Misplaced Pages

#797202

54-565: The Plant Quarantine Act , originally enacted in 1912 (7 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), gave the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) authority to regulate the importation and interstate movement of nursery stock and other plants that may carry pests and diseases that are harmful to agriculture. This Act has been superseded by the consolidated APHIS statute, the Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). This authority

108-601: A "fox guarding the chicken coop" situation", as if the HIO is not fully interested in preventing or detecting the practice of soring, the DQPs may not be fully trained or may deliberately overlook instances of soring. When APHIS inspectors are present at horse shows, the number of citations for violations increases significantly. Competitors and trainers at shows, viewing themselves as unjustly persecuted, have been known to leave when they find APHIS inspectors present, rather than allowing

162-401: A lack of funding led to a 1976 amendment to the act, which allows non-USDA employees to be trained and certified as inspectors. This program has not always been successful, with some non-USDA inspectors being more lenient on violators than others, and citations for violations tend to increase significantly when USDA inspectors are present at a show. Several methods are used to detect violations of

216-601: A limited time, whenever, in his opinion, it is necessary for the protection of animals in the United States against infectious or contagious diseases. 21 U.S.C.   § 113a authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to establish research facilities for hoof and mouth disease and other animal diseases which “in the opinion of the Secretary” constitute a threat to U.S. livestock. Mandates strict controls for

270-412: 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. The Horse Protection Act

324-680: Is an act of animal cruelty that gives practitioners an unfair advantage over other competitors. The Horse Protection Act of 1970 is enforced by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), a branch of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Although violations of the law are seen most often in the Tennessee Walking Horse industry, the Horse Protection Act covers all breeds. Originally all inspectors were from APHIS, but

378-602: Is defined as "any member of the animal kingdom (except a human)." 7 U.S.C.   § 8302 (1) (West 2009). Animal Welfare Act of 1966 , 7 U.S.C.   § 2131 et seq. Originally intended to prevent the theft of pets for sale to research facilities, the AWA now broadly regulates minimum standards of care and treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. It exempts birds, rats, or mice bred for use in research, horses not used for research, cold blooded animals, and all farm animals used in

432-555: Is divided into six operational programs units: APHIS is also divided into three management support units (Legislative and Public Affairs, Marketing and Regulatory Programs Business Services, and Policy and Program Development), and two offices that support government-wide initiatives: the Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security and Office of Civil Rights Enforcement and Compliance. The current APHIS Administrator, Kevin Shea ,

486-612: Is found in Title 15 of the United States Code , which covers commerce and trade. Section (§) 1821 covers the definitions of the terms used in the act and §1822 details the Congressional statement of findings. The requirements placed upon horse shows and exhibitions are covered in §1823. §1824 covers the core provisions of the act, prohibiting the "shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, or receiving of any horse which

540-558: Is grounds for penalties under the Horse Protection Act. However, in a decision promulgated by the Fifth Circuit Court , it was found that soreness found through digital palpation alone was not sufficient evidence upon which to base penalties. The largest association in the United States for equine veterinarians , the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP), called the practice of soring "one of

594-403: Is illegal to show a horse, enter it at a horse show , or to auction, sell, offer for sale, or transport a horse for any of these purposes if it has been sored. Soring is the practice of applying irritants or blistering agents to the front feet or forelegs of a horse, making it pick its feet up higher in an exaggerated manner that creates the movement or "action" desired in the show ring . Soring

SECTION 10

#1732786880798

648-490: Is not. The issue of digital palpation, one of the main methods used by inspectors to find and verify soreness, has been contested in several courts, and is the only issue that has had courts come to varying conclusions on its legitimacy. The majority of courts with appeals rising to the Circuit Court level, have held that palpation is a legitimate method for identifying soreness, and that soreness found through palpation

702-537: Is particularly important to the agency’s ability to prevent or limit the spread of harmful invasive species within or to a state or region of the United States. The Plant Quarantine Act was codified as fifteen sections formulating regulations and rules for the importation of nursery stock including annual plants and biennial plants . U.S. Congressional amendments to the Plant Quarantine Act. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service APHIS

756-467: Is sore" as well as the actual showing, exhibition, entry into a show, sale, or auction of a sored horse, including offering a sored horse for sale, as well as outlining the responsibilities of show management and recordkeeping requirements. The export of horses is covered in §1824a. §1825 covers penalties for violations detailed previously in the act, which may be civil or criminal, with fines of up to $ 50,000 and imprisonment of up to five years. §1826 details

810-434: Is still available. [REDACTED] Media related to Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at Wikimedia Commons Horse Protection Act of 1970 The Horse Protection Act of 1970 ( HPA ); (codified 15 U.S.C.   §§ 1821 – 1831 ) is a United States federal law , under which the practice of soring is a crime punishable by both civil and criminal penalties, including fines and jail time. It

