Understanding the Scar Rule
The full publication is available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/acscarru.pdf
The Horse Protection Act (HPA) (P.L. 91–540) was enacted by Congress in 1970 in response to public concerns about soring of horses. Responsibility for enforcement of the HPA was given to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
Soring is the practice of inflicting pain on the limbs of a horse for the purpose of accentuating its gait. Trainers often achieve the high-stepping gait desirable in some breeds of show horses through patient and persistent training methods. Soring is a cruel shortcut some unscrupulous trainers use to achieve that same high-stepping gait. This practice is abusive to the horse and unfair to ethical trainers.
The Scar Rule
The HPA regulations are a set of rules written by USDA to support enforcement of the Act. The scar rule is one of these regulations. Any horse at a show, exhibition, sale, or auction found to be not in compliance with the scar rule is considered to be &# 1 47;sore” and shown in violation of the HPA. The scar rule as found in Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 11.3 reads:
The scar rule applies to all horses born on or after October 1, 1975. Horses subject to this rule that do not meet the following scar rule criteria shall be considered to be “sore” and are subject to all prohibitions of section 5 of the Act. Th e scar rule criteria are as follows:
(a) The anterior and anterior–lateral surfaces of the fore pasterns (extensor surface) must be free of bilateral granulomas, other bilateral pathological evidence of inflammation, and, other bilateral evidence of abuse indicative of soring including , but not limited to, excessive loss of hair.
(b) The posterior surfaces of the pasterns (flexor surface), including the sulcus or “pocket” may show bilateral areas of uniformly thickened epithelial tissue if such areas are free of proliferating granuloma tissue, irritation, moisture, edem a , or other evidence of inflammation.
This publication is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of the various conditions that constitute violations of the scar rule. Abnormalities occurring on the pasterns of horses can be many and varied, and the photographs and descriptions in this bro c hure do not illustrate all possible conditions. The captions accompanying the photographs and other descriptions explain whether the condition illustrated is or is not allowed under the scar rule. You can use the following criteria and make comparisons t o the additional photographs as aids to determining whether or not a horse’s condition is in compliance. It is important to remember that, for a horse to be in violation of the scar rule, the scars indicative of soring must appear on both front paste r ns of a horse. These scars do not need to be symmetrical, similar in appearance, or of the same type to constitute a scar rule violation.
The APHIS horse protection operating plan for 2001 - 2003 is available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/hpaplan2001.pdf
The June 2001 Lab Animal Protocol Review column (30(6):18-20) entitled “Is Ad Hoc Approval Enough?” discusses veterinary and IACUC responsibilities and authority for approving anesthetic and analgesic regimens, and approval mechanisms when subs t antive information necessitating deliberation or IACUC judgment is required. The Director of NIH, Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) and Deputy Administrator of APHIS, Animal Care (AC) provide their comments on the issues raised in the column. Th e column is posted at http://www.labanimal.com/col/prot0601.htm
Issue Date February 9, 2001
References: AWA Section 13
9 CFR, Part 2, Section 2.131(a)(1), and Section 2.126
This replaces Policy #27 dated November 17, 2000, correcting typographical error in the first sentence under Policy: from “9 CFR, Part 2, Section 2.13(a)(1), to 9 CFR, Part 2, Section 2.131(a)(1)”. Policy #27, dated November 17, 2000, replaced p revious Policy #27 dated February 23, 1999. Additions to this policy clarify the use of water for capturing prairie dogs, and adds the requirement for an itinerary.
Full policy available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/policy/policy27.pdf
Justification: Methods used to capture prairie dogs from natural habitats for covered purposes will be done in a humane manner.
Policy: As required by Section 13 of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and further explained in 9 CFR, Part 2, Section 2.131(a)(1), handling of animals must be done as expeditiously and carefully as possible in a manner that does not cause trauma, overheating , excessive cooling, behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort. While it is recognized that capturing free-living wild prairie dogs may cause some degree of behavioral stress and discomfort, any method that uses unnatural means to force t he animals to evacuate their burrows, such as vacuuming or the introduction of chemicals or noxious gas, will be a violation of Section 2.131(a)(1).
The use of water is not necessarily prohibited by this policy if such use complies with Section 2.131(a)(1). The water must be natural water (without added chemicals or noxious gas) that is introduced into a burrow at a temperature, volume, and speed tha t does not harm or distress the prairie dogs. Use of water by a facility will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
To comply with 9 CFR, Section 2.126, an itinerary of capture dates and sites must be provided to the Regional Office at least two days prior to collection.
Issue Date: May 8, 2001
Reference: AWA Section 16, Section 19
9 CFR, Part 2, Section 2.38(e) and 2.129
This replaces Policy #8 dated April 14, 1997.
Full policy available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/policy/policy8.pdf
Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Animal Care (AC) is authorized to confiscate and destroy regulated animals if they are suffering. This guideline specifies the protocol for such action.
