Response of the Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders and Exhibitors Association

To Petition for Rulemaking

Introduction

The Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders and Exhibitors Association (hereinafter TWHBEA) is uniquely positioned as amicus in matters related to the exhibition and regulation of the performance Walking Horse. It derives no revenues from the promotion of any issue related to the Petition, except inasmuch as legislation and practice which enhances the value and well-being of the animal enhances the objectives of the Association as well. It has no stake in the success of any HIO at the expense of any other. TWHBEA derives  no income from the training of horses, much less from one particular training technique as opposed to another.  Finally, it is a 501 (c) (5) organization dedicated to all of the many disciplines and uses of the Walking Horse, and conversely dedicated to the defense of any discipline under unfair attack. This Response points out areas of agreement with the position of the Petitioner, areas of disagreement, and areas in which basic facts and premises vital to Petitioner’s argument are without any logical or factual basis. It does so with an ultimate goal identical to that of the Horse Protection Act: the prohibition of soring in public venues. 

Interest of the Respondent 

The Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders’ and Exhibitors’ Association (TWHBEA), headquartered in Lewisburg, Tennessee, is the oldest and most prestigious organization devoted to the promotion of the breed. Founded in 1935, the breed registry was established to record the pedigrees of the Tennessee Walking Horse. Its goal is to maintain the purity of the breed, to promote greater awareness of the Tennessee Walking Horse and its qualities, to encourage expansion of the breed, and to help assure its general welfare.

There are more than 500,000 registered Tennessee Walking Horses throughout the world. TWHBEA protects the investment of Tennessee Walking Horse owners by establishing policies and requirements, and maintaining the breed registry. A 14-person Executive Board, selected from the International Board of Directors representing members in all 50 states and several foreign countries, plays the key role is establishing these policies. The success and popularity of the Tennessee Walking Horse is the result of thoughtful organization and strong leadership by the Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders’ and Exhibitors’ Association, and it is the essential organization for the continued success of the breed. The Association, and this Brief, promote the interests of approximately 10,000 individuals.

The TWHBEA International Board of Directors is dedicated to the sound horse. As declared in its mission statement, bylaws, position statement and web site, it does not support practices in violation of the Horse Protection Act in the development and training of the horse. The TWHBEA International Board of Directors supports the sound and compliant horse in every one of the breed’s numerous disciplines.

 

Statistical and Scientific Basis for Petitioner’s Claims

While the Petition for Rulemaking indiscriminately lumps together what it calls “HPA violations” in its arguments, citations are issued, as the Department knows, for many technical violations unrelated to bilateral sensitivity.[1] Petitioner’s arguments do not appear to in any way be addressed to instances of foreign substance, illegal chains, equipment violation, bad image horse, not reporting to DQP, suspension violation, or “NHSC point exam”, which comprise 7.3 % of all violations[2]. Added to unilateral sensitivity violations, this excluded percentage rises to 36.4%.To date, and to the best information available to TWHBEA, statistics show as follows:

Inspected horses found bilaterally sore to date:    1396

 

[3]

2007:

All inspections conducted by any HIO or authorized entity in 2007: 109,008

All sustained violations for bilateral sensitivity in 2007:     27

Percentage of inspected horses found bilaterally sore in 2007:   .00025%

2008:

All inspections conducted by any HIO or authorized entity in 2008: 111,932

All sustained violations for bilateral sensitivity in 2008:     43

Percentage of inspected horses found bilaterally sore in 2008:  .00038%

2009:

All inspections conducted by any HIO or authorized entity in 2009: 70,122

All sustained violations for bilateral sensitivity in 2009:     70

Percentage of inspected horses found bilaterally sore in 2009:  .00099%

2010:

All inspections conducted by any HIO or authorized entity in 2010: 72,114

All sustained violations for bilateral sensitivity in 2010:     92

Percentage of inspected horses found bilaterally sore in 2010:  .0012757%

2011:

All inspections conducted by any HIO or authorized entity in 2011 to date: 5374

All sustained violations for bilateral sensitivity in 2011:  9

Percentage of inspected horses found bilaterally sore in 2011:  .0017%

Totals:

Total inspections conducted by any HIO or authorized entity for reported years: 368,550

Total—bilateral sensitivity: 241

 

Percentage of all inspected horses found bilaterally sore—reported years: .0006%


Respondent takes issue with the factual bases for the following premises and statements found in the Petition:

References to “soring scars”[4] without further definition of this new term or distinction from “bilateral areas of uniformly thickened epithelial tissue if such areas are free of proliferating granuloma tissue, irritation, moisture, edema, or other evidence of inflammation”[5], allowed under HPA;

References to “widely practiced” “insidious practices” without further reference;

[6]

Incorporation of deceptive quotations;[7]

The statement that “Scarring of the pasterns is considered irrefutable evidence of soring”.

[8]

References to CFR provisions which do not contain the cited material;

[9]

Web sites created by individuals used as citations to support factual assertions made;[10]

Petitioner’s use of its own employees’ “declarations” as evidence; [11]

Entire pages of factual assertions without any factual reference or footnote whatsoever, and statements which are simply untrue. ;

[12]

The statement that “The fact that scarred horses are repeatedly shown and dismissed from shows irrefutably demonstrates that illegal soring continues in the Walking Horse Industry”, with no reference to any causal link or other information;

[13]

Adulteration of quotations.

