RESEARCH - Deaths in the Big Lick Horse Show Ring

First, THANK YOU to everyone who joined in on the THUNDERCLAP!  There were 464 supporters with their goal being 250!  This is great news!  Check out the results here.

Now, as we get closer and closer to getting the PAST Act passed, the Lickers get more and more desperate to try to keep their support of abused horses going.  One excuse I've been hearing of late is how many horses die in racing, endurance, cross country, and other sports.

I was sent the following information from a person who wants to see soring end for good.  This person was kind enough to dig up this information for me, for they knew that BL horses have died before.  It seems to me that the Big Lick horse is not immune to dying in the show ring.  These reports are directly from the Walking Horse Report.

October 2007: Walking Horse Report.com
During the first go round of the stake class at East Tennessee Trainers' and Ladies Auxiliary horse show, Armorall under the direction of rider Bill Reel collapsed and died. The nine year old stallion was owned by Bob Michaels of Winchester, VA., and has had a great show career during his young life, with his most recent win at Baileyton earlier this year. More information will be provided as it becomes available.

Even more frightening, in the same year...

Walking Horse Report.com
Equine Obituary - I'm Johnny Cash
Saturday, August 11, 2007

I'm Johnny Cash, 18 year old stallion, owned and loved by the Holbrook family and ridden by Mike Conley, succumbed to heat following a second workout in the stake class at the Tennessee State Championship horse show.

The stallion appeared fine during the workout, but collapsed to the ground while in the line up.

Attempts to revive him were made unsuccessfully. I¢m Johnny Cash was given a final round of applause as he was placed on a gate, covered and carried out of the ring.

I think these obituaries speak for themselves.  Yes, Big Lick horses die in the show ring.  When you have to carry overweight riders on your hind end and struggle to get your front feet away from the pain, heat exhaustion can certainly be a problem.  So be sure to mention these horses' names if you have to to any Congresspersons who may claim that no BL horse has ever died in the ring.

NEWS, ARTICLES, and RESEARCH - KY After Christmas Sale Proves Myths Are True

Hello all.  I want to talk about the Kentucky After Christmas Sale at the Kentucky Horse Park.

After lots of work and meetings, John Nicholson, the Executive Director of the park, made it clear that the horse comes first and foremost at the park.  Therefore, he made sure to bring in the International Walking Horse Association (IWHA) as the HIO for the sale.  He also made sure the USDA was present.  While he and his staff said it was okay to have Big Lick horses, they were adamant about safety and the welfare of the horse.

As a result, the sale itself had ZERO Big Lick and heavy shod horses!  This was WONDERFUL news for the Tennessee Walking Horse!

Janet Patton wrote a great article about the sale and the participation.  Click here to read the article.

The Industry made it sound like the entire sale was huge with a big turnout and lots of horses sold at high prices.  However, the visual evidence does not seem to match that.

Clearly, there aren't many people in the crowds or on the grounds.  It's quite a difference from the below video from the 2011 After Christmas Sale.

And sadly, the announcer seems quite proud that the last horse of the sale sold to Senator Robin Webb, who has HPA violations under her belt.

Let's take a look at the numbers.  Click here for the PDF of the list if you have a hard time reading the below table.  I don't have any official list of the results of the sale.  The TWH industry usually does not post the results of their sales...unlike every other horse organization out there.  The following list I got from these two videos (Friday results and Saturday results).  The catalog had 220 horses listed to be sold.  No sales are indicated in pink text.  If there was no information indicated by the person who kept track of the sales, I indicated them as "NO INFO" in red text.

So I did some number crunching.  Here's what I came up with.

Approximately 207 horses were run through the sale.
99 horses confirmed sold.
46 horses were confirmed no sales.
58 horses didn't have any information if they sold or not on the video.
Highest sale price: $6400.
Next most highest sale price: $3500.
Horses sold in $3000 to $4000 range: 5.
Horses sold in $2000 to $2999 range: 10.
Horses sold in the $1000 to $1999 range: 32.
Horses sold in the $250 to $999 range: 52.
Average horse sale price: $579.

Here's what Sen. Webb said on her Facebook page about the sale.

After all the media hype and negativity, a great sale was had in the Kentucky Horse Park facility. KY Horse Park brass was there as well as members of the Kentucky Racing Commission, the Kentucky Horse Council, and others. There was a good crowd, some new faces, had some thoroughbred people there, even a Polo player rode a TWH. The inspectors were very professional, as were those who presented. I think much was done to dispel the myth and propaganda. The media did not even surface on the second day and the article in Saturday mornings paper was pretty good. Would I like to have seen a little more cash on the barrelhead for the sellers,sure. But, I can't fault folks for looking for a bargain. Many horses that were no sale in the ring were sold outside. A little padded horse withdrawal, but, a good experience over all.

A LITTLE padded horse withdrawal?  No padded horses were there.  I don't get that statement at all.

I have to say that yes, she's right--myths and propaganda was dispelled.  We now know that BL horses won't be brought to a sale that has the USDA and IWHA present.  The myth that horses aren't being sored has been dispelled--they didn't bring any BL horses, so I think we can assume they won't do it because we know they're sored.  We know that media coverage means they're going to keep things small.  And we know that their claims of horses selling for big money at sales is also not true.

Sadly, with an average sale price of $579, it's clear that TWH has lost a lot of popularity.  I also found out that the Smoky Mountain TWH Sale has been canceled.  This sale is as big as the After Christmas sale, if not bigger.  Their excuse?  "The Smoky Mountain Sale was recently informed by the USDA of new livestock sale regulations. Due to the complexity of these regulations and the time constraints we will not be able to have the February 2013 sale. We apologize for any inconvenience. We would like to thank all of our customers for their business."

Quite frankly, I am on the USDA APHIS mailing list, and there's nothing about any "new" livestock sale regulations.  It seems to me that maybe it means the USDA would actually plan on showing up, which means sore horses might be found.  This is just an assumption, but overall their excuse seems quite fishy.

I wish the industry would see past the trees and see the forest.  They are not doing well, and their pocketbooks are suffering because of it.  Why not make the change for real?  Why not stop soring in its tracks?  Why not save face before you lose your entire industry solely because of your stubbornness and childishness?  You're killing yourselves, and we're just going to watch you die unless you do something about it.

NEWS and RESEARCH - USDA Horse Program Activity Report 2012

We start off the new with the list of inspections performed and violations found by the USDA for 2012.  Click here for the link.  Below is the final page of the report.

What this shows is the number of horses inspected at each show the USDA attended, and then the resulting violations.  It is not a representation of all the horses shown at each show, nor is it a representation of all the horses shown in TWH shows across the country.  The USDA inspected 9,962 horses in 2012 and found 582 violations.  If we take the numbers as is, then this is means that with horses inspected by the USDA and violations found, we have a 95% compliance rate.  (Huh.  Now where's that 98% compliance coming from again?)

Now, I went through and made some changes to the report in red text to show some different types of numbers.  Click here to see the entire PDF file with my changes in red text.  Below is the final page of the PDF with my edits.

I went through all the shows with zero violations and I red-lined the shows that were flat shod only.  The only show I did not red line was the SSHBEA show, and that is because it is common for horses to be sored at SSHBEA shows; this is where Barney Davis showed most of the time.  This removed eight shows from the list, bringing the total amount of horses inspected to 9,199.  This leads to a compliance rate of 94% for 2012.

It's too bad we can't know which inspected horses were BL and which ones weren't.  That would help in our research a lot.  But of course the industry isn't going to let us have THAT information.  It would expose those pesky things called FACTS that totally mess up their lies!  It might be available through the USDA, though, so hopefully I can find that information.

I'm not sure if I posted this information on the blog before, but I thought it was very important to note this information from the USDA concerning the 2012 Celebration.  Click here for the link.


