Before the 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE 

Petition of 

THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES ) 

 ) 

THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION ) 

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ) 

 ) 

THE AMERICAN HORSE PROTECTION ) RM No. 

ASSOCIATION, INC. ) 

 ) 

FRIENDS OF SOUND HORSES, INC. ) 

 ) 

SENATOR JOSEPH D. TYDINGS ) 

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING

Eric L. Bernthal 

Sara K. Orr 

Danielle A. Lackey 

Joyce M. Wang 

Latham & Watkins LLP 

555 Eleventh Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Telephone: (202) 637-2200 

Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
2

I. INTRODUCTION

This petition is submitted on behalf of the Humane Society of the United States (“The 

HSUS”), the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (“The ASPCA”), the 

American Horse Protection Association, Inc. (“The AHPA”), Friends of Sound Horses, Inc. 

(“FOSH”) and former Senator Joseph D. Tydings to request changes to regulations and policies 

that have failed to prevent the grotesque, inhumane and illegal treatment of Tennessee Walking 

Horses. The action sought in this petition seeks to correct forty years of well-intentioned but 

ineffective efforts to protect Walking Horses. The Horse Protection Act (“HPA” or “Act”) was 

enacted in 1970 in response to public outcry over widespread horse soring practices.1 Shortly 

thereafter, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) delegated enforcement of the Act to 

the industry itself, but provided insufficient oversight and failed to vigorously pursue violations. 

The Tennessee Walking Horse industry has consistently failed – and in some cases flagrantly 

refused – to comply with the Horse Protection Act, which outlaws the abusive treatment of these 

magnificent animals. Moreover, the USDA has failed to adequately enforce the HPA, as 

required by Congress. 

Tennessee Walking Horses are prized for their distinctive high-stepping gait, known as 

the “big lick.” Sadly, a cruel and illegal technique known as “soring” is all too frequently used 

to elicit the big lick from these horses in order to win prizes at shows rewarding this gait. Soring 

involves chemical and mechanical injury to the horse’s front limbs with the goal of causing such 

intense pain that any contact with the ground causes the horse to instantly jerk its leg up to 

relieve pressure on the injured areas. The HPA was specifically enacted to prohibit this practice, 

 

1

 15 U.S.C. § 1821 et. seq. 
3

yet it continues to dominate the industry. Unethical trainers go to great lengths to illegally 

remove or conceal soring scars in order to avoid being charged with an HPA violation, such as 

applying salicylic acid to the horse’s pasterns until scarred skin sloughs off the leg. Horses are 

also subjected to stewarding practices, in which trainers inflict other cruelties designed to prevent 

any outward reactions when inspectors place pressure on sensitive hoof and pastern areas. 

Trainers try to distract the horse from the pain in its legs by affixing objects such as metal 

alligator clips and zip ties to a horse’s tongue, gums, anus, and vagina just prior to inspection. 

All of these insidious practices are illegal under the Act, but widely practiced nonetheless. 

As discussed below, USDA has ample authority and a statutory mandate to prohibit 

abusive soring as well as the cruel practices used to conceal the soring. Yet current regulations 

undermine the humane intent of the Act by imposing wholly inadequate restrictions, penalties, 

and enforcement regimes. We commend the USDA for its recent actions to improve the 

situation for Walking Horses, including the recently released “2010 Points of Emphasis”2

 and the 

“2010 Penalty Protocol.”3 These documents clarify the applicability of HPA Regulations4 and 

establish a recommended schedule of penalties to be applied by Horse Industry Organizations 

(“HIOs”) for instances of certain HPA violations respectively. However, USDA can and should 

go further and must adopt zero-tolerance policies towards soring violations. As discussed in 

detail below, there are several actions that USDA should undertake to ensure uniform and 

effective enforcement of the Act, including establishment of a minimum penalty structure that 

HIOs must impose; implementation of certain items from the 2010 Points of Emphasis into the 

 

2

 Attached as Exhibit A; also available at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/downloads/emphasis_to_hp_prog_2010.pdf (last visited July 23, 

2010). 

3

 Attached as Exhibit B; also available at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/downloads/2010_hp_penalty_prot.pdf (last visited July 23, 2010). 4

 9 C.F.R. § 11.1 et. seq. 
4

Horse Protection Regulations; decertification of non-compliant horse industry organizations; and 

permanent disqualification of individuals who have repeatedly violated the Act. The Petitioners 

also ask that USDA permanently disqualify all scarred horses from participation in shows. 

USDA’s track record of enforcement of the Act has been spotty at best, and we believe 

its current management of the HPA programs violates the plain language of the HPA, which 

confers regulatory and enforcement authority on the Secretary of Agriculture. USDA attends 

less than 7% of all Tennessee Walking Horse shows5

 and has delegated regulation of the HPA to 

the industry itself – an industry that perpetuates the illegal abuse of horses, is known to obfuscate 

inspection results, violently acts out against USDA inspectors, and even closes down official 

horse shows when USDA shows up to conduct inspections. After forty years of rampant cruelty 

and abuse in plain violation of the HPA, USDA has not yet met its Congressional charge to 

enforce the Act. Changes must be made to the Regulations and current enforcement practices. 

The time has come for USDA to “stop, once and for all, the inhumane and absolutely 

unnecessary practice of soring,” and fulfill its statutory mandates under the HPA.6

 

Congress has given USDA authority to carry out the provisions of the HPA. The HPA 

requires the Secretary of Agriculture to use Department resources to the maximum extent 

practicable for administration and enforcement of the Act, and up to $500,000 per year is 

appropriated for these purposes.7

 The HPA also specifically authorizes the Secretary to issue 

 

5 Infra note 27. 6

 1973 Commerce Committee, Senator Tunney statement. 

7

 15 U.S.C. §§ 1827(a), 1831. The proposed 2011 USDA budget includes a $400,000 increase for HPA enforcement 

purposes which has yet to be approved. See USDA FY 2011 Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan, 

available at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY11budsum.pdf (last visited July 23, 2010). USDA should be 

commended for their efforts to support more rigorous enforcement of the Act. 
5

“such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act.”8

 Thus, 

USDA possesses the authority and obligation to adjust the regulations and policies in order to 

carry out its administration and enforcement duties under the Act. Within USDA, the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) bears responsibility for carrying out the 

Department’s responsibilities under the Act. In fact, the USDA Horse Protection Strategic Plan 

states that APHIS is tasked with the initiation and review of regulatory changes.9 

Accordingly, the Petitioners respectfully request that the USDA Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) modify certain implementing regulations and policies, including: 

establishment of a minimum penalty structure that HIOs must impose; implementation of certain 

items from the 2010 Points of Emphasis into the Horse Protection Regulations; decertification of 

non-compliant horse industry organizations; and permanent disqualification of individuals who 

have repeatedly violated the Act. The Petitioners also ask that USDA permanently disqualify all 

scarred horses from participation in shows. 

II. INTERESTS OF THE PETITIONERS

Petitioner, The HSUS, is a non-profit organization headquartered in Washington, DC and 

is the largest animal protection organization in the U.S., with more than eleven million members 

and constituents. The HSUS actively advocates against abusive practices in the horse industry 

and promotes the humane treatment of Tennessee Walking Horses. The HSUS offers 

information to the public regarding inhumane treatment of animals on a wide spectrum of topics, 

 

8

 15 U.S.C. § 1828. 

9

 The USDA Horse Protection Advisory Team, which is comprised of APHIS employees who are knowledgeable 

about the Horse Protection Program, “initiates and reviews programs projects (training and research), policy, and 

regulatory changes.” See USDA Horse Protection Strategic Plan, issued April 1998 (and accompanying definitions 

in Appendix B to the plan), available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/hpa.html (last visited July 23, 2010). 
6

including the injurious effects of soring, pressure shoeing, and illegal action devices used on 

horses. 

Petitioner, The ASPCA, is a non-profit organization headquartered in New York and the 

first humane organization established in the Americas and one of the largest humane societies in 

the world, with over one million supporters.10 The ASPCA provides local and national services 

directed at the elimination of cruelty to animals, community outreach and animal health services. 

The ASPCA has also been authorized to investigate and enforce animal cruelty laws in New 

York City and provides training to law enforcement and animal protection groups across the 

country. 

Petitioner, The AHPA, is a national non-profit organization devoted exclusively to equine 

welfare since 1966. The AHPA advocates proper horse care and the humane treatment of all 

equines, including America’s wild horses, equine athletes in competitive sport, and horses used 

in service and for recreational purposes. 

Petitioner, FOSH, is a non-profit organization in St. Louis, Missouri that is dedicated to 

providing information to the public about the humane care, treatment and training of gaited 

horses, with a special emphasis on the Tennessee Walking Horse.11 FOSH participates heavily 

in public education and outreach events and organizes the Sound Horse Conference held 

annually. FOSH also conducts USDA-certified inspections for horse shows in order to ensure 

compliance with the Horse Protection Act. 

