Celebration Not So Celebratory for Tennessee Walking Horses

A Misunderstanding

I think the Tennessee walking horse industry is inadequately scrutinized and criticized. I am writing a 20-40 page thesis on the the Tennessee Walking horse industry, focusing primarily on the padded walking horses. I have personally interviewed many trainers who support the industry and significant people who do not like the industry to find the real truth of the matter and to put is simply: the industry was very much corrupted and needed the government to step in and clean it up, but what most people do not understand is that the industry has made huge leaps in the right direction. It might be the case that all soring has not stopped within the industry, but there will always be people who find a way to go around the rules and cheat and unfortunately torment these amazing creatures, but I did find out that there are passionate, dedicated trainers who do not sore their horses, who in all honesty love the sport and their magnificent athletes. Because the breeding of these horses have gotten so much better, it is not necessary to sore horses the way the industry used to. In fact it is impossible to show a sore horse because of the intense, sometimes inconsistent, palpating inspections that make even unsore horses seem sore. Because the government has stepped in so much, however, those people who love their horses and train them in the right manner are getting penalized because of intense, and most of the times unfair, inconsistent, means of judging if a horse is sore or not. In my opinion the government needs to do their job in consistently regulating the show inspection tents to provide a fair and equal opportunity for the industry to continue showing one of the most magnificent horses ever in a safe, conducive manner.

go bonnie go

thanks bonnie .....the truth will set these horses free ....getting to even ride on a horses back is a true honor and gift ... why do these fool trainers and big lickers feel like they have to do them soo bad ....its just crazy .. i use to show this breed .. and i am well aware of what they do ....soo all theses whinners talking about whats not going on are liars or they are just stupid to the real facts ....it is my understanding that lots of horse loving people get into this breed and dont know whats going on and by the time they figure it out they are hooked and dont care what it takes to try and get that almighty ribbon .....

what about the fact they have to stand in a stall 24 /7 ....they cant go out on those build ups casue they would break a leg ......you cant honestly love yur horse and not be upset that he has to live like that much less the soreing AND POOR EXCUSE FOR TRAINING these trainers do ..

"It is being unethical when someone does not present the total picture. We have a problem with sore horse trainers/owners but you do not need to misconstrue data and YES, it was when FOSH keeps showing data on their website and some of these posters used that data as the gospel which is so wrong and misleading. "

WHAT IS WRONG OR MISLEADING ABOUT CITING VIOLATORS? IF ONE IS ISSUED A TICKET THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT TICKET. THE SAD PART ABOUT THE VIOLATIONS LISTS ARE THAT, ONCE THE FINES ARE PAID, THE NAMES ARE OFF THE LIST. THERE SHOULD BE A LIST THAT IS PERMANENT SO THE PUBLIC CAN KNOW WHO THE OFFENDERS ARE.

This issue is about accuracy in reporting and not defending sore horses. If you do not have ethics, ability to present all sides accurately, then you are misleading the public. I know your main issues is soundness and that is fine and fair....this posting is about accuracy and honesty in presenting data. Many others should have been on that HPA Violation LIST from way back had the HPC not "allowed the back to trailer" and all they received as a fine, ticket, back to trailer with NO SUSPENSION or being ridiculed on this blog by many vindicative people.

OFTEN THE NAMES SEEN ON THESE LISTS ARE REPEAT OFFENDERS. WHY SHOULD THESE FOLKS BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN BUSINESS AND CONTINUE TO REPEATEDLY ABUSE ANIMALS IS BEYOND BELIEF.

HAVING SHOWN AT MANY BREED SHOWS AS WELL AS OTHER SOUND ORGANIZATIONS SHOWS, I HAVE ALWAYS PASSED INSPECTION. THERE ARE SOUND AND DECENT TRAINERS OF THE TWH OUT THERE AND I PREFER TO GIVE BUSINESS TO THOSE THAT ARE TRUSTWORTHY.

I, FOR ONE, AM TIRED OF HAVING TO EXPLAIN THAT NOT ALL TWH TRAINERS ARE ABUSIVE OR BURNERS.

Sore horese

Thank you, Bonnie, for once again stating to the world what we owners of humanely trained and shown Walking Horses have known for years. If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck ... it's a duck. Well if it walks like a sore horse and looks like a sore horse .. it IS a sore horse. Please keep up the great work and don't let the good ol' boys get to you.

MJ

Of - Did the NHSC reject "Back to the trailer"

You asked: "Didn't the NHSC reject the idea of a back to the trailer penalty when it came up during the HIO discussion/input phase of the 2007-2009 Operating Plan?"

Yes, they did reject it, but here is why. It only had to do with the scar rule. The USDA said they would only consider such an approach regarding the scar rule, provided that the scar rule became a "no scar" scar rule for horses beginning with a given year. Actually it was Niels Holch who provided the input, reporting that his client (presumably the trainers) rejected the USDA's stipulation in this potential approach.

