Next Listening Sessions are this week!
March 22 – 9am to 1pm; Doubletree Ontario Airport, 222 N. Vineyard Avenue, Ontario, CA 91764
March 23 – 9am to 1pm; Phoenix Inn Suites, 3410 Spicer Road SE, Albany, OR 97322
Click here for more information and the list of upcoming listening sessions
So I've gotten a few questions on what would be the best way to approach speaking at a listening session and the USDA APHIS Survey. I decided to go ahead and post what I've written to help you with your submittal and/or speech. Although I plan to attend a listening session, I might not be able to go due to my work schedule. So I decided to write in my response anyway just to be safe.
The biggest issue here is that we need to get sound horse supporters’ butts in the seats at these sessions! The industry will be out in force trying to get the USDA to keep things as is and to keep their control in supporting the sore horse. So in case I’m unable to attend a listening session, I wanted to at least post my answers to the USDA’s questions regarding soring so they can help all of you out there make educated presentations yourselves. The advice I have for everyone here is pretty basic, and I hope it makes sense.
1. Write your own speech or submittal. This is the most important bullet point out of this list. Don't just copy mine or someone else's and turn it in. The USDA needs to see real information from each individual person. Use what I'm posting here as an example, not what you should turn in.
2. Do what you can to back up your arguments with facts and information. While we all know that soring is still the way most horses back east are trained, we still need to be able to prove it using facts and scientific studies.
3. Be logical and reasonable in your arguments. Getting upset or emotional does not help the cause. While we all want to see soring end and it is horrible that horses are being tortured for the sake of a blue ribbon, we need to remember that this is a law we want to see upheld, not just a moral and ethical issue we’re dealing with.
4. Share your personal experiences. It’s not a good idea to name names as you can get attacked or even sued for it, but personal experiences are also evidence. However, don’t share what you’ve heard; share only what you’ve actually experienced.
5. Don’t hold back. From what I understand, the industry is relying on personal attacks, childish name calling, and information that has no facts to back it up. So feel free to say whatever you feel is necessary to expose the truth.
**********
My Listening Sessions Response
Q: Congress passed the Horse Protection Act in 1970 to eliminate the cruel and inhumane practice of soring horses. How close are we to achieving the goal?
A: Nowhere near close. While soring is not nearly as visible as it was in the late 70s and 80s, we now know that the industry has found new ways to hide their chemical and mechanical soring. The recent release of the USDA’s GC/MS 2010 and 2011 test results is proof that the industry is still using whatever chemicals they find to create pain to force the show ring gait. The arrests of Barney Davis, et. al. and Jackie McConnell, et. al. are proof that pressure shoeing and chemical and mechanical soring are still alive and well.
Q: Can the industry achieve a consensus on how to carry out a self-regulatory program to enforce the Horse Protection Act in a consistent way?
A: Absolutely not. They can’t even agree on one rulebook—they have to have 12 different HIOs to do the job that the USDA could do by itself if it chose to. The industry makes a lot of money off of the sore horse, and therefore they want to keep it as is. The USDA has available on its website a list titled “Responsible Party for Horse Found in Violation.” (Web address: http://acissearch.aphis.usda.gov/HPA/faces/pdf.jspx?rt=1&sd=&ed=&hio=ALL.) This list has many fake names of horses and trainers and is clearly made to satisfy the USDA and make it look like they’re catching hundreds of people. But why do so many of these names and horses not show up on the HPA database? Because they aren’t real. So the HIOs are incapable of doing what’s right. The HIOs are designed to work in the best interest of those who sore horses, not for the welfare of the horse.
Overall the HIOs are the self-regulatory program that is already in place. However, nine of the 12 are clearly a case of the fox guarding the hen house. Soring has not stopped in the 40-plus years since the HPA was enacted, and it certainly hasn’t stopped since the HIOs were formed. Therefore they are absolutely unable to enforce the HPA on their own.
Q: What responsibilities should USDA-certified Horse Industry Organizations (HIOs) have within the industry?
A: The HIOs have plenty of responsibility already. In fact, they have too much responsibility, due to the fact that soring is still the prominent way to train horses. As Barney Davis said: horses “have got to be sored to walk.” So they’re going to be happy to promote and encourage it but tell everyone how they are against soring. The problem is that the HIOs won’t take on the responsibility of working to stop soring.