 

10 For more information, see http://www.aspca.org/about-us/about-the-aspca.html (last visited July 23, 2010). 11 For more information, see http://www.fosh.info/about.html (last visited July 23, 2010). 
7

Petitioner Joseph D. Tydings is a former U.S. Senator who represented the state of 

Maryland from 1965 to 1971 and legislated heavily in support of environmental protection 

issues, receiving several awards for his humanitarian activities during his term. He sponsored 

the Horse Protection Act in 1970 and fought for its passage in Congress. After leaving office, 

Mr. Tydings served on the Board of Regents of the University System of Maryland for over 

thirty years. Mr. Tydings currently serves on the governing board of the University of Maryland 

Medical System and is senior counsel in the law firm of Dickstein Shapiro LLP in Washington, 

DC. 

III. ACTION REQUESTED

The Petitioners submit this rulemaking petition12 under the Horse Protection Act 

requesting that the Secretary take action to comply with Congress’ express intent for the Agency 

to protect horses from “the cruel and inhumane” soring practices and eliminate the competitive 

advantage enjoyed by their abusers.13 Specifically, the Petitioners request that USDA: 

Enhance restrictions on inhumane practices and ensure uniform enforcement of the Act 

via the following immediate regulatory changes: 

 

12 This submission is made pursuant to the Right to Petition Government Clause contained in the First Amendment 

of the U.S. Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, and USDA’s implementing regulations. U.S. Const. 

amend. I.; 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) and 7 C.F.R. § 1.28. 13 15 U.S.C. §§ 1822(1)-(3). Congress characterized the problem as one of unfair competition and distorted 

incentives, which ultimately placed burdens upon interstate commerce because those choosing not to sore their 

horses “are faced with a difficult dilemma; either they must forego most opportunities to successfully compete in 

horse shows, or they must devote their attentions to a different breed of horse.” Congress also recognized that 

soring posed long-term dangers to the health of the breed and also threatened the integrity of the horse breeding and 

showing industries. Because show champions are valuable as studs, an industry that permits soring and rewards sore 

horses creates a genetically weaker breed than an industry that rewards naturally talented, sound horses. H.R. REP.

NO. 91-1597 at 4871. 
8

1. Permanently disqualify scarred horses from participation in all horse showing 

activities; 

2. Require HIOs to adopt a minimum penalty structure for HPA violations; 

3. Incorporate certain Points of Emphasis into the Horse Protection Regulations; 

4. Permanently disqualify individuals who have repeatedly violated the Act from 

participation in all horse showing activities; and 

5. Decertify HIOs after their failure or refusal to correct instances of noncompliance. 

IV. LEGAL BACKGROUND

In response to public outcry over soring practices, Congress enacted the HPA in 1970 to 

“end the inhumane practice of deliberately making sore the feet of Tennessee Walking Horses in 

order to alter their natural gait.”14 The HPA makes it unlawful to show, exhibit, or sell a sore 

horse, or for a horse owner to allow such activities to occur. 15 The Act defines “sore” to mean: 

“(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 

 

14 H.R. REP. NO. 91-1597 at 4871. 15 15 U.S.C. § 1824. 
9

expected to suffer, physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking, trotting, 

or otherwise moving.”16 Soring also includes any of the foregoing activities that cause a horse to 

suffer physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking, trotting, or otherwise 

moving.17

Scarring of the pasterns is considered irrefutable evidence of illegal soring. When the 

HPA was first passed, the industry promised to regulate scarring according to its own rules, but 

Congress found such enforcement so “lax or nonexistent” that USDA promulgated the “scar 

rule” in 1979.18 The scar rule requires the front and sides of the front pasterns to be free of 

lesions (which are inflammatory reactions to biological and chemical agents).19 Pasterns may 

not show pathological evidence of soring, such as hair loss, lesions, irritation, moisture, edema 

(swelling), or inflammation. Sadly, the scar rule induces virtually no compliance: over 47% of 

all HPA violations in 2009 were based on scar rule violations.20

The Act anticipates that violators will try to elude detection of soring and scarring by 

using caustic chemicals to remove scars and by using topical anesthetics and cooling agents to 

mask pain, and accordingly prohibits the use of such foreign substances.21 The HPA regulations 

also prohibit the use of certain “action devices” used to artificially and painfully accentuate gait, 

such as excessive artificial toe length extensions, rigid pads, rocker bars on the bottom of 

 

16 Id. at § 1821(3). The law explicitly also excludes the use of the listed practices for therapeutic purposes from the 

definition of soring. Id. 17 15 U.S.C. §§ 1821(2), 1824(2). 

18 44 Fed. Reg. 25, 176 (April 27, 1979). Horses foaled after October 1, 1975 that do not meet the rule’s criteria are 

presumed to be sore. 9 C.F.R. § 11.3. 

19 9 C.F.R. §§ 11.3(a)-(b). 

20 See Shows attended by USDA, infra note 27. See also USDA DQP Annual Show Report, available at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/downloads/reports/dqp_report_08.pdf (last visited July 23, 2010). 21 15 U.S.C. § 1824(7) references the Horse Protection Regulations found in 9 C.F.R. § 11 to prohibit the use of 

substances deemed illegal under the Regulations; §11.2(c) specifically enumerates the permissible substances –

which cannot sore or be used to remove scars – that may be applied to horses. 
10

horseshoes, beads, bangles, rollers, and chains weighing more than six ounces, chains with 

irregular links, and devices that abrade a horse’s legs.22 Further, it is illegal to attach weights 

inside a hollowed-out shoe, or to trim hooves in a manner that would cause pain, distress, or 

inflammation.23

As noted, enforcement of the Act has been largely delegated to the industry itself, even 

though USDA has an affirmative legal obligation to enforce the Act.24 USDA recently released 

the 2010 Horse Protection Penalty Protocol, which sets forth recommended penalties for HIOs to 

apply to HPA violations.25 HIOs are permitted to create and enforce their own penalty schemes, 

and if USDA believes those effectuate the purpose of the Act and regulations, it will not initiate a 

Federal case against the violator.26 In theory, USDA retains primary enforcement jurisdiction at 

all shows, but budget shortfalls have allowed the industry to call the shots. For example, USDA 

attended less than 7% of all Tennessee Walking Horse shows in 2009.27 This means that a 

staggering 93% of shows lacked any USDA oversight whatsoever. 

The Act provides for a criminal and civil penalty scheme that is inconsistently enforced. 

Under the Act, criminal penalties of up to $3,000 and/or one year imprisonment may be imposed 

 

22 “Action devices” are defined as any “boot, collar, chain, roller, or other device which encircles or is placed upon 

the lower extremity of the leg of a horse in such a manner that it can either rotate around the leg, or slide up and 

down the leg so as to cause friction, or which can strike the hoof, coronet band or fetlock joint.” 9 C.F.R. §11.2(7). 

The Agency’s regulations also forbid the use of certain action devices or other methods that can reasonably be 

expected to cause a horse to be sore. Id. at §§ 11.1; 11.2(a). 23 Id. at §§ 11.2(b)(18)-(19). 24 Id. at 7-8. 25 Supra note 3. 26 See 2010 Penalty Protocol, supra note 3. 27 USDA reports how many gaited horse shows its staff attend for the purpose of HPA enforcement; in 2009, that 

number was 36. USDA also typically reports on the number of shows affiliated with one of its certified HIOs; the 

USDA attendance rate is calculated by dividing the former number by the latter. However, USDA has yet to report 

the latter number for 2009. Assuming that the number of affiliated shows in 2009 was the same as in 2008 (532), 

then the percent of shows USDA attended was 36/532, or 6.77%. See Shows attended by USDA, available at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/downloads/reports/USDAHP1209.pdf (last visited July 23, 2010). 
11

for intentional HPA violations ($5,000 and/or five years for subsequent offenses), and civil 

penalties of up to $2,200 per violation may be imposed after a hearing and written assessment by 

the Secretary.28

V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Current Regulations Continue to Permit Inhumane and Abusive Practices

As USDA is aware, soring practices continue to be rampant due to wholly inadequate 

self-regulating enforcement system (discussed below). Soring is done by applying a chemical 

irritant – such as mustard oil, diesel fuel, and kerosene – to the front pasterns (the area just above 

the hoof) until the skin blisters or breaks.29 The legs are “marinated” with plastic that is wrapped 

around the area for several days to maximize the caustic effects of the chemicals. Metal chains 

are then fastened to this sore area when the horse is ridden, causing the horse to lift his legs 

higher to achieve the desired extreme, artificial gait. This painful process often causes trauma, 

edema and even bleeding, and leaves the tissue scarred, calloused and void of hair – telltale signs 

of abuse. Soring persists despite USDA’s affirmative duty to administer and enforce the Act in a 

manner that eliminates abusive soring practices. 

