VA Legislation Alert! "Volunteers" can come on your property [Archive]

Anne FS

Feb. 2, 2009, 10:48 AM

Cross-posting from another list.

As stated below, this Bill applies to horses as well. If you don't want PETA volunteers having State authority and permission to come on your property and poke around your barn whenever they feel like it, better get on the phone to your rep. now.

Truly a horrible plan that might actually pass.

"Today at 5pm the Virginia House Agriculture committee will review HB2669, to reestablish the Humane Investigator program, a volunteer driven program that has been advertised by several animal rights groups here in Virginia as the way forward in their agenda to eliminate hunting with hounds. In essence- these investigators- are unpaid volunteers that will have the right to inspect any kennel at any time and be empowered to charge dog owners under Virginia statute- based on their findings and remove animals that they believe are underfed. We already know that to them a hunting hound- who is essentially a marathon runner is “underfed”. It will be a very slippery slope here if we have PETA members as humane investigator “volunteers” show up at any farm without probable cause to charge pet or hunting dog owners with what they perceive as a violation. I urge you to write to Delegate Orrock, Chairman of the Committee, and ask him to vote NO to HB2669. DelBOrrock@house.virginia.gov

The Virginia Farm Bureau is on our side on this fight- they object to this Bill also as the Bill would also apply to farmers and their horses, cows, etc. We have animal control officers who fulfill this mission splendidly- lets not add “volunteers’ who have an agenda…."

macmtn

Feb. 2, 2009, 10:58 AM

OMG! If this passes the rest of the states better watch out...BIG BROTHER IS TRUELY WATCHING.!!! :o:o

oldenmare

Feb. 2, 2009, 11:11 AM

Some idiot wants to give PETA the right to trespass on my property - while a government agency cannot trespass on my property?????

Whose brilliant idea is this?

Have already emailed whatshisface. Now putting together something for my delegates.

Morons.

Rienzi

Feb. 4, 2009, 11:45 AM

Bumping up.
Gosh, it makes me wish we still had our old hound. He got fed as much as he wanted to eat -- he just never wanted to eat much. Sometimes he was on the thin side but obviously healthy. The vet said he wished he saw more like him!

It would have been pretty funny to see what got "removed" if they came to get him. I'm guessing it would have been the volunteer's hand.

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Feb. 4, 2009, 12:10 PM

Did they do away with the 4th Amendment while I wasn't looking?:) The police can't just come on your property and poke around whenever they feel like it. They have to have a warrant. Having said that, magistrates can sign warrants for the damnedst reasons.

Here's a link to the text of the bill:
http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2009/hb2669/fulltext/

It does authorize the appointment of volunteer investigators. Which IME is a bad idea - the job attracts a lot of wannabe Barney Fife's and of course, the AR wingnuts. I once represented a man who had a volunteer investigator with a grudge round up a posse and seize all his dogs. Put down everyone of them except the puppies before the guy even got out of jail.:no: In my world, even [alleged] dog-fighters oughta get due process - cause if they don't, none of us can count on it for ourselves.

oldenmare

Feb. 4, 2009, 12:18 PM

I was discussing this bill with one of my coworkers - he is a suburbanite dog owner - and he laughed and said that PETA would find out REAL quickly that Virginia was indeed the home of the NRA...........

LMAO on that one!!!!!

And if the morons actually are stupid enough to pass this - then I can guarantee you that my first step will be to join the NRA......

tkhawk

Feb. 4, 2009, 12:28 PM

What does this mean? they can come by any time they want? Do they need the court's permission-I mean even state employees need permission from you or the court to enter your house/property? or are these "volunteers" going to do the same work as the state workers-just not get paid?

theoldgreymare

Feb. 4, 2009, 01:14 PM

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Feb. 4, 2009, 03:36 PM

Maybe I am missing something, but in reading the bill I did not see where it gave the appointed investigators the right to enter private property without a warrant or to seize property without a warrant.

Quote from the bill:
"Any humane investigator may, within the locality where he has been appointed, investigate violations of laws and ordinances regarding care and treatment of animals and disposal of dead animals."

Anyone have more specifics?

I can't speak to Virginia law, but in my case the volunteer got a local magistrate to sign a warrant after giving an affidavit on the results of his investigation. Which consisted of his observations, from outside the property, that dogs were being mistreated. Man arrested, dogs seized as evidence. Fair enough. Posse of volunteers turned up to transport dogs.

Suddenly, it dawned on our heroes that they had oh, fifty or so dogs, most of whom possessed a somewhat aggressive nature.:winkgrin: And nowhere to put 'em except the small shelter facility. The dogs placed in adjacent chain-link runs promptly seized one another through the fence and refused to let go. Much bleeding and roaring and whatnot going on. So do-gooders freaked, got the same magistrate to right quick declare the dogs vicious and then they euthanized the lot. Except for the puppies. :sigh:

LLDM

Feb. 4, 2009, 04:01 PM

Well then, why don't you lot of bright lights figure out a way to help truly neglected and abused animals without disturbing your absolute rights to privacy? Any ideas then?

Do you shoot at the meter man too? How about the phone line repair guys? Postal workers?

Of the volunteer humane investigators I know, there are no PETA members among them. They are just a small group of dedicated people who have spent their own time and money to get properly trained to tell the difference between legal neglect and abuse and just very sad circumstances.

