Judy Wardrope
A lot of people have been asking questions about the Animal Pedigree Act (APA) plus the amalgamation talks underway between the Canadian Sport Horse Association (CSHA) and the Canadian Warmblood Horse Breeders Association (CWHBA). Rumors are circulating, and some of you may have received an email copy of a letter sent to the CWHBA from an APA representative. Because this should be of interest to all horse people, especially breeders, here are some answers, some viewpoints, some official comments, and perhaps, some more questions.
Bill desBarres of Equine Canada’s Breeds and Industry said, “The process, jurisdiction and jurisprudence are being watched internationally. This focus is not good for the industry and Breeds and Industry is not a party to it. Canada is the only country that has an animal pedigree act, [and] if the Act is to protect the breeder, consumer, etc., it has to be operated properly. The government position has to be working towards full compliance under the Act. Ultimately, the law is the law, and Trus’ department has the first right to interpret the Act. Other registries were offered the same APA, and some chose to become listing agencies instead of being governed by the APA. We are delighted whenever there are any moves, mergers or contracts that would develop more pedigree integrity and a more marketable Canadian-bred horse. We want the best for the industry.” (David Trus took over the Animal Pedigree Act in 1996.)
Les Burwash, Manager of Horse Programs with the Horse Industry section of Alberta Agriculture, said, “The Quarter Horse and Paints do not fit in the APA and they are the two biggest breeds. That tells me we have a problem. The Appaloosa, Paint and others are now split. To me, that’s crazy.”
Canadians are not the only ones asking questions. Interstallion, which is a working group of the World Breeding Federation of Sport Horses (WBFSH), the European Association for Animal Production (EAAP) and the International Committee for Animal Recording (ICAR) that began in 1998, has found that “definitions of breeding objectives vary largely across organizations. In contrast to other livestock species, trait definitions in horse breeding are more subjective.” Their goals are to “describe breeding objectives, testing procedures and genetic evaluation methods of warmblood breeding organizations; recommend improvements of national genetic evaluation systems [plus] study methods of comparing genetic evaluations across countries.”
Opinions and Comments
Paul Morgan, president of CSHA, said, “Chris [Gould] was a proponent of one organization in the early 90s, and I’ve always believed in one strong organization to serve breeders. Competition would be healthy if the number of mares was larger, but the numbers are not there. Having two registries contributed to not culling as well as we should have, [and] we were not tough enough in inspections. The quality of horse is paramount; it’s the quality of horse that makes the difference. If we are one organization, we can do a better job. Amalgamation will put us in a position [where] there won’t be two budgets for websites, advertising, marketing; we’ll be working together. Warmblood does some things better than Sport Horse and vice versa. This will be better for all.”
“We’re moving in the right direction. Separately, we can’t afford staff; together, we can,” added Gould, chairman of CWHBA.
Kim Berlie, past national director from Alberta for CSHA and member of the amalgamation joint committee, said, “It has been frustrating. At times I wanted to quit and walk away, but I said, ‘No, this is a time for change, a time for doing great things together.’ Overall, breeding in Canada will be better as one association. We can take the best from both associations, present a unified front and better the marketing. If one organization goes down, that’s the last thing to benefit Canadian breeders.”
Comments from a sample of members in four provinces included:
“I don’t mind the amalgamation idea; it’s not a bad thing. Let’s move ahead – put the pettiness and egos aside. We’re all striving to improve breeding.”
“If the personalities can relax, it’s a good idea – awesome for sport breeders. It has to happen, whether they want it to or not.”
“Amalgamation would mean better pooling of resources for the same goal, which makes more sense than three or four organizations.”
“We need a blanketed group for marketing - one organization in this country, even as a marketing board. There should probably never have been two associations. I’m guardedly optimistic.”
And Trus said, “Amalgamating is a way for all existing associations to find a home. I think we can make something good out of it for the horse industry.”
However, there was a lot of resentment from members regarding secrecy.