The HPA not only outlaws the actual scarring of a horse’s pasterns, but it also prohibits 

practices that contribute to the soring of the horse. Action devices such as chains, boots, and 

 

28 15 U.S.C. §§ 1825(a)(2),1825(b)(1); 7 C.F.R. § 3.91(b)(2)(vii). A person may appeal a fine and request a hearing, 

and the Secretary must make a written assessment that takes into account the nature, circumstances, extent and 

gravity of the conduct, the violator’s degree of culpability, and prior offenses. The Secretary may disqualify a 

person from showing or participating in shows. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1825(b)(1)-(2). 

29 See deposition testimony from Martin v. Oliver, Kentucky Circuit Court Civil Action No. 04-CI-00178, available 

at http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2008/09/04/12/oliverdepoexerpts002.source.prod_affiliate.79.pdf (last visited 

July 23, 2010). 
12

collars weighing no more than six ounces are permitted during exhibition,30 but trainers 

commonly use these devices in conjunction with other soring techniques – such as chemical 

burns – so that the chains, boots, and collars cause extreme pain when rubbing against inflamed 

areas. They also use overweight chains (which have been shown to sore a horse) in training, 

which are illegal in the show ring. Pads are also used to conceal soring mechanisms, such as 

tacks, screws or hardened acrylic that are inserted between the hoof and a tightly attached stack 

of pads. 31 The use of such action devices to perpetuate soring persists because the Regulations 

permit the stacks which conceal the illegal devices. USDA has an obligation to effectuate the 

humane purposes of the Act, yet current Regulations still tolerate the use of otherwise innocuous 

devices that can be used for cruel purposes. 

Scarring and the removal and concealment of scars also continue to persist in the 

industry. Those who sore their horses go to great lengths to conceal soring scars in order to pass 

inspections, often using colored powders, tattoo ink, and dyes to mask redness caused by 

inflammation and to provide color to skin that has been depigmented or denuded of hair.32 

Because these unscrupulous individuals have become so adept at hiding scars, USDA has 

 

30 9 C.F.R. §§ 11.2(b)(2), 11.2(b)(7)(ii). USDA’s decision to adopt a six-ounce weight limit on action devices, 

based on conclusions in the Auburn study that action devices weighing less than six ounces were “not likely” to sore 

horses, was upheld by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in 1990. American Horse Protection Asso. v. 

Yeutter, 917 F.2d 594 at 598 (D.C.Cir. 1990). The court stated, “We continue to believe that properly conducted 

inspections are an effective means of detecting a horse with sore pasterns.” Id. 31 See Joanne Meszoly, EQUUS Special Report: Why Soring Persists, EQUUS Magazine, November 2005, 

available at http://equisearch.com/horses_care/health/lameness/soring_030706 (last visited July 23, 2010); see also

Vickey Marie Hollingsworth, Big Lick Tennessee Walking Horses: The Greatest Freak Show on Earth, available at 

http://hphoofcare.com/lick.html (last visited July 23, 2010). 

32 The top three winning horses in the 2009 Celebration World Grand Championship class were found in violation of 

the scar rule upon post-show VMO inspection, despite having passed inspections prior to being entered for 

competition. USDA has cited the possibility that the horses’ pasterns may have been treated with foreign substances 

prior to showing, in order to camouflage the scars. See Declaration of Keith Dane, Director of Equine Protection for 

The Humane Society of the United States, attached as Exhibit F, §§ 2-3. See also Journal of the American 

Veterinary Medical Association, The Horse Protection Act – a case study in industry self-regulation by W. Ron 

DeHaven, D.V.M. (April 15, 2000). 
13

resorted to using sophisticated Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry testing (“GC/MS 

tests”)33 to detect irritants, numbing, and other masking agents surreptitiously used by trainers.34 

Scar rule violations are still commonplace, which necessarily means that soring and scarring 

continues to occur. Unfortunately, the existing regulations and enforcement policies permit 

sored, scarred horses to continue to be sored, scarred and subjected to cruel scar removal 

techniques repeatedly. 

 Trainers also use illegal “pressure shoeing” techniques. For padded horses, pressure 

shoeing involves cutting the hooves excessively close to the quick (often until they are bleeding), 

making the hooves extremely sensitive. Hard objects (such as tacks, screws or hardened acrylic) 

are inserted between the tender hoof sole and heavy “stacks” of pads and the horseshoe, causing 

unbearable pain every time weight is placed on the forelegs. For flat shod horses, pressure 

shoeing involves nailing a heavy shoe to an overtrimmed and sensitized hoof to inflict pain. 

Pressure shoeing may also involve forcing the horse to stand on concrete with hard wooden 

blocks or bolts affixed to the bottom of its hooves prior to a show, to create intense pain. Thus, 

detection of pressure shoeing requires a variety of methods, depending on how the horse is shod. 

Despite the illegality of all these practices, pressure shoeing of both padded and flat shod horses 

remains widespread. 

 

33 USDA has used thermography during inspections with positive results, and this practice should continue to be 

used in regular inspection procedures by USDA VMOs. 

34 See USDA Foreign Substance Penalty Protocol, available at

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/downloads/gcms_protocol08.pdf (last visited July 23, 2010). USDA 

began conducting random swab tests in 2008, which are sent to an APHIS lab for analysis by Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. GC/MS is considered the “gold standard” technique, since it is able to 

ascertain the presence or absence of a given substance, rather than determining only that a substance falls within a 

category of substances. See also USDA’s Responses to HIO Comments on Foreign Substances, available at 

http://www-mirror.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/downloads/response_hio_comments_fsp.pdf (last visited July 

23, 2010). 
14

Stewarding practices, which are tactics to distract horses from pain in their legs during 

inspection to prevent reactions to digital palpation, are commonplace. The “distraction” method 

is simply creating a new source of intense pain. Stewarding often includes affixing metal 

alligator clips and zip ties to a horse’s tongue, gums, anus, and vagina just prior to inspection. It 

is well-known that trainers also administer mock inspections, accompanied by beatings or 

burnings prior to a show, so that the horse will not react to pain during actual inspections. 

Despite their obvious cruelty, these mock “training” inspections and the accompanying abuse 

are not prohibited under the Regulations.35 USDA has the authority and obligation to implement 

Regulations and policy changes that would prohibit circumvention of the Act through inhumane 

stewarding – and should do so immediately. 

B. Self-Enforcement Through the HIO Program is Inconsistent and Virtually 

Nonexistent

The showing of sore horses occurs overwhelmingly in the Southeast. In the last 18 years, 

the highest number of HPA-related suspensions occurred in Tennessee (2,898), Kentucky 

(1,113), and Alabama (638).36 During the 2009 show season, over 53% of documented HPA 

violations and 61% of scar rule violations occurred at the Tennessee Walking Horse Celebration 

Show (“Celebration Show”), the industry’s premiere Tennessee Walking Horse show.37 At this 

event, over 55% of the exhibitors of first-place horses from 59 classes had past HPA violations; 

 

35 The Regulations limit the definition of “sore” to practices which affect a horse’s limbs or cause discomfort while 

moving (rather than standing still during inspection). 9 C.F.R. § 11.1. 

36 See Declaration of Lori Northrup, President of Friends of Sound Horses, Inc., attached as Exhibit G, § 4(a). 37 During the 2009 show season, a total of 761 HPA violations were documented by USDA VMOs at USDAattended shows, which included 361 scar rule violations. Of these totals, 405 violations (53%) were documented at 

the 2009 Celebration Show, and 223 of these were scar rule violations. See Shows attended by USDA, supra note 

27. See also Exhibit G, § 4(b). 
15

over 50% of these trainers had two or more past violations.38 Yet even with known violations of 

Federal law under their belt, USDA allows these trainers to continue showing abused horses and 

reap lucrative prize money. 

