randomly checked by USDA tested positive for foreign substances (soring, masking and numbing agents).

2 Big Lick = Sore FACT: 93% of all USDA HPA Violations through August 2013 were on Big Lick Horses Big Lick = Sore FACT: Top Rider s Cup contenders had a combined 94 HPA Violations--ALL Big Lick Trainers Big Lick = Sore FACT: Largest Big Lick show (2013 Celebration) had over 125 random samples test POSITIVE for PROHIBITED foreign substances, which is 2 of 3 horses (67%) Big Lick = Sore FACT: Largest Big Lick show (2013 Celebration) had 110 USDA cited HPA Violations NO BIG LICK = NO SORING FACT: Three largest Flat Shod Shows in 2013 (WHOA, NWHA & RMHA - over 1000 entries) had NO (ZERO) HPA Violations 1000 Flat Shod Entries = ZERO HPA Violations

3

4

5

6

7

8 The Prevent All Soring Tactics (PAST) Act of 2013 Myth vs. Fact November 5, 2013 Myth: H.R will effectively eliminate the show horse industry of the Tennessee Walking Horse and have a major economic impact on those associated with the showing of our great breed. Fact: H.R is designed to save this show horse industry by penalizing people that routinely abuse horses and flout the Horse Protection Act of In response to significant media coverage of widespread horse soring, show crowd size is down and corporate sponsors have withdrawn their support. A telling example is the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration (touted as the breed s premier World Championship show), which has been said to have lost $600,000 in The economic benefit this industry brings to our communities is in serious jeopardy unless we end this cruel practice and restore public confidence in the integrity of these shows. There are many venues around the country where sound Tennessee Walking Horses are exhibited and rewarded, and many of the participants in these endeavors support this legislation (see list below). People who are not engaged in illegal activity have nothing to fear under this bill. Myth: The elimination of weighted shoes will make ALL show horse divisions extinct. This includes the smallest of shoes (Country Pleasure division), to the largest (Show Horse division), as all shoes have a weight to them. This caveat alone will decimate all showing of Tennessee Walking Horses, except the showing of a barefoot horse which may not be healthy for the hooves of a horse. Fact: H.R does not prohibit all horse shoes. It expressly allows for the use of weighted shoes that are protective or therapeutic in nature. There are many shoes of varying weights that are used on horses by their owners for the protection of the horses hooves or for therapeutic purposes in fact, the overwhelming majority of horse shoes are used (on Tennessee Walking Horses and horses of all breeds) for these purposes. There are many Tennessee Walking Horses currently being shown in several divisions with shoes that would be allowed under H.R