Here are a few of the comments:
“I resented not being told when this first started. I’m upset. Are we idiots? Why couldn’t I be told? Why haven’t we been told about the APA and the meetings with them? We pay for all these trips and meetings. Members should not be left in the dark. We know nothing, and that shouldn’t be. An organization has to be open. It should all be above board.”
“I’m annoyed! The Warmblood administration doesn’t make sure members are well versed.”
“I’d sure like to know what is going on. Rumors are running rampant. I’m frustrated that we were not told more.”
“I read the release on the website and it didn’t tell me what I wanted to know.”
“Secrecy is an issue regarding the APA problems with Canadian Warmblood.”
“The Canadian Warmblood was in denial for too long.”
In response, Gould said, “We chose not to carry the debate into the public because the climate was good regarding the two organizations coming together. It was clear to Board Members, [but] we are vulnerable regarding members being informed. We do not want members to think we are making the decisions for them. There will be a vote when there’s enough to vote on. The memberships will have the final say,” adding, “Here’s the problem: the report the document refers to was done three years ago. We’ve been waiting for that report. We cannot respond without seeing the report. This was the only document we received. There was no value, no point, in informing members [until] we decided how we would respond. It has been totally distorted. The APA withheld the information.”
The CSHA and CWHBA have indeed been negotiating an amalgamation, and they have invited representatives from the Trakehner Association and Sport Pony to listen in. Alana Longman of Sport Pony said, “We are trying to get Sport Pony going. We’ve been assured that no matter what happens, there will be a place for Sport Ponies as an evolving breed.” Judy Kirkby of the Trakehner association gave an emphatic “No comment.”
Although Equine Canada’s president, Al Patterson, stated in Horse Life, “A joint committee headed by Chris Gould and Kim Berlie recently negotiated an amalgamation of the Canadian Sport Horse Association and the Canadian Warmblood Horse Breeders Association,” Morgan said that was premature. “It is not a done deal.”
Gould said, “Four or five years ago we started talking about it, then we met at the Equine Canada annual meeting in 2005, and we each committed to bring four of our members to meet in April.” Morgan added, “Four members each plus an Agriculture Canada representative and a facilitator. We decided three main things: 1) the will to move on was there, 2) any new organization should encompass others like Sport Pony and Trakehner and 3) a potential new name, Sport Horse Canada (SHC).”
Gould said, “Representatives of the APA were informed and were supportive. They are anxious to see a multi-breed organization happen. They have been involved with [some] of the meetings.”
Morgan talked of “different studbooks under SHC – whatever combination of breeding - that may be - Sport Pony, Trakehner, Warmblood or Open. We’re not sure what the latter category will be, [but] all those studbooks will have to comply with the APA, which is important for the future with the APA and the industry.” Gould concurred, “There’s no question the APA will be involved in the process. We want Canadian-bred horses registered in Canada.”
Shane Morris, an Agriculture Canada geneticist in the APA offices, said, “It’s important to know that the amalgamation process is a unique opportunity for both groups to progress this industry in the best interest of breeders and owners. The time, effort and vision exhibited to date by both sides have been excellent. If maintained there is real potential for everyone to gain significantly from this process”
Morris also outlined the fact that the APA can and does provide a strong, fair and reliable platform for breed associations (over 70 associations within Canada) and allows for considerable marketing advantage for those selling on the international market over our (Canada’s) competitors.
When asked about the advantages under the APA, both Gould and Morgan replied, “Legitimacy, protection, association with government and funding.” Morgan added wryly, “The RCMP horses are registered in Germany with government money,” and wondered if that was a crime.
The Letter
That emailed letter of April 12th, 2005, was part of the correspondence between the CWHBA and the Minister’s office. The letter was addressed to the Board of Directors of CWHBA, was signed by Michael Presley, General Director Food Value Chain Bureau (signing authority for the APA) and contained an attachment.
The letter referred to an “inspection and examination” that was conducted under the APA to “ensure that breed associations are operating in accordance with the intent and requirements of the APA and within their proper authority.” In essence, it stated that “prominent among the concerns is the overlapping authority with other breed associations, particularly with the Canadian Sport Horse Association. Therefore, we are pleased to know that discussions with that association have already been initiated.”