These guys are trying to do the right thing here - help animals in need and not spend more government money. But hey, let's not let that happen.

SCFarm

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Feb. 4, 2009, 04:07 PM

These guys are trying to do the right thing here - help animals in need and not spend more government money. But hey, let's not let that happen.

Here's the problem: the actions of a government actor, like a policeman, are restricted by the state and federal constitutions. Those of a private citizen are not.

However, under this bill, the government could use private citizens to investigate crime. How can people be secure against unreasonable search and seizure if they're being investigated by people who don't have to follow the 4th Amendment?

LLDM

Feb. 4, 2009, 04:18 PM

Here's the problem: the actions of a government actor, like a policeman, are restricted by state and local laws and by the constitution. Private citizens are not held to the same standard.

No, of course they are aren't. But they are subject to other state, local and Constitutional restrictions. They can't do anything more than the guys who help themselves to my property ALL THE TIME looking for their hunting dogs. The same ones I have to remind to crack their guns open while they are tromping around my private property like they own it. If I have to deal with that - you have to deal with someone checking up on your animals. If your animals are fine, then you won't have a problem.

SCFarm

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Feb. 4, 2009, 04:24 PM

They can't do anything more than the guys who help themselves to my property ALL THE TIME looking for their hunting dogs. The same ones I have to remind to crack their guns open while they are tromping around my private property like they own it. If I have to deal with that - you have to deal with someone checking up on your animals. If your animals are fine, then you won't have a problem.

SCFarm

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. It's ok for the government to employ a private police force to investigate suspected animal abuse, because you must allow dog owners to retrieve their animals from your property?:confused:

LLDM

Feb. 4, 2009, 05:35 PM

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. It's ok for the government to employ a private police force to investigate suspected animal abuse, because you must allow dog owners to retrieve their animals from your property?:confused:

:rolleyes: Private police force? Are you kidding me?

My point was that all sorts of people - even those with guns - are already allowed on your (and my) private property. Why you are stressed out about these do-gooder volunteers and not armed hunters just rather escapes me.

Is this a privacy issue for you or not?

SCFarm

cloudyandcallie

Feb. 4, 2009, 05:43 PM

Uh, if a "volunteer" is employed by the state to come onto private property, doesn't he become an "agent of the state" and therefore subject to the same prohibitions and regulations as a state agent? So he would be liable for anything that a state agent would be liable for, and subject to being held accountable just as would any other agent acting "under color of state law."

I think maybe volunteers shouldn't be used, but state agents should be able to inspect kennels and barns when there has been a complaint. Like if someone sees a hunt out in public and notices a dog in bad condition. The reason might be old age or metabolism or something else, but..............

amastrike

Feb. 4, 2009, 05:51 PM

I'm not in VA, but I emailed.

Anne FS

Feb. 4, 2009, 07:13 PM

Thanks to all who called/emailed:

02/02/2009 Subcommittee recommends laying on the table by voice vote

I'm told this translates to: Not this year!

LLDM, your snarky posts reveal you to be naive about this issue. "I don't know any PETA investigators" - so what? there aren't any? The whole point of this bill is to open up the ranks to new volunteers and guess who's waiting to jump in and volunteer?

And it is EXTREMELY naive to say, "if your animals are all right then you don't have a problem."

With modern-day AC people who are NOT animal people - it's really risky. Some of them think stall confinement is cruelty, some of them think 24/7 turnout, even with shelter, is cruelty. And for heaven's sake, a lot of them think riding is cruelty.

My local dog pound will not adopt a dog to horse people I know who live on a 55-acre farm. Why? Because they would not promise to guarantee that the dog would be on a leash AT ALL TIMES when not in the house with them. Yep, walking down to the barn? Nope. Going for a walk on your own farm? Nope. Not allowed. NOT ALLOWED. So - if you had these "humane investigators" poking around your place, would you also be classified as an unacceptable pet owner? Excuse me, "companion animal caretaker"?

cowgirljenn

Feb. 4, 2009, 07:47 PM

With modern-day AC people who are NOT animal people - it's really risky. Some of them think stall confinement is cruelty, some of them think 24/7 turnout, even with shelter, is cruelty. And for heaven's sake, a lot of them think riding is cruelty.

I've not had this experience with AC people, but I HAVE had people call us, demanding that we seize/take horses because a) they're not being ridden, b) they're being ridden, c) they're kept in a stall, or d) they don't have a stall. Luckily those people aren't in charge of who gets seized. :)

I think that's a lot of control and responsibility to give volunteers. In AR, the rescue has the right to seize horses if we believe they're in immanent danger. HOWEVER, I won't let our volunteers do that - it is too much responsibility and too dangerous for us. I want the sheriff's office to be on board and get a warrant before we take any horses.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if sheriff's offices/counties were to use volunteers WITH a lot of restrictions. I know when I work with law enforcement, I'm acting as their agent and must follow the same laws. I also think the volunteer needs training - and training that meets several qualifications. Unfortunately I think the law as it is seems to open itself to way too many problems.

JanM

Feb. 4, 2009, 08:08 PM

Don't forget that PETA is has a huge headquarters in VA (Newport News area) and I can certainly see them having lots of 'volunteers' available for this.

archieflies

Feb. 4, 2009, 08:11 PM

The same ones I have to remind to crack their guns open while they are tromping around my private property like they own it. If I have to deal with that - you have to deal with someone checking up on your animals.