Q: How can the industry reconcile its inherent competition aspect with ensuring compliance with the Horse Protection Act?
A: Obviously, they can start by stopping soring. They also need to accept that the look of the Performance horse is undesirable to the outside world and the rest of the horse community frowns on it, whether or not the horse is sored, and that it needs to change so their industry will survive. When the world knows about soring and doesn’t like the look of what is being produced in the show ring, then they aren’t going to get enough new blood into the industry to keep it up. Competition is fine, but when you can't get new people to be interested in it because what you're competing with is undesirable and you are abusing animals to do it, the industry will collapse within itself. The industry needs to stop giving HPA violators high positions in their organizations and associations, such as board of directors and officers’ positions. They need to stop promoting sore horse trainers, owners and breeders by sending their horses to them for training and cheering them on at shows. They need to punish judges for rewarding the horse that is doing the most rather then the horse that is showing fluidity and quality of gait. If the industry was truly against soring, they would make those who sore an embarrassment to the breed. But since they won’t do it, then the USDA needs to step in.
Q: What can USDA do now (and in the future) to ensure compliance?
A: The USDA has been given an extra $200,000-plus for 2012 to enforce the HPA. Therefore, I suggest going to every single show you hear about, whether publicly advertised or not. Spend your money wisely—stay in cheap hotels, and rent cheap cars if you have to. Do not rely on the HIOs to perform the inspections while the USDA is there; have the VMOs do the inspections instead of the HIOs. Film and time all inspections—do not spend more time on one horse than another so you cannot be accused of spending 20 minutes on one horse or digging your nail into a horse’s pastern to elicit a response. Start using hoof testers on every single horse that is flat shod. Require horses to have their shoes pulled in front of the DQP immediately after their last class of the day and test the hooves with hoof testers. I understand that the mandated penalties are going to become a requirement. I hope that this means that the USDA will follow up with every single violation recorded by the HIOs and make sure they are followed to the letter. It should also be required that the violators serve their suspensions during show season and not during the off season. As compiled by FOSH, 90% of all HPA violations in 2008, 2009 and 2010 were found on stacked horses. This means the industry has and is continuing to abuse the privilege of using stacks in the show ring. Since the industry seems unable to stop using pads, then limit the size of the pads to the same size that is used in the American Saddlebred industry. Put a 5-inch limit on the toe from the cornet band to the ground (including the shoe). Put a weight limit on the shoes. Remove chains and anything around the pasterns from the show ring.
I also believe that the USDA should no longer punish the innocent. FOSH, NWHA and IWHA have proven they have a no tolerance policy concerning sored horses. Therefore, removing saddles should no longer be required and pulling shoes should not be required by those HIOs.
Q: What responsibilities should USDA have within the industry with respect to enforcement and what hinders oversight of the HIOs and/or industry?
A: Your responsibilities are already set: to enforce the HPA by any means necessary. From the Horse Protection Act:
§1827. Utilization of personnel of Department of Agriculture and officers and employees of consenting States; technical and other nonfinancial assistance to State
(a) Assistance from Department of Agriculture and States
The Secretary, in carrying out the provisions of this chapter, shall utilize, to the maximum extent practicable, the existing personnel and facilities of the Department of Agriculture. The Secretary is further authorized to utilize the officers and employees of any State, with its consent, and with or without reimbursement, to assist him in carrying out the provisions of this chapter.
(b) Assistance to States
The Secretary may, upon request, provide technical and other nonfinancial assistance (including the lending of equipment on such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines is appropriate) to any State to assist it in administering and enforcing any law of such State designed to prohibit conduct described in section 1824 of this title.
This means you need to get within the industry to enforce the law. What hinders oversight are the continued meetings, listening sessions, and time spent “discussing” what to be done. Instead of talking about it, get out there and do it. Stop accepting invitations to come visit and talk and start spending your money and time in the field. When you go to these meetings, you will always hear about how all of these people agree with you that they want to see soring end. They’re just trying to placate you and get them off their backs. The industry has had 40-plus years to end soring—they have not done it by now, and they never will. These are people who truly believe they are doing nothing wrong and enjoy thwarting the USDA at every turn. The abuse is part of their culture and is accepted as normal and expected. Overall, the bottom line is cops don’t have meetings with drug dealers to discuss how to end the war on drugs—they get out there and do the work to catch them. You need to be doing the same.