The outstanding issues were identified as “1) Breeds must be defined as either ‘distinct’ or ‘evolving’ breeds in accordance with genetic principles. The warmblood is not currently defined in a way that would meet the requirements of the APA and is the basis of other problems.
2) All registered animals of a distinct breed must relate back to foundation stock. There has been inadequate definition of foundation stock for the warmblood population, such that current registrations may be in violation of the basic requirements of the APA.
3) Certificates of registration under the APA must identify animals as either purebred or percentage to ensure breeder and buyer protection intended under the APA. The CWHBA certificates do not currently meet that requirement.
4) Breeder and buyer protections through establishment of registries following the requirements set out in the APA represent a key purpose of the Act. Exclusive authorities are thus granted to breed associations on the basis of clear and workable breed definitions. At present, Certain Offences provisions with respect to breeder and buyer protections have been essentially rendered unworkable until such time as a clearer definition of ‘warmblood’ is established.”
It went on to state, “Since approvals under the APA are intended to benefit breeders throughout Canada and the public at large we will be open to consider a range of possibilities including: (i) defining the warmblood as a distinct breed and reviewing all existing registered animals to ensure they meet those requirements.
(ii) defining warmblood as an evolving breed and ensuring that a breeding plan is in place that would allow the target characteristics to be met.
(iii) defining multiple breed categories to be administered by the association with other associations. This may entail amalgamation of one or more associations.
(iv) deciding that the APA is not adequate for the purposes of warmblood breeders in Canada, in which case other options outside the APA can be explored.
In closing, the letter emphasized that the issues should be addressed with a sense of urgency. (Note: underlining and bold text as they appeared)
The attachment contained breed categories and breed definitions, referenced the APA Breed Secretary’s Manual and contained a seven-point conclusion from the inspection. Two of the points fell under the Breed category, two fell under Foundation Stock, one was in regard to certificates and two referred to Breeder and Buyer Protection.
Gould says, “It’s an absolutely incredible situation. The bylaws were approved under the APA and they’ve had three different APA registration officers since. It took five years to get the bylaws passed, [and] they approved them. At the end of five years, if the bylaws were not right, why were they approved?”
Although the APA has serious teeth when it comes to infractions, including enforcement by the RCMP, Presley’s letter said that if the CWHBA agrees, “a less formal process to resolve issues identified as a result of the inspection and examination may be preferable.”
Perhaps the fact that the bylaws were approved by the government when the CWHBA was incorporated is why they have chosen not to use their big stick.
Trus said, “Not too long after incorporation of the Canadian Warmblood Horse Breeders Association, we realized there were problems we had to deal with after the fact. Our office, as far as I can determine, was not asking the questions, [and] I wish I could go back and redo it. In hindsight it appears that there should have been more clarification at the time of incorporation. It is so much more difficult to deal with after the fact. The audit was initiated two-and-a-half years ago, then further reviewed, then put on hold while we sought a legal opinion.”
Burwash said, “The government has egg on its face no matter what. I am convinced that if [approving the CWHBA bylaws] was a mistake, you do not take it out on the association, you help resolve it.”
A definition is a definition except when it is a definition under the Act. Dictionary definitions don’t necessarily apply when it comes to the APA, and definitions and interpretations are the stumbling blocks.
Trus’ background in genetics may give him different approach to breeding, but that diminishes neither his opinion nor his authority. Regarding the definitions under the Act, he said, “I believe that, in Canada, we are the only ones with a category for evolving breeds. Evolving was added when the Act was amended in 1988, and it recognized significant development in genetics. Once there is a genetically stable population, then it can be called a distinct breed. To meet the definition of Distinct under the Act, the concept of genetic stability is important – common genetic origin. Purebred is a genetic term – breeding pure. An animal of a distinct breed, not a population, that displays trademark characteristics and can carry on the breed characteristics. There’s hardly an animal that can’t fit under the Act – it depends on how it is represented. It is a challenging thing – a challenge to reconcile, to clarify what is foundation stock. Performance characteristics are important; the first purpose under the Act is to promote breed improvement.”