Hmm... don't know Virginia laws, but in Texas it's the property owner's responsibility to fence animals OUT of their property, not the animal owner's responsibility to fence them IN. Assuming no major differences in law... you don't HAVE TO deal with hunters and their dogs... you just choose to by not surrounding your land with dog fencing. And even so... you ALWAYS have the right to ask those owners to leave. You're simply being polite by not doing so. No laws force you to be polite.

The point is... saying "if I have to deal with this, then you have to deal with that" is not really any comparison at all.

tkhawk

Feb. 4, 2009, 08:25 PM

I've not had this experience with AC people, but I HAVE had people call us, demanding that we seize/take horses because a) they're not being ridden, b) they're being ridden, c) they're kept in a stall, or d) they don't have a stall. Luckily those people aren't in charge of who gets seized. :)

.

:lol::winkgrin:
it is amazing what perceptions can drive one to do. I guess that is why you need trained folks. Just wondering if this is an AR issue or maybe with the budget crunch, they wanted to try volunteers out and if it works , then fire the entire state employees.
I don't know about govt. but that is generally how corporations do stuff.

LexInVA

Feb. 4, 2009, 08:32 PM

I think that the people stepping up into these roles will be the more fanatical members of local animal rescue groups as they would love nothing better than to feel official. PETA might try and throw some of their own into the mix but by and large, I believe they will focus their efforts on identifying potential targets for investigations that could be useful for PR purposes.

Pat

Feb. 4, 2009, 08:42 PM

:rolleyes: My point was that all sorts of people - even those with guns - are already allowed on your (and my) private property.

Since when?? Random people aren't allowed to trespass on my property! That's why I have signs, you know!

I know very little about Constitutional law, but I know that ain't right.

Another little tear in the Constitution.

LLDM

Feb. 4, 2009, 08:53 PM

LLDM, your snarky posts reveal you to be naive about this issue. "I don't know any PETA investigators" - so what? there aren't any? The whole point of this bill is to open up the ranks to new volunteers and guess who's waiting to jump in and volunteer?

Gee, there might be over zealous "volunteers". But that doesn't mean they can do ANYTHING. All they can do is report. Report what? If you aren't breaking the law they can report all they like. It is not illegal to ride, or not ride, or the like. So if they report that sort of thing, it doesn't mean a thing. Stupid volunteers will be ignored and weed themselves out.

In the mean time we DO have good, trained, appropriate volunteers NOW who might do some good for horses and other animals in trouble. So yes, it pisses me off that some of you all (and many not even FROM this state) want to shut that down. And for what? You might be annoyed? A bit put out? Sorry, but it think that is selfish and short sighted.

Hmm... don't know Virginia laws, but in Texas it's the property owner's responsibility to fence animals OUT of their property, not the animal owner's responsibility to fence them IN. Assuming no major differences in law... you don't HAVE TO deal with hunters and their dogs... you just choose to by not surrounding your land with dog fencing. And even so... you ALWAYS have the right to ask those owners to leave. You're simply being polite by not doing so. No laws force you to be polite.

The point is... saying "if I have to deal with this, then you have to deal with that" is not really any comparison at all.

Your right. You don't know the laws in Virginia. They are vastly different from Texas laws.

Since when?? Random people aren't allowed to trespass on my property! That's why I have signs, you know!

I know very little about Constitutional law, but I know that ain't right.

Another little tear in the Constitution.

It's the law that allows hunters to retrieve their dogs from your property. Whether or not their dogs are actually ON your property. They get to come looking for them. And yes, we have signs. They don't count in this case.

SCFarm

Guilherme

Feb. 4, 2009, 08:57 PM

:rolleyes: Private police force? Are you kidding me?

My point was that all sorts of people - even those with guns - are already allowed on your (and my) private property. Why you are stressed out about these do-gooder volunteers and not armed hunters just rather escapes me.

Is this a privacy issue for you or not?

SCFarm

Well...no.

In most states the law permits entry by the general populace upon the property of another for legal purposes, like hunting, retrieving an animal, etc. This means that unless you post the property a member of the public may enter upon it. Respectful hunters always ask, but not all hunters are respectful. If you see an uninvited person you may order them out. If they refuse then they become tresspassers (and maybe guilty of a crime as well as a tort).

If the property is posted then entry is a crime, at least in TN. Here it's a Class C misdemeanor ($50 fine + costs and up to 30 days in jail).

From the bill: "Any humane investigator may, within the locality where he has been appointed, investigate violations of laws and ordinances regarding care and treatment of animals and disposal of dead animals."

This language does NOT confer any special entry powers. No officer may enter private property unless they have either a warrent, permission, or exigent circumstances. That last item is generally VERY narrowly construed.

There is, of course, the very serious question the training of these "humane investigators." The agency making the appointment has the duty to properly select and train any investigator.

Failure to follow the law can be very expensive for their appointing agency. In our county we had an animal control officer who wrongfully siezed a herd of dairy cattle (she swore that they were starving and there was no feed on the site in her affadavit; she didn't realize that dairy cow bodies are a support system for an udder nor did she note the 7.5+ tons of forrage and fodder in plain sight). Almost 1/3 of the herd died or had to be destroyed due to mastitis. The owners sued our county in Federal Court for a Civil Rights Violation. They won. The county paid $100,000 deductable and insurance covered the additional $200,000, plus costs and attorney's fees. It was real Charlie Foxtrot.

