News

Final rule on horse soring

A final rule to clamp down on the practice of horse soring has been put in place by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

The rule will require horse industry organizations to assess the minimum penalties for violations.

The practice of soring is mostly used in the training of Tennessee Walking Horses and certain other breeds to induce pain in order to “accentuate the horse’s gait.” The practice is considered inhumane under the Animal Welfare Act which APHIS administers.

The USDA says this final rule doesn’t change the penalties for soring in the Horse Protection Act but says the penalties must equal or exceed minimum levels. Penalties would increase in severity for repeat offenders under the final rule.

In 2010, an Office of Inspector General audit found that the APHIS program allowing the industry to self-regulate when it comes to horse soring was not adequate to protect animals from abuse.

In April, the American Veterinary Medical Association, American Association of Equine Practitioners and the USDA called on the gaited horse industry to stop the soring practice.

• 

  You know, I don’t actually believe that an “agency”should be deciding what the law is and what penalties should be applied. This is being messed over without representation.

  Reply
• 

  Here is a link to the Horse Protection Act, a law that was passed by Congress:

  http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/hpa_history_and_admin.pdf

  There is additional information attached to this link which indicates that the previous approach was not adequately protecting horse welfare.

  Every citizen and every citizen group in this country has the right to petition Congress or a federal agency such as the USDA to redress wrongs when a law over reaches or is ineffectively being enforced.

  There are very few laws that when passed are as detailed as they become before being put into place. The details are usually written by policy writers. There is also a tendency at times to give those closest to the law to have the opportunity to self-regulate. No one wants more laws, more regulators, or more inspectors than what is needed to see that laws are obeyed. However, this law dates back to 1970, 42 years ago. Forty-two years is a long time for an industry to have an opportunity to address a problem without significant improvement in reforming itself.

  Reply
• 

  If I were “the industry” I would sue to get them off our backs about it. Forty-two years is more than long enough for the USDA to come up with an effective enforcement plan that does not include screwing everyone in the industry over or letting the HSUS conduct an “investigation.”

  Reply
• 

  Thomas,

  I don’t want to argue with you about this process. You certainly have the right to sue the government or to join with others in a suit.

  This was a situation where participants in the industry championship were tested for spring and out of all the entrees only three were clean. In another event 52 out of 52 horse tested for soring tested positive. Not five or ten out of 52. All 52. Further investigation revealed that only 25% of violators of the same rule received a penalty. Even fewer of that 25% were actually held to the penalties imposed. For example, if a trainer were suspended for two weeks, he or she might be at the show ring the next week-end. Where so many of our laws fall short is in the penalty phase. A law might address a problem that we all agree is a problem, but without an effective penalty clause, the law won’t do what it is designed to do.

  This ruling is significant in the fact that it mandated that the law already on the books, and the laws and procedures already on the books, be uniformly enforced so that trainer NO-Doz in On-the Hoof County gets the same penalty as Trainer Big Bertha in Horse-shoe County for the same offense. The second change was that the law makes it more difficult for Trainer No-Doz to move to another horse industry organization for violating the training standards in the first HIO that he belonged to.

  Reply
• 

  Isn’t that amazing? In the exotic animal industry one very prominent private owner, who pretends she is not an owner because she has “non-profit” status, very publicly gave the HSUS $100,000. She gets a free ride. Obviously they won’t play the same game with dog or horse owners.

  Reply