E-Mail Newsletter

E-mail the Newsletter HERE

Volume 1, Number 5

Comments, opinions and articles in this newsletter are not necessarily those expressed by the STV Group, and are the sole responsibility of the author of such comment, opinion or article. This Newsletter is a new endeavor by breeder members of the WPCSA who support the original breed standards of all sections of Welsh ponies and cobs. I have volunteered to produce it with the help of all who send me pertinent information, comments and opinions; ........ and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Denise Loeffel

New Jersey Pony Breeders and Owners , Inc. is sponsoring an All-Pony Dressage Show on September 23 at Millbrook Farm in Flemington NJ.  Richard and Heather Prant have donated the use of their beautiful new facility and Jaqueline Stapel, USDF "L" judge, has donated her services to help us get started with this innovative show.   Prize lists can be obtained at plumtreehill@nac.net or by calling Donna Raquet at 973-383-0456.

Concerned members were assured by many Board members and association members that 'no one is breeding for pinto colored Welsh', that the few excessive white Welsh which have been produced would not hurt the breed, and that no one planned to produce 'PINTO' Welsh ponies........ our members had found and printed pictures of over fifty pinto marked Welsh on prominent breeder's pages in a little over a month of searching, and were castigated by members of the Board for displaying those pictures even though they were taken off public websites!

Within a few months of the Annual Meeting a registered half-Welsh with excessive white markings was allowed to be registered full Welsh and is now competing as such. This pony is owned by a prominent member of the Board of Directors.

Recently during the 'rainy season' we've had here in the northeast I spent some time viewing WPCSA members' new foals online. I was shocked to see the multitude of pinto foals being produced out of pinto mares with notations that their papers are at the WPCSA for registration. These ponies exhibit coloration of sabino, splash white, OVERO and TOBIANO; colorations which would have never been considered for registration in the past.

I implore all of you to go online, go to your google search engine and start searching for pinto welsh using all words related to pinto, excessive white, paint, sabino, etc.  and view the ponies for yourself. Then write to the Board of Directors and express your opinion. I emailed them last week with my concern ........... if you too are concerned for our beautiful Welsh breed, please let the Board know.

My letter to the Board is below. Denise

From: Denise Marie Loeffel

Subject: Loud Pinto Welsh

To: "agthomson@msn.com" <agthomson@msn.com>, "ccabeles@aol.com" <ccabeles@aol.com>, "drruth@centurytel.net" <drruth@centurytel.net>, "kreese@cswnet.com" <kreese@cswnet.com>, "kurt@heavenlypony.com" <kurt@heavenlypony.com>, "lemntree@covad.net" <lemntree@covad.net>, "lroberts@utica.edu" <lroberts@utica.edu>, "mabw@mcia.com" <mabw@mcia.com>, "mbenedic65@aol.com" <mbenedic65@aol.com>, "mmf@stratos.net" <mmf@stratos.net>, "rfm@hctc.net" <rfm@hctc.net>, "stoverpaw2@aol.com" <stoverpaw2@aol.com>

To the Board of Directors

Again in taking a look at what is currently happening in the "Welsh World" I am extremely dismayed at the result of YOUR decision last October to change the Rules of Registration. It seems that your "foresight" is flawed and your expressions of concern for OUR Welsh Breed blatantly misleading.

As you all know I video taped the WPCSA meetings in Florida, especially as regards the "white issue", which define many of your consolations and explanations on this topic. Many of the members expressed their concerns at those meetings and asked that further registration of pintos cease. Several discussions on the video tapes by Board members express a "hold" on further registrations of ponies with excessive white markings pending further discussion and decision; and, at this time it seems that that "hold" on further registrations has been lifted without further discussion or notification to those members who expressed concern about the future of the Welsh Breed.

As a long time and supportive member of the WPCSA I demand that the Board cease and desist registering all Welsh with excessive white markings expressing piebald and skewbald description as per:

of the rules for Purebred Registration Eligibility. As a member of the WPCSA I believe that it is in the BEST INTEREST of the WELSH BREED that the Board of Directors petition the entire membership for their opinions regarding the registration of Welsh marked with excessive white and continue discussions prior to making any further decisions on the issue and on registering any Welsh with excessive white markings. I also demand that under the National Open Public Records Act that the opinions solicited by the Board of Directors be published on the WPCSA website for all members to view, as well as the minutes of any meeting held by a majority of the Board whether it be held in person or electronically in any capacity.

If you have a problem finding instances of Welsh ponies with pinto coloring, including tobiano, on the web, for education purposes I will be happy to send you links which you can follow and discern for yourself whether pinto coloring is being actively and knowingly bred for.

Denise Loeffel

Papers at WPCSA
Splashed White Chestnut Colt

sally davidson <ccwponies@yahoo.com> wrote

The show at Carthage Misouri went very well. I hope all that attended had a great time.

Had a chance to chat with the UK judge.

