|
At Issue A Sore Issue: The Debate on Soring
By Marcia King As featured in Horse Illustrated, July 2004 |
|
What is the story on soring? If you’ve never heard of the term, soring is the illegal practice of causing pain to the horse’s feet and/or legs—with action devices and/or hidden caustic materials—to accentuate the gait of “big lick” performance horses. Equine welfare activists adamantly claim that soring still remains a widespread training practice for the big lick Tennessee Walking Horses, while officials from the Tennessee Walking horse Breeders’ and Exhibitors’ Association (TWHBEA) vigorously maintain that soring is practiced only by a very small percentage of renegade trainers. Are opinions, speculations and ancient history passed off as facts by well-intentioned welfare groups unable to accept that attitudes and training practices have changed dramatically in the last 30 to 40 years? Or is the Tennessee Walking Horse industry merely talking the talk by boasting they’ve done a good job of cleaning it up when what they’ve really done is a good job of covering it up?
Persistent Problem
“Unfortunately, soring still exists,” states Robin Lohnes, executive director of the American Horse Protection Association. “It’s just not as blatant as 30 years ago. Soring is not always visible to the naked eye or evident during visual inspection, digital palpation or movement. Also, horses are often stewarded (taught not to react to pain) when palpated or moved on a track around a cone.” |
|
Adds Trina Bellak, Esq., president/founder of the American Horse Defense Fund, “Topical antiseptics are commonly used to hide the soreness for a long enough period to get horses through inspection. If timed correctly, the anesthetic wears off by the time the horse enters the ring.”
Soring persists because that’s what it takes to produce winning horses, reports former Tennessee Walking Horse owner/exhibitor and recently retired United States Department of Agriculture veterinarian Tom James. “As long as the big lick wins at shows, the trainer must produce it to stay in business,” he says. “The day a trainer stops producing big lick horses is the day all horses in his or her barn are removed and taken to another trainer. The pressure is enormous.
Pamela Reband, MD, agrees. “If you’re going to train big lick horses today, and you don’t sore them, you’re not going to last very long. Trainer A who doesn’t sore his horses isn’t going to win if trainers B, C and D do. It’s almost impossible to compete on a sound horse in a sore horse circuit. Some do and are successful, but the vast majority of them fail.”
Currently a board director for the National Walking Horse Association (a show horse organization know for promoting sound horses), Dr. Reband grew up in the Walking Horse industry and once served as a TWHBEA vice president. “When I was a child,” she says, “I watched my own horses being sored. It was, at the time, an accepted training practice.” As an adult she continued to own, train and sore her horses—as recently as six years ago. “Soring was and still is an accepted practice and is openly spoken of. If you buy a built-up horse, you can expect the trainer to tell you how many drops of what, and where, when and how close to the show it should be applied; it’s an accepted part of the culture.”
Detecting Violation
The current system of detecting violators offers minimal deterrent. In addition to sophisticated soring techniques that make it difficult to detect a sore horse, funding prevents USDA veterinary medial officers (VMOs) from going to more than 50 or 60 shows a year, which accounts for only about 10 percent of the shows held nationwide. “A cap of $500,000 [used to enforce the Horse Protection Act] a year was set in 1976 and has never been raised,” says Sandra Cooper, JD, vice president of Legal Affairs/General Counsel, Occidental College, who has been a member of various sound horse and equine welfare groups for 15 years. “Moreover, the annual appropriation in the late 1990s was barely half that.”
The rest of the shows are inspected by designated qualified persons (DQPs). Occasionally consisting of veterinarians but more commonly of farriers or trainers, DQPs are trained and licensed by the USDA. Dr. James says, “Although the USDA supposedly monitors their work, in my opinion this doesn’t work very well, because the DQPs are part of the Walking Horse industry, with the expected vested interest. It has been sad to watch: The DQP system was set up to fail, peopled by inspectors who had no experience with Walking Horses at all and many with no knowledge of horses in general.
“The actual DQPs—the ones who do the physical inspection, and those who oversee them—are horse industry people to the core, trainers, assistants, farriers, et cetera. They view their job as to protect the horse industry, not to write up sore horses. Some have told me that if they cite too many, they no longer get to go to horse shows.