The industry has a long history of refusal to self-regulate. The HIO/DQP program is a 

prime example of a woefully inadequate self-regulation scheme. HIO-trained Designated 

Qualified Persons (DQPs) are charged with inspection and enforcement when USDA is not 

present, and in many cases have consistently, intentionally, and egregiously failed to enforce the 

Act. Violation rates documented by some of the largest HIOs in the absence of USDA oversight 

are drastically lower than shows at which USDA is present.39 For example, violations issued at 

the 2008 shows held by the Heart of America Walking Horse Association fell by 269% when 

USDA was not present.40 Similarly, violations were issued 79% less frequently at 2008 

Kentucky Walking Horse Association shows without USDA presence.41 

C. Significant Conflicts of Interest Plague the Industry and Prevent 

Enforcement of the Act

Conflicts of interest are rampant throughout all levels in the industry and ultimately 

facilitate soring. Many DQPs have particularly acute interests that conflict with enforcement of 

the Act. In addition to performing inspections at shows, many DQPs maintain ongoing 

veterinary practices (often specializing in equine care), farrier businesses, and breeding 

 

38 See Exhibit G, § 4(c). 

39 See USDA Horse Protection Strategic Plan, supra note 9. DQPs are far less effective when performing 

inspections without USDA presence at a show. The number of horses entered in non-USDA attended shows is also 

dramatically larger than the attended shows. Even as the USDA has become more strategic in making surprise 

appearances, it is common practice for trainers to simply pack up and leave once the USDA arrives. 40 See Exhibit G, § 4(f). 41 Id. at § 4(g). 
16

operations – often in cities near show locations. Many owners and trainers at shows may also be 

clients of a DQP’s private veterinary practice or other businesses. Such DQPs are hesitant to 

issue tickets and impose penalties on their own clients, as this would risk personal financial 

losses. Therefore, in order to avoid jeopardizing his or her relationship with existing or potential 

clients, DQPs have an incentive to “look the other way” even when there are obvious HPA 

violations. 

DQPs themselves are often caught personally violating the Act. Three DQPs currently

working for the SHOW HIO are documented to have a history of HPA violations, and one has 

been subject to at least four separate HPA-related suspensions.42 Personal abuse of horses not 

only contradicts a DQP’s ethical obligations of humane treatment, but also renders enforcement 

of the HPA provisions highly unlikely. 

Rampant violations also infect the judges of Tennessee Walking Horse shows. One of 

the 2009 Celebration Show judges (who has judged six past Celebration Shows) has five 

documented HPA violations, three of which were scar rule violations.43 This particular judge is 

inextricably invested in the Tennessee Walking Horse industry, as entries from his personal 

stables have been shown throughout the Southeast and have earned many top ties, including six 

World Championships.44 Employing judges who violate the HPA is clearly problematic; as 

violators themselves, these judges have an incentive to continue awarding cash prizes and 

prestige to those who show sore horses. 

 

42 Id. at § 5(e). 43 Id. at § 5(f). 44 See Shelbyville Times-Gazette: “Celebration Judges Announced,” July 17, 2009, available at http://www.tg.com/story/1555421.html (last visited July 23, 2010). 
17

Finally, industry organizations themselves are often comprised of HPA violators. SHOW 

– an HIO whose acronym ironically stands for “Sound Horses, Honest Judging, Objective 

Inspections, Winning Fairly” – currently employs 17 committee members who have personally 

violated the HPA, a vast majority of which violated the HPA within the past five years.45 Even 

more disturbing is that at least two members of SHOW’s Sound Horse Task Force have been 

personally suspended three or more times for scar rule violations.46 Other HIO members with 

suspensions include 100% of the recipients for these Walking Horse Trainers’ Association’s 

“Trainer of the Year” award.47 The top three honorees at the 2009 Riders’ Cup shared a history 

of 26 HPA violations; the 46 individuals listed in the Riders’ Cup 2009 standings shared a total 

of 204 HPA violations.48 Even the former vice president of the Kentucky Walking Horse 

Association (“KWHA”), which owns and operates the Kentucky Horse Industry Organization, 

was found civilly liable for soring one of his client’s horses in 2007.49 Despite the widespread 

publicity surrounding this case, this individual continues to be actively involved in the industry 

and is currently serving a two-year board seat position for the KWHA.50 

 

45 See Exhibit G, § 5(a). 46 Id. at § 5(b). 47 Id. at § 5(c). 48 The Riders’ Cup is a prestigious high-points award program, and is a joint venture between the Walking Horse 

Trainers’ Association and the Walking Horse Report. Winnings from the Riders’ Cup competitions have paid out 

over $300,000 since its inception in 2005. See Walking Horse Trainers’ Association announcements for the 2010 

Riders’ Cup, available at 

http://www.walkinghorsetrainers.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36:riders-cup-programannounces-changes-for-2010&catid=12:news--press-releases&Itemid=27 (last visited July 23, 2010). See also 

Exhibit G, § 5(d). 

49 See Judgment from Martin v. Oliver, Kentucky Circuit Court Civil Action No. 04-CI-00178, available at

http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2008/09/04/12/soringjudgment004.source.prod_affiliate.79.pdf (last visited July 

23, 2010). See also Lexington Herald-Leader: “Banned but not Banished,” August 31, 2008, available at

http://www.kentucky.com/2008/08/31/508645/banned-but-not-banished.html (complaint and deposition testimony 

also found here) (last visited July 23, 2010). 

50 See List of 2010 Kentucky Walking Horse Association officers, available at 

http://www.kywha.com/officersboard.htm (last visited July 23, 2010). 
18

In sum, the current system of delegating the enforcement of the HPA to the industry itself 

permits open non-compliance and a system whereby the foxes guarding the henhouse have 

severe conflicts of interest and are repeat violators of a Federal animal cruelty law. 

VI. REQUESTED ACTIONS

The plain language of the Act directs the Secretary to prescribe regulatory requirements 

to carry out the purposes of the HPA.51 USDA’s delegation of regulation to the Tennessee 

Walking Horse industry—which blatantly refuses to self-regulate—improperly allows illegal 

soring and non-enforcement to permeate the industry. In order to banish soring, USDA should 

aggressively utilize its statutory and regulatory powers under the HPA, as mandated by 

Congress. Although USDA has recently taken laudable steps to discourage inhumane practices 

via its issuance of the 2010 Points of Emphasis and 2010 Penalty Protocol, the Petitioners 

respectfully request that USDA promulgate the following modifications to the Regulations and 

implement appropriate policies in order to ensure effective implementation and enforcement of 

the Act. 

A. Scarred Horses Must Be Permanently Disqualified In Order To Eliminate 

the Repeated Soring of Individual Horses

The fact that scarred horses are repeatedly shown and dismissed from shows irrefutably 

demonstrates that illegal soring continues in the Tennessee Walking Horse industry. The 2010 

Points of Emphasis clarify that a horse dismissed for a scar rule violation is only dismissed from 

the particular show where the violation occurred. However, there is currently no prohibition 

 

51 15 U.S.C. § 1823. 
19

against the immediate entry of that same disqualified horse into a different show. In theory, the 

same scarred and disqualified horse could be entered into every show held by any HIO during 

the entire season, providing little deterrent to soring and abusive scar removal. 

Nor is there a mechanism under the current Regulations to permanently disqualify a 

horse. The penalties outlined in the 2010 Protocol establish suspension penalties for scar rule 

violations that range from two weeks to one year, but this suspension applies only to the trainer. 

The scarred horse – which the HPA is purportedly designed to protect – is thus easily subjected 

to repeated soring and scar removal for the purposes of entering a different show or to compete 

in subsequent seasons.52 This practice is commonplace. For example, a horse named Moody 

Star was dismissed for scar rule violations at the 2008 Celebration Show, yet resumed showing 

and placed first at the 2009 Celebration Show’s Amateur World Grand Championship.53 

Similarly, a horse named Private Charter was disqualified twice for scar rule violations in 2008, 

but showed and placed sixth at the 2009 Celebration World Grand Championship.54

Despite enhanced inspection and detection efforts, it is clear that soring, re-soring, and 

the resulting scarring of walking horses continues to be rampant. At the end of the 2008 show 

season, USDA compiled a presentation of several scar rule violations that provided ample 

 

52 Owners and trainers have challenged scar rule soreness determinations on the grounds that a horse with a fully 

healed scar is not actually sore. The Sixth Circuit disagreed, finding that a previously-scarred horse, though now 

healed, was rightly disqualified because the evident past soring provided a market for a scarred horse in contrast 

with the intent of the Act. Rowland v. USDA, 43 F.3d 1112, 1115 (6th Cir. 1995). 53 In addition to the 2007 and 2008 disqualifications, Moody Star was dismissed from Class 109 at the 2009 

Celebration Show on September 1, 2009, yet later showed and won in Class 111 two nights later. See 2009 

Celebration Show Results for September 3, 2009, available at http://www.twhnc.com/results-8-28.htm (last visited 

July 23, 2010). See also HPA Data website, infra note 65; Exhibit G, § 5(h). 54 See 2009 Celebration Show Results for September 5, 2009, available at http://www.twhnc.com/results-8-30.htm 

(last visited July 23, 2010). See also HPA Data website, infra note 65; Exhibit G, § 5(i). 
20

photographic evidence of soring practices.55 In addition, sound horses are often swapped in for 

sore horses for the purposes of passing inspections,56 which means that injured horses could be 

repeatedly entered (and sored) undetected. Tickets that are issued for scar rule violations are 

invariably missing essential identifying information, making it impossible to know whether a 

horse has been disqualified in the past under a different name or owner.57 It is likely that these 

horses have been subjected to repeated soring, painful scar removal, and other abuse during 

multiple show seasons. 

