Updated Horse Protection Act should be scrutinized carefully
There has been some turbulence in the horse industry lately over the updated Horse Protection Act. The act was passed in the early 1970s to stop the inhumane practice of horse soring, a practice that is used to enhance the movement of Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses. The HPA prohibited the showing, sale, auction, exhibition or transport of sored horses.
There seems to be two camps regarding the changes in the act. One camp is convinced that the revised act is government overreach and another that says that opponents are over reacting.
For example, the Western Justice League, a political action organization, opposes the changes because language in it is vague and the group is concerned that the “act does nothing to improve equine welfare, providing impractical solutions and restrictions during equine veterinary shortages. In addition, WJL says that actions such as applying fly spray, administering therapeutic treatments, or dealing with accidental injuries could potentially be classified as federal violations under the new rules.”
The new act was supposed to become effective on Feb. 1, 2025, but an Executive Order by President Trump has granted a reprieve to the horse industry for 60 days, which gives the industry until Feb. 1 to April 2, 2025 to have a closer look at wording in the act.
Last week we ran an editorial from Sid Miller, Texas Agriculture Commissioner, who said, “If the HPA rule change is implemented, horse owners will have many headaches. The rules would ban anything that might cause irritation. Even a minor rub from a bell boot or sore muscles from training could be labeled as intentional soring. Before long, every 4-H horse event, barrel race, cutting, rodeo, horse show, trail ride, reining event and team penning could face burdensome regulations.
Event organizers would have to provide advance notice and hire USDA-approved veterinarians or vet techs to inspect every horse and reinspect the class winner. Even something as simple as applying show sheen to a horse’s coat could result in disqualification.”
Proponents of the changes to the act, including Horse Nation, say that most people are reacting to the word “sore” in Section 2 of the act.
The term “sore” when used to describe a horse means that:
(A) An irritating or blistering agent has been applied, internally or externally, by a person to any limb of a horse,
(B) Any burn, cut, or laceration has been inflicted by a person on any limb of a horse,
(C) Any tack, nail, screw, or chemical agent has been injected by a person into or used by a person on any limb of a horse, or
(D) Any other substance or device has been 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 was given.”
Horse Nation continued saying, “Soring has been used almost exclusively in the training of certain Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses to induce pain, resulting in an exaggerated gait that is valued in the show ring. However, the HPA’s prohibition against sored horses participating in shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions extends to events involving all horse breeds. In addition to declaring that the soring of horses is cruel and inhumane, Congress further found that the movement, showing, exhibition, or sale of sore horses in intrastate commerce adversely affects and burdens interstate and foreign commerce and creates unfair competition.”
If you want to read more about Horse Nation’s viewpoint, go to https://tinyurl.com/yx2d3n9h.
I’m not sure if this is government overreach or industry over-reaction at this point. But I think the horse industry needs to take this extra time that the Executive Order has given them to make sure this is in the best interest of all involved.
What I do know is that the many horse owners that I’ve known over the years would rather die than see their animals mistreated. Yeah, there are bad apples in every barrel but those people are usually caught and dealt with and the rest of the industry shouldn’t be punished for their misdeeds.
I would urge everyone in the industry to contact their representatives in congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and make sure that the new language in the updated HPA is on the up and up and isn’t an insidious plot by animal activists to destroy the horse industry.
Unfortunately the farming and ranching community has often been mistreated by the federal government, which naturally makes them wary of any action that could potentially threaten their way of life.