2012 Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration Results

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) enforces the Horse Protection Act (HPA) to prohibit horses participating in shows, sales, exhibitions, or auctions from being subjected to soring. To facilitate enforcement of the HPA, USDA established the Designated Qualified Persons (DQP) program. Through this program, show or sale managers hire accredited veterinarians with equine experience or other knowledgeable horsemen who have been formally trained and licensed by USDA-certified horse industry organizations or associations to physically inspect every Tennessee walking horse before being shown. USDA also attends some horse shows unannounced to serve as a second line of defense in detecting sored horses. Working together, USDA and DQPs strive to ensure that only sound and healthy horses participate in shows.

Given the interest in the enforcement of the HPA at this year's Celebration, USDA wanted to post preliminary inspection results now, rather than at the end of the year. This year, USDA and DQPs inspected 1,849 horses and found 166 violations - an approximate 9% violation rate. This rate is slightly lower than the 9.5% violation rate from the 2011 Celebration, during which 2,143 horses were inspected and 203 violations were found.


So, here are the facts:

• Soring is still going on, and it is not at the supposed 98% compliance rate the industry wants us to believe.
• When we remove the flat shod only horse shows, the numbers clearly change.
• The number of violations are just barely decreasing.
• Between the 2011 and 2012 Celebration, 294 less horses were shown, with 37 less violations.

So if the number of violations are just barely decreasing, where's all of that amazing work the industry has been doing to clean this up?  Shouldn't they be nearly non-existent at this point?

In my truly honest opinion, there is no excuse for these numbers to have to continue.  There should be zero violations every single year.  This is not just a few bad apples or they'd have been caught 40+ years ago.  This is all the same shit, just a different year.

I have some ideas in the works we want to implement starting this month to raise awareness and support for the horses.  So hopefully we will see some real changes this year, if not the end to pads and chains.

RESEARCH - Letters That Still Ring True: Auburn Study Cover Letter and 2007 Auburn Univ. Letter

The Auburn Study Cover Letter

I don't know if I had posted this yet or not, but I finally received the letter that went with the Auburn Study of 1982.  If you haven't read what I've written about the Auburn Study, you can read it here.

Below is a jpg image of the letter.  In case you can't read it, I copied what it says verbatim below the jpgs.

**********

February 19, 1982

Dear Dr. Schwindaman:

We have yet to carry out the formal steps to determine the effects of built-up pads on Tennessee Walking Horses. Over the years, however, we have experienced what the group considers a high rate of thrush in the horses we have shod with pads and used in tests. Although it is not readily apparent on clinical observation we have observed with thermovision varying degrees of abnormal inflammation on the posterior aspect of the metacarpal area where the flexor bundle is located. This usually occurs the day after a horse has been freshly shod, whether or not he is exercised daily, and lasts from a few days to two weeks.

Attached are some questions we asked of our farrier and four clinic veterinarians who devote their professional time almost exclusively to equines. They all answered 'yes' to the first two questions and suggested sheared heels, quarter cracks, and laminitis as other abnormalities of the forefeet of Tennessee Walking Horses shod with conventional pads. They all answered 'yes' to the fourth question, giving their reason that they could not adequately examine the feet unless the sole was exposed.

Sincerely,

R.S. Sharman, DVM

Assistant Professor

1. Do you associate , from your observation, increased incidence of thrush with pads covering the sole of horses hooves? [YES]

2. Contracted Heels? [YES]

3. Other abnormalities? [YES - sheared heels, quarter cracks and laminitis]

4. Would you consider it necessary to remove pads and shoes from a horse to do an adequate foot examination? Why? [YES - The foot cannot be adequately examined without the sole exposed.]

**********

I really don't understand how this can't be considered evidence that pads are bad.  This industry continues to kid itself...will they ever learn?  Well, I think we know the answer to that one.

Auburn University Letter 2007

In 2007, Dr. J.T. Vaughan wrote the following letter to the TWH industry.  He was one of the original vets who worked on the Auburn Study, which included the cover letter above.  He was also one of the drafters of the Atlanta Protocol of 1991, which basically was an attempt to overthrow the HPA that fizzled.  The courts recognized that the Atlanta Protocol was a farce; excerpt: "The general consensus of the July 24, 1991, meeting (RX 4) [aka Altanta Protocol] is, in effect, a prescription for repealing the Horse Protection Act, while leaving in its place a facade to give lip-service to the purposes of the Horse Protection Act. If the Department were to accede to the principles set forth in RX 4, soring, as it exists today, could be practiced virtually with impunity."  Click here to read the case itself; quote is from page 34.

However, Mr. Vaughan has certainly seen the industry for what it is.  He certainly still holds true to the facts that were found in the Auburn Study.  His points are

Here are the thumbnails from the letter in three pages so you can see they're real.  If you click on the thumbnail, it will take you to the letter on the FTTWH Photobucket page.

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Here's the text of the letter verbatim. Honestly, I think the entire letter speaks for itself and Dr. Vaughan clearly wants to see a sound, natural, FS horse in the ring.  He points out that the problem is the politics and the continued need for power and money and there is no concern for the welfare of the horse.  This is a great letter that really deserves more attention.

**********


Auburn University
College of Veterinary Medicine
Office of the Dean Emeritus

April 2, 2007

Thoughts on the Tennessee Walking Horse Problems

1. The physical examination described in the Atlanta Protocol of 1991 is sound and subject to change only with the evolution of the species, the horse and the human.

2. The problem lies in its application by unskilled inspectors - more VMOs than DQPs.  Basic horsemanship is not conferred with the DVM degree.  It usually comes from experience acquired before or outside of veterinary school.

3. The inequality in those skills puts the VMOs on the defensive and breeds resentment toward the DQPs.

4. The solution lies in using VMOs better trained and more familiar with horses.

5. There have always been lay inspectors to assist regulatory vets in many different operations.  In this case, however, DQPs are seen by VMOs as siding with the industry (they are hired by the industry) and in opposition to the government.  In an effort to assert their authority, VMOs make a conscious effort to "catch" the DQPs in an oversight or too lenient an interpretation.  Thus, innocuous calluses or inconsequential scurfing is ruled a scar violation.  Borderline sensitivity is ruled soreness.  Mistakes occur on both sides, but reconciliation and agreement is difficult and the VMO simply overrules the DQP.

6. Exhuming old data from previous research is subject to the errors of revised interpretations, and they are not apt to be accepted at the same level of credibility as before.  The simple fact remains that scars are the result of chronic inflammation, whether from chains (legal or otherwise) or from chemical irritants.  There is no "litmus test" to distinguish the cause.  It is inevitably a judgment call in the inspection station, and the law should be governed by reason.  Endless revisitation of the scar rule in hope of finding something new is likely to be no more productive.  Both sides accuse the other of splitting hairs, and the tie rarely ever goes to the runner (i.e., the horse).

7. Of greater concern to me than what happens at the pastern is what goes on under the shoe and pad.  Close-nailed shoes, pared-down feet, and pressure applied to the soles by various devices are abominations.  Frankly, I have to go on record as finding the elongated feet objectionable.  I greatly favor the flat-shod horse.  It's more natural and more humane.  I know that puts me in diametric opposition to the industry.

8. Old ways die slowly and never graciously, and intermittent reinforcement is habituating.  There will always be those who skirt the law, and every time they succeed makes them all the more determined.  Recidivism is a perennial weed that flourishes in the Walking Horse industry.  The sad thing is that it crops up so frequently among the leadership, just like in politics.  Affluence is the fertilizer that keeps it growing, and it is power that corrupts.  As you can see, I'm not optimistic that much will change sort of the death penalty.