Permanent disqualification of scarred horses is required to eliminate repeated soring 

practices and to promote humane treatment of horses. Once permanently disqualified, a horse 

can no longer compete in shows rewarding the “big lick”, and the incentives to sore a 

disqualified horse are removed. A permanently disqualified horse represents a huge pecuniary 

loss to both trainer and owner, which should serve as an effective deterrent to soring practices. 

Congress recognized the great deterrent potential of permanent disqualification at the inception 

of the HPA, stating: “In its practical effect, [banning scarred horses] will make it impossible for 

persons to show sored horses in nearly all horse shows. This denial of the opportunity to win 

ribbons should destroy the incentive which presently exists for owners and trainers to painfully 

mistreat these magnificent animals.”58 After forty years of the repeated entry and re-soring of 

 

55 See APHIS Animal Care Horse Protection Program Presentation on Scar Rule Violations for the 2009 Show 

Season (December 1, 2009), available at

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/downloads/ScarRuleViolations2009.pdf (last visited July 23, 2010). 56 SHOW HIO has published the names of individuals currently under suspension for “Swapping Horses” on its 

website, available at http://showhio.com/get_suspensions.php (last visited July 23, 2010). See also Shelbyville 

Times-Gazette, “SHOW Tells Public of Violations” (July 8, 2009), available at http://www.tg.com/story/1553030.html (last visited July 23, 2010). 

57 Of 142 tickets issued at the 2008 Celebration Show, 139 (98%) of these were missing essential information at the 

time of issuance, such as horse registration numbers, owners’ addresses, exhibitors’ names, and trainer’s license 

number and address. In addition, 27 of the sequentially numbered tickets were completely missing. See Exhibit G, 

§ 4(e). 

58 S. Rep. No. 91-609 at 2 (1969). 
21

scarred and sore horses, USDA’s adoption of a zero-tolerance policy towards scarred horses is 

long overdue. 

Permanent disqualification of scarred horses will also increase inspection efficiency. 

Violations of the scar rule are often found to be perpetrated by repeat offenders (discussed infra). 

Permanent disqualification will prevent USDA from examining the same scarred horse 

repeatedly during a single show or season, or during subsequent seasons. 

B. Requiring HIOs to Impose Minimum Penalties for Violations of the Act is 

Necessary to Ensure Effective Implementation of the Act.

The HPA regulations mandate minimum penalties for HPA violations. While the 2010 

Penalty Protocol recommends that HIOs impose certain minimum penalties59 for HPA violations, 

the 2010 Penalty Protocol remains optional, assuring that the industry will remain largely underregulated and the Act under-enforced. The Operating Plan60 system, which was in effect until 

last year, clearly demonstrated that the industry is incapable of self-regulation and enforcement. 

The adoption of varying penalty schemes by each HIO resulted in confusion and inefficiency, 

and even the HIOs that opted for the Operating Plan61 were seldom bound by it. With the 

 

59 9 C.F.R. § 11.21(d) gives USDA-certified HIOs the authority to enforce and effectuate the purpose of the Act. 60 Under an Operating Plan created in 2007, USDA agrees not to institute enforcement proceedings against violators 

as long as the HIO penalty satisfies the purpose of the Act. Two versions of the Operating Plan were currently in 

effect until December 31, 2009, and HIOs could choose to sign on to one, the other, or neither. See Horse Protection 

Operating Plan 2007-2009, Sect. I.; Operating Plans available at

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/downloads/hp_2007-09_op_2-15.pdf and 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/downloads/hp_2007-09_op_7-20.pdf (last visited July 23, 2010). 61 In 2009, eight of the fourteen total HIOs signed the version issued July 20, 2007 (which imposed increasingly 

enhanced penalties for repeated violations, but expunged a violator’s record after twelve months); three signed the 

version issued February 15, 2007 (which imposed consistent penalties up to the fifth violation, but did not offer 

record expungement. The two largest HIOs (Kentucky Walking Horse Association and SHOW) opted out of both 

plans entirely, and therefore are not subject to the same penalties as other HIOs). See HPA Operating Plan 

Signatory Page List, available at

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/downloads/hp_op_signatory_list.pdf (last visited July 23, 2010). 
22

elimination of the Operating Plan in 2010 and USDA’s current position of allowing HIOs to 

choose whether to apply the recommended penalties (or any penalties), this situation is further 

exacerbated. Because USDA only inspects a small percentage of shows, HIOs can often apply 

relaxed enforcement and the assessment of lower penalties than would be applied by USDA. 

This is common knowledge in the industry, yet little federal action has been taken – likely due to 

the great administrative burden of dealing with multiple and varying sets of penalty rules.62 

In addition, there are several HPA violations and inhumane practices that are frequently 

documented but are not included in the 2010 Penalty Protocol. For example, there is no 

minimum penalty for instances of pressure shoeing, stewarding practices, or the act of swapping 

horses or numbers63 – all of which are widespread practices in the industry. 

USDA’s failure to establish minimum required penalties is arguably illegal under the 

HPA, which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to “issue such rules and regulations as he 

 

62 Id. Despite the availability of criminal penalties, there has never been a single appellate review of any criminal 

sentence pursuant to the Horse Protection Act. See Exhibit F, § 4. Of over 1,300 HPA violations documented in 

2007-2009, judges have temporarily disqualified only ten of these individuals from showing horses. See USDA 

Veterinary Medical Officer (VMO) Horse Protection Show Report for 2007, available at

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/downloads/reports/vmo_report-2007.pdf (last visited July 23, 2010); 

see also Administrative Law Judge Decisions, available at http://www.da.usda.gov/oaljdecisions/ (last visited July 

23, 2010). 

63 It is possible for the real trainer to avoid violation detection (and avoid the penalty when a horse is found noncompliant), receiving an accolade only when a winning horse is found to be compliant. Owners and trainers often 

re-register a horse under a different name for different shows, or register a horse through a corporation, groomer, 

spouse, friend, or even youths (who have no liability under the Act). This occurs because there is no requirement 

that a horse be “declared” as being under the training of a specific trainer. It is thus possible to “declare” a thirdparty individual as the trainer of a non-compliant horse, so that the real trainer can escape the penalty. Horse 

swapping , in which a horse trainer simply presents a compliant horse for inspection in place of another horse that 

would have been dismissed for violations of the Act, is also a common practice. Congress recognized this problem 

more than 30 years ago: “Names of horses can be changed and papers switched so that it is impossible to make sure 

that a ‘sored’ horse is not shown again.” Statement of the Department of Agriculture received for the record, 

Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Health and the Environment of the Comm. on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 

on H.R. 6155 and S. 811, 94th Cong. 32 (1976). Horses themselves are often swapped as well (where one horse 

stands in as the horse listed on the ticket) in order to pass inspection. Supra note 56. 
23

deems necessary to carry out the provisions” of the Act.64 The inconsistent and optional penalty 

structures permitted by USDA facilitate nonenforcement and repeated soring. Because USDA, 

through APHIS, has been tasked with the administration and enforcement of the Act, the 

Department is under an affirmative duty to ensure that such administration and enforcement is 

uniform. We request that USDA promulgate HPA regulations which require the minimum 

penalties set forth in Exhibit C. 

C. Incorporation of Certain 2010 Points of Emphasis Into HPA Regulations 

Will Greatly Increase Enforcement Efficiency

USDA should be commended on the release of the 2010 Points of Emphasis, which 

outlines a comprehensive list of clarifications to the Regulations and USDA authority. Several 

of these Points of Emphasis are particularly noteworthy and should be implemented into the 

Regulations in order to further clarify the scope and application of the Act. We have prepared a 

list of items, set forth in Exhibit D, that identifies those 2010 Points of Emphasis and additional 

items that should be promulgated in the HPA Regulations. These are common-sense steps which 

will help to eliminate the mockery of current, rampant non-compliance. For example, these 

regulations would end the absurd practice of disqualified sore horses re-entering in the very same 

show, but in a different class; the regulations would make the practice of horse-swapping to 

avoid the soring rules subject to criminal penalties; the concept of “participation” in horse soring 

will be broadened to include many acts which fall outside the regulations now, and will extend to 

owners of sored horses; and any multiple or subsequent HPA violations that incur suspension 

penalties would be served consecutively, in order to avoid strategic postponements of hearings to 

 

64 15 U.S.C. § 1828. 
24

“time” suspensions to fall outside of show season. Including these policies (as listed) in the 

Regulations would greatly improve enforcement efficiency of the Act. 