“The inexperienced people are the USDA veterinarians,” Dr. James explains. “Years ago, they jumped into bed with the industry to create this monstrosity, after having been warned that it can’t work—this was when Vet Services was doing it—peopled by vets with good horse experience. When the agency Animal Care was created in 1988-1989, the Horse Protection Act work was turned over to it. Virtually none of these veterinarians knew anything about a Tennessee Walking Horse. Most had not even been around horses. For this group to monitor and work with the DQP groups, it was doomed to fail. Admittedly, some of these vets have gotten better through the years.”
When veterinary medical officers do go to a show, up to 75 percent of exhibitors pack up their horses and take off, explains Keith Dane, USDA liaison and past president of Friends of Sound Horses (FOSH). “When USDA veterinarians are at a show, the violation rate skyrockets compared to when no USDA veterinarians are present. That means DQPs are letting a lot of horses that should be turned down through when the USDA is not present,” Dane says.
According to the USDA’s Horse Protection Enforcement, Calendar Year 2000 (www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/ HP2000.pdf), VMOs attended 27 National Horse Show Commission events in 2000 (the latest year available), examined 8,429 entries and found 180 violations—21.4 per thousand. In contrast, DQPs attending 246 events, examined 50,194 entries and wrote up 80 violations—1.6 per thousand. The document also states, “padded horses are found in violation at a rate almost five times that of flat-shod horses.” The incidence of abnormalities indicative of soring at events attended by VMOs was 17 percent for flat-shod horses and 79 percent for padded horses.
Sandra Cooper charges that a loophole in the “2000-2003 Operating Plan” (a voluntary contract between the USDA and particular horse industry organizations that outlines enforcement and penalties) allows trainers to avoid cumulative penalties. “Once a trainer has been ticketed and served his time and probation, he is free to sin again—and again, and again. A repeat soring violation will always be treated as a first violation and result in a lesser suspension if it occurs after the previous suspension and probation have been served, even if it is the trainer’s 10th soring ticket. And for some of these guys, that is no exaggeration.”
Keith Dane says, “There are some trainers who are currently serving cumulative penalties for repeat violations, although not enough of them. FOSH would like to see longer probation periods, even the abolition of the probation period. We hope to gather enough case histories during the upcoming ‘2004-2006 Operating Plan’ to encourage the USDA to close these loopholes in the future.”
Dr. James does not mince words about the effectiveness of current USDA enforcement policies: “I am convinced that this whole system is so corrupt it has no excuse to exist at all,” he says.
Sandra Cooper and others contend that there are also anonymous individuals who step outside the law to preserve the status quo. Cooper says her horses were threatened when she called the authorities after seeing a trainer openly soring at a show. After speaking out against the Tennessee Walking Horse industry, Pamela Reband received death threats against herself, family and horses. Andrew G. Lang, DVM, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals director of Equine Programs, who follows and writes on soring issues, reports that some USDA veterinarians who write a high number of violations received death threats, and some USDA inspectors at a Walking Horse auction had their tires slashed. According to the previously mentioned USDA document (USDA’s Horse Protection Enforcement, Calendar Year 2000), the USDA had to request that U.S. Marshals and law enforcement agents accompany VMOs to numerous shows due to threats of violence against the VMOs. “Similar intimidation of DQPs may be among the factors that have contributed to the difference in the number of horses cited for HPA [Horse Protection Act] violations when [VMOs were] present versus not present,” the document states.
Although many argue that soring continues, USDA stats show violation rates are dropping. Dr. James, while not an industry supporter, nevertheless observes, “The horses are still sore, but not to the degree that I saw in the 1960s and 1970s. Yes, the soring techniques are certainly more sophisticated; still, I believe I see less pain today, overall, than I saw 25-40 years ago.” Dr. James attributes the improvement to earlier USDA efforts, the desire of the Tennessee Walking Horse industry “to put a better face on for the public,” and Tennessee Walking Horse breeding successes that produce “a showier lick on the horses, so they didn’t have to be as sore to produce the big lick gait.”
Sound Advice
Big lick proponents say that charges of high levels of soring abuse are false and that USDA statistics are seriously misinterpreted. Some speculate that the source of the criticism is the misconception that the pad and 6-ounce chain worn by the big lick horses are abusive, even though an Auburn University study (1978-1982) and the USDA agree the devices do not cause pain or inflammation.