9. Now what difference can be done?  The industry has always relied on exercising their influence through lobbyists in Washington, DC to gain the favor of the congressional representatives, who, in turn, were to apply pressure on government regulatory agencies, in this case, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), by such means as threatening to reduce their funding.  The benefits of this strategy are short term at best and, in the long term, loses ground by lack of cooperation and passive aggression (or by surprise rewritings of the law).  You may make a few points at the time, but like instant gratification, it is soon replaced by reinforced regulations, tighter restrictions, and stricter interpretations.  Bureaucracy can be a friend or a beast according to how it's handled.  And like an elephant, it has a long memory.  Elected officials come and go.  Bureaucracies staffed by civil servants have long tenures.

10. What I'm leading up to will be viewed by the big mules of industry as comparable to George W. sitting down with Iran and Syria.  But I am convinced what is needed is for industry and government to enter into bipartisan, multilateral summit meetings and strive for some reconciliation that is free from the old unilateral, political pressures, and to have successive meetings to correct problems before they occur, bringing pressure to bear on their own ranks - the incompetents and the malefactors, rather than on each other.  If the two sides - government and industry - can meet in a spirit of good will and a sincere desire to solve problems, the show walking horse may survive.  Otherwise, it may return to its roots - the plantation walking horse, which may not be a bad thing.

11. Thus far, I've said nothing about the humane activists who you may condemn as being at the root of the problem.  Well, this requires another change of mindset, for, if you think like Hamlet, "to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them," you are sadly mistaken.  That is tantamount to fighting the modernization of society.  What is needed is the same thing that is lacking in Bush's flawed Iran policy, and this is allies, such as the American Horse Council and the American Association of Equine Practitioners.  I can't speak officially for either (and individual members may disagree), but I can tell you that the Walking Horse show horse has lost the support of the hierarchy of the AAEP, which it had until near the turn of the 20th Century.  The AAEP has to live with the humane groups.  They know that much, and the same image problems face the Walking Horse industry.  As long as they are branded an inhumane group, the rank and file of society will reject them.  The best way to address that problem is to make peace with the USDA and the allied horse organizations.  As long as the industry determines to fight unilaterally, they travel a path of self-destruction.

12. I'm sure the industry can get a rosier opinion from another source, but it's apt to be viewed through rose-colored glasses.  The experiences of the previous year should be evidence of that.  Be that as it may, I should be surprised if anyone took this advice.  At least it didn't cost the industry but maybe a twinge of conscience.

In conclusion, I would consider attending a summit meeting of industry and government only upon the invitation of the USDA.  I have no agenda, and refuse any compensation for my services other than travel expenses and per diem.  I represent not institution or organization, and am responsible only to my own conscience.

Respectfully,

Dr. J.T. Vaughan, DVM
Dean Emeritus of Veterinary Medicine

RESEARCH and HOW YOU CAN HELP - POPVOX and Why We Should Support H.R. 6388

PLEASE DON'T FORGET TO CONTACT YOUR CONGRESS PERSONS!

And please do it more than once to emphasize the importance of this to be passed!

Go to www.senate.gov and www.house.gov and go to the upper right corner to find your Congress person.

CLICK HERE TO ADD YOUR SIGNATURE TO OUR LETTER!

Just click on Comments in the upper right corner and type in your name.

Click here to learn what letter and why you should sign it.

So I've got a couple of things to talk about here, and first I want to get something out of the way that I have a strong sense that people have not thought about.

Being on various groups and pages on Facebook, we see a lot of buzz about H.R. 6388.  I have noticed that people who claim to support sound horses won't support H.R. 6388.  This is because they do not like the term "weighted shoes."  They think that their LS shoes and Plantation shoes will be taken away from them.

After doing some research, I have learned this is NOT true.  One of our FTTWH contributors spoke with a fellow horseman who helped write the amendment.  He stated that the reason they used the term "weighted shoes" was because it gives the USDA the freedom to put regulations on what type of shoes.  He also said the USDA is not trying to eliminate the LS shoe and the Plantation shoes.

I think that it's clear that the USDA has no problem with NWHA and FOSH shows, which allow horses to carry heavier shoes.  The heavier shoes are not the problem.  It's the tungsten shoes - which are basically cheating - and the addition of iron plates to the bottom of the shoes after the horse has been through the DQP to make them heavier.  (Yes, this happens--I've witnessed it myself a few years ago.)

What I'm saddened by is people throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  They are rejecting the entire H.R. 6388 based on two words.  Can't people support the bill anyway?  This bill doesn't just take away stacks, chains, bands and weighted shoes.  It also strengthens the penalties and makes it harder for the cheaters to cheat and the sorers to win.  We need these to be implemented because first, we know the Industry won't do it, and second, we know the USDA won't do it.  You are always allowed to write in something like, "I support H.R. 6388 but ask that the term "weighted shoes" be clearly defined."  With the attitude I'm reading about, it seems to me that shoes are more important than protecting the horse here.  This IS the HORSE PROTECTION ACT after all, not the Owners/Exhibitors/Trainers Protection Act.  We need to see support to get the HPA better enforced and the law upheld.  Is that not more important than what shoes are nailed on the horses' feet?

Which leads me to another way to express your opinion and say exactly what I said above in concern with the "weighted shoes" terminology.  POPVOX is a website that's gotten a lot of buzz in the TWH community lately.  I wasn't sure what it was all about, but basically it's a website where you can voice your support or opposition of any bill currently being reviewed by the government.

It's a pretty neat deal.  When you go to the website, you can do a search for H.R. 6388.  (Here's the link.)  Then, you can click SUPPORT or OPPOSE and write in your response.  This response goes directly to your local Congress persons.

Now it is important to note that there are plenty of ways to easily fake email addresses and names, so the percentages of support vs. oppose can be skewed.  And I don't know if any solid proof that responses on POPVOX have been the make or break decision for any of our Congress persons in the past.  But, this is a very easy way to get your voice heard and to share with others to ask them to also voice their support.

What's really interesting is to take a look at this page.  Here, we can see where the support and oppositions come from.  Not surprisingly, the majority of the opposition comes from where?  TENNESSEE!!!  Well duh!  It would end their precious crippled spider look!  But it's also pretty darn cool to see folks from as far away as Alaska and Hawaii are in support of this bill.  If our Congress persons consider these demographics, they would see that those who are in opposition are those who want to see this monstrosity continue as is.  Also note the organizations who oppose the bill are also those who oppose the USDA and ANY changes to the regulations they make.  Surprise, surprise.

So far, as logged on POPVOX, we have 43 co-sponsors of the bill from various districts across the U.S.  I also understand that 17 more have also co-sponsored the bill, but they aren't listed on POPVOX.

Overall, take some time browsing this page to read the comments, learn about the co-sponsors, and find out more about H.R. 6388.  It's a great way to learn more and to understand why we absolutely need H.R. 6388 to pass.  Currently, the bill is in the House and Energy Commerce Committee to be reviewed and voted upon.  Then it will head to the House if they are cool with it.  So be sure to get your comments in there in support of the bill so we can make sure it gets in the hands of the House and the Senate.

Again, as always, THANK YOU for your support of the horse!

RESEARCH - Comparison of the Original HPA with HR 6388

PLEASE DON'T FORGET TO CONTACT YOUR CONGRESS PERSONS!

And please do it more than once to emphasize the importance of this to be passed!

Go to www.senate.gov and www.house.gov and go to the upper right corner to find your Congress person.

Below is a document I prepared with the original HPA side by side with the HPA including the amendments of H.R. 6388.  The amendment changes are in red.  I talked about the changes that are most prominent in this post.  I also want to point out that the breeds of horses that will be affected are clearly spelled out in the amendment: Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking horses, and Spotted Saddle Horses.  The changes will not affect other breeds that use pads  and bands on their horses because, quite frankly, they have not abused the privilege of using pads and bands like the TWH industry has.

If you're having trouble reading it, try your Zoom option in your Internet browser, or you can view the PDF of this comparison here.

Please remember: those who oppose this are clearly not for the horse or upholding the law.  I think it's obvious that those who oppose H.R. 6388 are in support of the abuse or are abusers themselves.  Let's do our best to stop these monsters by continuing to contact our Congress persons and letting them know we want to see the madness end, permanently.