The excessive white is as hotly debated a topic there as it is here. The sentiment being that these are purely bred Welsh.

These animals NOT accepted into the regular registry because of their excessive white are put into the X recording.... she held up her hands and quoated and said... for now.... This was not a person I was under any impression who was in favor of these animals being recorded.

I asked about the judges meeting to discuss how much white should be allowed in the ring. The decision was that no white unless connected above a line from elbow to stifle.

There was one A filly that came who was flecked with roaning throughout and exhibited several spots when the roaning got to really grouping together. Spots the size of the palm of my hand.

I did not catch who the pony was nor the owner. But I was ringmaster and anyone who knew well my position on this saw me looking hard at that filly.

I too was getting a little despondent about efforts to keep the original Welsh standard in light of what the BOD has done, and is registering as purebreds .... and in light of the lack of obvious interest in the excessive white issue..................  but over the weekend Sara spoke to TWO pony hunter owners who show ONLY IN OPEN COMPETITION. BOTH of those people expressed DISGUST with the Welsh ponies now being bred for the pony hunter market. They noted a lack of pony characteristics, a lack of WELSH disposition, a lack of hardiness, a tendency to having thorobred characteristics and disposition and being unsuitable for children. Color and gaudiness was also mentioned. Kind of an elitist opinion, but one that shows that not all of the hunter people are happy with the current WELSH being introduced into the "Pony Hunter World". And I cannot wait until the ignorant just breaking into the pony hunter world and buying their first ponies butt heads with the people who have been the backbone of that institution for years; then they will be educated and the production of "gaudy mini thorobred pony hunters" will cease, the market will drop, and hopefully for those who stick to the breeding of the ORIGINAL Welsh type ponies, they will be rewarded by an increase in value of their ponies.  Denise

NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR PONIES

Dressage4 Kids, Inc. and Centerline Events have joined forces for a new competition. For the first time Dressage pony riders will have a show just for themselves. The show will be at the wonderful HITS on the hudson Showgrounds in Saugerties New York. For a Prize List go to: http://www.centerlineevents.com/Prize%20List%20Pony.pdf

See more info here: http://www.ponyworld.net/index.htm

Preliminary Analysis of USDA’s April 6, 2006 Announcement ON NAIS

While the press release and Strategies document repeatedly discussed how NAIS is a "voluntary plan," the USDA has set specific benchmarks. The Strategies states:

USDA will evaluate whether the participation levels are increasing at rates that will achieve full participation by 2009. Based on that analysis, USDA will determine if the market-driven incentives, along with industry "buy-in" for improved animal disease programs, is resulting in adequate participation and growth rates for NAIS to be successful by the established target dates. If participation rates are not adequate, the development of regulations through normal rulemaking procedures will be considered to require participation in certain aspects of the program.

(Strategies, p.3, emphasis added.) There is no definition for "adequate participation" or "growth rates." The benchmarks are set as follows:

(Strategies, p.3) "These benchmarks are participation levels APHIS believes are necessary for the industry, State, and Federal partnership to successfully achieve the goals and objectives of NAIS." (Strategies, p.3.) Consistent with the goal of 100% participation, the Administration document states: "To have a successful animal disease management program, all producers and affected industry segments will have to participate eventually." (Administration, p.1, emphasis added.)

In other words, the USDA contends that 100% of premises must be registered and that all animals born after January 2008 will have to be individually identified, to meet its goal for January 2009. And if that goal is not met, we can expect there to be federal regulation. Indeed, by setting the intermediate benchmarks, if USDA does not think that there is adequate "growth rates," it may issue proposed regulations even before 2009. USDA still claims (incorrectly), that it has statutory authority to implement a mandatory NAIS if it chooses to. (See Transcript of Tele-News Conference, April 6, 2006; "REPORTER: … If you wanted to make this program mandatory, is this something you could do through the rulemaking process within USDA, or would you actually need Congress to put out some new legislation? SEC. JOHANNS: We would not. We can do that today. We would not need new legislation.")

One of the confusing things about these documents is that USDA appears to have underestimated the number of premises and animals involved. The Strategies states that USDA estimates that there are 2 million premises and 40 million newborn animals annually. This leaves open the slight possibility that, if USDA reached those numbers, it might choose to ignore the fact that this would not mean 100% participation. But the USDA has not bound itself to that limitation. Rather, the Strategies defines "premises" in essentially the same way as the 2005 Plan: "[Premises that need to be registered by 2009] includes all locations that manage and/or hold livestock and poultry." (Strategies, p.4, emphasis added.)

