Post by Chrisnstar on Sept 3, 2006 21:23:46 GMT -5
For months, USDA warned trainers about signs of soring
By BRAD SCHRADE
Staff Writer
SHELBYVILLE, Tenn. — Federal regulators had been warning Tennessee Walking Horse owners and trainers for months that too many show horses showed signs of being sored, according to e-mails and documents detailing those talks.
U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors disqualified six out of approximately 10 horses they inspected Aug. 25, spurring near bedlam among trainers and Walking Horse enthusiasts that eventually led event organizers to cancel that Friday night’s performance, as well as the next morning’s.
The dispute turned so intense that the Tennessee Highway Patrol called in state and local reinforcements to create a wall of about 20 law officers to keep an angry crowd of Walking Horse enthusiasts separated from the regulators before the federal staffers could leave.
But the flap at the nation’s biggest Walking Horse event, which draws thousands of tourists to Middle Tennessee from all over the country, had been brewing for some time. It erupted further Saturday night when the Grand Championship contest was canceled. Inspectors again disqualified seven of 10 horses; trainers of the three horses that did pass withdrew from the class in protest.
It was the first time no Grand Champion was named.
Federal regulators say they have warned the Walking Horse industry about the condition of horses and tried to educate trainers and owners about the rules.
For their part, trainers and owners contend inspections are inconsistent and the feds are interpreting the rules too strictly.
“It’s the inconsistency that keeps the industry in turmoil,” said Bill Strickland, a Walking Horse owner from Arab, Ala.
Soring a horse is the practice of irritating and injuring its legs, typically the front, so it will shift its weight to its hind legs to assist in the signature “Big Lick” gait rewarded by show judges. Industry owners and trainers say the practice has been mostly eliminated from their competitions.
Federal regulators, though, see the Walking Horse industry differently.
At the 2005 Celebration, the USDA used a device that tests horses for prohibitive substances, such as numbing agents and irritants, that may suggest soring — more than half of 92 samples tested positive.
Weeks before the Celebration, veterinarian Todd Behre, the USDA’s chief horse protection regulator, told an owner he was “stunned at the condition of horses” that industry-hired regulators had allowed in Walking Horse competitions throughout Middle Tennessee the previous weekend, according to an e-mail exchange between the two.
Exhibitors and trainers were at times bolting from shows when regulators showed up.
The USDA inspection teams last year started attending more than one show event in a weekend, a practice that continued this year, Behre said. That means that it is less predictable where federal regulators will be, and that, when they show up, horse exhibitors and trainers sometimes leave an event, “a trend suggestive of a presence of horse soring,” according to a slide presentation Behre made in February.
The USDA recognizes that trainers leaving shows at the sight of federal regulators creates financial hardships for the industry, Behre said, but added that his office had tried to reach out to trainers to educate them about what the agency would be looking for.
“My hearing trainers say ‘we don’t know what to do about the scar rule’ has grown a little old, with the months ticking by without a clinic as if the information isn’t that important to anybody until any given Friday or Saturday night when USDA shows up at a show,” Behre said in his e-mail to Randy McIntosh posted on The Walking Horse Report Web page.
Inspections at issue
The scarring rule is at the heart of the controversy that erupted in Shelbyville, say industry owners and trainers. The rule is meant to police scarring, cuts, inflammations or other signs of intentional irritations done to a horse’s leg that would indicate soring.
Trainers say that the industry-hired inspectors called Designated Qualified Persons, or DQP’s, have a reasonable interpretation of the rule. DQP’s do the inspections at most contests. When federal regulators attend a show, they can inspect behind them and are typically more strict.
This has led to frustrations of trainers and owners and claims of inconsistency.
Tom Blankenship, an attorney working with the Walking Horse Trainers Association, was called in the day after last week’s shutdown to observe the inspection process. He said his organization recognizes the perception problem inherent in the practice of trainers leaving competitions when the feds show up but said rule-abiding horse trainers are concerned they can’t get a fair or consistent shake.
The USDA’s interpretation of the scar rule has changed dramatically over the years, Blankenship said. When the Horse Protection Act passed in 1970 there “were serious issues” in the industry but many of those problems are behind it, he said.