RESEARCH - How GC/MS Technology Works

So I constantly hear all the crap the sore horse industry is spewing about how all those chemicals found on those horses was just fly spray and shampoo.  Then things get even STUPIDER on the chats...people are saying that maybe their hand lotion might get on the horse's pastern, or they might be walking past someone filling up their lawn mower with gas and the particles in the air will get on the horse's pasterns and that will show up.

PLEASE.

Obviously, there is an extreme misconception about how GC/MS technology works.  And of course, no one wants to research it because they don't want concrete confirmation that yes, soring is still going on.  So I'm going to talk about it here.  And here's the thing, folks: I used to work for environmental consulting and construction.  I used to have to write reports that included GC/MS results and explanations of how the samples are taken and how the testing is done in the lab.  This is not new technology--it's been around for a LONG time, and the government and the private sector use it in lots of areas.  In environmental consulting and construction, it's used to test soil, air, water, or other material for asbestos, lead, mercury, TCE, PCE, and all kinds of nasty chemicals that are harmful to humans. A solid sample is taken differently than an air sample, and a liquid/water sample is taken differently than both of those.  Now you can read about it on places like this website, but here I'm going to talk about it in plain terms so everyone can understand.

First, to point out, the USDA spent a few years establishing a baseline first.  They went to FOSH and NWHA shows, asked the exhibitors to prepare their horses as usual (with fly spray and shampoo and the like).  Apparently they also went to non-gaited breed shows as well, but I'm not sure on that.  These wee regular shows, just like anywhere else.  Pesticides were used on the grasses, lawns were mowed, water trucks were used in the arena, all the usual stuff was there that you'll find at any horse show.  But most important is this:

100 PERCENT OF ALL OF THEIR TEST RESULTS SHOWED ZERO CAUSTIC CHEMICALS.

So where does that leave the fly spray and shampoo issue?

Well, this is how the GC/MS works.

When a swab is taken, it must be taken with a specific procedure.  You must be trained in how to handle the swabbing kit.  It can be done in the open air because it is ONLY TESTING FOR SOLIDS.  Therefore, it is NOT going to pick up on fuel particles in the air if someone walks their horse by a can of fuel.  Unless they are literally standing and holding the swab over the can as the liquid is being poured into gas mower, then there is no way the swab can be contaminated by air or liquid particles.  Now of course, if someone drops their swab on the ground, they can't just pick it up and reuse it--they have to use a new one.  Which of course, we want.  I certainly wouldn't want a surgeon to drop his needle while he's stitching me up and then reuse it, for the same reason: contamination.

Then the swabs are correctly packaged to prevent contamination and included with their chain of custody forms (which includes the date, time, location, weather condition, person who performed the swab, and other pertinent info) and sent to the lab.  Any package received by the lab that has been broken or tampered with is rejected.

Next, samples are taken from the swabs and are put in the GC/MS machine.  This is done in a clean lab in a controlled environment.  I won't go into how the machine does everything here because it's kinda complicated, but it involves heating the samples to break up the solid particles.  Then a printout is made of all the substances found in the sample.  These substances are literally broken down to the tiniest, minute microbe.  We know what chemicals are found in shampoo and fly spray, so the person who is trained to read the printout can eliminate substances found in shampoo and fly spray.  Then the substances left behind are checked to see if they are caustic.

Now there are levels of toxicity of substances.  Some are toxic when even a little bit is put on, some take quite a lot to become caustic.  So the level of toxicity can also be confirmed by the amount of micrograms that come back from the test.  So anything that shows up under that substance's level of toxicity can be ruled out.

Now, of all the swab test results that came out, especially the 52 out of 52 horses at the Celebration last year, ALL of those chemicals are considered caustic and not safe for use on skin.  They were also at levels that are unsafe to use.

Now, there are chemicals in some fly sprays and cleaners that are also considered caustic.  For example, a complaint was made by someone that they got a ticket for having the chemical piperonyl butoide on their horse.  So, here's the National Pesticide Information Center fact sheet about it.  Note that in the table Toxicity Category, when used on the skin it is corrosive.  Obviously on this particular horse, piperonyl butoide was found at toxic levels.  So my question is this: what in the world are you doing having high levels of this chemical on your horse's pasterns?  Most people don't stand there and coat their horse in fly spray on their pasterns.  In fact, most people I see just mist the fly spray over the horse's legs.  It seems that this horse had high levels for other reasons.

Let's not forget that the industry uses household chemicals to sore their horses, such as Gojo, Kopertox, Kwik Cleen, and various other products that are not to be used for purposes other than what is printed on the labels.  That's also what the GC/MS is picking up on.  Now the machine isn't smart enough to say hey, that guy's using Gojo!  But the person reading it can certainly see the elements of diesel fuel, which is used in Gojo--that's how it cleans the grease and gunk off your hands, combined with pumice.

So basically, it comes down to this: the GC/MS will give a printout of all the substances it will find, safe or not.  Then, the person reading the printout will determine what substances are considered toxic and what levels the substances are showing up at to find out if a toxic amount is being used.  The machine does not lie, and it's very difficult to mess up taking the swabs and understanding the results.

So, after all of that, if you're still worried about having fly spray or shampoo on your horses' legs, then worry not: buy organic fly spray and shampoo, and only use those shampoos on show days.  Natural-based color enhancing shampoos are also safe.  And as far as I know, flies don't congregate around horses' pasterns, so if you are STILL worried, don't put fly spray on his pasterns--just wipe fly spray on his legs and knees with a cloth. Viola!  Problem solved!

RESEARCH and GUEST BLOGGER - The Truth Behind the Numbers

I've got a few guest bloggers that are writing some great pieces for our blog.  First up is this excellent article by Suzi Clark.  Suzi is currently active with the NWHA and helping to end soring.  A short paragraph about her is included below.  Here, Suzi discusses the problems with the industry's current excuses for McConnell and the soring issues, including the violation rate for the 2011 Riders Cup rankings, the list of the most prominent trainers in the TWH industry.

**********

The Truth Behind the Numbers

We have heard in the past few weeks about the United States Humane Society undercover investigation exposing a Tennessee Walking Horse Trainer, Jackie McConnell. This expose has been aired all over the nation. The video shows horrific abuse inflicted on the Big Lick horse to force them to perform an extreme high stepping animated gait.

We have also read the various press releases from the governing bodies in the Tennessee Walking Horse Industry including The Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders' and Exhibitors' Association (TWHBEA), Walking Horse Trainers' Association and the largest Horse Industry Organization (HIO) inspection program called S.H.O.W.  These press releases minimize or deny their role in the continued practice of soring and claim McConnell was just an exception or a bad apple.  I am not going to elaborate on all of the lies in these press releases that these associations feed the public, but I will touch on a few.

TWHBEA felt the need after all these years to clarify its role, stating they are just a registry and have no authority over showing inspections like other equine associations.  Well, if that was the case, maybe you should remove the words "Breeders' and Exhibitors' Association" and replace it with the word "registry" calling it the Tennessee Walking Horse Registry, or have your President Marty Irby recant his speech at the various USDA listening sessions across the country this year when industry stakeholders had five minutes to speak to the USDA about the Horse Protection Act.  President Marty Irby stated he was against the USDA mandatory minimum penalty protocols.  The USDA requires each horse industry inspection program to implement because these penalties would protect the horse and make trainers and owners accountable for violating the Horse Protection Act.

There are about twelve inspection programs, HIOs, with three of them being compliant with the USDA.  We need to differentiate these inspection programs with the other nine so there is no confusion.  The sound horse inspection programs are: The National Walking Horse Association (NWHA), Friends of Sound Horses, and the International Walking Horse Association. These associations have eliminated the sore horse from the ring.