As discussed above, USDA has been granted authority by Congress to implement rules 

and policies necessary to effectuate and enforce the Act. We request that USDA implement the 

items set forth in Exhibit D into the Horse Protection Regulations. 

D. Permanent Disqualification of Repeat Individual Violators of the Act Will 

Enhance Enforcement and Conserve Department Resources

Repeated violations of the HPA by the same individuals and organizations are a serious 

problem, as already-scarce USDA resources should not be spent on monitoring the same group 

of flagrant offenders. And most of the violators are indeed flagrantly ignoring the law: 4,267 out 

of 8,783 total documented HPA violations since 1986 were committed by repeat offenders.65 

One Texas couple has been suspended over 20 times in the past 8 years, primarily on the basis of 

scar rule and bilateral soring violations; another Minnesota man was suspended 16 times in the 

past 7 years, primarily for scar rule violations.66 It is abundantly clear that with some chronic 

violators, such as these individuals, the current suspension penalties do not deter illegal soring. 

While Congress contemplated repeated violations of the Act (given its graduated penalty 

structure for each offense), it certainly did not intend to condone, perpetually and indefinitely, 

individuals who violate the Act with impunity. USDA should promulgate a regulation requiring 

permanent disqualification of any individual or organization that has been assessed more than 

three violations of the Act. Permanent disqualification would prohibit these flagrant repeat 

 

65 HPA Data website, http://www.hpadata.us/ (last visited July 23, 2010). 66 Id.
25

offenders from competing, entering, or otherwise participating in any shows (including roles as 

an inspector, judge, committee member, or any other show-related capacity). Most professional 

industries have limits on the number of intermediate and egregious violations that may occur 

before licenses are permanently revoked, and the Tennessee Walking Horse industry should be 

no exception.67

The Petitioners request that permanent disqualification penalties be included in the HPA 

Regulations simultaneously with the other recommended changes to the Regulations in this 

petition (permanent disqualification of scarred horses, discussed above, and the decertification of 

non-compliant HIOs, discussed below). 

E. The Decertification of Non-Compliant HIOs is Necessary for Effective 

Enforcement In a Self-Regulating Industry

The Act requires the Secretary to prescribe regulations governing inspections to aid 

enforcement.68 Because HIOs perform the overwhelming majority of inspections, HIO 

compliance and integrity must be guaranteed to achieve the humane goals of the Act. Yet it is 

clear that conflicts of interest are rampant among those responsible for enforcing the Act. USDA 

should discipline non-compliant HIOs and otherwise promulgate stricter regulations. 

 

67 For example, the licenses of horse racing drivers and trainers can be permanently suspended for the use of banned 

substances on a horse (Spano v. New York State Racing and Wagering Board, 2009 WL 982177 (NY 2009) and 

Vaders v. Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission, 2008 WL 5473629 (Comm.Ct. PA 2009)); embalmers’ 

licenses may be permanently revoked following repeated and systematic violation of statutory requirements 

(Moraski v. Connecticut Board of Examiners of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, 291 Conn. 242, 967 A.2d 1199 

(CT 2009); physicians’ licenses may be permanently revoked for repeated acts of gross negligence (Halil v. Medical 

Board of California, 2009 WL 783251 (App. Ct. CA 2009)); and chiropractors may have their licenses indefinitely 

suspended based on multiple complaints of misconduct from patients without violating due process rights (Greene v. 

Wyoming Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 204 P.3d 285 (WY 2009)). 68 15 U.S.C. § 1823(c); 9 C.F.R. § 11.7(g). 
26

Congress gave the USDA discretion to decertify HIOs that violate the Act or fail to carry 

out their duties as outlined in the Regulations.69 The Department issued the Horse Protection 

Strategic Plan in 1998 in response to compliance concerns and declared that decertification of 

HIOs would be based on “chronic inaction or noncompliance to resolve DQP problems, on 

fraudulent bookkeeping, on data obtained from audits, and/or on any noncompliance.”70 USDA 

also specifically listed that failure to “establish or properly carry out...monitoring, supervision, 

or disciplinary procedures” would be grounds for decertification of an HIO.71 While USDA has 

acknowledged that certain HIOs are consistently non-compliant, not a single DQP program has 

yet to be decertified, and not a single HIO has been disciplined by USDA.

72 Shows known for 

performing lax inspections and issuing fewer tickets attract vastly more participants, because 

abusive trainers prefer to enter their horses where soring enforcement is less likely. The failure 

to decertify non-compliant HIOs thus has the perverse effect of enabling, and indeed rewarding, 

those who turn a blind eye to the law. With no fear of decertification, non-compliant HIO’s are 

free to associate with more shows, encourage the spread of illegal competitive advantages of 

soring, and reap the associated financial benefits.73

 

69 The Regulations permit decertification of DQP programs if the HIO fails to properly implement the required 

monitoring, inspection, reporting, and discipline procedures. 9 C.F.R. § 11.7(g). Decertification may also occur if 

an HIO licenses an HPA violator as a DQP within two years of a first violation or five years of a second or 

subsequent violation. Id. at § 11.7(c)(4). 70 USDA Horse Protection Strategic Plan, issued April 1998, supra note 9. 71 “The Department feels that methods of monitoring[,] supervision, and disciplinary procedures are primarily the 

responsibility of the licensing organizations or associations and should be properly established and maintained by 

them. Should the licensing organization or association fail to establish or properly carry out such monitoring, 

supervision, or disciplinary procedures, the Department may revoke certification of the DQP program of that 

organization or association.” 44 Fed. Reg. 1560 (Jan. 5, 1979). 

72 See May 29, 2009 APHIS warning letter to SHOW, attached as Exhibit E. 73 With little enforcement or serious consequences for inspectors who look the other way, the competitive advantage 

of soring inevitably encourages more shows to affiliate with HIOs with lax enforcement practices. For example, the 

Kentucky HIO (which was a non-signatory to previous USDA operating plans) has attracted several shows which 

were previously affiliated with SHOW (which had recently taken initial steps committing to compliance and 

enhanced enforcement). 
27

It is clear that “chronic inaction or noncompliance” pervades some of the HIOs, given the 

instances of DQP violators, HIO committee members with scar rule violations, and the drastic 

reductions in ticketing without USDA presence. These widespread and repeated failures to 

enforce the Act are obvious and compelling grounds for decertification of noncompliant HIOs. 

Until a chronic offender is decertified, however, there is little to discourage the irresponsible 

HIO from ignoring the law. 

The Petitioners propose that the USDA adopt an aggressive policy for the automatic 

decertification of HIOs after their failure or refusal to correct instances of non-compliance.74 

Examples of non-compliance would include but not be limited to: licensing, or failure to revoke 

licensing, of any DQP that has violated the Act;75 failure to make required reports; conducting 

inspections in a manner other than contemplated by the Act; permitting a disqualified or scarred 

horse to show; failing to conduct required post-show inspections; and the presence of any 

prohibited action devices on show premises. Failure to correct non-compliance within 30 days 

of notification by USDA should be grounds for decertification. Initial non-compliance, followed 

by a refusal or failure to remedy the problem is adequate proof that an HIO cannot live up to its 

legal obligations, and USDA should immediately initiate the decertification process for that HIO. 

During the 2009 Celebration Show, citations were issued for the following HPA 

violations: entry of horses under incorrect or varying names (of horse or individuals); switching 

of horse numbers to avoid proper identification; swapping of horses to pass inspections; 

 

74 While the Act and Regulations clearly contemplate decertification of non-compliant HIOs, the Regulations lack 

specific criteria for non-compliance, other than requiring that HIOs correct any non-compliance within 30 days. 15 

U.S.C. § 1823 (c); 9 C.F.R. § 11.7(g). 

75 The Regulations require HIOs to cancel the license of any DQP who has been convicted of any HPA violations. 9 

C.F.R. § 11.7(f)(2). The Regulations also prohibit HIOs from licensing any person as a DQP within two years of 

their first violation or five years of their second violation. Id. at § 11.7(c)(4). 
28

improper maintenance of inspection areas; and presence of prohibited persons inside inspection 

areas.76 Any of these, if brought to the attention of the HIO and not corrected, should have been 

grounds for decertification. 

The prospect of an aggressive policy that includes immediate decertification proceedings 

after uncorrected violations of the Act will encourage HIOs to closely supervise their shows for 

compliance. HIOs would also be deterred from licensing, or failing to revoke licensing from, 

DQPs who have personally violated the HPA.77 Automatic decertification will increase 

efficiency and conserve Department resources, because USDA would not be required to assign 

the large number of employees currently needed to monitor a historically non-compliant HIO 

that was likely to commit further violations. 

VII. CONCLUSION

The Petitioners urge USDA immediately to promulgate regulations and adopt policies 

that will effectively prohibit abusive soring and increase HPA enforcement consistency and 

efficiency. The 2010 Points of Emphasis document is a positive first step towards this aim. 