The moral of the story is that "humane investigators" with agendas can cause a lot of damage to the animals they want to "protect" and to the people who put them on the job. Use of large numbers of "motivated volunteers" may not help animals in distress. They may cause large financial losses.

Again, no police officer has any right to enter your property absent your permission or a warrant. If they can see, hear, smell, or otherwise sense criminal activity then they may be able to enter under "exigent circumstances" to protect life or property, but the burden is upon them to show that an overriding governmental interst (like protection of life) was involved AND that taking time to apply to a magistrate for a warrant was not possible. Note that this is NOT what you see on "cop shows" but it is the law.

As with so many things, the "Devil is in the details" of this bill. Glad it didn't go any farther.

G.

P.S. Use of deadly force with trespassers is a very dangerous proposition. If you've got trespasser you're best off to call the authorities. Taking photos of people, cars, etc. is a Very Good Thing. If the trespassers are wearing badges, body armor, and carrying automatic weapons use of force is even less adviseable.

LLDM

Feb. 4, 2009, 09:44 PM

MistyBlue

Feb. 4, 2009, 09:50 PM

LLDM...it has to suck out loud to have that stupid Right To Retrieve law in your state. Thankfully it does look like it may be reformed or sunk this year for you guys. While I am pro-hunting and don't even have issues with hound hunting I would have *major* issues with a right to trespass. Either for hunting or for volunteer public who may or may not be educated on animal care and who may or may not have some sort of odd vendetta.
I do not see condoning one for the other. If they have to trespass to report...who's to say they won't get bitten by something (I do wildlife rehab...I've often had quite a few biting critters on my property that aren't tolerant to humans) or trip and fall or whatever and sue the living snot out of me? Or steal from my place? What if they see the barn from the road and decide they have the right to trespass to make sure I'm taking care of my animals to *their* standards and I happen to not be wearing much in my house set almost 400' from the road in heavy woods with huge picture windows? Then not only would I be majorly pissed off...they might go blind! :winkgrin: (or least want to go blind) Or I just seeded and they cut across the grass paddock? Hell, 5 years ago I had to haul the building inspector out of the mud when he sank up to his hips inspecting the foundation for my to-be-built barn and hopped off a chunk of ledge into mud because they didn't call first. So I couldn't warn him to not jump there. If he had broken a leg in that jump, what then? Who's to say some volunteer fool won't do that?
FWIW...your state is fighting the RTR law pretty hard right now. I hope you're helping them out...there have been multiple meetings on this recently that were for landowners to vent their complaints. They've also started a chat for this purpose here:
http://www.vhhr.org/
Also the RTR law in your state does not allow for retrieving hunters to carry ANY weapons with them while looking for their dogs. No firearms, no bows...not even arrows can be on their person when they go onto private property to look for their dogs. Maybe try photographing each one on zoom to get features and then report each and every one that trespasses to retrieve carrying a weapon?

JSwan

Feb. 5, 2009, 08:42 AM

LLDM is incorrect on so many points I do not know where to start.

There is good reason that people opposed this Bill. First, contrary to what LLDM asserts, HI's have the authority to order seizure of animals. Second, this Bill expanded the pool of people that could become HI's - to include releasing agencies. Releasing agencies include PETA and any rescue, and guess who was pushing for this Bill. Third, the Bill did not limit the number of HI's that could be appointed. Fourth, there is another Bill that granted HI's sovereign immunity. Fifth, HI's may be required to take a basic animal control course (about 12 hours), but have no training in law enforcement, animal husbandry, and the people interested in becoming HI's (the ones I know of) are indeed strong supporters of PETA and animal rights (not animal welfare).

HI's have the same authority as any law enforcement officer, yet there is no mechanism for reporting abuse of authority, firing, or oversight. If you're lucky, you'd get a good HI for your area. If you're not, you would indeed get a bunch of crazy cat ladies fining you for having blindfolds on your horses. Or worse, HI's compromising a bona fide investigation, destroying evidence, just basic incompetence.

As far as the 4th Amendment goes, that does not apply to Open Fields. Under the Open Fields Doctrine, there is no expectation of privacy in open areas.

For the RTR - LLDM is also absolutely incorrect on that point as well. Many states have such laws, including the ability for a horse owner to retrieve their horse. The game department is now vigorously prosecuting people trespassing with the intent to hunt - a violation of the RTR. (it's not a "Right" by the way. It's an exception to criminal trespass). The attorney general has issued an opinion on this law and it is still in force in this state. In other states, similar laws enjoy widespread support. In other states, people generally don't complain as they want you to get your cows or dogs off their land. In all cases, the landowner has all civil remedies available to him/her if any animal or person damages property. (loose horse tramples the garden).

I don't know about the rest of you, but I need to have confidence in law enforcement. I need to know that they know what they are doing, and when I call them, are going to try and help me. I have the same expectation of ACO's. HI's would take the training slots meant for ACO's, and the people who want to become ACO's do not have public service in mind.

They have an agenda. We all have funny stories about being reported for having a dead horse in the field, or blindfold on our horses, and we all know of people that detest hunting or eventing. Do you want those people to have a badge and the power to seize your animals? AND sovereign immunity?