Okay, that being said, the USDA mandatory penalties require a suspension taking habitual horse offenders out of the ring.  I might also add they are MINMUM penalties and that the USDA should not have to force any equine association to implement these penalties. These inspection programs are supposed to protect the horse from abusive training methods, but instead they protect the violators.

Several of us from NWHA attended the Kentucky listening session where Marty Irby spoke.  Mr. Irby stated these penalties would decimate the industry and decrease the value of our horse. We were so disgusted with his stance. He also goes on to brag the industry has a 98% compliance rate but one brave individual named Mark Matson challenged the percentage questioning, "If penalties only effect violators and you have a  98% compliance rate how would you expect a 2% violation rate to decimate your industry?"  That is the truth, it is not possible.

Dr. Steven Mullin, an equine vetenarian and the director of S.H.O.W, has been interviewed several times recently.  I might add that Dr. Mullins was quick to ban Barney Davis before his trial and denied the fact Barney Davis was a Walking Horse trainer.  Guess what; a tape surfaced of Mr. Davis showing at the 2009 National Celebration under Dr. Mullins inspection program.  Dr. Mullins also claims a 98% compliance rate and states he has enforced the Horse Protection Act more than anyone else. What he doesn’t state is his organization is facing decertification by the USDA because he refuses to implement these minimum penalties.  His penalty protocol focuses on a fine with little to no suspension for the violators.  This allows the habitual offenders to remain in the show ring and pay a mere $100 fine for most violations.  I have found data where many trainers have up to ten or more violations a year and are still showing.  It is a revolving door policy and many flock to this meaningless enforcement.  Dr. Steven Mullins inspects for the annual Tennessee Walking Horse Celebration, named The Cruelest Horse Show on earth by the United States Humane Society.  If you remember, this show was shut down in 2006 before the World Grand Championship class because only three of the entries passed the USDA inspection for the World Grand Championship Big Lick class.

Now let’s discuss how this fabricated compliance rate is calculated.  A true compliance rate is based on the number of horses, not the number of entries.  Example ten runners show up to race.  Only five of the runners pass a random urine test.  Results equal a fifty percentage compliance rate.  In the industry, the numbers are further diluted by including all sound horse organizations entries, versatility entries, and flat shod entries.  This also does not include the mass exit of trainers every time the USDA shows up to inspect horses and the horses that are drugged, numbed, or stewarded.  The recently released USDA foreign swab analysis showed 50 of 52 samples done at the 2011 Celebration were positive for foreign substances mostly numbing agents at Dr. Mullins inspection program. How’s that for a 98% compliance rate.  A study found that 90% percent of all Horse Protection Act violations come from the Big Lick division.  I found that Dr. Mullins does not include the number of horses on the USDA horse protection program DQP report. What are you hiding?  A true compliance rate?

So if you want to use a compliance rate on entries, we can look at the 2011 Celebration, where the world grand champions are crowned.  Now you have to remember the USDA can only attend 7% of all Tennessee Walking Horse Shows due to lack of funding.  The compliance rate at the 2011 Celebration was actually about 91% and about 86% when the recently released USDA random foreign substance swab results are included.  That does not include the horses that don't get led up to inspection that go in versatility classes that don't require inspection.  The 98% number has been used by the industry forever, and it is a lie.  It is based on the reports sent in by DQPs from the inspection programs that let sore horses in the ring, and includes all of the shows they inspect, 94% of which they inspect when the USDA vets are not standing over their shoulder to ensure they inspect properly.

Those programs need to be decertified by the USDA.  This is not a problem of a few trainers.  The top 20 trainers in the industry collectively have over 160 Horse Protection Act violations over the 2010 and 2011 show seasons.  They are being rewarded for soring horses.  It is ridiculous, and it needs to stop. The primary reason it has not stopped is that those same inspection program, if they do cite a violation, cite a lesser violation for which the penalties are meaningless.  Plus, they commonly don't even enforce their own penalties on the worse violations.  Those inspection programs are the tools by which all of this abuse goes on.  All of the statements made by the Walking Horse industry are hollow platitudes.  They cater to people who make a living soring horses and lying about it.  It has gone on for decades, it is common, and Jackie McConnell is no exception.

The Walking Horse Trainers' Association stated they were shocked and saddened by the actions of Jackie McConnell.  They state the welfare of the Tennessee Walking Horse is at the forefront of their association and membership.  I think what is shocking is the number of violations of the top trainers in the industry competing for honors in the rider’s cup award.

Below is a spreadsheet showing the 2011 Riders Cup rankings of trainers in the Tennessee Walking Horse industry.  It also shows the violations on those trainers written by the horse industry inspection organizations over the 2010 and 2011 show seasons.  It does not include USDA disqualifications.  In addition, it shows the penalties that would have applied under the USDA minimum penalty protocol, the suspension penalties (not fines) under SHOW’s penalty structure, and the suspensions that were actually levied by the horse industry inspection organizations.  To the best of my ability, the data is true to the best of my knowledge as it was available.  (Three pages--click each page thumbnail to read the entire page.  Hover your mouse at the top of the page when it shows up and click Zoom In to see it in a larger view.)

 

One cannot examine this spreadsheet without concluding that these trainers continue to sore horses and are being rewarded for it by the industry.  The penalties levied by the industry are worthless in terms of an effective deterrent.  Most of the violations have no suspension at all.  Most of the penalties for the few bilateral sore cases were served over the winter, also having no effective deterrent.  In fact, most given those suspensions will be off of them just in time for the Celebration.  The industry keeps saying there are a “few bad apples”, and most of the horses are sound.  The fact is that the bad apples are the industry’s inner circle of trainers and owners.  In fact, since Dr. Mullins and others have continued to put forth blatantly false information about violation statistics, it is no stretch that many of the violations are being dumbed down to something less than they really are (i.e., bilateral written as a unilateral or scar rule) when the USDA is not present, and probably even when they are present, to an extent.  If these people will lie to the public, then they will alter inspections.  That said, the spreadsheet should be viewed as very conservatively representing the situation, and in reality it is significantly worse.  An examination of the penalties and who they would impact also shows why the industry is so up in arms over the USDA penalty protocol while simultaneously claiming a compliance rate of 98.3%.  It is way past time for this nonsense to stop.

~ Suzi Clark

Suzi Clark rode her first TWH at five years old.  The palomino mare was owned by her cousin, and this mare started a long love affair for the breed.  Suzi continued to ride through her teenage years until she purchased her first TWH at age eighteen.  Nine months after her purchase, she attended her first TWH show with friends Debra and Mark Matson.  During those years, Suzi witnessed many atrocities inflicted upon the defenseless TWH.  Nerve cords, open application of soring agents, stewarding, and using whips to force horses out of their stalls to the inspection area, as they were in so much pain they could hardly walk.  Suzi was outspoken against the abuse during a time when it was forbidden and suffered physical threats and banishment.  In 1997, she was informed of a new HIO called the National Walking Horse Association and is proud to say she is one of the fifty founding members of NWHA.  Suzi is still active and competing in the growing association and is currently apprenticing for her judge's license.

NEWS - Transcript of Barney Davis Sentencing Now Available

****EDITED 5/14/2012 to correct that Neff is the federal prosecutor for the case, not Davis' lawyer.

I've had this for a few days now but only recently got the go-ahead to release this.  This is the entire transcript of the sentencing of Barney Davis.  As part of his plea bargain, Davis was required to stand in front of the court and demonstrate how to sore horses.  This transcript includes the soring process and how it's done.

WARNING: THE TEXT MAY BE DISTURBING TO SOME READERS.  PLEASE READ WITH CAUTION.

Click here for the entire text.  Please note that this is a 56 page PDF file; Adobe Reader or CutePDF is required to read it.

In this post, all of the quoted text from the transcript will be in green.