Q: Should there be a prohibition of all action devices?
A: Yes. The industry clearly still uses chemical soring to achieve the desired gait. You learned this from the arrest of Jackie McConnell, et. al. They need the chain or an action device of some kind around the pastern to cause pain from the chemicals.
Dr. Molly Nicodemus produced a study in 2000 on gait analysis that proves that another under a 10-ounce chain does nothing to enhance the front leg action of the horse. “Use of heavy weights (10 oz or 283 g) pastern chain weights significantly increased stride duration at the walk, but lower weights or pastern straps did not. Additional changes in hoof flight arc and head displacements were associated with heavy weights.” (Click below thumbnail for a larger image.)
This means that the restricted size to the six-ounce chain that is used in the show ring does not affect the gait by itself. Therefore, we can deduce that chemicals must be being used on the horse’s pasterns for the chain to cause pain to force the horse to react.
The USDA’s results of the GC/MS tests for 2010 and 2011 also clearly reflect that chemicals are still being used to sore horses, and at an alarming rate. We can question why these harmful chemicals are present, but it is clear that in order for the chemical to work, the chains must be used to force a reaction. The alarming amount of Lidocaine means that it was being used to numb the horse during inspection but so it would wear off by the time the horse was in the show ring, making the chain effective against the remaining chemicals.
The following conversation was copied and pasted from an open chat group on Facebook, written on February 27, 2012. No changes have been made to the conversation, other than I have used initials to protect the guilty.
If we could have 10oz chains would soring increase or decrease ?
S.W. more scar rule tickets perhaps
S.G. It would depend on how good you take care of your feet or I should say pastern area. If you have a good foot person, then they would know how to keep the hair in and keep the scaring down. Many do not understand you have to have a foot person who knows how to keep the pastern area in shape. I also acknowledge that sometimes you can not advoid the hair loss and or scaring that happens. But if you increase your chain weight, then you should not have to use as much "stimulant". Just my opinion, and yes I worked in the industry for years. I worked for Wink Groover, Billy Gray, Joe Martin, Chad Way and Herbert Derickson so I know what it takes.
S.W. Wasn't the 6 oz chain was put in place to eliminate the need for a stimulant..?
S.G. Yes it was, at least that was what they intended. But as many of us know.........
S.W. Neither side wants to give an Ounce LOL
S.G. No Steve they do not.
J.H. The maximum chain weight was 10 ounces until during the 1988 Trainer's Show, which was in progress in Decatur, AL when one of the humane groups got a federal judge in Washington to ban action devices. This caused the last night of the show to be cancelled, and for once the so-called "TWH Industry" seemed to unite. Long story short, within a relatively short period of time the maximum chain weight went from 10 to 6 ounces. Also, this was when the shoeing regulations were changed, and the maximum height of the build-up dropped from 4 to 3 inches. It's a simple equation: the heavier the chain, the less need there is for "stimulant"; the lighter the chain, the less damage is done to the hair.
This conversation is just one of hundreds that goes on all of the time on chat groups online. The industry cannot deny the proof that horses are still being chemically sored. Therefore, the chain and action devices in the show ring need to be prohibited.
Q: Should there be a prohibition of pads?
A: Yes. As compiled by FOSH, 90 percent of all HPA violations in 2008, 2009 and 2010 were found on stacked horses. It’s clear that the stacked horse is the most sored of the industry. Plus, the stacks themselves are harmful to the horse, causing such damage as thrush, laminitis, sheered heels, quarter cracks, underrun heels, and “abnormal inflammation on the posterior aspect of the metacarpal area where the flexor bundle is located.” (Quote taken from the letter from Dr. R. S. Sharman to Dr. Schwindaman of the USDA APHIS submitted with the Auburn Study, February 19, 1982.) For example, an article from TheHorse.com titled “The Quest to Conquer Laminitis” (click here for link) explains the causes of laminitis. The below image from the article shows how blood flow is restricted when a horse is forced to stand with its toes pointed downward, just as a stacked horse is shod. (Click below thumbnail for a larger image.)