9 But for the three breeds Tennessee Walking, Racking, and Spotted Saddle Horses where there are known abuses associated with the use of weighted shoes and hoof bands, the bill makes these abuses unlawful. It has been documented that heavy shoes and hoof bands are regularly used as an integral part of a practice generally known as pressure shoeing to cause horses to be sore, which creates an artificial high-stepping gait that is often rewarded in the show ring. The use of these heavy shoes which rely on hoof bands to help hold them on the horse s hoof has also been shown to cause horses hooves to be shorn off at the band, causing great pain to the horse and risking serious, potentially permanent, and sometimes fatal damage. Myth: The elimination of all action devices is ill advised and unnecessary. This elimination will exclude protective boots as well as the 6 oz chain (a miniscule size in comparison to the average 1000 lb horse), which is the largest chain that a Tennessee Walking Horse may be shown in. Additionally, there is no scientific proof that action devices are harmful to the horse. Fact: The definition of action devices in H.R mirrors the definition in the Horse Protection Act regulations issued by the United States Department of Agriculture. The prohibition on these devices is limited to Tennessee Walking, Racking, and Spotted Saddle Horses, the three named breeds that have for decades been subjected to the use of these devices as part of the soring process. The prohibition is not intended to eliminate the use of protective devices ( protective boots such as unweighted bell boots and the bill clarifies this) just as the bill does not eliminate protective shoes. However, action devices currently allowed and used under HPA regulations in performance Tennessee Walking Horse show rings (which include 6 oz. chains) are being used in the soring process by many industry participants. Without an action device, the currently widespread use of soring chemicals on the horse s pastern would have a greatly reduced effect; the chemicals and action devices are used together to sore the horse. So widespread is the use of soring of the pastern that in 2011, 97.6% of the swab samples taken by USDA to test for the presence of prohibited foreign substances on the feet of horses shown came back positive for soring agents, or masking or numbing agents used to prevent detection that the horses had been sored. Action devices also cause changes to the surface and tissue of the horse s pastern, including bleeding, edema, callouses, and hair loss. These changes are evidence indicative of soring, and are in violation of the scar rule regulation. USDA and industry inspection officials alike cite vastly more scar rule violations on performance Tennessee Walking Horses (those shown in divisions that currently allow the use of an action device) than on horses shown in flat shod divisions which do not allow these devices. The American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners support a ban on action devices, noting that [w]hen used in conjunction with chemical irritants on the pastern of the horse s foot, the motion of the action device creates a painful response, resulting in a more exaggerated gait. They commend the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF), the national governing body for equestrian sport in the United States, [for] disallow[ing] action devices in the show ring for all recognized national breed affiliates a prohibition that in 2012 USEF extended to nonrecognized breed events offered for Tennessee Walking, Racking, and Spotted Saddle Horses at its sanctioned competitions. In their joint call for a ban, these veterinary experts state, Because the inhumane practice of soring Tennessee Walking Horses has continued 40 years after passage of the Horse Protection Act, and because the industry has been unable to make substantial progress in eliminating this abusive practice, the AVMA and the AAEP believe a ban on action devices and performance packages is necessary to protect the health and welfare of the horse. They explain that [p]erformance packages (also called stacks or pads), made of plastic, leather, wood, rubber and combinations of these materials, are attached below the sole of the horse s natural hoof and have a metal band that runs around the hoof wall to maintain them in place. Performance packages add weight to the horse s foot, causing it to strike with more force and at an abnormal angle to the ground. They also facilitate the concealment of items 2

10 that apply pressure to the sole of the horse s hoof. Pressure from these hidden items produces pain in the hoof so that the horse lifts its feet faster and higher in an exaggerated gait. Myth: While the industry is moving towards scientifically based inspections, the currently in place inspection procedures are extremely subjective. H.R will allow for the permanent disqualification of a person upon their third violation. This is across the board and irrespective of whether or not that person actively shows one horse or fifty. Fact: The current Horse Protection Act gives the Secretary the authority to disqualify a violator for a period of not less than 5 years for a second or subsequent violation; a permanent disqualification falls within this existing authority and is already allowed. However, given the historic lack of application of such a penalty and the belief by violators that they will never face any such penalty, the current law provides an insufficient deterrent to those who sore horses and profit from this illegal activity, as recognized by the USDA s Office of Inspector General, the AVMA, and the AAEP, all of which have urged stronger penalties. This is not a situation of a few bad apples disregarding the law the problem is systemic. Indeed, all 20 of the industry s top trainers in the 2011 Riders Cup award program were cited for recent soring violations, with a total of 164 violations among them. But only 7% of those violations yielded actual suspensions, and of those, very few suspensions lasted more than two weeks. H.R seeks to clarify what penalties may be applied to chronic repeat offenders. The bill clarifies that upon a third or subsequent violation, such a chronic offender may be permanently disqualified. If a licensed inspector or Veterinary Medical Officer finds a horse sore, and that finding is upheld in a court of law, the violator (after utilizing all of the due process afforded to him) should be held accountable. These are not easy convictions to win, and the prosecutor must meet a high burden of proof. Certainly after three such convictions, an offender should no longer be allowed to participate. Permitting such criminals to resume business as usual can only further undermine the integrity of this industry. The Horse Protection Act is supposed to eliminate soring, not regulate it, or space out the periods between violations by chronic career violators. These recalcitrant abusers should not be allowed to continue to violate the law and make a profitable career from it. 3