The Tennessee Walking Horse industry credits its own multiple efforts for the lowered soring rates, maintaining that its members are vigorous proponents of the sound horse. States Jerold Pedigo, TWHBEA president, “The majority of our members and directors fully support, in their everyday operations, sound horses. Individually, they are making every effort to make sure that sound horses is what this breed is all about.”
“The biggest change in the Tennessee Walking Horse industry is attitude,” states attorney R. Craig Evans, a state TWHBEA board of director and former chair of the National Horse Show Commission, Inc. (NHSC), the regulatory arm of the Walking Horse industry. The NHSC board of directors consists of three members from TWHBEA, three from the Walking Horse Owners’ Association and three from the Walking Horse Trainers’ Association. NHSC co-monitors with the USDA soring and other Horse Protection Act offenses. “It is markedly, markedly different than what it was many years ago,” Evans says. “I believe the vast majority of this industry not only wants to comply but is actively soliciting compliance.”
For starts, TWHBEA has made significant financial investments in promoting sound horses. These include:
- Providing NHSC a third of its funding, about $80,000-$100,000 a year. - Purchasing and donating to NHSC three portable fluoroscopes (a type of X-ray machine that reveals soring anomalies on the pasterns), at about $50,000 each. - Investing $40,000-$50,000 in computerization to instantly verify horse ownership and track violators, including suspensions at other horse industry organizations. “Violators are not allowed to show at our shows,” explains Charles Hulsey, TWHBEA executive director. “They can’t run from one horse industry organization to another.”
Beyond that, R. Craig Evans says that the NHSC, which is only one of the six horse industry organizations inspecting Tennessee Walking Horses, spends $550,000 each year for compliance (enforcement). “That is the money that the people in this industry—breeders, trainers and owners—willingly pay to ensure compliance. It exceeds the entire USDA Horse Protection Act enforcement budget! The budget for compliance of all of the horse industry organizations collectively is around $750,000-$800,000. That’s what the industry is doing of its own volition.”
The Tennessee Walking Horse industry, says Evans, voluntarily submits to greater scrutiny than what’s required by the Horse Protection Act. “Besides prosecuting the owner/trainer/exhibitor of a horse that’s been found sore by DQPs or VMOs, the NHSC pursues horses that are suspect, that don’t give a clear indication of pain but still suggest that something’s just not right. We’ll punish that owner/trainer/exhibitor for that suspect finding and won’t allow that horse to show, exhibit or sell.
“To make sure we’re on the right track, rather than simply rely on industry insiders, the NHSC, with the aid of TWHBEA, sought the help of the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) in 1993, 1995 and 1996 to design a more effective inspection program. We told the AAEP, ‘You tell us how to do it, and whatever you say, we’ll do.’ They concluded that a more thorough examination was required and that digital palpation alone may not be a sufficient basis to conclude that an animal is in pain or otherwise in violation of the Horse Protection Act, and they provided us with a grading system. We adopted their position and the grading system and continue to use both.”
Finally, TWHBEA consistently promotes soundness via seminars on soring issues, breeding for improvement and other related topics. “As a result, our breeding techniques have become far more sophisticated,” notes Evans. “The horse that is bred today is different from the horse of 50 years ago.”
Misconceptions
Although these efforts have contributed to a downward turn in soring violations, those endeavors have been largely unrecognized and misinformation about soring persists, industry members contend. Among the sore points:
-- Sophisticated soring techniques designed to elude inspectors. “I’d like somebody to show me what ‘sophisticated’ means people are using to sore a horse so that we can better protect horses,” Evans challenges. “It’s very difficult to respond to something that nobody has demonstrated for me. It’s hard for us to ferret out someone’s own bias and prejudice from truth and reality. We need to know what sophisticated techniques they’re using to accurately determine that condition.”
It’s not that soring techniques have improved, says Jerold Pedigo, it’s the horses that have improved. “There are some individuals in our industry who work harder, are better at training, are better horse people, and they simply produce a better product.”
-- Seventy-five percent of exhibitors leave when veterinary medical officers arrive at a show. “That’s so frustratingly wrong,” states Evans. “It may be 95 percent, depending on one particular VMO! When that VMO would arrive at a horse show, people would put their horses back on their trailers and go to another venue and show in front of other VMOs. The suggestion that they didn’t want to be found in violation is patently wrong: That one particular VMO had a much higher violation rate than the other 34 VMOs.” Three VMOs had rates of 11, 15 and 18 per 1,000 inspections; the biggest majority of VMOs wrote 0-5 violations per 1,000 inspections.