However, since the industry can’t seem to let go of the pads, then I believe a limit on the size of the pads is appropriate. The pads should be the same size and height that is used in the American Saddlebred industry. This should also include a 5-inch limit on the toe from the cornet band to the ground (including the shoe), just as NWHA has done.
Q: Currently the Horse Protection regulations have a shoe weight limit on yearlings. Should there now be a shoe weight limit for all aged horses?
A: Absolutely. At its most basic, doing this would create a level playing field for all riders in the various classes. If a weight limit was established, then it would also eliminate bands from the show ring, as the excuse for using a band is that it is necessary to hold the shoe on the hoof when the shoe is too heavy. Bands are also tools that are used in soring horses. Bands can be over-tightened to put pressure on bruised soles of the horse’s feet or an object placed between the hoof and the shoe. Bands were eliminated by NWHA and FOSH for this very reason. Therefore, a weight limit for shoes is necessary to help enforce the HPA.
**********
My APHIS Stakeholders Survey Response
1. As we take stock of our current programs and services and consider where, if necessary, there should be strategic cuts or across-the-board reductions, we are interested in hearing from stakeholders about those APHIS activities you most value and where and how you think the Agency might make responsible changes.
In your opinion, what are the three to five most essential services APHIS provides and why?
1. Animal welfare inspections. While animal welfare may not be important to some Americans, it is important for everyone to realize that the way an individual treats animals can reflect on how they will treat another human being. Dr. Albert Schweitzer wrote: “Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives,” Robert K. Ressler, who specialized in developing profiles of serial killers for the FBI, stated: “Murderers … very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids.” (Data gathered from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals website.) It’s also important to note that: “People abuse animals for the same reasons they abuse people. Some of them will stop with animals, but enough have been proven to continue on to commit violent crimes to people that it's worth paying attention to.” (Quoted from Abuse Connection: The Link Between Animal Cruelty and Interpersonal Violence, Pet-Abuse.Com.) Inspections such as those required by the Horse Protection Act (HPA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) are essential in both upholding the law and prosecuting criminals who otherwise my move on to abuse of other human beings.
2. Animal health inspections. The health of animals that are used for food and/or entertainment is also of grave importance to ensure the health of Americans. Some illnesses that are found in food-grade animals can be passed on to humans, such as mad cow disease and swine flu. Humans who take on animals for entertainment purposes have not only responsibility under law, but also a moral and ethical responsibility to care for those animals to their best ability. How we treat animals reflects on our compassion and integrity as both individual persons and as a united nation of peoples.
3. Plant health inspections. Plant health is also important for the same reasons I gave in number 2.
Please share any feedback regarding how you feel we can best structure or provide these services.
Spend more time in the field. While I understand resources are limited, perhaps now is the time to assign more work doing supervised inspections in the field to communicate the seriousness of these issues to those who have businesses that involve animal welfare and animal and plant inspections for health quality. Talking about these issues does nothing to communicate to the public that the job is getting done. Actions are required to show those who continue to abuse the privilege of providing food sources or using animals as entertainment that lax efforts to maintain the welfare and health of these items is not to be tolerated.
When you or your members seek APHIS’ assistance, do you primarily rely on our local field offices, State offices, regional offices, research centers and field stations, or headquarters for support? Why?
I contact headquarters because I believe that the APHIS divisions are not doing enough to get the job done and are not acknowledging letters and emails requesting assistance and information. Specifically concerning the HPA, it is obviously not being upheld to the extent necessary. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Audit Report from September 2010 clearly states: “Concerning the treatment of show horses, we found that APHIS’ program for inspecting horses for soring is not adequate to ensure that these animals are not being abused.” This should be a clear wake-up call to the APHIS that all aspects of inspection for animal welfare and health are not up to standard and need to be immediately addressed. Therefore, I believe I need to contact the supervisors and the head of the APHIS in order to inform them that those in charge of the HPA are not doing their job and are still allowing sored horses to be shown on a massive scale. Recently, the OIG, Department of Justice, and the Humane Society of the United States had to perform undercover work on Mr. Jackie McConnell to convict him of soring horses. If he had been convicted and jailed for his multiple HPA violations in the past, then the APHIS would have been doing it’s job and the OIG would not have had to step in.