When Donna Benefield discussed the proposal with trainers on numerous subsequent occasions, virtually all of them said they had never heard about it, indicating that Holch only discussed the matter with a select few. Apparenly those few were the basis if the rejection Holch reported.

When the OP came out, and they did not like the contents of it, they tried to revisit the "back to the trailer for scar rule" proposal, but Dr. Gipson said it was "off the table."

All that said, the NHSC currently has a category called "Unacceptable", in which horses are not allowed to show - are commonly turned down with no ticket issued. It is essentially a "back to the trailer" situation.

Mark

Rumors of meetings surfaced recently but the "powers that be" haven't called for one.

ATTENTION ALL KEEPS RECIPIENTS, KWHA MEMBERS, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SHOW MANAGERS, ETC...

I was informed tonight that the KEEPS program IS in jeopardy. The sole reason is if the KWHA doesn't vote Gary Oliver off the Board of Directors, then the KEEPS program for the walking horses will end. All from the horse's mouth. With Oliver's bad publicity, and the KWHA's delay of tossing him, our breed is suffering. Oliver was kicked off the KY HIO Oversight Committee but supposedly does not have enough votes to be voted off by the Board of the KWHA. As of today, the Board has not even had a meeting. The President's, and probably a few others, reason is there are not enough members to vote him off. However, if given the chance to, Board members have said they would vote him off. Rumors of meetings surfaced recently but the "powers that be" haven't called for one. My plead to our members is to call a Board of Director and urge them to take a stand for our association. If they can't see how rotten Gary Oliver is making us, then we need to let them know.

If a person like Oliver is the sole hold up of our KEEPS program, along with other black-eyes to our association, then action needs to be taken. If our KEEPS program vanishes, so will the participation to shows, class entries (especially weanling & yearling divisions), and horse show funding. Show managers need to be made aware of the impact this will have on their shows. They can even BAN OLIVER from the showgrounds if notified of his actions.

This great equine funding has helped the progress of our industry. The number of registered horses is tremendous and it has been growing fast. Entries have increased greatly too. Heck, Oliver should know the impact that the KEEPS program has on our industry because, if I'm not mistaken, he has a few registered horses as well. He needs to man up and resign instead of letting many people suffer from his crime and selfishness.

Trainers are finding out about this situation and the number of angry members is growing. Spread the word, contact a Board member, a KEEPS member, an association member, a Show Manager, or even the guy down the street who trail rides that OLIVER MUST BE PUT OUT. To my knowledge, he's expected to move in to Liberty, KY for the KY Celebration on Sunday - with stalls and everything. It's time to do something because he ain't going away!

KEEPS is only the beginning of the end if we let a being such as Oliver control our fate. There is no way we can go forward with this publicity punch hanging over us. As long as we keep a horse abuser within our "family", then why would anyone want to root for us?

SC, you still don't get it.

No, you apparently still don’t get it, as evidenced by your statement: “…the ones that are kept by other organizations that try to misconstrue the numbers meaning all are every organization EXCEPT sound HIOs.” ALL of the numbers that are cited come from the USDA reports. I repeat. The do NOT come from suspension lists. The numbers and suspension lists have nothing to do with each other. You can see the numbers of violations for HPC on the USDA reports. Yes, there are very few, and that is because violators (at least the smarter ones) generally avoid HPC inspections like the plague. However, the numbers are accurate, and there have been no misrepresentations whatsoever in those numbers posted here or on the FOSH site. The only number that is bogus is the 99.4% that the industry tries to use, which is based largely on the reports from their corrupt DQPs further diluted with trail pleasure and halter classes, and diluted further yet by including all of the entries from sound horse shows. THAT is the misrepresentation you need to address if you are all about accuracy, as you say.

I agree with your “goose and gander” analogy, even though it is misapplied. If you want to apply it properly, then ask yourself what is fair about exhibitors who abide by the law and rules having to compete against exhibitors with sore horses that the NHSC, KY and others pass right on through.

I believe it is possible to show a totally sound padded horse. However, if you think that is what we are commonly seeing in the show ring, you are out of your mind. I don’t consider a horse that makes it through inspection to be not sore unless it makes it through the kind of inspection done by HPC. As other tools such as thermography come into play coupled with ultimately having federal cases for the 4th foreign substance by GC-MS we are going to see significant pressure applied to violators. Do I think equal attention needs to be given to flatshod horses? Yes! The law applies equally to every horse in every division.

In summary, your claims are totally false that sound horse advocates are misrepresenting the numbers. The numbers have nothing to do with suspension lists, and you would do well to stop confusing those issues. If you’re all about accuracy and you want to focus on a misrepresentation, then focus on the industry’s bogus claim of 99.4% compliance.