864-613: The Animal Welfare Act and carrying out wildlife damage management activities.” APHIS aims to protect American animals, plants, and the agricultural industry by offering: The threats and challenges within APHIS' scope include: APHIS is granted specific authority under several federal statutes: Animal Health Protection Act , 7 U.S.C.   § 8301 et seq. Governs the prevention, detection, control, and eradication of diseases and pests of animals, where "animal"

918-546: The USDA OIG published a report which identified numerous failures on the part of APHIS’ Animal Care (AC) unit to adequately enforce the AWA, including: The OIG audit further reported that at almost one-third of facilities, IACUCs failed to ensure that principal investigators (PIs) considered alternatives to painful procedures; the report cites this failure on the part of IACUCs as being the most frequent AWA violation at animal research facilities. In 2014, The USDA's Office of

972-421: The pasterns of horses, and if attached so that they move, they can rub or irritate sored areas and thus further enhance gaits. Stacks are layers of pads attached to the bottom of the front hooves between the horseshoe and the hoof, which increase the lift of the foot and the impact with the ground by adding height and weight to horses' front feet. The final change would be to increase penalties for violations of

1026-684: The 30 violators in our sample received” and that the Service “grant[ed] good faith reductions without merit or us[ed] a smaller number of violations than the actual number.” According to the USDA's report, APHIS agreed with the findings and will begin implanting reforms. On 4 February 2017, the USDA Animal Care Search Tool, a searchable database containing documents with details about the animals held by individual US animal research facility together with inspection and action reports,

1080-625: The Consumer and Marketing Service (later known as the Agricultural Marketing Service ) were added to APHS, thus creating the contemporary APHIS. In 2003, many APHIS agricultural border inspectors were transferred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection , a unit of the newly created U.S. Department of Homeland Security . APHIS is the primary agency responsible for responding to animal and plant disease(s) and pest emergencies as well as to other emergencies as set forth by

1134-702: The Deputy Administrator for PPQ represents the United States in the North American Plant Protection Organization and other international fora related to plant health and quarantine. In addition to its domestic operations, APHIS International Services staff several overseas offices, including veterinary and plant health attachés in U.S. diplomatic missions as well as technicians carrying out disease and pest eradication and control programs. On February 26, 2022 Deputy Administrator Osama El-Lissy left to become

SECTION 20

#1732786880798

1188-598: The Horse Protection Act between 1986 and 2010. This list was developed as part of the USDA Horse Protection Operating Plan for 2007–2009, and supported by most of the USDA-certified HIOs. Despite the work being done to dissuade trainers from soring horses, APHIS inspectors found hundreds of violations in the course of their work during the 2012 year. Since the 1976 amendment, there have been several other proposed changes to

1242-452: The Horse Protection Act covers all breeds. Soring is defined by the HPA with four meanings: (3)(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

1296-519: The House of Representatives in 2006, but died in the Senate. In September 2012, U.S. Representatives Ed Whitfield , a Republican from Kentucky, and Steve Cohen , a Democrat from Tennessee, proposed HR 6388, titled the "Horse Protection Act Amendments of 2012". That bill died in committee. A similar bill, HR 1518, titled the "Prevent All Soring Tactics Act" was introduced on April 11, 2013. If passed,

1350-491: The Inspector General (OIG) criticized the Service for a number of issues including its failure to efficiently allocate resources and its failure to administer appropriate fines for animal welfare violations among other issues. The report found the Service conducted inspections at facilities that did not have any animals regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). According to the report, “[Animal Care] did not make

1404-538: The National Response Plan (NRP) completed in 2005 (APHIS Strategic Plan 2003–2008). APHIS celebrated its 50th anniversary on April 2, 2022. The originally-stated purpose of APHIS is to “protect the animal and plant resources of the nation” and carry out “a poultry and meat inspection program.” A more modern articulation of APHIS's mission is “protecting and promoting U.S. agricultural health, regulating genetically engineered organisms, administering

1458-542: The Secretary of the International Plant Protection Convention . As the name suggests, IES takes referrals from other APHIS personnel as to investigations and enforcements that are needed based on personnel's observations in the course of their duties. APHIS has a budget of approximately $ 800 million annually and employs about 7,000 people, about 5,000 of which are deployed as inspectors at ports, borders and on farms. In 2005,

1512-531: The act was proposed in the United States House of Representatives . The amendment would allow only USDA employees to perform inspections, toughen penalties for violations, and outlaw the use of action devices and "stacks", or layers of pads attached to the bottom of the front hooves. Soring began in the 1950s with gaited horse trainers who were looking to improve their chances of winning at horse shows . To do this, they developed methods to enhance

