SOUND HORSE CONFERENCE NOVEMBER, 2010

Not intended to just keep sore horses out of ring Disqualifications are means to an end Real intent and purpose: Abolish Soring How? 1) Remove incentive to sore via disqualifications 2) Devalue horses that show residual effects 3) Via penalties for violators

Intent of HPA was not possible without Scar Rule (Train sore and show sound) Intent of Scar Rule is not just to keep scarred horses out of the ring Again, it is a means to an end Scar Rule disallows residual effects of soring Real intent is to reach back into the training barn to change behavior: Stop the practice of soring

Two regions of lower limbs subject to abuse 1) Pastern/fetlock region 2) Hoof Standard examination protocol focuses on pastern and fetlock region Increased emphasis on Scar Rule causes interest in the other alternative, the foot If it remains unaddressed, others will also go to the foot in order to compete

Equine foot is artfully designed to take hard use Absorbs shock loading via mechanical/hydraulic redistribution of pressure inside the foot Its design involves structures which can be easily damaged if subjected to certain things Damage to those structures can cause great pain Permanent damage to the foot can occur

Involves applying some kind of improper mechanical point pressure to the foot, specifically to cause pain It is a specific method/kind of soring HPA and Regulation do not refer to the term HPA and Regulations contain language in reference to it

 HPA, Section 2:  (3) 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.

 Regulations, Section 11.2 :  (13) Any object or material inserted between the pad and the hoof  other than acceptable hoof packing, which includes pine tar, oakum, live  rubber, sponge rubber, silicone, commercial hoof packing or other  substances used to maintain adequate frog pressure or sole consistency.  (15) Metal hoof bands, such as used to anchor or strengthen pads and  shoes, placed less than ½ inch below the coronet band.  (16) Metal hoof bands that can be easily and quickly loosened or  tightened by hand, by means such as, but not limited to, a wing-nut or  similar fastener.  (18) Shoeing a horse, or trimming a horse's hoof in a manner that  will cause such horse to suffer, or can reasonably be expected to cause  such horse to suffer pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when  walking, trotting, or otherwise moving.

Evidence still in place while horse is shown Examples:  Paring hoof wall to above sole  Hard object under sole/toe or in white line between sole and shoe/package  Alterations to shoe (weld beads) to affect white line  Paring sole to blood, with or w/o false sole  Illegal heel/toe ratio concealed by acrylic

Evidence is removed prior to show or inspection Bolting Standing horse on blocks Abuse of bands (overly tight, objects under, etc.) Bands across heels or pinching shoes Possible abuse of heel springs Another item that could be removed from between the nailer pad and sole

 Difficult to detect  Often even more difficult to prove  Experts such as Steven O’Grady state that its existence cannot finally be determined without pulling shoes/packages  Involves at least one additional test  Both the egregious nature of it and severity of penalties demand a high standard of proof  Horses can be blocked/numbed for inspection

Language from the HPA definition of “Sore”: (3) 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… Inherent in the language is the presumption of intent.

Language from the HPA Section 3:  The Congress finds and declares that - -  (1) the soring of horses is cruel and inhumane; (2) horses shown or exhibited which are sore, where such soreness improves the performance of such horse, compete unfairly with horses which are not sore;  (3) … Inherent in the language is the presumption of intent.

Potential causes of sore feet: Poor/improper shoeing Mild to severe founder Stone bruises Abcesses, including gravel Sharp blow to foot Other foreign object More

 Owners, trainers, exhibitors are not familiar with hoof testing  Hoof testing is not easily, inexpensively and knowledgeably performed by most people on their own horses

 The horses that react to hoof testing are a small percentage – but it had been growing  Hoof testing is effective at finding horses sore in the feet  Sound horses will not react positively to hoof testers except occasionally when freshly shod  Hoof testing does not provide adequate information to determine exact cause or intent  Hoof testing at shows has already had a positive effect

 Flat shod horses should be routinely hoof tested at shows – esp. light shod and heavy shod classes  Always examine the bottoms of feet  No band tightening/adjusting devices in the holding area  Policy should be developed for pulling of shoes  Hoof testers should be used which can indicate the amount of torque applied.  Random drug testing needs to be implemented

 Work needs to be ongoing regarding improved methods and standardization  All tests have variability, but that does not necessarily make them invalid or even poor tests  There is a difference between test variability and subjectivity  Work should continue to drive both variability and subjectivity to the lowest possible levels

 Disqualify horses testing positive as lame in the absence of clear indications the horse has been intentionally abused  This will allow some violators to escape an HPA violation, but they still cannot show  Does not unduly penalize exhibitors in situations which involve no intent and often no awareness