Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4005

Bill Overview

Title: Protecting Horses from Soring Act of 2022

Description: This bill revises requirements concerning the inspection of horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and actions for sored horses (e.g., horses suffering from pain when moving due to substances or devices placed on their limbs). Specifically, this bill replaces a requirement for the Department of Agriculture to prescribe regulations governing the appointment of inspectors with a requirement for the Horse Industry Organization, which is established by this bill, to appoint inspectors.

Sponsors: Sen. Hagerty, Bill [R-TN]

Target Audience

Population: People involved in or attending horse shows, exhibitions, and sales

Estimated Size: 200000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Horse Trainer (Texas)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I welcome any change that ensures better welfare for the horses under my care.
  • Switching enforcement to industry-based inspectors may improve accountability, but only if there's proper oversight.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 6

Horse Owner (Kentucky)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think the changes are overdue. Inspectors that are more involved in our industry will likely know better what to look for.
  • This act could increase my operations' credibility.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 6
Year 2 8 5
Year 3 9 5
Year 5 9 5
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 9 4

Equestrian Enthusiast (Florida)

Age: 25 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Greater industry oversight is crucial to prevent cruel practices like soring.
  • The act provides hope for a safer environment for horses.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 4
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 5 4

Veterinarian (California)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The shift to industry-appointed inspectors may improve effectiveness, but I'm concerned about potential biases.
  • Ultimately, horse welfare should be the primary concern, and this could improve under the new structure.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 5

Animal Rights Activist (New York)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The bill seems like a promising way to ensure that horses involved in shows are treated with respect.
  • A system with better enforcement can discourage soring practices.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 4

Horse Show Judge (Georgia)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This may make my role easier if horses are better cared for before shows.
  • Enforcement needs to be consistent to ensure fair competition.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 6

Horse Auctioneer (Nevada)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While this aims to improve horse welfare, more stringent inspections might also complicate auction procedures.
  • We need to balance welfare with operational feasibilities.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 5

Riding Instructor (Colorado)

Age: 53 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Safety for my students and the well-being of our horses are paramount; this bill supports that goal.
  • Having better inspectors that understand the needs of horses at events is essential.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 5

Local Government Official (Ohio)

Age: 37 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 16/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Improving conditions for horses is important, but local resources are limited.
  • The bill's focus is positive, but we need to ensure it doesn't burden local entities extensively.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Equestrian Gear Seller (Tennessee)

Age: 31 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Stricter inspections might mean less demand for more controversial gear associated with soring, positively affecting my business's reputation.
  • The bill could stabilize equestrian trends, which is good for business.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 7 4
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 5 4

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $1500000 (Low: $1200000, High: $1800000)

Year 2: $1350000 (Low: $1080000, High: $1620000)

Year 3: $1300000 (Low: $1040000, High: $1560000)

Year 5: $1250000 (Low: $1000000, High: $1500000)

Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $800000, High: $1200000)

Year 100: $500000 (Low: $400000, High: $600000)

Key Considerations