What I first want to point out is this: The industry is claiming that Davis is a Spotted Saddle Horse trainer, and that what he has to say doesn't apply to them.  However, here's what Davis himself says about SSHs.

NEFF (Federal Prosecutor): And what do you do? What kind of horses do you train?
DAVIS:  Spotted walking horses.
NEFF:  And could you tell the Court what those are?
DAVIS:  It's just a walking horse that's spotted. I mean, it's, you know, just a gaited horse.
NEFF:  Okay. That's what I was after. A gaited horse?
DAVIS:  Right.
NEFF:  Which means what exactly?
DAVIS:  Just we call it Big Lick horse is what we call them, you know. It's actually, actually, just a saddle horse that's made to walk.

And again, later in the proceeding...

NEFF: And then I think the judge mentioned the Tennessee walking horse, which is just another kind of gaited horse. Is that right?
DAVIS: Just the same as a walking horse, it's just spotted.

Further research shows that Davis rode and trained TWHs for the Celebration in 2009 and 2010.  Videos WERE available online...but of course have since been pulled.  Natch.

So to start going over this situation, here's the reason why Davis was instructed to report how to sore horses.

THE COURT: ...A significant part of the whole purpose of any criminal prosecution is to provide general deterrence to others who may be tempted to engage in this sort of conduct. The articles that I ordered written or hoped that will, it will contribute to that general deterrence. I think what I hear in this case we're going to take the additional step of in addition to an article that I order to present some proof here at the sentencing hearing. And I know that at least certain representatives of the media are here and it will serve that purpose.

As far as why they do this:

NEFF: And what is the goal of training these horses? What are we trying to do with them?
DAVIS: The goal is to make them, to make them step as big as they can step, I mean, you know, that's how you win.
NEFF:  Okay. That's what I was going to ask. You're not doing this for fun?
DAVIS: No.
NEFF: You're doing this for another right reason. Right?
DAVIS: Right.
NEFF: What is that reason?
DAVIS: To win. I mean, the customers want to win as long --
NEFF: Win what?
DAVIS: They want to win the money, the prestige, you know.  They want to know that they've got a horse that can win.

Now down to the nitty gritty.  This is where things get rough, folks...this is the evidence that soring is the norm and HOW they are doing it.  Please proceed reading with caution...

NEFF: Okay. Now, what I want to ask you is about training and how you train these and what is the proper way to train these animals?
DAVIS: Everybody does -- I mean, they've got to be sored to walk. I mean, that's the bottom line. It ain't no good way to put it, but that's it.
NEFF: Okay. When you talk about soring them to get them to walk in a certain way, what kind of things do you have to do? What does that mean? What does soring mean?
DAVIS: Soring means you put chemical agents on the skin or objects under the foot. A lot of people use what we call wedges and some people use blocks and some people use bolts and some people just can shoe them and get them close enough to, you know, make them hurt under their feet.
NEFF: Let's talk about the blocks and the bolts and some of the mechanical external devices that are used to sore the horses.
DAVIS: Right.
NEFF: Explain how that process works.
DAVIS: Well, it's just, I mean, you know, mainly, you just -- mainly, they stand on these blocks and it makes the bottom of their feet tender and makes them pick their feet up higher.
NEFF: Which is, I guess, the higher they pick up their feet the better the scores?
DAVIS: The better they are, right.
NEFF: Now, are there other methods used to sore horses?
DAVIS: Yeah. You got some people use mustard oil, which is a chemical you mix with, it can be mixed with kerosene or diesel, or Gojo, just, you know, anything to cut it down to put on their skin and wrap it up and it makes them tender, sore, you know.
NEFF: So, the chemicals irritate the horse's feet --
DAVIS: Right.
NEFF: -- or skin around their feet which causes them to lift their legs higher?
DAVIS: Right.
NEFF: All right. I'm going to show you some photographs here. This is Government's Exhibit No. 2, I think was taken after a search warrant. Do you recall a search warrant at your barn?
DAVIS: Yes, sir.
NEFF: What are the items that are located in that tray, can you tell us?
DAVIS: That's bolts is what we call bolts and flat washers. You don't actually put -- the bolt doesn't actually go into the hoof, I mean, you put the flat, something flat against their foot so you don't hurt them too bad. I mean, you don't want to hurt them too bad.
NEFF: You don't want to make them lame because they can't walk at all?
DAVIS: Right. But just enough to put enough pressure on them to make them pick their feet up.
NEFF: And you were aware that these methods are prohibited. Right?
DAVIS: Right.
NEFF: I'm going to hand you what's been marked as Government's Exhibit No. 8. Would you show the judge what those are and explain what they do?
DAVIS: This is actually a set of bolts here, and what it does, it locks, these plates lock in under the shoe, and these are tightened against usually a whole lot bigger washer than that, just usually pretty big, it will go against the foot, and you tighten it down and it pulls against the shoe and that puts pressure against the foot. And that's basically it.
NEFF: Okay.
THE COURT: When talking about a horse, don't you call the foot a hoof?
DAVIS: Hoof. Right.
THE COURT: Okay.
NEFF: All right. Those are some of the items that I just showed you there are what's basically in the tray. Right?
DAVIS: Right. Right.
...


NEFF:  I've put up Government's Exhibit 3. I don't think there will be any objection to any of these exhibits, Your Honor for the record. Could you tell us what that is, Mr. Davis?
DAVIS: That's a picture of my barn of the inside cross ties area. Are you talking about the chains?
NEFF: Yeah. Explain what the chains are used for.
DAVIS: The chains are used for like when soring agents are put on, you put the chains on top of the, on top of the soring agent to make them, and that irritates them to make them pick their feet up higher.
NEFF: Makes, it actually rubs against --
DAVIS: Runs the skin, right.
NEFF: I'm going to show you what's been marked Government's Exhibit 11. Do you recognize that?
DAVIS: Yeah. These are, this is what we call a pair of six-ounce chains. They actually weigh six ounces is why. And they actually go around the horse's, top of his hoof.
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
DAVIS: Makes them carry the chain longer when they're sore.
THE COURT: Does it -- oh, when they're sore?
DAVIS: When they're sore.
THE COURT: Does that actually hurt the horse?
DAVIS: Yes, sir. I mean, this is the whole purpose, I mean, this is what makes them walk. I mean, this is on top of the sore and they carry the chain longer.
THE COURT: Is it just -- the reason as opposed to just adding weight, it actually hurts?
DAVIS: Right. Yeah.
NEFF: I'm handing I think what's marked Government's Exhibit 12.
DAVIS: These would be mostly used by a walking horse trainer, the pads and chains, you know. Actually, they slip around the hoof.
THE COURT: All right. Yeah.
DAVIS: And chemicals will be applied around the hoof.
THE COURT: Okay.
...

NEFF:  I'm going to show you what's been marked as Government's Exhibit 4. Again, these are items that were taken from the search warrant during the search of your barn. Is that right?

DAVIS:  Right.

NEFF:  What's in there?

DAVIS:  I don't really know. This was, I think, after -- this was, I think this was Mr. Blackburn's stuff here. He had brought all of his stuff and put it and stored it in my, in the tack area.

NEFF:  Okay.

DAVIS:  I don't really know what he had in this, in these right here, or how it was mixed or what. But I would say that that's probably some, you know, mustard oil mixed up in different, in various different mixtures, you know, stout to stouter, you know.

...

(Starts playing the videotape.)

NEFF:  Stop just for a second. Now, Mr. Davis, what's being shown here is, and this was after, this is why, one of the reasons why you pled guilty. This is one of the things that you've pled to which --

DAVIS:  Right.

NEFF: But this was after you were originally charged. Is that right?

DAVIS:  Right.

NEFF:  And you had been placed on pretrial release at the time?

DAVIS:  Yes, sir.

NEFF: Okay. And after you were placed on pretrial release, you continued to engage in the soring practices just not at your own barn, this is at somebody else's barn?