As we continue to look at ways to improve our processes and enhance customer service, what recommendations do you have for specific efforts we could undertake in 2012?
At the very least, acknowledge when you have received any type correspondence. Even an electronic email response is better than no acknowledgement at all. While I understand that you probably receive thousands of forms of correspondence each week, it is vital to let the public know you are listening. We think you’re not when we don’t ever hear from you.
Use your website as a tool for communication. Post monthly updates on animal welfare cases as possible, have an email sign-up list for stakeholders, and organize your website better so that important information such as HPA lists of violators can be easily found. Compile a database of the cases that went to court and the results of those cases. Overall, a website is a powerful tool that can really keep an open-door policy for the APHIS.
2. Given limited resources, APHIS is seeking new ways to enhance existing partnerships and build new ones.
How might we strengthen current partnerships or collaborate in new ways to accomplish critical mission activities?
My answer to this question concerns the partnership between the APHIS HPA division and the Horse Industry Organizations (HIOs) that are to be inspecting horses at horse shows to uphold the HPA. The APHIS is currently holding Listening Sessions across the country concerning the HPA and how to better enforce it. Below are two questions that were posed for these sessions and my answers to those questions. I believe they are essential to the partnership between the APHIS HPA division and the HIOs.
Q: Can the industry achieve a consensus on how to carry out a self-regulatory program to enforce the Horse Protection Act in a consistent way?
A: Absolutely not. They can’t even agree on one rulebook—they have to have 12 different HIOs to do the job that the USDA could do by itself if it chose to. The industry makes a lot of money off of the sore horse, and therefore they want to keep it as is. The USDA has available on its website a list titled “Responsible Party for Horse Found in Violation.” (Web address: http://acissearch.aphis.usda.gov/HPA/faces/pdf.jspx?rt=1&sd=&ed=&hio=ALL.) This list has many fake names of horses and trainers and is clearly made to satisfy the USDA and make it look like they’re catching hundreds of people. But why do so many of these names and horses not show up on the HPA database? Because they aren’t real. So the HIOs are incapable of doing what’s right. The HIOs are designed to work in the best interest of those who sore horses, not for the welfare of the horse.
Overall the HIOs are the self-regulatory program that is already in place. However, nine of the 12 are clearly a case of the fox guarding the hen house. Soring has not stopped in the 40-plus years since the HPA was enacted, and it certainly hasn’t stopped since the HIOs were formed. Therefore they are absolutely unable to enforce the HPA on their own.
Q: What responsibilities should USDA-certified Horse Industry Organizations (HIOs) have within the industry?
A: The HIOs have plenty of responsibility already. In fact, they have too much responsibility, due to the fact that soring is still the prominent way to train horses. As Barney Davis said: horses “have got to be sored to walk.” So they’re going to be happy to promote and encourage it but tell everyone how they are against soring. The problem is that the HIOs won’t take on the responsibility of working to stop soring.
Do you see opportunities for APHIS, State governments, tribes, industry and academia to redefine traditional roles to find efficiencies or improvements in the way we collectively safeguard American agriculture? As best you can, please be specific or provide examples.
Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about this topic to comment. Thank you for the opportunity to do so.
3. Please provide any additional comments or feedback you would like to share with APHIS’ leadership, especially as it relates to how you like to see APHIS management communicate with you at the local, regional, and national level. Please be specific.
I don’t want to see more communication. What I want to see is more action. I would like to see USDA inspectors showing up at slaughterhouses, horse shows, circuses, zoos, and other venues covered under the welfare division of the APHIS. The physical presence of government entities is vital to communicating the seriousness of these issues. I also understand that many inspectors do not have supervisors accompanying them to these places, and therefore they allow issues to slip through the cracks. For example, this video is a clear indication of how the USDA inspectors are not doing their job. http://youtu.be/LnlusPCzXI0 From the description of the video: “...A baby calf was carved up and skinned alive while a USDA FSIS (Food Safety Inspection Services) Inspector stood by and watched. 5 months later and the Vermont Attorney General's Office has failed to take criminal action against the workers for clear violations of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.” The USDA APHIS has not only been tasked with upholding laws, but also the moral and ethical responsibility of making sure the health and welfare of animals and plants in this nation is upheld to the highest standards. Actions will help bring about these changes, not continued meetings and communications.