Sorry LLDM - I don't mean to single you out and my comments aren't intended to be personal. It's that I would rather resources be put towards training and increasing the number of ACO's - rather than relying upon faceless "volunteers" without education in animal husbandry or law. I'm sorry - a basic 12 hour course and a PETA membership card does not make one an expert in animal husbandry or criminal law.

MB - that VHHR site is a bit... odd. It's got 9 members, only one of whom is posting. One guy is being sued for defamation or libel (don't know which), and the rest have disappeared. The people who created the site won't tell you who they are. Very odd.

equinelaw

Feb. 5, 2009, 09:06 AM

Exceptions to trespass involve exigencies — situations in which immediate action is required. To save a drowning child, to catch your dog that dashed out the door into your neighbor’s yard, to assist an animal in distress, to prevent an accident, to retrieve trash.

The exception need not be written into law to exist, though, like many other states, Virginia has a statute for one of them.

18.2-136 is an animal welfare law. It exists so a lawful hunter can immediately retrieve his hunting dog and prevent any harm to the dog, or annoyance to a landowner. The hunter must be unarmed, on foot, and must identify him or herself. Any other act is a crime.

Anne FS

Feb. 5, 2009, 09:14 AM

:lol::winkgrin:
Just wondering if this is an AR issue or maybe with the budget crunch, they wanted to try volunteers out and if it works , then fire the entire state employees.
I don't know about govt. but that is generally how corporations do stuff.

It's an AR issue.

If you monitor AR activity, this humane investigators bill is being discussed in AR circles as a way to get AR activists appointed to these positions.

Not to say that the Commonwealth of VA won't have pointed out to them your idea as an incentive to pass the bill. VA is fighting a real AR battle lately, as PETA and HSUS are cashing in on the Michael Vick case.

Anne FS

Feb. 5, 2009, 09:19 AM

Thank you, JSwan. I wish I could write as succinctly and coherently as you do; it's much appreciated.

You are absolutely correct in what you say.

JSwan

Feb. 5, 2009, 09:27 AM

Hey - I wrote that!! :lol: I think that was part of an editorial I wrote in response to an editorial in our local paper. Somewhere out there is an article written by a DGIF supervisor announcing a big crackdown on trespass with intent to hunt. I thought I saved that but I can't find it now. The part about the "animal in distress" is that a GOOD hunter would want to be able to save his dog if it got hung up in wire or was trapped some way. That particular statute is merely specific to hunting.

This state has at least 9 trespass laws....... :lol:

Exceptions to trespass involve exigencies — situations in which immediate action is required. To save a drowning child, to catch your dog that dashed out the door into your neighbor’s yard, to assist an animal in distress, to prevent an accident, to retrieve trash.

The exception need not be written into law to exist, though, like many other states, Virginia has a statute for one of them.

18.2-136 is an animal welfare law. It exists so a lawful hunter can immediately retrieve his hunting dog and prevent any harm to the dog, or annoyance to a landowner. The hunter must be unarmed, on foot, and must identify him or herself. Any other act is a crime.

equinelaw

Feb. 5, 2009, 09:37 AM

JSwan

Feb. 5, 2009, 09:51 AM

Its posted on the hunting forum:) I believe that is the law LLDM is referring to and also a basis for extending the trespass exception for suspected abuse?

I think we already have such laws here, but without the immunity.

Oh! I forgot about that.

No, the two are mutually exclusive. 18.2 is the criminal code, 3.2 is our animal code. There is no Bill amending the RTR and abuses are being dealt with through law enforcement.

The HI program was discontinued several years ago due to some problems with overzealous HI's and some other matters. (politics and I'm not touching that with a 10ft pole). This Bill was an attempt to not only revive the entire program, but expand it to include releasing agencies, unlimited number of appointments, and there are several Bills related to this one that gives HI's more authority and extends to them sovereign immunity. (we still have a few HI's in this state).

However, the program (and the proposed expansion) grants a tremendous amount of power, and no accountability for the misdeeds or mistakes of "volunteers". It requires no education. No criminal background check. The court cannot decline to appoint someone, and there is no way to establish a limit on the number of HI's.

There are some really good rescues, and a heck of a lot run by nutjobs. This Bill would permit nutjobs to carry a badge and there isn't one thing any citizen could do about it.

I would much prefer to support Bills funding ACO's, including more education, professional development, recognition of their contributions to animal welfare, and anything that might enhance their ability to do their jobs.

This Bill, and the HI program, really detracts from that. You would probably be a good HI. I would probably be a good one too. But the crazy cat lady? Doubt it. But there is no way to prevent crazy cat ladies from becoming HI's.

Anyway - I think it's bad public policy to create little groups of volunteers who can drive around and just peek over your fences, take your animals, and the gov't never even checked to see if these folks were crooks or crazies.

LLDM

Feb. 5, 2009, 10:01 AM

Oh goodie, JSwan, you can explain all this to my local law enforcement. Lawful or not, they claim it is legal and will not come do anything when I have group of hunters driving across my hayfields with antennas hanging out their windows and or traipsing through my backyard with their rifles in their hands hollering for their dogs.

I have never tried to deny access to anyone who has politely requested it. Or even complained about. I am not anti good hunters. I am anti bad, dangerous, rude, mean, idiot hunters.