DAVIS:  This is at Lynn Dropka's barn here. Actually, I wasn't training these horses. This was, the owner, Lynn Dropka and Mr. Lanegar were training these horses. I actually gave Mr. Lanegar a ride to the barn that morning I think they were having a show the night of this when they were getting them ready. And I was actually waiting on my fiancee to get there with the kids. And I was waiting around on her, they were going to wash one of their trail horses, and I was waiting around on her. So, he wanted me to help him with those horses.

NEFF:  Okay. And that's what you were doing, you were helping him?

DAVIS:  Right. Helping him.

NEFF:  And that's what these video clips are from. Correct?

DAVIS:  Right. Right.

NEFF: Just so the Court understands. Ready.

(Continue playing videotape.)

NEFF:  What's going on here, can you tell us?

DAVIS:  I think that Mr. Lanegar had trouble with one of the blocks in this particular horse that wouldn't fit, so I took a, he wanted me to take a file and rasp it down to where it would fit.

NEFF:  Okay. That's -- and which one are you?

DAVIS:  I'm the one that's carrying the rasp here is what we call a file. I mean, it's a file, but we call it a rasp, horseshoe rasp.

NEFF:  Can you describe what you're doing here?

DAVIS:  He's checking to see if it fits right here.

NEFF:  Okay. And what's the goal, what's, how is this going to help the horse walk the way you want it to?

DAVIS:  I mean, if it's too tight and it don't fit down in the shoe then it won't hit the bottom of the sole of the foot area and --

THE COURT:  The tender part?

DAVIS: The tender part. Right. So, if it's not hitting the tender part of his sole, then it won't work.

NEFF: Okay.

DAVIS:  I mean.

NEFF:  Is this like, this is kind of what I envision it, but your understanding is that when you're applying these mechanical things externally to the tender part of the horse's foot, it's kind of like having a rock in your shoe?

DAVIS:  Right. Right.

NEFF:  Is that a fair --

DAVIS:  Or like a stone bruise, you know.

NEFF:  All right...What are you doing here?

DAVIS:  I'm just seeing if it's rasped down enough here.

NEFF:  So, you're still checking the fit?

DAVIS:  Right. Right.

NEFF:  Now, what are you doing over there in the back room?

DAVIS:  I'm still rasping on the block.

NEFF:  Okay. This is all in an effort to try to make it fit?

DAVIS:  Right. Right. I think he had borrowed those blocks or something and they didn't fit.

NEFF: Okay.

DAVIS:  They didn't fit real good.

NEFF: You have to make it for the horse, do you have to make it specifically for the horse?

DAVIS:  Yes, sir.

NEFF: What might work on one horse might not --

DAVIS:  Doesn't work on the other one, right.

NEFF: Okay. Tell us what's happening here.

DAVIS:  Mr. Lanegar is, Mr. Lanegar he's inserting the bolts in this horse.

NEFF:  This is a different horse than the one we've been watching the first few clips. Right?

DAVIS:  Right.

NEFF:  And he's putting the bolt up against the --

DAVIS:  Sole, right.

NEFF:  -- sole of the horse's foot?

DAVIS:  Right. Right.

NEFF:  Now, did Mr. Lanegar know how to do that or did you school him at all?

DAVIS:  No. No, sir. He knows how to do it. I mean, he's worked for enough trainers to see it, you know.

NEFF:  Before we go to the next clip, let me ask you this. How, I know you've alluded to it earlier, but how prevalent is this, how often is this done in the industry?

DAVIS:  This is every time a horse is shown. This is mostly, this is mostly done, I mean, on what we call flat shod horses without the pads.

NEFF:  Okay.

DAVIS:  In order -- it would be done different on a padded horse, the farrier would have to do it on a walking horse, padded horse. I mean, it would be done with therapeutic what we call blue putty. And what it is, it's just a putty that you trim the foot real close, and then you put the putty in there and you put the, you put the pad back on the foot, and when that, when the putty starts drying, it starts what we call rising. And just like dough rises when you cook it, when this putty starts drying, it starts getting hard and rising and it puts pressure against the foot.

To interject--the stuff he's calling blue putty is actually a substance used for therapeutic reasons.  When mixed correctly, it creates a cushioning pad between the shoe and the horse's hoof.  This can be used to help relieve the pain of founder, laminitis, navicular, or other medical issues.  However, what the industry trainers are doing is changing the mixture to make it harden rather than be soft.  The horse's hoof is filed down to where just little beads of blood are coming out.  With some of the stacks, there will be a hole in the middle.  They will pour this stuff down into the hole and it will rise like Davis said.  They then put it on the horse so it hardens and creates pressure on the sole of the foot.  The horse is then sored.  Unfortunately, this stuff cannot be detected with an x-ray, so the USDA needs to start pulling shoes.

THE COURT: Let me ask a question. So, you're telling -- Mr. Neff, I mean, is -- well, maybe I'll ask Mr. Davis. Is what you're doing here, is that illegal?

DAVIS: Well, at the time, at the time that everybody started doing this, we didn't -- I know a lot of trainers don't know that this is illegal and at the time --

THE COURT: Here's what, I mean, it's been criminalized now, apparently, by Congress or you wouldn't be here.

DAVIS: Right.

THE COURT: You're telling me that every horse that is shown in the show this happens to?

DAVIS: Right. Right.

THE COURT: And then my question is, well, why hasn't Congress just criminalized the entire enterprise?

THE WITNESS: That's what we would like to change.

NEFF: I guess that's a question for Congress, Judge. I mean, I think that the answer, this is what I was getting ready to get to here a little bit, the Horse Protection Act was passed in 1970, and there is not a lot of money set aside, I think, for enforcement activities. I think that any efforts to do so have been met with some significant resistance from people who are prominent in the industry and have some sway with lawmakers.  But there is a, there is a system in place. Is there not, Mr. Davis --

DAVIS: Yes, sir.

NEFF:  -- to check these horses?

DAVIS:  It's called a DQP program is what we call it, qualified designated person. And what they do is they check every horse that comes to the shows to be checked, I mean, to be showed. They check them all. And the problem is with the DQPs, we've got DQPs, I mean, like I've trained horses for DQPs, they know what goes on. And, you know, they tell me to get them good as I can get them, bring them to a show, they let me in. I mean, the problem, the problem with the whole DQP program is it's so corrupt that they let some people in and then some people like -- well, say me, for instance. I mean, the DQP that wrote this ticket on me that found this bolt in this Jose Is My Daddy, he's let me in many times the same way. But me and him had a falling out a bad business deal, and he, you know, he just saw it to take action on it, on this particular, on this particular horse, this Jose Is My Daddy.

NEFF:  So, it's arbitrary?

DAVIS:  Right. Right.

NEFF:  And my understanding is that, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but this whole DQP program is designed to supplement the government's efforts at regulating this. Right?

DAVIS:  Right. Right.

NEFF: And how often do you see a government inspector at shows?

DAVIS:  At our shows, we don't see them a lot at the spotted horse shows, we don't see them a lot, probably twice a year, but at walking horse shows, probably six, seven times a year when they should be every show, you know. In my opinion is that they need to do away with just the whole walking horse DQP program. I mean, that's a lot of what the problem in the industry already, where the government needs to check every show, you know. The government, the government has hundreds of tickets of sore horses.

THE COURT: Who administers this program, the Department of Agriculture?

NEFF: Department of Agriculture, yes, sir.

DAVIS:  But the government has hundreds of horses, I mean, you can pull it up on the internet that they've got sore tickets, but they hadn't pursued any of them.

NEFF: Okay.

DAVIS:  I mean.

NEFF: Yeah. You were surprised to find yourself in federal court, I take it?

DAVIS: Right. I mean, this happens every day, I mean.