In a letter to Michael Presley, Chris Gould wrote, “Within [the context of amalgamation with CSHA] we fully expect to maintain a Warmblood stud book as a distinct breed.”
The response also states, “The crux of the issue comes down to the interpretation of the APA concerning distinct breed. It is our belief that the APA allows three types of breed. 1) Distinct breed non-pure (one which has stable genetic population and extensive history). 2) Distinct breed which is a pure breed (as defined by its bylaws). 3) Evolving breed, one which is to become a new breed.
“As far as our Board is concerned, our bylaws were approved by fully competent APA registration officers. They are compliant with the APA in every sense. Further, our registration practices have and continue to be compliant with our bylaws.”
In an email to this scribe, in regards to the September 12th meeting between the CWHBA and the administration of the APA, Gould wrote, “Important progress was achieved in exploring changes to the CWHBA bylaws that will include clarification of the foundation genetics, a description of unique warmblood physical characteristics and a formula to permit the widely practiced out-crossing. Both parties agreed that these matters had languished far too long and agreed to move the file forward to resolution of these key issues within 30 days. Both parties left these landmark meetings with enthusiasm for cooperative resolution of the technical issues.”
Burwash said, “The issue is a re-interpretation of the definition. We have to take some of the blame, because Doug Milligan and I were there as representatives of the horse industry when the APA passed in 1988. We did not know a definition of distinct was not going to be written in the Act. That was an oversight; we all missed it. It should be purebred, distinct and evolving. Now the interpretation of distinct and pure are synonymous; that was not the initial intent when the Act was created nor was it the intent to make all breeds pure. Initially, when the Act was being formed, there was a need for clarification. There were three different breeds: distinct (no definition), purebred (clear definition of at least 7/8, which was probably for the cattle industry) and evolving. Malcolm McGregor, the registration officer at the time, defined distinct as readily recognized by the public, with distinct characteristics (i.e. Appaloosa). The federal government has to put distinct non-pure back in the definitions. In the meantime, people are breeding and raising animals, and that’s not limited to warmbloods. Warmblood applying to be a breed is appropriate; they have common ancestors, type and purpose. I believe they have to get it done, but I don’t know how they can get it done.”
Gould also said, “Clarifying our definition of warmblood is at the crux of it. Where does it say that a distinct breed needs to be a purebred? If we do not define purebred, then we do not have to put in percentages. A distinct breed does not have to be pure.”
Trus explained, “The APA is the only act in Canada that defines breed. As an analogy only, warmblood is a category of animals, not a breed, like a pit bull is a type of dog, not a breed. The crux: if you want to move the horse industry along, you have to develop a genetic predictability. From a genetic standpoint, a breeding program is most productive with genetic stability. If you continually out-cross, you do not have genetic stability.”
CWHBA members expressed concern regarding current and future registration papers, to which Gould responded, “The papers you have today will be respected, will be honoured and an appropriate place will be found for them. Registration of foals of 2006 would be under the new SHC; new foals will go into the new studbook.”
Trus said, “Current papers? That depends on what options the association chooses. We need to evaluate the breed and the program, and from there on in they could register the next generation under the new definition. They could re-issue papers or wait and re-asses the program and the parents. I don’t want to assume anything beforehand.”
Morgan said that 2006 had been his goal, but, that at this stage, 2006 may not be an attainable date.
Animal Pedigree Act (APA) and David Trus at www.agr.gc.ca/misb/aisd/redmeat/apamain.htm
Chris Gould at 780-786-4337 or tsf1@telus.net and the CWHBA website (for bylaws and updates): www.canadianwarmbloods.com
Paul Morgan at 613-257-2184 or ashland@sympatico.ca and the CSHA website:
Sport Horse Canada at www.sporthorsecanada.ca
Interstallion at http://www.wbfsh.org