• During negotiations in 2000, the USDA promised joint training sessions and a joint training manual for veterinary medical officers and designated qualified persons beginning in 2001. Yet the USDA's first draft of a proposed operating plan for 2001 did not provide for either. The NHSC considers joint training and a shared manual to be an important point. If VMOs and DQPs are trained together and work from one manual, trainers, exhibitors and owners can be more comfortable in expecting consistency when they take their horses through inspection. Evans said that he hopes that the omission was an oversight.
• Opinions as to penalties for active and inactive scar rule violations vary significantly between the USDA and the NHSC. Evans gave the example of a horse that might have been "sored" 20 years ago. The current owner may have "never touched" the horse, meaning that the horse would not have been subjected to any Horse Protection Act violations in 20 years. The NHSC does not believe the current owner should be punished for mistreatment by a previous owner. However, the USDA's 2001 plan would demand that inactive scars carry the same penalty as active scars.
• Technical violations may include such things as a shoe that is a quarter of an inch too tall or a band that is an eighth of an inch too high. For technical violations, the NHSC would tell the exhibitor that he or she could not show until the problem was corrected. The USDA would preclude the horse from being shown.
• On the issue of conflict resolution, the USDA's proposed 2001 plan states that if the findings of the DQP and the VMO "are the same or similar," then the matter is not appropriate for conflict resolution, which sounds reasonable on the surface. However, Evans said that the NHSC objects to what the USDA appears to define as the same or similar. For example, he said that a DQP may include in his report that a horse "moved his foot," and a VMO may describe the same horse as "exhibiting a pain response." While the language may sound the same, the importance in interpreting the meaning of the two phrases cannot be overstated. The question raised is whether or not palpation alone is enough to determine whether or not a horse is sore. The NHSC notes that veterinarians they have consulted, including the American Association of Equine Practitioners, insist that there may be many reasons that a horse will move its foot while being palpated, some of which have nothing to do with pain. To determine whether the reaction is pain-induced, the examiner must look at other behaviors of the horse while its pastern is being pressed. If the horse is exhibiting other behaviors that indicate pain, then it is reasonable to say that he is "exhibiting a pain response." If however, the horse is relaxed, alert and attentive to its surroundings, then it is accurate to say that he "moved his foot" but not to say that he exhibited a pain response. However, the USDA appears to consider these two answers to be the same and thus the matter would not be appropriate for conflict resolution.
• The USDA also promised a multi-year operating plan beginning in 2001. While the first draft of the proposed plan does say that it is being offered as a two-year plan, there is a caveat. The USDA reserves the right to change the plan at the end of 2001 if it believes the change is necessary. Again, on the surface this may sound reasonable. However, the effect is to open the plan to revisions including major policy shifts at the end of the year, which puts the industry back in the same position it's in now--not knowing what to expect from year to year. The NHSC supports the concept of revising the document as deemed necessary by the parties, but not if the revision is a shift in policy.
Referring to himself, the NHSC, Evans, Heart of America and Western International, Niels Holch said, "We are sort of encouraged by the 2001 plan." He said that in spite of the remaining areas of disagreement, the industry is in far better shape than it has been at this point in past years. All parties have demonstrated a greater willingness to resolve issues quickly in order to execute a plan.
Regarding the possibility of having a plan signed by the beginning of the year, Evans said, "I am cautiously optimistic due to the tenor of the meeting [among the HIOs and the USDA on Nov. 28]...but I've been fooled before." He did say that he believes there will be a signed plan "long before show season is in full bore."
Noting the bad publicity brought to the breed, Vivian Harvey of Texas asked Evans why the NHSC continues to "fight enforcement of the Horse Protection Act."
Evans responded with obvious restraint, "We've never spent a nickel fighting the enforcement of the Horse Protection Act. A lot has been spent by individuals on fighting inequitable or nonsensical enforcement of the Horse Protection Act." He noted that the USDA has only $360,000 a year allocated to enforcement of the HPA, compared to the roughly $750,000 a year that the NHSC spends on enforcement. He also pointed out that the NHSC goes beyond enforcing only what the act requires.
Sid Baucom asked Evans if he had an opinion as to which possible president, Bush or Gore, would be better for the walking horse industry. Evans said that he defers to Niels Holch regarding the likely outcome of events in Washington. Based on Holch's opinion, Evans said that Bush might bring an atmosphere more helpful to the industry. He said that the person with the real power to affect the industry will be the newly appointed secretary of agriculture. Until that person is known, it is impossible to predict any likely effects.