1566-442: The act, all unsuccessful so far. In 2005, HR 503, titled the "Horse Slaughter Prohibition Bill", was introduced by U.S. Representative John E. Sweeney (R-NY). The bill would have made major changes to the focus of the Horse Protection Act, by prohibiting the "shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption." It passed

1620-408: The act, including observation, palpation and gas chromatography / mass spectrometry to identify chemicals on horses' legs. Certain training techniques and topical anesthetics can be used to avoid detection by the first two methods. There have been a number of unsuccessful challenges to the act on the grounds on constitutionality, as well as challenges on varying other issues. In 2013, an amendment to

1674-627: The act. The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce . Both bills have been opposed by some organizations within the Tennessee Walking Horse industry. The President and executive committee of the Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders' and Exhibitors' Association (TWHBEA) voted to support this legislation, but the full board of directors chose not to. The initial bill

Plant Quarantine Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

1728-516: The authority to regulate and to prohibit or restrict the importation, exportation, and the interstate movement of plants, plant products, certain biological control organisms, noxious weeds, and plant pests. Federal Seed Act, Title III , 7 U.S.C.   §§ 1551 – 1611 Requires accurate labeling and purity standards for seeds in commerce, and prohibits the importation and movement of adulterated or misbranded seeds. Honeybee Act , 7 U.S.C.   §§ 281 – 286 Prohibits or restricts

1782-490: The authorization of appropriations for expenses related to the enforcement of the provisions of the act. As originally enacted, the Horse Protection Act was to be enforced by Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), a branch of the USDA. However, a lack of staff and funding meant little success, leading to the 1976 amendment to the act. With this amendment, Congress created a Designated Qualified Person (DQP) program. This program allows non-USDA employees from within

1836-534: The best use of its limited resources, which could have been assigned to inspect other more problematic facilities, including breeders, dealers, and exhibitors.” The Service was also criticized for prematurely closing cases that involved “grave (e.g., animal deaths) or repeat welfare violations.” When the service did levy fines against institutions for AWA violations, the Inspector General's report found “penalties that were reduced by an average of 86 percent from... authorized maximum penalty per violation. Consequently, 26 of

1890-438: The bill, nearly identical to HR 6388, would amend the Horse Protection Act of 1970 to increase fines to $ 5,000, increase prison time to three years, and increase other penalties. It would also mandate the USDA to assign a licensed inspector if a show management indicates its intent to hire one, currently a voluntary practice. The bill would prohibit the use of "action devices" and "stacks". Action devices are weights attached around

1944-503: The desired high action gaits to levels greater than that produced by traditional training methods. Thus began the use of irritants, including chemicals and physical objects, or abusive shoeing and hoof-trimming practices on the front legs. Attempting to relieve the pain in its legs, a sored horse lifts its front feet off the ground more quickly, creating a flashier gait. By the 1960s, soring had gained popularity, as horses so treated gained an edge in competition. However, public opposition to

1998-456: The equine community to take training and certification programs run by Horse Industry Organizations (HIOs) and supervised by the USDA; after completing the training, they may complete inspections for violations of the HPA at public events. The USDA is then able to double check the work of DQP participants by making random inspections at a small number of shows. One member of the Tennessee Walking Horse world states that this creates "the potential for

2052-462: The horse for lameness , assessing its stance and palpating the lower legs. Some trainers evaded detection from inspectors by training horses not to react to the pain that palpation may cause, often by severely punishing the horse for flinching after the sored area is touched. The practice is called "stewarding", in reference to the horse show steward . Others use topical anesthetics, such as lidocaine and benzocaine , which are timed to wear off before

2106-474: The horse goes into the show ring. Use of chemicals can be completely avoided if pressure shoeing is also used. This process involves placing some type of hard foreign object (such as a small piece of wood, stone, hard acrylic, or sharp object such as a tack or nail) against the sole of the horse's foot before applying the horseshoe and pads. It can also be done by trimming down the horse's hoof to its sensitive structures, then shoeing. Either method causes pain when

2160-447: The horse places its foot on the ground. There have been a number of challenges to the Horse Protection Act on the grounds of constitutionality, mainly regarding due process and equal protection , none of which were successful. Courts have also ruled on other issues with regard to the act, including whether knowledge of soring or intent to sore is required in order to prove a violation of the act, and courts have repeatedly held that it

2214-482: The importation or entry of honeybees and honeybee semen into or through the United States in order to prevent the introduction and spread of diseases and parasites harmful to honeybees, as well as genetically undesirable germ plasm and undesirable bee species. Animal quarantine laws: 21 U.S.C.   § 101 allows the President, by proclamation, to suspend the importation of all or any class of animals for

Plant Quarantine Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

2268-651: The inadvertent introduction of brown tree snakes into other areas of the United States from Guam. Lacey Act , 16 U.S.C.   §§ 3371 – 3378 Makes it unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law whether in interstate or foreign commerce. Plant Protection Act , 7 U.S.C.   § 7701 et seq. Consolidates all or part of ten existing USDA plant health laws into one comprehensive law. Gives USDA