USDA also appears to be trying to quiet the opposition from the horse and poultry owners. The Strategies focuses on cattle in its specific examples (such as estimates of the number of cattle killed each year) and the Administration document identifies cattle as the priority for the animal identification stage. But neither document defines "animals." Thus, we have to rely on the definitions provided in the published plan from 2005, which would include all livestock, including poultry and horses. Indeed, the Cooperative Agreement that was also released by USDA on April 6 includes the following Purpose statement:

The purpose of this CA [Cooperative Agreement] is to facilitate the deployment of an information technology infrastructure that will enable animal health officials to access animal identification, tracking, and movement data from data sets other than those maintained by the Federal government as necessary to support animal disease control and eradication programs of pests or diseases to protect all livestock, i.e., all farm-raised animals, in the United States. This agreement assists in implementing an interim/development phase to enable private organizations and States with systems that meet minimum requirements to participate in the development of the infrastructure for the timely advancement of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). (emphasis added)

Similarly, USDA appears to be trying to deflect the criticism of the technology aspects of NAIS. Thus, the Administration document provides that non-RFID tags may be used. At the same time, USDA clearly intends to move the entire program towards electronic identification: "At this time, USDA views visual identification tags as a starting point for the identification of cattle to ensure greater participation among all producers." (Administration, p.5, emphasis added.) Once every premises is registered in state and private databases, it would be easy to require the animal owners to move away from this "starting point" to the radio tags and microchips that would profit the technology industry.

Overall, the April 6^th announcements present a small victory, while still showing how much work is in front of us. We have gained precious time, and no longer face the imminent threat of regulations. Yet the USDA has not changed the true substance of NAIS. Rather, we face a fight in every state to prevent burdensome and pointless regulations, while still facing the threat of federal regulation if 100% of animal owners do not "voluntarily" comply.

For more information, contact:

Judith McGeary, Executive Director
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
8308 Sassman Rd
Austin, TX 78747
(512) 243-2706
www.farmandranchfreedom.org
Written: April 9, 2006

Preliminary Analysis of USDA’s April 6, 2006 Announcement

USDA’s press conference on April 6 and the documents released the same day provide some very good news. USDA will not propose regulations in July 2006 for NAIS. USDA has also extended the timelines for the program. These are excellent developments. They mean that we have time: time to educate people about this program, time to work with our state agencies, and time to place pressure on our elected officials.

While the press release and Strategies document repeatedly discussed how NAIS is a "voluntary plan," the USDA has set specific benchmarks. The Strategies states:

USDA will evaluate whether the participation levels are increasing at rates that will achieve full participation by 2009. Based on that analysis, USDA will determine if the market-driven incentives, along with industry "buy-in" for improved animal disease programs, is resulting in adequate participation and growth rates for NAIS to be successful by the established target dates. If participation rates are not adequate, the development of regulations through normal rulemaking procedures will be considered to require participation in certain aspects of the program.

January 2008: 70% of premises registered

40% of animals registered

(Strategies, p.3) "These benchmarks are participation levels APHIS believes are necessary for the industry, State, and Federal partnership to successfully achieve the goals and objectives of NAIS." (Strategies, p.3.) Consistent with the goal of 100% participation, the Administration document states: "To have a successful animal disease management program, all producers and affected industry segments will have to participate eventually." (Administration, p.1, emphasis added.)

In other words, the USDA contends that 100% of premises must be registered and that all animals born after January 2008 will have to be individually identified, to meet its goal for January 2009. And if that goal is not met, we can expect there to be federal regulation. Indeed, by setting the intermediate benchmarks, if USDA does not think that there is adequate "growth rates," it may issue proposed regulations even before 2009. USDA still claims (incorrectly), that it has statutory authority to implement a mandatory NAIS if it chooses to. (See Transcript of Tele-News Conference, April 6, 2006; "REPORTER: … If you wanted to make this program mandatory, is this something you could do through the rulemaking process within USDA, or would you actually need Congress to put out some new legislation? SEC. JOHANNS: We would not. We can do that today. We would not need new legislation.")

Moreover, even as it provides these low estimates, the Strategies reiterates that USDA’s goal is for 100% of premises and 100% of new animals to be registered. (Strategies, p.4-5.) And the USDA maintains its ability to mandate 100% compliance: "If the marketplace, along with State and Federal identification programs, does not provide adequate incentives for achieving complete participation, USDA may be required to implement regulations." (Strategies, p.3.) Even if USDA were content with those 2 million registrations and 40 million animal identifications, many small and medium size producers will have to be included to reach those numbers, placing the heavy burdens of NAIS on their shoulders.

USDA also appears to be trying to quiet the opposition from the horse and poultry owners. The Strategies focuses on cattle in its specific examples (such as estimates of the number of cattle killed each year) and the Administration document identifies cattle as the priority for the animal identification stage. But neither document defines "animals." Thus, we have to rely on the definitions provided in the published plan from 2005, which would include all livestock, including poultry and horses. Indeed, the Cooperative Agreement that was also released by USDA on April 6 includes the following Purpose statement:

Judith McGeary, Executive Director
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
8308 Sassman Rd
Austin, TX 78747
(512) 243-2706
www.farmandranchfreedom.org
Written: April 9, 2006