[14]

 

DISCUSSION OF RULEMAKING PROPOSALS

 

1.     Petitioner’s request for “permanent disqualification of scarred horses” ignores the science and the plain language and history of the Act, and is in fact an apparent attempt to stop the showing of padded performance horses.

Having drawn a link which has no basis in science between the buildup of callus tissue and what it calls “soring scars”, and having exaggerated the incidences of cheating behavior in the industry, Petitioner then suggests that one turndown on the basis of the so-called “scar rule” should disqualify any show horse for all time.  As SHOW’s response notes,[15] this approach was considered and rejected, in no small part because callus tissue can be reduced “with proper care, rest and time”, in the same manner that proper care of a callus on the human foot can do so. Indeed, the Act allows for an amount of “uniformly thickened epithelial tissue” in recognition of the fact that friction in the pastern area, in this show horse as well as in many or all other extended-gait  performance breeds, will produce this natural reaction and protection. SHOW also notes the wide range of variation in interpretations of the scar rule, not so much as between USDA and DQPs as between USDA inspectors themselves. [16] Ending the career (and perhaps the life) of a valuable show animal on the basis of such subjectivity thwarts not only due process, but the very purpose of the Act. Moreover, as SHOW points out, requiring the participation of HIOs in this endeavor may well make them “state actors”, implicating USDA in the consequent deprivation of property rights of horse owners.

[17]  This respondent cannot accept petitioner’s suggestion as being put forth in good faith, as it appears directed toward the abolition of the discipline, as opposed to suggested effective regulation of bad practices. 

 

2.     The imposition of required minimum penalties and permanent disqualifications would be counterproductive, counter to the intention of the Act, and an excessive use of authority.

Strangely, Petition argues that USDA’s failure to impose mandatory minimum penalties is “arguably illegal”[18]—and then quotes the HPA provision allowing the Secretary discretion to promulgate such rules “as he deems necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act”.  There is no other rationale given for this hyperbolic and illogical suggestion.   Petitioner’s suggestion to force mandatory penalties would require the amendment of the Regulations to make this so, as well, as 9 CFR 11.21 plainly allows HIOs to adopt their own penalties. Clearly, the present and permissible remedy for what USDA considers to be an ineffective HIO is decertification.   SHOW points up the utter failure to comport with due process, the right to confrontation, and the rights to jury trial which such a short-circuit of normal fact-finding and appeal processes would entail.[19] Finally, and perhaps most devastating, the imposition of practically impossible regulations and career-ending disqualifications will or would lead to the abandonment of the HIO structure by all, the abandonment of qualified inspections, and—again perhaps the goal of Petitioner—the abandonment of a discipline which has been shown, again and again and again, to be humane and productive of a great show animal.

 

3.     Petitioner’s requests for the incorporation of points of emphasis are in part moot and are in part without justification or scientific basis.

 

As with many rules which have evolved through the years, HIOs and the industry have adapted and are already employing some of the suggested rules. Horses are not to show back at the same event after disqualification, and there is no evidence that they are. Regulations regarding recordkeeping, and penalties for the failure to do so, are already in place. Horses dismissed from the ring are then inspected. The Act and regulations are already replete with prohibitions against inserted materials designed to cause soring. The prohibitions against participation while suspended are already in the Regulations and penalties for violations are described in the Act itself. Petitioners show a shocking lack of familiarity with that which they attempt, respectively, to duplicate, supersede, and contradict.  

TWHBEA takes no position regarding the correlation between coffin bone rotation and the Act, but defers to SHOW’s discussion of the topic and the science, contained in its brief at pp. 36-37. It does wish to emphasize the near impossibility of conducting this additional test in the field, with such drastic consequences, and while horse shows attempt to proceed. 

Respondents do agree with the principle that each HIO should honor the suspensions levied by the other, and questions whether and to what extent this accepted practice is actually being violated. However, this mutual respect for suspensions should continue to be (and to the knowledge of the respondent is) the product of a voluntary agreement among HIOs dedicated to the abolition of unfair and illegal practices. 

 

4.     TWHBEA recommends that USDA engage in scientific study and a cooperative effort with the industry in order to gain additional knowledge and to more efficiently enforce the Act, a goal supported by the overwhelming number of horse enthusiasts. 

While TWHBEA applauds the efforts of USDA to work with industry representatives in understanding and modifying training techniques, it also asks that USDA recognize the industry’s greatest asset: the owners, trainers, and breeders dedicated to fair competition between sound horses. TWHBEA stands ready to help coordinate studies intended to effectuate the purpose of the Horse Protection Act. For example, Dr. Ram Purohit, DVM,MS, PhD,

[20] author of the “Auburn studies” and relied upon by USDA and the industry in developing humane devices and practices some thirty years ago, remains ready to continue those studies.  An exploration of the relationship between callus tissue in the pastern area, for example, and its causation, would be most useful in the uniform application of inspections and in addressing concepts such as that of the “permanently scarred “ horse, an animal apparently constructed of whole cloth by Petitioners in their application. In developing uniform, fair, and objective standards, TWHBEA’s objectives are exactly the same as those which should be sought by USDA. 