Mark

Didn't the NHSC reject the idea of a back to the trailer penalty when it came up during the HIO discussion/input phase of the 2007-2009 Operating Plan?

Mark Matson

I totally understood what you wrote. Yes, the fact that any and all are receiving violations is unacceptable. I am sure some well deserved, others questionable, and others should have never been. There is human nature playing into all of this and you will never get the human element out of this industry nor any other including corporations.

My problem still is yes, I understand that the people got their names turned in and all that stuff, but on all these HPA VIOLATION FOSH reports (and I know you are not part of FOSH), people have been spouting off all these names, percentages, when in FACT, these people that got ticketed WITH NO SUSPENSION) DO not show up on these HPA VIOLATION LISTS...not just the USDA HPA Violation List but the ones that are kept by other organizations that try to misconstrue the numbers meaning all are every organization EXCEPT sound HIOs. Yes, there are a few HPC violations that showed up and some SSWHEA, but very few. HAD the HPC given SUSPENSION times, these individuals would, hopefully, had shown up on these HPA VIOLATION LISTS...not just the list the USDA reports with suspensions.

Yes, the objective is to get the sore horse, trainers, owners out of the industry but you have got to be fair in representing data on any blog, forum, site, magazine, etc., when trying to convince JOHN Q PUBLIC. There has been many of these postings that have been inaccurate and misleading and this is just one area. THE HPC DID NOT GIVE SUSPENSION TIMES AND thus nor did the USDA because supposedly "an agreement" was reached that the "back to the trailer" was ok for a long period of time. It was not a bad idea in fact, however, all should have been allowed to do that. What is fair for the goose should be fair for the gander. You can have your cause of ending soring, and that is fair; all data should be comparatively represented for all.

It is being unethical when someone does not present the total picture. We have a problem with sore horse trainers/owners but you do not need to misconstrue data and YES, it was when FOSH keeps showing data on their website and some of these posters used that data as the gospel which is so wrong and misleading.

This issue is about accuracy in reporting and not defending sore horses. If you do not have ethics, ability to present all sides accurately, then you are misleading the public. I know your main issues is soundness and that is fine and fair....this posting is about accuracy and honesty in presenting data. Many others should have been on that HPA Violation LIST from way back had the HPC not "allowed the back to trailer" and all they received as a fine, ticket, back to trailer with NO SUSPENSION or being ridiculed on this blog by many vindicative people.

Do you know that there are performance hroses people that do not sore and have never received a HPA violation until just recently for a one foot scar rule? 32 minutes to decide if the hair was off...conflict resolution!

SC - you need to re-read

Please go back and re-read. I explained in detail and with examples, one of which was the hypothetical HPC 2-footer. However, basically you are confusing two entirely separate, but related issues. One is the ticketing/recording and reporting of violations. The other is suspension lists. These are two separate issues. The ticketing/recording and reporting of violations is required by law of all HIOs and shows. Every violation at each show must be reported. It is that which drives all the numbers, percentages, etc. The penalties are related in that they are also driven by violations. However, the penalties themselves do not drive any of the numbers. I hope that is now clear.

So, when you say “HPC has in fact, NOT TURNED IN ALL THE NAMES THAT SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED SUSPENSIONS is totally UNACCEPTABLE”, that statement is totally incorrect. The violators were ticketed, and their names were turned in, became part of the record, and were included in all of the numbers, percentages, etc. The violators during that time, however, did not receive suspensions, and so did not appear on suspension lists, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the numbers, percentages, etc. Those violators were simply not allowed to show so long as they were in violation, which is precisely what the HPA requires – keeping horses in violation out of the ring. And, that is the real difference between sound HIOs such as the HPC and lax, corrupt HIOs such as the NHSC. HPC stringently enforces the law by not allowing a sore horse in the ring whereas the NHSC allows sore horses in on a regular basis. HPC enforces the law, regardless of who you are, but who you are is a key factor with the NHSC, which is precisely the basis for AAEP’s conclusion regarding conflicts of interest in the DQP system. Further, because HPC and other sound HIOs actually work hard to stop sore horses from entering the ring, their violation rates are real. The violation rates for the NHSC, KWH HIO and other non-sound HIOs are fake, which is why their claims of high compliance are also fake, which in turn is why they write so many more tickets when the USDA is present versus when they are not.

So, my question to you is, what is more important: stringent, consistent enforcement to keep sore horses out of the ring, or on the other hand lax, selective enforcement regarding keeping sore horses out of the ring, but suspending the ones an HIO chooses to penalize? If you choose not to catch violators in the first place, then suspensions are kind of a moot point, aren’t they?

You were clearly looking for some kind of “out” in this discussion all along. You don’t have one. The numbers, percentages, etc. are, in fact, apples/apples except in one regard, and that is that what is not captured in any of the statistics are all the horses that don’t show when the USDA shows up. Those horses are undoubtedly the very worst of the bunch.

Mark