SEE?  SEE HOW THE USDA NEEDS TO STOP THIS?  The DQPs are letting sore horses through on a regular basis.  They aren't regulating themselves at all.  And the USDA is clearly at fault for NOT prosecuting these people.  Because they continue to play around and have meetings and B.S. with the big wigs in the industry, they aren't getting the real job done, which is to go out and be at shows to stop these monsters.

(Videotape continues.)

NEFF: We're still working on this same horse that we're putting the bolt in. Right?

DAVIS:  Right.

NEFF: What's going on here?

DAVIS:  Mr. Lanegar is, he's tightening the bolts up so where the horse can start feeling them.

NEFF: Okay. So, this is, this is where the sore, the horse's feet are going to get sore because he's tightening it up against the bottom?

DAVIS:  Right. Right.

NEFF:  Now, after you put the bolts in the horse's feet like you've done here, what happens next? What do you do with them?

DAVIS: Well, what he's doing now is he's watching to see which foot he moves, he starts moving, and if he starts moving one foot more than the other, then you have to tighten the one that he's not moving. That's what we call leveling him.

NEFF:  So, when he's not moving that means, when he's not moving it, that indicates to you that he's not in pain?

DAVIS:  Right.

NEFF:  And when he does move his feet, he is in pain?

DAVIS:  Right.

NEFF: And here we see the horse with his right front leg up?

DAVIS:  Right.

NEFF:  And that's an indicator of pain to you?

DAVIS:  Right. Right. Right. He's uncomfortable there.

This is just downright cruel.  They are LOOKING for pain in both feet to make sure the horse is "level", basically at the same level of lameness on both feet.  After asking around about this--how do they tell when the horse is level--I learned the horse will start to rock backward onto his back feet once the horse "gets level," trying to relieve the pain on his front feet.  This also creates the crouch behind that is so desirable.

NEFF:  All right. So, what's he doing here?

DAVIS:  He's --

NEFF:  He's tightening it up?

DAVIS:  This horse right here, this is another horse. This is the one that he's putting the block in. He's taping the block to this foot for this horse.

NEFF:  Okay. I have some photographs, six and seven, I think, which are just stills of the video. All right. Now, I'm going to put up 8A. These are -- are these bolts that were admitted earlier, do they look similar to it?

DAVIS:  Right. Right.

NEFF:  Can you tell us what 9A is?

DAVIS:  This is, this looks like the blocks that he used on the horse.

NEFF:  I'm going to hand you what's been marked as Government's Exhibit 9. Would you show the judge what those are and explain?

DAVIS:  Well, this is what we call a block. This is the part that goes on the sole area.

THE COURT: The tender part?

DAVIS:  Right. The tender part of the hoof and the shoe sits on this --

THE COURT: Right.

DAVIS: -- this part here. So, this actually is the part that does the damage.

THE COURT: When you say "damage," I mean, does it actually cut into the tender part of the hoof?

DAVIS:  No, sir.

THE COURT:  It just --

DAVIS:  Puts pressure.

THE COURT: Just like having a fairly large rock in your shoe over an extended period of time?

DAVIS:  Right. Right.

THE COURT: Eventually you begin to limp?

DAVIS:  Right.

THE COURT:  Raising the hoof is akin to a human's limp in some way?

DAVIS:  That's right. Right. That's what a sore horse is, it's just a horse that's limping on both feet.

THE COURT: You're saying that any walking horse that you see that does that to some exaggeration is limping.  Right?

DAVIS: Every walking horse that enters in a show ring is sore.

...

NEFF:  All right. Mr. Davis, what's number 13 there?
DAVIS:  This is what we call a tungsten shoe. This is actually a spotted horse shoe here because of the thicker cork on the shoe. This shoe actually weighs about eight, nine pounds.
NEFF: You want to hand it to the judge so he can feel.
THE COURT: Yeah.
NEFF:  And what does that do?
DAVIS:  Well, that takes the place of the, like the pad on the walking horse. What this shoe is, it's heavy enough to make a flat shod horse walk the same as a padded horse which actually --
THE COURT: Which --
DAVIS: This shoe --
THE COURT: -- which side is up?
DAVIS:  There you go.
THE COURT:  That's where the hoof is?
DAVIS:  Right. Actually, this shoe is heavy enough right here to after you get the band around the hoof, this actually has a band that goes around the hoof and holds it on. And once you put that band around the hoof, it's actually heavy enough to hurt the horse.
THE COURT: Well, it's, I can certainly say I don't know how much stronger a horse's leg is than my arm, but it's heavy, I mean.
DAVIS:  If you get that tugging on --
NEFF: That's done in the training process, right, that's not something that they're actually wearing in the competition. Is that right?
DAVIS: Yeah. They wear this in competition. Right. You actually wouldn't --
THE COURT: This hurts the horse?
DAVIS: It can. They're heavy enough to snatch on the horse's hoofs to actually hurt them.


And don't forget, everyone: some of the HIOs have made tungsten shoes legal in their show rings!  Look at them just perpetuate the abuse!


That's it for the soring part.  Davis then goes on to talk about how they manipulate the names so that other people get ticketed rather than the trainers so the trainers can still show.  That can be read in the transcript.

Overall, the Judge seemed quite appalled and aghast.  He said, "I mean, talk about promoting disrespect for the law. If we are filling stadiums for an illegal activity, I mean, you know, you usually do that in private like cockfighting, you know. You don't advertise it."


He then came down on the USDA, stating the following several times.  He seemed quite aghast about it.


THE COURT: You know, what's being described to me here this afternoon sounds like just, you know, a totally corrupt system. And even though the Court is unfamiliar with it, I can only assume that that corruption stems from ambivalence, I presume by Congress, or the Department of Agriculture, or somebody about whether this should even be on the books. But, again, that's what I said earlier, if it is, it either needs to be on the books and enforced or it needs to be taken off of the books. Those are policy decisions that Congress makes, but, I mean --
NEFF: Judge, if I can, perhaps this will educate the Court a little bit. When the Horse Protection Act was passed in 1970 funding for enforcement was authorized at $150,000 per year. And in 1976 that amount was changed to $500,000 per year. And since 1976, there has been no increased funding.
THE COURT: $500,000 a year for the entire United States?
NEFF: Yes.
THE COURT: Well, that tells you how serious this is, I guess, I would argue that that does promote disrespect for the law, because what it says is that Congress has, you know, paid lip service to something that then isn't serious about actually enforcing.
NEFF: And I think one of the things that happened that I alluded to earlier, Judge, is that there are lobbying efforts made by those people in the industry with a stake in maintaining the status quo.
THE COURT: Well, look, you know, I'm not going to make any policy judgments --
NEFF: Sure.
THE COURT: -- about whether the people in the industry are right, that this really isn't such a bad thing, or, you know, the animal rights people who believe it's the worst thing in the world, I mean, but those are the sorts of decisions that Congress makes, but being, and we're somewhere in the middle now, which, again, the point I'm trying to make, that's the worst place to be, either make it legal, or make it, or make or criminalize it and enforce it.
NEFF: Right.
THE COURT: But don't leave us in this sort of legal limbo we're in here now, because, I mean, you know, it just promotes disrespect for the law.
NEFF: But we are here to try to promote respect for the law. That's why we're here, Judge.


Note that Neff said: "WE ARE HERE TO TRY AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW."  So the goal is to obey the law, not to get it taken off the book.  There is a real need for the USDA to start enforcing the law and get out there and really make a change.  I think the Judge is right on with his assessment--the situation is in legal limbo, and it needs to end.  And the way it needs to end is to get the law enforced.

Overall, I guess there isn't much more I can say here.  It's clear horses are still being sored, we have more education on how they're being sored.  So my question is what is the USDA going to do?  We all know the industry is going to make up excuses for what Davis is talking about.  Even with video evidence, they're going to deny that these methods are used for soring.  They're going to deny everything and continue to stick their head in the sand.  So who needs to get change going?  YOU DO, USDA.  GET OUT THERE AND DO IT.