He said the trainers association and many other industry organizations want to eliminate horse soring from competition but think the USDA’s practice is out of control.
“I do believe in this point, in my opinion and in the opinion of expert advisers … that the subjectivity and the discretion that the language of the scar rule is being applied is totally and completely unreasonable,” said Blankenship, who is involved with several industry organizations.
Owner Strickland said the federal government’s enforcement policies are unreasonable and inconsistent and are hurting the industry.
He said the problems of soring from 20 years ago no longer exist.
He said the federal government just “show up anytime, anyplace and change the rules.”
The USDA counters that there are more than 100 DQP inspectors and the government has found that some don’t inspect as thoroughly when federal officials are absent.
New inspection methods
Behre said the interpretation of the rules and the inspection process has not changed since he took the horse protection coordinator job a few years ago. The department has the same basic training in place and the five department vets that regulate the industry remain consistent in their inspections, he said.
The department has begun testing and using various technologies to try to help detect soring, including algometry, or the use of a pressure device to detect sensitivity or pain in a horse’s leg.
The USDA also started in 2004 using a device to test horses for prohibited substances that may suggest soring, such as skin-numbing anesthetics and irritants such as diesel fuel.
When used on a test basis at last year’s Celebration, more than half the 92 samples (54.3 percent) tested positive for some prohibited substances. The same device used at the 2005 Kentucky Celebration found 100 percent of the 25 horses sampled had one or more prohibited substances, according to a slideshow of Behre’s presentation.
So far, the USDA has not used the device, called a “sniffer,” to disqualify any horses from competition.
“The purpose is so that the individual who had something on their horse’s leg will know that our sniffer technology is capable of detecting their practices and not use their substances on their horses anymore because in 2007 some additional punitive measures will be taken,” Behre said in an interview Thursday.
Blankenship and others in the Walking Horse industry question the reliability of the sniffer technology. They believe blood testing for foreign substance is a better process, he said.
Blankenship said all sides need to sit down and work out their differences, and come up with a workable compromise.
“This is nonsensical,” he said. “The conflict needs to be eliminated.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED ARTICLES
Walking Horse finale canceled
Brad Schrade can be reached at 259-8086 or bschrade@tennessean.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By BRAD SCHRADE
Staff Writer
SHELBYVILLE, Tenn. — Federal regulators had been warning Tennessee Walking Horse owners and trainers for months that too many show horses showed signs of being sored, according to e-mails and documents detailing those talks.
U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors disqualified six out of approximately 10 horses they inspected Aug. 25, spurring near bedlam among trainers and Walking Horse enthusiasts that eventually led event organizers to cancel that Friday night’s performance, as well as the next morning’s.
The dispute turned so intense that the Tennessee Highway Patrol called in state and local reinforcements to create a wall of about 20 law officers to keep an angry crowd of Walking Horse enthusiasts separated from the regulators before the federal staffers could leave.
But the flap at the nation’s biggest Walking Horse event, which draws thousands of tourists to Middle Tennessee from all over the country, had been brewing for some time. It erupted further Saturday night when the Grand Championship contest was canceled. Inspectors again disqualified seven of 10 horses; trainers of the three horses that did pass withdrew from the class in protest.
It was the first time no Grand Champion was named.
Federal regulators say they have warned the Walking Horse industry about the condition of horses and tried to educate trainers and owners about the rules.
For their part, trainers and owners contend inspections are inconsistent and the feds are interpreting the rules too strictly.
“It’s the inconsistency that keeps the industry in turmoil,” said Bill Strickland, a Walking Horse owner from Arab, Ala.
Soring a horse is the practice of irritating and injuring its legs, typically the front, so it will shift its weight to its hind legs to assist in the signature “Big Lick” gait rewarded by show judges. Industry owners and trainers say the practice has been mostly eliminated from their competitions.
Federal regulators, though, see the Walking Horse industry differently.
At the 2005 Celebration, the USDA used a device that tests horses for prohibitive substances, such as numbing agents and irritants, that may suggest soring — more than half of 92 samples tested positive.
Weeks before the Celebration, veterinarian Todd Behre, the USDA’s chief horse protection regulator, told an owner he was “stunned at the condition of horses” that industry-hired regulators had allowed in Walking Horse competitions throughout Middle Tennessee the previous weekend, according to an e-mail exchange between the two.