While these changes are commendable, they are nonetheless long overdue responses to known 

soring practices that have persisted for 40 years. Soring remains rampant largely due to the 

continuous failure of the self-regulating administration of the HPA at the industry level and nonenforcement in deference to powerful industry participants and groups. USDA’s failure to 

remedy these rampant illegalities for 40 years is in direct contravention of the Congressional 

purpose of the Act. 

 

76 See HPA Data website, supra note 65. 77 Supra note 74. These provisions have not stopped delinquent DQPs from continuing to perform inspections, 

whether they are in personal violation of the Act or refuse to enforce the Act on others. 
29

A few regulatory changes, which are easily within USDA’s authority to implement, 

underscore the feasibility of drastically improving administration of the Act with minimal effort. 

Mandating the HIOs’ implementation of a minimum penalty structure is an integral step that 

USDA should take to fulfill its affirmative obligation to effectuate and enforce the Act. 

Decertification of non-compliant HIOs and permanent disqualification of repeat violators would 

serve as effective deterrents to violations and circumventions of the Act. More urgently, scarred 

horses should be immediately and permanently disqualified, so that individual horses are no 

longer subjected to repeated soring and scar removal processes, trainers are incentivized to train 

without soring (and scarring) horses, and owners are incentivized not to allow this mistreatment 

of their animals. 

Most importantly, these constructive changes will help to change the culture of noncompliance that pervades the industry and better serve the humane objectives of the Act and the 

HPA. In order to protect horses from further cruel and inhumane abuse, the Petitioners 

respectfully request that USDA implement these changes immediately. 

A-1

EXHIBIT A 

2010 POINTS OF EMPHASIS 

Dismissal from Show, Exhibition, Sale or Auction – Horse Protection Act (HPA) § 1823(a). 

Horse Protection Regulations (HPR) § 11.20(a), (b); § 11.22(d).

HIOs must dismiss a horse found in violation of HPA from participating in any remaining 

portion of horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale or auction (rather than just the individual 

class). 

HIO will track horses appropriately so horses cannot enter into another class inspection 

throughout the show, exhibition, sale, or auction. 

DQPs will collect class sheets and entry forms for each show. HIO offices must keep these 

records for 1 year and make them available for yearly USDA audits to confirm that horses found 

in violation of the HPA did not participate in any classes and shows. 

Dismissal from Arena – HPA § 1823 (a); § 1824. HPR § 11.20.

Horses dismissed from the show arena, either by a judge, steward or rider of the horse, must 

report directly to the inspection area for follow-up inspection. 

Inspections will be conducted on all horses, regardless of breed, that are going to perform 

an accentuated gait – HPA § 1821(3). HPR § 11.1.

Horses in parades, trail rides, timed or rodeo events do not need to be inspected. Horses in 

classes considered to be versatility may not require inspection if the HIO submits a class list to 

USDA for review and USDA provides approval (prior to the class) for non-inspection. Breeds 

participating in a multi-breed class will be subject to inspection. HIOs may apply more stringent 

inspection requirements if deemed necessary. 

Detention – HPA §1825(e). HPR § 11.4; § 11.21(c).

A USDA representative may detain a horse, up to 24 hours, for additional inspection if they have 

reason to believe the horse is sore. 

Protective Boots – HPA § 1824(7). HPR § 11.2(b)(7)(i),(ii). 

Soft rubber or soft leather bell boots and quarter boots used as protective devices are allowed 

unless the protective device appears to be functioning as an action device and/or can reasonably 

be expected to cause a horse to be sore, in which case the horse will be in violation of the HPA. 

Boots, collars, or any other devices that weigh more than 6 ounces are prohibited. 
A-2

Leg Wraps – HPA § 1821(3); § 1824(7). HPR § 11.2(c).

Plastic, cotton, or any materials thereof that are on horses’ legs while they are on showgrounds 

may be subject to immediate inspection and sampling for foreign substance (please refer to 2009 

Point of Emphasis).

Digital Imaging Findings – HPA § 1821(3). HPR § 11.1, § 11.2(12),(13).

Horses found with coffin bone rotation of more than 5 degrees are in violation of the HPA and 

considered sore. 

Horses found with materials other than permitted materials within the package will be found in 

violation of the HPA. 

Inspection Findings – HPA § 1823(c), (e); § 1825(c). HPR § 11.7(e), (f).

If the USDA representative finds a horse in violation of the HPA/HPR after the DQP has 

inspected the horse, all individuals who participated in the entry and/or showing of that horse 

will be subject to a federal case. 

The USDA representative will advise the DQP of his/her findings and the DQP can recheck the 

horse and/or apply the penalty through the HIO. 

Any licensed DQP who violates the rules, regulations, by-laws, or standards of conduct set forth 

by their HIO; who fails to follow the inspection procedures set forth in the Horse Protection 

regulations or; who otherwise fail to carry out his duties and responsibilities in a less than 

satisfactory manner, shall be subject to a letter of warning, or cancellation of their DQP licenses 

by their HIO or USDA. 

USDA Disqualifications and HIO Suspensions – HPA § 1825(c). HPR § 11.7(d)(5).

A violator on disqualification or suspension may only participate as a spectator at the horse 

show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction. 

 Violators are disqualified or suspended from showing, exhibiting, or entering any horse, 

directly or indirectly through any agent, employee, family member, corporation, 

partnership, or other device, and from judging, managing, or otherwise participating in 

any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction, directly or indirectly through 

any agent, employee, family member, corporation, partnership, or other device. 

 “Participating” means engaging in any activity beyond the activities of a spectator, and 

includes, without limitation: (a) transporting or arranging for the transportation of horses 

to or from any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction; (b) personally 

giving instructions to exhibitors; (c) being present in the warm-up areas, inspection 

areas, or other areas where spectators are not allowed at any horse show, horse 

exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction; and (d) financing the participation of others in 

any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction. 
A-3

HIOs should share their HIO suspension and disqualification lists with all HIOs via email, postal 

mail or webpage. HIOs should honor suspension and disqualification lists from other HIOs. 

Designated Qualified Persons (DQPs) – HPA § 1823(c). HPR § 11.7.

USDA certified HIO must provide all DQPs with annual in person training (i.e., an annual 

continuing education program of not less than 4 hours and new DQP applicant training program 

of 14 hours) with oversight by a USDA representative prior to conducting inspections for the 

show season. 

No DQP will be licensed if such person has been convicted of any violation of the HPA or the 

regulations occurring after July 13, 1976, or paid any fine or civil penalty in settlement of any 

proceeding regarding a violation of the HPA or the regulations occurring after July 13, 1976, for 

a period of at least 2 years following the first such violation, and for a period of at least 5 years 

following the second such violation and any subsequent violation. 

Horse Protection Database – HPA § 1823(d). HPR § 11.7(d), § 11.22(a), § 11.24(a)-(b). 

All HIOs will submit the required information to USDA utilizing the 2010 USDA Horse 

Protection database. 

HIOs will provide all information required in HPR section 11.7(d)(1) concerning violators 

directly to the database or via their HIO database coordinator within 72 hours after the horse 

show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction has ended. 

HIOs will place in the database the identity of all horse shows, horse exhibitions, or horse sales 

or auctions as described in HPR section 11.7(d)(3), which have retained the services of the 

HIOs’ DQPs no later than 30 days prior to the event with assigned DQPs identified. 

Within 30 days following the conclusion of the horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or 

auction, HIOs will place, in the database, information of all horses at each horse show, horse 

exhibition, or horse sale or auction that their licensed DQPs disqualified or excused. The 

information will include registered name of horse and name of trainer, exhibitor, or other person 

having custody of such horse. 

HIOs will also place in the database the information contained in the detail show report that is 

outlined HPR section 11.22 (a). 

Letter of Warnings (LOWs) to DQPs – HPA § 1823(c). HPR § 11.7(f)(1).

If the USDA recommends that a HIO give a LOW to its DQP, the HIO will have 30 days to 

either issue the LOW to its DQP or provide sufficient justification, in writing, explaining why 

the HIO did not issue the LOW. 

Means to Control Crowds – HPA § 1825(a)(2)(C). HPR § 11.6(c).

Show management is responsible for controlling crowds and onlookers in the inspection area and 

warm up area. 
A-4

If an excess number of people are permitted in the inspection or warm up areas and their 

presence impedes the inspection process, the HIO and show management will be in violation of 

the HPA. 

Each horse in the inspection and warm up area may have up to 3 individuals with the horse 

which include trainer, rider and/or custodian. 

Official guests of the HIO or show management, such as elected officials, legislators, technical 

advisors, may be authorized for entrance to the inspection and warm up area on a case-by-case 

basis for limited periods of time. 