“That [one] VMO was difficult, and is no longer with the USDA,” Evans continues. “I suspect the USDA has had a difficult VMO from time to time. And we who are subject to inspections of that type of individual are very concerned about that. But the concept that you’re leaving the show because you have horses in violation is just in error.”
TWHBEA executive director Charles Hulsey explains, “I manufactured goods for the Department of Defense. Obviously I could not risk a federal citation. I had a horse a few years ago that exhibited throughout the country. The last year that horse showed, he went through VMO inspection 14 times, both pre-show and post-show. When the one VMO came to the horse show grounds to inspect horses, I did not allow that horse to be shown. Anyone else comes, he’s shown. I felt that the one VMO did not treat all exhibitors fairly nor was he consistent in his inspections and rulings. Those feelings did not exist toward the other VMOs.”
R. Craig Evans says that it’s unlikely that a VMO doing a full and thorough examination could find a soring violation on a sound horse. “But a simplistic test is a little different. If the only criteria for a determination of sore is whether or not you can make a horse withdraw his leg in response to digitally palpating his pastern, that’s a lot easier, and the answer is yes, you can find soring violations on a sound horse.”
-- According to the USDA stats, padded horses have five times the soring violations of flat-shod horses. “I can’t comment until the USDA reveals where they got the data, which so far they’ve refused to do despite a formal request made to then deputy administrator of the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Dr. Ron DeHaven,” says Evans. “I don’t know where those numbers come from. Since Dr. Chester Gipson has assumed the position of deputy administrator of Animal Care and of APHIS, the level of USDA Horse Protection Act enforcement has increased, and the level of cooperation between the industry regulators, horse industry organizations, DQPs and USDA regulators has also increased. I anticipate that a more comprehensive and meaningful approach to facts and figures will be the result in the future.”
-- According to USDA stats, there are disparities between DQP and VMO violation rates. “The disparity is because VMOs primarily attend the most hotly contested, padded performance horse shows,” Evans states, “whereas DQPs attend hotly as well as not hotly contested padded performance horse shows, flat-shod only horse shows, exhibitions, colt shows, yearling shows and sales.” In other words, the DQP numbers are lower because 45 percent of their inspections are of flat-shod horses, yearlings, sales, mares in foal, et cetera, compared to VMOs whose vast majority of inspections are performance horse only.
Additionally, Evans points out, there are eight potential Horse Protection Act violations for a performance horse, whereas there are only two potential violations for a flat-shod horse—more violations can be written up on a single sore performance horse, which increases the difference in violation rates between padded and flat-shod horses, and thus between VMO and DQP rates. “Even with the worst case scenario, the USDA numbers [from the Horse Protection Enforcement Calendar Year 2000] suggest that 2.1 percent of the horses are not in compliance. That’s pretty sporting.
“The better comparison,” he continues, “is the 10-day, 10-night Tennessee Walking Horse Celebration. Typically, the USDA is there five days and five nights. For the last three years that USDA figures are available---2000, 2001 and 2002—DQPs wrote the same number of violations when VMOs were present as when they weren’t. That’s a 100 percent correlation.”
Charles Hulsey recognizes that soring still exists. “Are we 100 percent successful in eliminating sore horses?” he queries. “Have we caught every violator yet? No, but we’re on the trail. One hundred percent absolute perfect is an elusive goal for us, but we are determined.”
Conclusions
So what is the story on soring? Both sides offer compelling arguments, but he who argues the best doesn’t necessarily argue the truth.
As long as money or ego is involved in any sport, someone is going to use illegal or unethical means to gain advantage—of that, it seems certain. Segments of the Tennessee Walking Horse industry have carried a dark image for decades. Regardless of whether you believe the motives behind TWHBEA’s current public promotion of the sound horse, they are at least talking the talk, and if that causes one person within the industry within the industry to set aside the soring agents, then that is one good thing we can agree on.
|
|
Phone: 602-686-3376 |
|
Contact us at: |
|
Silver Phoenix Ranch, LLC Website ● © 1999-2008 ● All Rights Reserved |