Animals (as defined in 9 CFR, Subchapter A, Part 1, Section 1.1) shall be confiscated in accordance with Section 2.38(e) and Section 2.129, if they are found to be suffering and relief has not been provided by the licensee or registrant. This policy esta b lished procedures to: a. Require the licensee or registrant to provide proper care and relief to a suffering animal as soon as possible, but typically not to exceed 24 hours. b. Confiscate the animal and/or make arrangements for relief, relocation or eut h anasia, as appropriate, if the licensee or registrant does not provide the needed relief from suffering.
Recognition of Suffering by AC
Animals can be found to be suffering from any condition which causes pain or distress if action is not taken to alleviate the condition. Examples of conditions which can cause suffering include, without limitation: animals with serious medical pr o blems that are not receiving adequate veterinary care; animals without adequate food or water; animals exposed to temperature extremes without adequate shelter or bedding; and animals held in enclosures that are filthy. Animals do not need to be in jeopa r dy of dying to be in a state of suffering. Veterinary Medical Officers (VMO) and Animal Care Inspectors (ACI) are qualified to recognize a suffering animal.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is offering electronic filing of APHIS form 7023, Annual Report of Research Facility, for fiscal year (FY) 2001 animal use. This reporting is required b y the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Instructions on how to complete electronic filing will be mailed out by APHIS’ Animal Care program by September 17.
Reports must be filed with Animal Care no later than December 1. “Electronic reporting will save facilities from worrying about duplicate copies and relying on regular mailing to get their information to us,” said W. Ron DeHaven, DVM, APH I S’ Former Deputy Administrator for Animal Care. “Because data submitted electronically will go directly to our database, information will be more accurate and we will be able to save time and money by not using resources to input the data . ”
The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) of 1998 requires federal agencies to make all their forms available for electronic filing no later than October 21, 2003. “We had been working toward electronic filing before GPEA was passed, so w e are well ahead of the game,” said DeHaven.
Animal Care is moving forward on other electronic information projects as well. In FY 2000, they made their web page accessible to the visually disabled, being the first APHIS program to do so as required by the 1998 amendments to the Rehabilitatio n Act. Animal Care inspection reports conducted after October 1 will be publicly accessible through the APHIS E-FOIA web page. Reports will not be available for 21 days after entry while they are processed and approved by the regional offices. The first reports will be available in late October, assuming no technical issues arise. New reports and previous reports will still be available through the regional offices.
In the future, facilities will also be able to submit APHIS form 7011, Application for Registration, to apply and renew registration under the AWA. Licensees such as dealers will be able to electronically submit their applications as well.
If you have questions about reporting information or access to inspection data, contact your Animal Care regional office or send an e-mail to ace@aphis.usda.gov.
WASHINGTON, July 16, 2001—The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced today that it is adopting as a final rule two modified interim rules concerning the importation and interstate movement of the leopard tortoise, African spurred tortoise, and Bel l ’s hingeback tortoise.
The final rule amends the previous interim rules by allowing the interstate movement of these tortoises if an accredited veterinarian signs either a health certificate or a certificate of veterinary inspection stating that the tortoises have been examine d by that veterinarian and found to be free of exotic ticks. The final rule also affirms USDA’s prohibition on the importation of these types of land tortoises.
This action is necessary to enable the export, interstate commerce, health care, and adoption of these types of tortoises while providing protection against the spread of exotic ticks known to be vectors of heartwater disease. This action will also relieve an unnecessary burden on federal veterinarians.
We estimate that each health certificate or certificate of veterinary inspection will cost $25 to $50 for the first tortoise, plus $2 to $5 for each additional tortoise in the shipment. The goal of the certification is to prevent the spread of exot i c ticks known to be vectors of heartwater disease. The health certificate or certificate of veterinary inspection will also help ensure the acceptability of these animals in international markets.
Heartwater disease is an acute, infectious disease of ruminants, such as cattle, sheep, goats, white-tailed deer, and antelope. This disease has a 60 percent or greater mortality rate in livestock and a 90 percent or greater mortality rate in white - tailed deer.
Notice of this action is scheduled to be published in the July 17 Federal Register and becomes effective upon publication. APHIS documents published in the Federal Register and related information, including the names of organizations and ind i viduals who have commented on APHIS dockets, are available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
For more information, contact David Wilson, senior staff entomologist, Emergency Programs, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 41, Riverdale, MD 20737, phone: (301) 734-8073.
Go to:
Contents, Animal Welfare Information Center Bulletin
Top of Document
The Animal Welfare Information Center
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
National Agricultural Library
10301 Baltimore Ave.
Beltsville, MD 20705-2351
Phone: (301) 504-6212
FAX: (301) 504-7125
Contact us: http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/contact.php
