You should know about the Horse Protection Act
In the age of Social License to Operate, some equestrians are nervous about how expansion of the federal government’s Horse Protection Act will affect competitions and horse sales.
Others haven’t even heard about revised regulations going into effect Feb. 1, because there has been little publicity. But any time the government gets involved with sport, it raises questions.
At HPA’s inception in 1970, attention focused on stopping the soring of breeds such as Tennessee walking horses and racking horses with a variety of caustic substances. That practice, in conjunction with the use of action devices, has led to horrific abuse by some in creating the “Big Lick” type of striding valued in walking horse competitions. But as U.S. Equestrian Federation CEO Bill Moroney pointed out, even the original act covered soring in all types of horses, though equestrians involved with other breeds may not have realized it.
Now, however, “there have been some amendments (to HPA) that require a little more work by people,” he said.
The amended act is so broad-ranging that it has “really raised everyone’s attention” about regulation of all “covered breeds” at “covered events,” including shows offering everything from hunters to costume classes, dressage and polo. Competitions based on speed, such as show jumping, eventing cross-country, horse racing or rodeo, aren’t subject to the HPA.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture summarizes that “The Horse Protection Act makes it unlawful for any person to show, exhibit, sell, or transport sore horses, or to use prohibited equipment or substances in these activities.”
The USEF issued a press release in October that included information about the regulations, but Moroney thinks many people may not have read it. The federation has been proactive in dealing with the amendments, as has the American Horse Council.
A national association representing the horse industry in Washington, D.C., AHC has a variety of member organizations including USEF. the American Quarter Horse Association, the American Paint Horse Association and many others. It has asked for a 60-day extension in activating the revised HPA, in order to eliminate confusion in several areas, including the scope of the regulations. AHC has yet to receive an answer from the USDA, according to its president, Julie Broadway. The USDA also did not reply to an inquiry from this website on the status of the extension request.
Broadway said AHC is reconsidering its support of the revised regulations, noting USDA “is not cooperating” as the council tries to get things clarified “and make certain we are comfortable with what they are trying to do.”
There’s not as much overreach in the old regulations as the new regulations, Broadway observed. At the moment, she added “it’s just an absolute mess.” AHC has been in touch with the transition team for the new presidential administration about the issue. She said at this point, USDA can’t withdraw the revised HPA, and Congress doesn’t have the power to turn it around, but the new secretary of agriculture could withdraw it.
“We’re continuing to work every possible angle that we can,” Broadway commented.
She said some show organizers are “really frustrated, really anxious. They’re calling us and asking us, `What do we do?’” She suggests the shows just go ahead and notify USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Information Service as required that organizers will be holding their events. Broadway noted APHIS hasn’t gotten more money or personnel to enforce the act, and that the concentration remains on Tennessee Walking Horses.
“So the chances of them coming to a quarter horse show near you are really, really slim.”
USEF is handling notification of APHIS for all of its licensed competitions, which means their managers don’t have to deal with it. Concerns have been raised about other facets of the regulations, including the requirement that Horse Protection Inspectors have free access to show records, sale records, event information, barns, tack rooms, horse trailers, stables, stalls, arenas, and other areas on the showgrounds.
That sounds ominous, but Moroney’s conclusions are similar to those reached by Broadway. He maintained, “The immediate reaction has to be measured against the reality of the resources of the USDA/APHIS with regard to enforcement of the act. They have a limited budget and historically have gone to about 50 events a year.”
USEF has 2,100 licensed competitions (none of which are walking horse shows), and there are thousands more shows connected with other equestrian organizations across the country.
“There is no way for them to get everywhere,” said Moroney of the inspectors.
“They have historically gone to places where they feel this action is happening; the propensity to sore horses is the highest,” he said.
“We’re feeling as good as we can feel about it from a USEF perspective, because we have rules and regulations. We have a regulatory system that will penalize people for doing things outside the rules. We have a system of stewards, technical delegates, judges etc. where horses have a level of oversight over them.
“Come on, people out there,” he said.
“Do the right thing and you won’t have to call on regulation at the end of the day. The best way for something to not affect you is to do the right thing.”
Derek Braun, who runs the Split Rock Show Jumping Tour, isn’t worried about the expanded regulations.
He said he needs to look into them further for the details, but noted the provision that horses should be examined before they go in the ring and after they leave sounds to him like FEI (international equestrian federation) requirements.
If they have their own people coming in and inspecting, he continued, “that would be a little more concerning,” but he thinks inspection similar to what is done for FEI horses would be okay, “as long as it’s used for a good reason.”
Braun added, “I think the intention is probably correct for extreme circumstances. I think it’s no problem holding these trainers and exhibitors accountable if there is an extreme circumstance. While that’s what the show stewards, “are there for,” as far as having an inspector also take a look, “I can’t see that as a bad thing if it’s warranted.”
Joe Norick, the HITS’ show series chief customer officer, said that self-policing means “if we see something that looks inappropriate, we’ll bring it up.”
He added, “I think you have to employ good staff at the show, people that are educated, from the horse show vet on down. Depending on who these individual (inspectors) are and how they are coming to look at this, education is a big factor. That’s why a strong steward, horse show vet or manager is going to have take the lead, to be proactive on this. I also do think we have to think of the care, the quality of the barns, that’s why we have enough emphasis that horse care is a good place to start. I think we’re going to be fine.”
Meanwhile, however, the Western Justice Legislative Fund has taken an aggressive stance against the revised HPA with a petition drive. It cites many concerns, contending animal rights extremists are “seeking to expand the definition of `soring’ to encompass as much of the horse industry as possible. The recent revisions to the law are the result. The lead USDA veterinarian, Dr. Aaron Rhyner, even went so far as to say that he could see how just riding a horse could be considered to be a type of soring.”
Texas Commissioner of Agriculture Sid Miller is another voice against the revised HPA. He maintans, “This rule isn’t about protecting horses; it’s about federal bureaucrats grabbing more control over an industry they clearly don’t understand. The United States Department of Agriculture’s new rule is so absurd that it makes using fly spray on a horse a potential violation. That’s not a joke—they can’t be serious!”
The Federal Rule for the Act specifically states “soring” is defined as:
- An irritating or blistering agent applied, internally or externally, by a person to any limb of a horse;
- Any burn, cut, or laceration inflicted by a person on any limb of a horse;
- Any tack, nail, screw, or chemical agent injected by a person into or used by a person on any limb of a horse; or
- Any other substance or device used by a person on any limb of a horse, or a person has engaged in a practice involving a horse and as a result of such application, infliction, injection, use, or practice, such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected to suffer, physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking, trotting, or otherwise moving, except that such term does not include such an application, infliction, injection, use, or practice in connection with the therapeutic treatment of a horse by or under the supervision of a person licensed to practice veterinary medicine in the State in which such treatment is given.
click here to read about the revised HPA from the Federal Register.