It's the double standard (of access to private property)that pisses me off. So, again I ask, what is your solution? Do we just ignore the animals in peril? Do we spend more tax dollars on official personel?

I am waiting to hear your proactive solutions. I am not anti privacy. I am not pro free-for-all. I am in support of cost effective public-private partnerships that solve problems and protect animals from bad, dangerous, neglectful, abusive, idiot animal owners.

If you guys want to shoot down an attempt to help animals without costing the tax payers more money I just think you ought to have a good counter proposal - instead of just trying to shoot down what others are trying to work out. And I still haven't heard one. So.....?

SCFarm

LLDM

Feb. 5, 2009, 10:06 AM

Oh! I forgot about that.

No, the two are mutually exclusive. 18.2 is the criminal code, 3.2 is our animal code. There is no Bill amending the RTR and abuses are being dealt with through law enforcement.

The HI program was discontinued several years ago due to some problems with overzealous HI's and some other matters. (politics and I'm not touching that with a 10ft pole). This Bill was an attempt to not only revive the entire program, but expand it to include releasing agencies, unlimited number of appointments, and there are several Bills related to this one that gives HI's more authority and extends to them sovereign immunity. (we still have a few HI's in this state).

However, the program (and the proposed expansion) grants a tremendous amount of power, and no accountability for the misdeeds or mistakes of "volunteers". It requires no education. No criminal background check. The court cannot decline to appoint someone, and there is no way to establish a limit on the number of HI's.

There are some really good rescues, and a heck of a lot run by nutjobs. This Bill would permit nutjobs to carry a badge and there isn't one thing any citizen could do about it.

I would much prefer to support Bills funding ACO's, including more education, professional development, recognition of their contributions to animal welfare, and anything that might enhance their ability to do their jobs.

This Bill, and the HI program, really detracts from that. You would probably be a good HI. I would probably be a good one too. But the crazy cat lady? Doubt it. But there is no way to prevent crazy cat ladies from becoming HI's.

Anyway - I think it's bad public policy to create little groups of volunteers who can drive around and just peek over your fences, take your animals, and the gov't never even checked to see if these folks were crooks or crazies.

That's more like it. So, where is the amendment verbiage for this? Where is the alternative proposal? I refuse to oppose an attempt to do better. But I will support a better proposal.

Ergo: Dear Mr. Representative, I am against XYZ for the following reasons. However, proposal ABC addresses these concerns and is a much better solution. Please support ABC instead of XYZ.

That I am happy to get behind.

SCFarm

JSwan

Feb. 5, 2009, 10:14 AM

I already wrote what I support. I support ACO's and law enforcement, and am opposed to the use of volunteers with law enforcement powers. I think it's BAD PUBLIC POLICY. If you disagree, then I hope the day doesn't come where some nutjob accuses you of being a backyard breeder.

If you have people in vehicles on your hayfields, call 911. There is NO law in this state permitting ANYONE to come onto your land with vehicles. There is NO law in this state that permits someone to come onto your land with a firearm unless you have granted them permission. In fact - those two offenses are punished heavily under several different statutes.

18.2-136 has NOTHING to do with the HI Bill. Why you even choose to compare the two is beyond me. (Actually I have a good idea) Are you saying that because you are the victim of a crime that 7 million people must agree to whatever some animal rights group dreams up?

A bad Bill is simply a bad Bill. This one is really bad and it was tabled for darn good reasons. It doesn't mean that people having something to hide, and it doesn't mean that we abuse animals or approve abuse. Nor does it mean that opponents are bad people, hate animals, or don't want protection for animals.

If you believe otherwise, it's merely another reason to oppose the HI program. The belief that unless a person agrees with you - that we don't love animals as much as you do. That's a politically held view - and I don't want HI's with a political ax to grind. We should not take training slots away from ACO's to give them to HI's, and we should support ACO's instead.

I've fostered dogs rescued from a volunteer run shelter. Volunteerism is a good thing, generally. But there is a limit to what volunteers should be able to do, especially if they have strongly held political beliefs.

How many cases have we read about - just on this BB - in which it turns out the local rescue was run by a hoarder, a shyster or a crook? In this state - under that Bill - those very same people could have been HI's. That should scare all of us. No oversight. Any PETA employee could be appointed (PETA IS legally a releasing agency in this state). No background check.

ACO's are drug tested, have background checks performed, have performance reviews, are held accountable for their actions, further their education, including professional development, and are true members of the law enforcement community. We should encourage them, support them, and support Bills or requests for more funding and professional development.

What many people don't realize is that throughout the year, there are loads of opportunities to speak out and support regulations and ordinances. The legislative session is merely one opportunity - but by then it's often too late. In the summer and fall, there were many regulations proposed - but on most of them there was not ONE public comment!

ETA - before I get lambasted for being an animal hater - let me be very clear. I strongly support punishment of animal abuse or neglect, strongly support good animal welfare laws, and have great respect for those who care for or otherwise assist animals in need. There are lots of good people out there and I don't mean to disparage them or their efforts.

MSP

Feb. 5, 2009, 10:36 AM

OMG! This is bad, talk about slippery slopes! In general our liberties are taking a huge hit. Best of luck to all of you fighting this, keep us posted.