2322-434: The inspectors to see their horses. In June 2012, the USDA published a new rule requiring violations found by HIOs to have penalties assessed at a rate equal to or exceeding those given by APHIS inspectors. Previously, HIOs were allowed to set their own penalty rates, resulting in some organizations acting leniently towards violators of the HPA. For the first decades following passage of the act, foreign substances applied to

2376-544: The law caps at $ 500,000 annually. The federal Office of Inspector General found in 2010 that the self-enforcement system of HIOs and DQPs was inadequate for eliminating the practice of soring. This led to the June 2012 strengthening of penalty systems. In 2010, the Friends of Sound Horses launched a website containing the names of the over 8,700 people who had received suspensions from the horse showing and training world under

2430-477: The legs, including chemicals, were detected by feel, sight or smell. Since 2006, the USDA has used gas chromatography / mass spectrometry to identify chemicals found on horses' legs at events. Samples of suspicious substances are swabbed at the show, and sent to a laboratory for analysis; owners and trainers are later informed of the results. However, this method is only used by APHIS veterinary medical officers at present. Soring can be also detected by observing

2484-404: The most significant welfare issues affecting any equine breed or discipline" after releasing a white paper on the subject in 2008. The organization pointed out that despite over three decades of work, the HPA law had failed to prevent sored horses from being trained, shown, and sold. The AAEP blamed this failure on what they called the "woefully inadequate" level of funding for enforcement, which

2538-515: The practice also grew, and in 1966, the American Horse Protection Association was created in part to address the issue of soring. In 1969, Senator Joseph Tydings sponsored legislation to prohibit soring, leading to the passing of the Horse Protection Act in 1970, amended in 1976. While Tennessee Walking Horses , Racking Horses and other "high-stepping breeds" are generally targeted by these abusive practices,

2592-671: The production of “food and fiber.” It provides for licensing and registration of all animal dealers and exhibitors. Horse Protection Act , 15 U.S.C.   §§ 1821 – 1831 Prohibits horses subjected to a process called “soring” (injecting or applying chemicals to a horse's forelegs to accentuate its gait) from participating in and being transported to exhibitions, sales, shows, or auctions. Animal Damage Control Act of March 2, 1931 , 7 U.S.C.   §§ 426 – 426c Provides broad authority for investigation, demonstrations and control of “injurious animal species” (mammalian predators, rodents and birds.) Amended in 1991 to prevent

2646-519: The required notice of violations to the Attorney General of the United States . The utilization of USDA and state government staff is covered in §1827, as is non-financial assistance to states. Rules and regulations pertaining to the act's statutes are covered in §1828. §1829 covers federal preemption of state laws, concurrent jurisdiction , and prohibitions on certain state actions. §1830 is currently reserved for future use, and §1831 details

2700-556: The use of any live virus at such research facilities. Permits the Secretary to hire up to five technical experts or scientists at a maximum paygrade of GS-18. (This appears to be one of the most prescriptive statutes that USDA administers.) 21 U.S.C.   § 114i authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to establish and carry out a program for the eradication of pseudorabies in United States swine populations. Virus-Serum-Toxin Act , 21 U.S.C.   §§ 151 – 158 APHIS

2754-615: Was appointed in June 2013. His immediate predecessor, Dr. Greg Parham, was appointed in April 2011. The Deputy Administrator for Veterinary Services also functions as Chief Veterinary Officer of the United States, and represents the U.S. Government at the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) is the National Plant Protection Organization ;

SECTION 50

#1732786880798

2808-611: Was created in 1972 by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1769. The origins of the agency predate creation of USDA, to 1854 when the Office of Entomologist, Agricultural Section, U.S. Patent Office was created. It was the first of three agencies that eventually were merged to form APHIS. In 1881, a Cattle Commission was created in the Department of the Treasury that three years later was transferred to USDA. Plant quarantine functions followed in 1912 when USDA's Federal Horticultural Board

2862-497: Was created. Between the 1880s and 1930s, these evolved into the USDA Bureaus of Entomology, of Animal Industry, and of Plant Quarantine, respectively. In 1953, those three bureaus were made into the new Agricultural Research Service . In 1971, the animal and plant regulatory functions were separated from ARS to create a new entity known as Animal and Plant Health Services. In 1972, the meat and poultry inspection divisions of

2916-541: Was removed from public access, with a stated reason of protecting personal information. The removal affects inspection reports, research facility annual reports, regulatory correspondence (such as official warnings), and certain enforcement records. Information from these documents can now only be requested via a Freedom of Information Act inquiry. This removal has been criticized as substantially limiting information on animal care in US institutions, and of inhibiting access to what

#797202