-------------------------1. As we take stock of our current programs and services and consider where, if necessary, there should be strategic cuts or across-the-board reductions, we are interested in hearing from stakeholders about those APHIS activities you most value and where and how you think the Agency might make responsible changes.
In your opinion, what are the three to five most essential services APHIS provides and why?
1. Animal welfare inspections. While animal welfare may not be important to some Americans, it is important for everyone to realize that the way an individual treats animals can reflect on how they will treat another human being. Dr. Albert Schweitzer wrote: “Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives,” Robert K. Ressler, who specialized in developing profiles of serial killers for the FBI, stated: “Murderers … very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids.” (Data gathered from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals website.) It’s also important to note that: “People abuse animals for the same reasons they abuse people. Some of them will stop with animals, but enough have been proven to continue on to commit violent crimes to people that it's worth paying attention to.” (Quoted from Abuse Connection: The Link Between Animal Cruelty and Interpersonal Violence, Pet-Abuse.Com.) Inspections such as those required by the Horse Protection Act (HPA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) are essential in both upholding the law and prosecuting criminals who otherwise my move on to abuse of other human beings.
2. Animal health inspections. The health of animals that are used for food and/or entertainment is also of grave importance to ensure the health of Americans. Some illnesses that are found in food-grade animals can be passed on to humans, such as mad cow disease and swine flu. Humans who take on animals for entertainment purposes have not only responsibility under law, but also a moral and ethical responsibility to care for those animals to their best ability. How we treat animals reflects on our compassion and integrity as both individual persons and as a united nation of peoples.
3. Plant health inspections. Plant health is also important for the same reasons I gave in number 2.
Please share any feedback regarding how you feel we can best structure or provide these services.
Spend more time in the field. While I understand resources are limited, perhaps now is the time to assign more work doing supervised inspections in the field to communicate the seriousness of these issues to those who have businesses that involve animal welfare and animal and plant inspections for health quality. Talking about these issues does nothing to communicate to the public that the job is getting done. Actions are required to show those who continue to abuse the privilege of providing food sources or using animals as entertainment that lax efforts to maintain the welfare and health of these items is not to be tolerated.
When you or your members seek APHIS’ assistance, do you primarily rely on our local field offices, State offices, regional offices, research centers and field stations, or headquarters for support? Why?
I contact headquarters because I believe that the APHIS divisions are not doing enough to get the job done and are not acknowledging letters and emails requesting assistance and information. Specifically concerning the HPA, it is obviously not being upheld to the extent necessary. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Audit Report from September 2010 clearly states: “Concerning the treatment of show horses, we found that APHIS’ program for inspecting horses for soring is not adequate to ensure that these animals are not being abused.” This should be a clear wake-up call to the APHIS that all aspects of inspection for animal welfare and health are not up to standard and need to be immediately addressed. Therefore, I believe I need to contact the supervisors and the head of the APHIS in order to inform them that those in charge of the HPA are not doing their job and are still allowing sored horses to be shown on a massive scale. Recently, the OIG, Department of Justice, and the Humane Society of the United States had to perform undercover work on Mr. Jackie McConnell to convict him of soring horses. If he had been convicted and jailed for his multiple HPA violations in the past, then the APHIS would have been doing it’s job and the OIG would not have had to step in.
As we continue to look at ways to improve our processes and enhance customer service, what recommendations do you have for specific efforts we could undertake in 2012?
At the very least, acknowledge when you have received any type correspondence. Even an electronic email response is better than no acknowledgement at all. While I understand that you probably receive thousands of forms of correspondence each week, it is vital to let the public know you are listening. We think you’re not when we don’t ever hear from you.
Use your website as a tool for communication. Post monthly updates on animal welfare cases as possible, have an email sign-up list for stakeholders, and organize your website better so that important information such as HPA lists of violators can be easily found. Compile a database of the cases that went to court and the results of those cases. Overall, a website is a powerful tool that can really keep an open-door policy for the APHIS.