Little off topic but regarding the 4th amendment, if you have 40 mins watch this video. I am sure it will be eye opening for many.

http://reason.tv/video/show/178.html

Judge Andrew Napolitano on the 4th amendment, "the greatest right of all the rights of civilized society"

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Feb. 5, 2009, 11:02 AM

Guilherme

Feb. 5, 2009, 11:17 AM

Guilherme - Sorry to hear of your troubles with the dairy cattle. But that has nothing to do with this. That was a paid AC official, not a volunteer. And that sort of problem must have happened at multiple levels. Horrible as it was, I agree it was quite the Charlie Foxtrot. But that isn't Virginia.

The issue is right to enter for the purposes of law enforcement. Be it to investigate reports of an animal in distress or bust a meth lab or apprehend a fugitive, the power of an officer to enter is, and ought to be, very strictly limited.

The AC in question here was a paid employee, but she also had an "agenda." We've had other officers with "agendas" get the county (or cities) in trouble, too. Thing is if the volunteer carries an "appointment" from an legal entitity then the legal entity is liable for the volunteer's actions. Pay is not an issue. The holding and use of the "commission," "appointment," or other grant of legal authority IS.

Yes, hunters can legally come on my posted land, with their guns, to "retrieve their dogs". No, I can't shoot them for trespassing and I haven't yet. But I AM allow to have a loaded weapon on my own property. Which is pretty much what I tell 'em when they tell me they have a right to be there. They are always welcome if they are respectful and polite. And I always return their dogs if I have 'em.

All that said, I really don't get where you are going with this. I can't tell why everyone is so stressed about it either. Some of you all are acting like hoards of PETA zealots are going to camping out on your farms monitoring your feed programs. Or conversely, that by not allowing any volunteer help bad things will never happen and mistakes will never be made.

Granting law enforcement authority to "volunteers" is a dicey business. During WWII there were all sorts of civilians who had limited "authority" (Air Raid Wardens, for example). Some were even armed (like the Civil Air Patrol). But when the War ended so did their authority.

Many law enforcement agencies have "reserve officers" who are unpaid volunteers. Depending on local law they may have the full powers of a commisioned, paid officer or may have something less. Frankly these officers are generally pretty good; however, they have caused trouble for the City of Knoxville on at least a couple of occasions. It's my understanding that most local agencies around here require a reserve officer team up with a regular officer for patrol duties. And the agency that accepts their services is also liable for their actions.

I concur with most of JSwan's comments. In all of this you must look at the grant of authority being given and consider who will become the volunteers. As not everyone who wants to be a police officer should be one, not everyone who wants to be a "humane investigator" should be one. What processes, if any, will be used to "select in" appropriate people and "select out" the unsuitable? What kind of training is to be mandated? There are a whole bunch of issues, here.

Our Constitution has some very important protections that "animal welfare/rights" folks like to ignore in their passion to succor God's creatures. I would hope that the VA Legislature has the good sense to consider the consequences of proposed "short circuits" of these protections as they consider this legislations.

G.

Anne FS

Feb. 5, 2009, 12:42 PM

I am waiting to hear your proactive solutions.

Enforce the laws we have now. The law says people under RTR cannot carry guns. You say they do anyway. So these laws aren't enforced. Instead of saying enforce current laws you say let's make new laws.

Makes no sense.

There are many animal people protecting animals now. You imply that those of us actively involved with horses or dogs or hunting aren't doing anything, and these make-new-laws people are. You couldn't be more wrong.

RTR on your property with guns? Get a license number and report them. Get proactive in your community to insist that RTR be properly enforced.

Abusing animals is already illegal.

Neglecting animals is already illegal.

Enforce the current laws. Don't go making new ones which will be impossible to enforce if we can't enforce what we already have.

Do NOT hire volunteer HIs who, without probable cause, can come snoop around your property. You resent the RTR people coming on your land now. Just wait until any yahoo volunteer can legally come to check you out whenever they feel like it - and this isn't looking for a dog. This is going through your barn and inspecting you and yours. I know someone in CA who had their dog in a crate while they went to work. A small fire broke out and the firemen brought the dog outside. The woman was cited for cruelty to animals because "there was no food or water in the cage."

You have no idea what's in store for you.

LLDM

Feb. 5, 2009, 12:45 PM

Well, at least we are getting to the meat of the issue now.

The issue is right to enter for the purposes of law enforcement. Be it to investigate reports of an animal in distress or bust a meth lab or apprehend a fugitive, the power of an officer to enter is, and ought to be, very strictly limited.

The AC in question here was a paid employee, but she also had an "agenda." We've had other officers with "agendas" get the county (or cities) in trouble, too. Thing is if the volunteer carries an "appointment" from an legal entitity then the legal entity is liable for the volunteer's actions. Pay is not an issue. The holding and use of the "commission," "appointment," or other grant of legal authority IS.

So, it isn't volunteers that are the problem then. It would be unqualified people or people with agends at cross purposes from the laws they are designated to investigate and/or uphold.

I was reacting to the original post:

VA Legislation Alert! "Volunteers" can come on your property Cross-posting from another list.

As stated below, this Bill applies to horses as well. If you don't want PETA volunteers having State authority and permission to come on your property and poke around your barn whenever they feel like it, better get on the phone to your rep. now.

Truly a horrible plan that might actually pass.