Exhibitors and trainers were at times bolting from shows when regulators showed up.
The USDA inspection teams last year started attending more than one show event in a weekend, a practice that continued this year, Behre said. That means that it is less predictable where federal regulators will be, and that, when they show up, horse exhibitors and trainers sometimes leave an event, “a trend suggestive of a presence of horse soring,” according to a slide presentation Behre made in February.
The USDA recognizes that trainers leaving shows at the sight of federal regulators creates financial hardships for the industry, Behre said, but added that his office had tried to reach out to trainers to educate them about what the agency would be looking for.
“My hearing trainers say ‘we don’t know what to do about the scar rule’ has grown a little old, with the months ticking by without a clinic as if the information isn’t that important to anybody until any given Friday or Saturday night when USDA shows up at a show,” Behre said in his e-mail to Randy McIntosh posted on The Walking Horse Report Web page.
Inspections at issue
The scarring rule is at the heart of the controversy that erupted in Shelbyville, say industry owners and trainers. The rule is meant to police scarring, cuts, inflammations or other signs of intentional irritations done to a horse’s leg that would indicate soring.
Trainers say that the industry-hired inspectors called Designated Qualified Persons, or DQP’s, have a reasonable interpretation of the rule. DQP’s do the inspections at most contests. When federal regulators attend a show, they can inspect behind them and are typically more strict.
This has led to frustrations of trainers and owners and claims of inconsistency.
Tom Blankenship, an attorney working with the Walking Horse Trainers Association, was called in the day after last week’s shutdown to observe the inspection process. He said his organization recognizes the perception problem inherent in the practice of trainers leaving competitions when the feds show up but said rule-abiding horse trainers are concerned they can’t get a fair or consistent shake.
The USDA’s interpretation of the scar rule has changed dramatically over the years, Blankenship said. When the Horse Protection Act passed in 1970 there “were serious issues” in the industry but many of those problems are behind it, he said.
He said the trainers association and many other industry organizations want to eliminate horse soring from competition but think the USDA’s practice is out of control.
“I do believe in this point, in my opinion and in the opinion of expert advisers … that the subjectivity and the discretion that the language of the scar rule is being applied is totally and completely unreasonable,” said Blankenship, who is involved with several industry organizations.
Owner Strickland said the federal government’s enforcement policies are unreasonable and inconsistent and are hurting the industry.
He said the problems of soring from 20 years ago no longer exist.
He said the federal government just “show up anytime, anyplace and change the rules.”
The USDA counters that there are more than 100 DQP inspectors and the government has found that some don’t inspect as thoroughly when federal officials are absent.
New inspection methods
Behre said the interpretation of the rules and the inspection process has not changed since he took the horse protection coordinator job a few years ago. The department has the same basic training in place and the five department vets that regulate the industry remain consistent in their inspections, he said.
The department has begun testing and using various technologies to try to help detect soring, including algometry, or the use of a pressure device to detect sensitivity or pain in a horse’s leg.
The USDA also started in 2004 using a device to test horses for prohibited substances that may suggest soring, such as skin-numbing anesthetics and irritants such as diesel fuel.
When used on a test basis at last year’s Celebration, more than half the 92 samples (54.3 percent) tested positive for some prohibited substances. The same device used at the 2005 Kentucky Celebration found 100 percent of the 25 horses sampled had one or more prohibited substances, according to a slideshow of Behre’s presentation.
So far, the USDA has not used the device, called a “sniffer,” to disqualify any horses from competition.
“The purpose is so that the individual who had something on their horse’s leg will know that our sniffer technology is capable of detecting their practices and not use their substances on their horses anymore because in 2007 some additional punitive measures will be taken,” Behre said in an interview Thursday.
Blankenship and others in the Walking Horse industry question the reliability of the sniffer technology. They believe blood testing for foreign substance is a better process, he said.
Blankenship said all sides need to sit down and work out their differences, and come up with a workable compromise.
“This is nonsensical,” he said. “The conflict needs to be eliminated.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED ARTICLES
Walking Horse finale canceled
Brad Schrade can be reached at 259-8086 or bschrade@tennessean.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