2. Given limited resources, APHIS is seeking new ways to enhance existing partnerships and build new ones.
How might we strengthen current partnerships or collaborate in new ways to accomplish critical mission activities?
My answer to this question concerns the partnership between the APHIS HPA division and the Horse Industry Organizations (HIOs) that are to be inspecting horses at horse shows to uphold the HPA. The APHIS is currently holding Listening Sessions across the country concerning the HPA and how to better enforce it. Below are two questions that were posed for these sessions and my answers to those questions. I believe they are essential to the partnership between the APHIS HPA division and the HIOs.
Q: Can the industry achieve a consensus on how to carry out a self-regulatory program to enforce the Horse Protection Act in a consistent way?
A: Absolutely not. They can’t even agree on one rulebook—they have to have 12 different HIOs to do the job that the USDA could do by itself if it chose to. The industry makes a lot of money off of the sore horse, and therefore they want to keep it as is. The USDA has available on its website a list titled “Responsible Party for Horse Found in Violation.” (Web address: http://acissearch.aphis.usda.gov/HPA/faces/pdf.jspx?rt=1&sd=&ed=&hio=ALL.) This list has many fake names of horses and trainers and is clearly made to satisfy the USDA and make it look like they’re catching hundreds of people. But why do so many of these names and horses not show up on the HPA database? Because they aren’t real. So the HIOs are incapable of doing what’s right. The HIOs are designed to work in the best interest of those who sore horses, not for the welfare of the horse.
Overall the HIOs are the self-regulatory program that is already in place. However, nine of the 12 are clearly a case of the fox guarding the hen house. Soring has not stopped in the 40-plus years since the HPA was enacted, and it certainly hasn’t stopped since the HIOs were formed. Therefore they are absolutely unable to enforce the HPA on their own.
Q: What responsibilities should USDA-certified Horse Industry Organizations (HIOs) have within the industry?
A: The HIOs have plenty of responsibility already. In fact, they have too much responsibility, due to the fact that soring is still the prominent way to train horses. As Barney Davis said: horses “have got to be sored to walk.” So they’re going to be happy to promote and encourage it but tell everyone how they are against soring. The problem is that the HIOs won’t take on the responsibility of working to stop soring.
Do you see opportunities for APHIS, State governments, tribes, industry and academia to redefine traditional roles to find efficiencies or improvements in the way we collectively safeguard American agriculture? As best you can, please be specific or provide examples.
Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about this topic to comment. Thank you for the opportunity to do so.
3. Please provide any additional comments or feedback you would like to share with APHIS’ leadership, especially as it relates to how you like to see APHIS management communicate with you at the local, regional, and national level. Please be specific.
I don’t want to see more communication. What I want to see is more action. I would like to see USDA inspectors showing up at slaughterhouses, horse shows, circuses, zoos, and other venues covered under the welfare division of the APHIS. The physical presence of government entities is vital to communicating the seriousness of these issues. I also understand that many inspectors do not have supervisors accompanying them to these places, and therefore they allow issues to slip through the cracks. For example, this video is a clear indication of how the USDA inspectors are not doing their job. http://youtu.be/LnlusPCzXI0 From the description of the video: “...A baby calf was carved up and skinned alive while a USDA FSIS (Food Safety Inspection Services) Inspector stood by and watched. 5 months later and the Vermont Attorney General's Office has failed to take criminal action against the workers for clear violations of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.” The USDA APHIS has not only been tasked with upholding laws, but also the moral and ethical responsibility of making sure the health and welfare of animals and plants in this nation is upheld to the highest standards. Actions will help bring about these changes, not continued meetings and communications.
More Articles Concerning the McConnell and Davis Cases
Davis Case
Trainer says horse soring is widespread. By Todd South, Feb 28, 2012, timesfreepress.com.
McConnell Case
Talk Back: Horse Soring Investigation Shines a Light on Abuse. By Wayne Pacelle, March 14, 2012, HSUS A Humane Nation Blog
4 men in federal court in horse-soring case. By Todd South, March 16, 2012, timesfreepress.com
Indictment shines light on abuse allegations in Tennessee walking horse industry. By Todd South, March 18, 2012, timesfreepress.com
No comments:
Post a Comment