  

CONCLUSION

After some thirty pages of largely undocumented allegations against SHOW and other HIOs, Petitioners’ brief contains, in a footnote at the bottom of page 26, a reference to SHOW, an entity in existence for less than two years, as having “recently taken initial steps committing to compliance and enhanced enforcement”.    This grudging and backhanded recognition of the enormous progress made by the Walking Horse industry is swallowed up in HSUS’ effort to sensationalize the issue in a brief which, as SHOW states, would be sanctionable in a court of law. USDA should base no action on such a shoddy product. Although it runs contrary to HSUS’ financial interests, it would do well to recognize that, in the last five years, less than six horses out of every ten thousand have been found to be “sore”.

None of the stakeholders should be adversaries, as all share the same objectives.

[21]USDA could do better to develop uniform  inspection standards, with the assistance of TWHBEA and industry leaders, which are more truly regulatory than punitive, which inspire confidence in and respect for the inspection process, and which allow the performance walking horse and its custodians to thrive in accordance with the intention of the Horse Protection Act.  TWHBEA stands ready to help.

 



[1] While it is acknowledged that 15 USC 1821 (3)(a) references “any limb” of a horse, it must also be understood  that there is no motivation for any person to intentionally induce unilateral sensitivity preparatory to showing a horse.

[2] From hpadata.us.

[3] The web site maintained by Friends of the Sound Horse, one of the Petitioners, contains this figure and states that bilateral sensitivity comprises 14.8% of all violations found.  The figures following are from USDA reports.

[4] First found at page 3 of the Petition without footnote, and repeated throughout.

[5] 9 CFR 11.3(b)

[6] Petition at p. 3. T the knowledge of the respondent, the reference was to one 2010 incident which was detected by SHOW HIO.  At page 20, petitioner states that “sound horses are often swapped in for sore horses”.

[7] “USDA must ‘stop, once and for all, the inhumane and absolutely unnecessary practice of soring’”. The quotation, reference to which is found only in a footnote in Petitioner’s brief at page 4, is from 1973.

[8] Petitioner’s brief at p. 9. This neither defines “scarring of the pasterns” nor explains who considers “scarring” “irrefutable evidence of soring”, or why.

[9] “The Act anticipates that violators will try to elude detection of soring and scarring by using caustic chemicals to remove scars…, and accordingly prohibits the use of such foreign substances.” Petitioner’s brief at 9. This is not so. The citation given is to 9 CFR 11, which refers  to acceptable lubricants “while the horse is being shown….” There is no prohibition against treatment of callus tissue outside of the show environment.

[10] To support the contention that “pads are used to support soring mechanisms”, Petitioner references a web site which states that one Vickey Hollingsworth is the author. Brief at p. 12, fn 31.   This site also cites “excessive feeding”  and the use of tail sets as abusive practices. Ms. Hollingsworth is apparently the seller of “High Performance Hoof Care”.

[11] Brief at 12, fn 32.

[12] E.g., Brief at pp. 13-14, discussing pressure shoeing and stewarding practices “often” used.  Also, e.g., see: “There is no minimum penalty for instances of pressure shoeing, stewarding practices, or the act of swapping horses or numbers”. Id. at 22. 

[13]Brief at p. 18.  In fact, Petitioner’s brief cites one or more instances wherein a horse was turned down for a “scar rule” violation and showed nights later with no problem. It appears more logical that, as the horse was not turned down for sensitivity, this shows there is no connection between soring and these “scars” and also shows the arbitrary nature of inspections, as they are presently carried out.

[14] . At p. 20, petitioner quotes Congress as saying, [banning ‘scarred  horses’] will make it impossible for persons to show sored horses in nearly all horse shows”. This adulterated quote, the historically correct portion of which was generated before the scar rule ever existed,  actually refers to “The Act” making it impossible…. Quoted in Thornton and Cantrell v. USDA, 715 F. 2d. 1508 (1983).

[15] SHOW response at p. 25.

[16] As this Response is written, two horse shows are underway, those being in Panama City, Florida,  and Cookeville, Tennessee;  both are subject to USDA inspection; Panama City, under the direction of Dr. Ernest Johnson, is effectively shut down; Cookeville, under the direction of Dr. Hamill, is enjoying a wide patronage and is largely unaffected by USDA’s presence.

[17] SHOW at p. 27.

[18] Brief at p. 22.

[19] SHOW at 31.

[20] Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, AL 36849-5522; 334-844-4490; fax 334-844-6715;  home 334 821 1336; email rpurohit1336@charter.net.

[21] “We will litigate, not negotiate”.  Dr. Chester Gipson.

 

 


 

For further details or information, please contact (931) 359-1574.

TWHBEA Partner Events

TWHBEA Lifetime Members

TWHBEA Past Presidents

TWHBEA Master Breeder Recipients

Reese L. Smith Award Recipients

TWHBEA Presidential Award Recipients

Thank You 2013 World Versatility Show Sponsors!