Show Management Records – HPA §1823(d). HPR § 11.5(a)(1), § 11.22(c).

Show management must provide USDA with any records that the USDA requests at the horse 

show or within 90 days. If show management does not provide records when requested, it will 

be in violation of the HPA and the regulations. 

False Information and Swapping of Horses – HPA § 1825 (a)(2)(b). HPR § 11.2(e).

Anyone who provides false information requested by USDA may be subject to a criminal 

penalty. 

Anyone who swaps horses before or after USDA inspections may be subject to a criminal 

penalty. 

Indian Reservations

Indian reservations are subject to the laws of the United States unless a treaty provides otherwise. 

Refer to: Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 citing Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 

Pet.) 515 (1832) and Donovan v. Coeur d'Alene Tribal Farm, 751 F.2d. 1113 (7th Cir. 1989).

Therefore, inspections required at horse shows to enforce the Horse Protection Act, are required, 

as well, on an Indian reservation by a USDA-certified HIO DQP or a USDA representative. 
B-1

EXHIBIT B 

2010 PENALTY PROTOCOL 

USDA has established the following recommended penalty structure for implementation by the 

HIO for enforcement of the HPA and HPR. The HIO may apply more stringent penalties but not 

less than minimum requirements set forth in the penalty structure. 

If an HIO imposes and enforces a penalty that USDA believes effectuates the purpose of the Act 

and the regulations, USDA will not initiate a Federal case against the violator. 

USDA may initiate a federal case against any persons who participated in the entry, showing 

and, if appropriate, transportation of a sore horse (including, for example, the owner, custodian, 

trainer, rider, and/or transporter), if it is determined that the HIO has not enforced a penalty that 

effectuates the purpose of the Act and the regulations. 

PLEASE NOTE: USDA retains primary jurisdiction to pursue cases when it deems 

appropriate. 

SUSPENSIONS 1st OFFENSE 2nd OFFENSE 3rd OFFENSE 

Bilateral sore 1 year 2 years 4 years 

Unilateral sore 60 days 120 days 1 year 

Scar rule 2 weeks 60 days 1 year 

Foreign substance (Pre Show) – Horse dismissed from horse show, exhibition, sale or auction 

Foreign substance (Post Show) – Two weeks suspension and horse dismissed from rest of horse 

show, exhibition, sale or auction 

Equipment violation (Pre Show) – Horse dismiss from horse show, exhibition, sale or auction 

Equipment violation (Post Show) – Two weeks suspension and horse dismissed from rest of 

horse show, exhibition, sale or auction 

Shoeing violation – Horse dismissed from horse show, exhibition, sale or auction 

Heel-Toe Ratio – Horse dismissed from horse show, exhibition, sale or auction 

Unruly/fractious horse – Horse dismissed from individual class 

Suspension violation – Six (6) months for each occurrence 
B-2

Repeated Violations

Multiple or subsequent violations that incur suspension penalties must be served consecutively. 

For example, if the violator received a bilateral sore violation and a scar rule violation at the 

same show or a separate show, the violator will have a one year suspension followed by a 2 week 

suspension. 

Appeals

Violators will have the right to appeal a HIO ticket. 

 USDA will closely monitor the HIO appeal process. 

 By March 1 of the 2010 show season, HIOs must submit a description of their appeal 

process. 

 HIOs must submit to USDA their decisions for ticket appeals within 30 days of the 

appeal decision completion. 

 Violators will need to have the appeal process completed or begin serving the imposed 

penalty within 60 days of the date of the violation. 
C-1

EXHIBIT C 

PROPOSED MINIMUM PENALTY STRUCTURE* 

Suspension Penalties for HPA Soring Violations

 1st Offense 2nd Offense 3rd Offense 4th+ Offense 

Bilateral Sore One (1) year Two (2) years Four (4) years Life 

Unilateral Sore Two (2) months Three (3) months One (1) year Two (2) years 

Scar Rule One (1) year Two (2) years Four (4) years Life 

Suspension Violations

Six (6) months for each occurrence 

Other HPA Violations

Foreign Substance - Pre Show Disqualification from Class and two (2) weeks 

suspension for each occurrence 

Foreign Substance - Post Show Two (2) weeks suspension for each occurrence 

Equipment Violations - Pre Show Disqualification from Class and two (2) weeks 

suspension for each occurrence 

Equipment Violations - Post Show Two (2) weeks suspension for each occurrence 

Intentionally Providing False Information One (1) year suspension for each occurrence 

Pressure Shoeing 

Two (2) year suspension for first occurrence and 

horse dismissed for remainder of show season. 

Life suspension for second occurrence. 

Unruly/Fractious Horse Disqualification from Class 

Stewarding Acts** One year suspension for each occurrence and 

horse dismissed for remainder of show season 

Swapping Horses or Numbers 

One (1) year suspension for each occurrence and 

horse dismissed from rest of horse show, 

exhibition, sale or auction 

Use of Plastic Wrap 

Thirty (30) days suspension and horse dismissed 

from rest of horse show, exhibition, sale or 

auction 

Overweight Chains on Show Grounds 

Thirty (30) days suspension and horse dismissed 

from rest of horse show, exhibition, sale or 

auction 

* These penalties apply to the individuals involved in the scar rule violation. Horses found to be in violation of the 

scar rule are disqualified for life. 

** Stewarding Acts are any acts which cause the horse pain during inspection to avoid detection, including but not 

limited to the use of surgical staples, nerve cords/zip ties, alligator clips, bit burrs or any other device in or on the 

mouth, anus, genitals or any other part of the horse’s body. 
D-1

EXHIBIT D 

PROPOSED INCLUSIONS INTO THE REGULATIONS 

1. Dismissal from Show, Exhibition, Sale or Auction

a. HIOs must dismiss a horse found in violation of HPA from participating in any remaining 

portion of horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale or auction (rather than just the 

individual class). 

b. HIO will track horses appropriately so horses cannot enter into another class inspection 

throughout the show, exhibition, sale, or auction. 

c. DQPs will collect class sheets and entry forms for each show. HIO offices must keep 

these records for 1 year and make them available for yearly USDA audits to confirm that 

horses found in violation of the HPA did not participate in any classes and shows. 

2. Dismissal from Arena

a. Horses dismissed from the show arena, either by a judge, steward or rider of the horse, 

must report directly to the inspection area for follow-up inspection. 

3. Digital Imaging Findings

a. Horses found with coffin bone rotation of more than 5 degrees are in violation of the 

HPA and considered sore. 

b. Horses found with materials other than permitted materials within the package will be 

found in violation of the HPA. 

4. Inspection Findings

a. If the USDA representative finds a horse in violation of the HPA/HPR after the DQP has 

inspected the horse, all individuals who participated in the entry and/or showing of that 

horse will be subject to a federal case. The HIO must apply the applicable penalty to the 

owner and trainer of the horse in violation of the HPA/HPR, and must apply any 

applicable disqualifications to the horse. 

b. The USDA representative will advise the DQP of his/her findings and the DQP can 

recheck the horse and/or apply the penalty through the HIO. 

5. USDA Disqualifications and HIO Suspensions

a. A violator on disqualification or suspension may only participate as a spectator at the 

horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction. 
D-2

b. Violators are disqualified or suspended from showing, exhibiting, or entering any horse, 

directly or indirectly through any agent, employee, family member, corporation, 

partnership, or other device, and from judging, managing, or otherwise participating in 

any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction, directly or indirectly through 

any agent, employee, family member, corporation, partnership, or other device. 

c. “Participating” means engaging in any activity beyond the activities of a spectator, and 

includes, without limitation: (a) transporting or arranging for the transportation of horses 

to or from any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction; (b) personally 

giving instructions to exhibitors; (c) being present in the warm-up areas, inspection areas, 

or other areas where spectators are not allowed at any horse show, horse exhibition, horse 

sale, or horse auction; and (d) financing the participation of others in any horse show, 

horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction. 

d. HIOs should share their HIO suspension and disqualification lists with all HIOs via 

email, postal mail or webpage. HIOs should honor suspension and disqualification lists 

from other HIOs. 

6. Letter of Warnings (LOWs) to DQPs

a. If the USDA recommends that a HIO give a LOW to its DQP, the HIO will have 30 days 

to either issue the LOW to its DQP or provide sufficient justification, in writing, 

explaining why the HIO did not issue the LOW. 

7. False Information and Swapping of Horses

a. Anyone who provides false information requested by USDA may be subject to a criminal 

penalty. 

b. Anyone who swaps horses before or after USDA inspections may be subject to a criminal 

penalty. 

8. Repeat Violations

a. Multiple or subsequent violations that incur suspension penalties must be served 

consecutively, according to the minimum penalty structure.