Which was posted by someone from PA, BTW which was both inaccurate and, none of their business if they don't live here or pay VA state taxes. IMO.

Granting law enforcement authority to "volunteers" is a dicey business. During WWII there were all sorts of civilians who had limited "authority" (Air Raid Wardens, for example). Some were even armed (like the Civil Air Patrol). But when the War ended so did their authority.

Many law enforcement agencies have "reserve officers" who are unpaid volunteers. Depending on local law they may have the full powers of a commisioned, paid officer or may have something less. Frankly these officers are generally pretty good; however, they have caused trouble for the City of Knoxville on at least a couple of occasions. It's my understanding that most local agencies around here require a reserve officer team up with a regular officer for patrol duties. And the agency that accepts their services is also liable for their actions.

I concur with most of JSwan's comments. In all of this you must look at the grant of authority being given and consider who will become the volunteers. As not everyone who wants to be a police officer should be one, not everyone who wants to be a "humane investigator" should be one. What processes, if any, will be used to "select in" appropriate people and "select out" the unsuitable? What kind of training is to be mandated? There are a whole bunch of issues, here.

Our Constitution has some very important protections that "animal welfare/rights" folks like to ignore in their passion to succor God's creatures. I would hope that the VA Legislature has the good sense to consider the consequences of proposed "short circuits" of these protections as they consider this legislations.

G.

Then why not simply argue for much stricter criteria for the volunteers? Why not be specific in what you consider the appropriate qualifications are? Seems it has been thought about and articulated. But the hew and cry was about shutting down the (generic) volunteers and making the assertions that they were from PETA. When I pointed out that I knew of perfectly good, reasonable trained volunteers, I was told that didn't mean none of them were from PETA. I never said that - just that I knew some who weren't (and, BTW, who would be damn good at such a job) and would make it easier for animals in serious trouble to get the help they need from the overworked publicly paid employees and agencies. Especially now with huge budget cts coming, the economy in the tank and more problems coming every day.

There is good potential in this idea. Make it better. Don't whip out-of-stater's into a frenzy that will make MY legislators give up on all attempts to pass positive public-private partnership legislation that is proactive and cost effective.

The "legal authority" issue is a good point - and worthy of a hard look. But the reason I keep bringing up the hunters with guns issue is that because around here there is a bit of a hunter Mafia thing goin' on, which includes some of the law enforcement folks. Personally I would much rather have a person on my property with a badge and no gun than with a gun and no badge. But maybe that's just me. "Authority" means different things to different people in different situations. I've been taking the more immediate and practical definition.

But be that as it may, I guess I am always surprised at where people tend to draw the lines of what they will tolerate.

I have to say, though, that I think Lex is being terribly unfair to say that only PETA types will volunteer for this type of program. Lex, Hon, you need to hang out with a better crowd. There are no more generous, tough minded, practical and fair people than the serious, organized, genuine 3(c)503 horse rescue folks. They know the difference between a much loved pony in sagging barbed wire and a rickety run in and and emaciated, starving horses with good fencing and a good shelter.

SCFarm

Chief2

Feb. 5, 2009, 01:05 PM

[quote=LLDM;3859295]Gee, there might be over zealous "volunteers". But that doesn't mean they can do ANYTHING. All they can do is report. Report what? If you aren't breaking the law they can report all they like. It is not illegal to ride, or not ride, or the like. So if they report that sort of thing, it doesn't mean a thing. Stupid volunteers will be ignored and weed themselves out.

In the mean time we DO have good, trained, appropriate volunteers NOW who might do some good for horses and other animals in trouble. So yes, it pisses me off that some of you all (and many not even FROM this state) want to shut that down. And for what? You might be annoyed? A bit put out? Sorry, but it think that is selfish and short sighted.

************************************************** ***********

LLDM, I have a question here: who is "we"? What animal rights groups do you belong to, or do you represent? Obviously if you are referring to a group of volunteers as 'we', you are involved in some groups. So please, for the sake of clarity, tell the good folks here which groups your involvement in as 'we' is referring to.

LLDM

Feb. 5, 2009, 01:13 PM

Enforce the laws we have now. The law says people under RTR cannot carry guns. You say they do anyway. So these laws aren't enforced. Instead of saying enforce current laws you say let's make new laws.

Makes no sense.

No, that's not what I said. I said all kinds of people come on your property already. Guilherme was kind enough to point out the difference. I never said make new laws. I said don't block laws trying to improve things without offering better solutions yourself.

There are many animal people protecting animals now. You imply that those of us actively involved with horses or dogs or hunting aren't doing anything, and these make-new-laws people are. You couldn't be more wrong.

So, why are the current laws not enforced? Could it be they are underfunded? Which is what this law is trying to help fix? Hey, you could just send enough of your money to Virginia to fix that. I could live with that.

RTR on your property with guns? Get a license number and report them. Get proactive in your community to insist that RTR be properly enforced.

Yeah, it's that easy. :rolleyes:

Abusing animals is already illegal.

Neglecting animals is already illegal.

Enforce the current laws. Don't go making new ones which will be impossible to enforce if we can't enforce what we already have.

Again, what the heck do you know about Virginia? Or about what VA is or isn't enforcing? Or how this particular law would effect that?

Do NOT hire volunteer HIs who, without probable cause, can come snoop around your property. You resent the RTR people coming on your land now. No, I don't. I resent stupid, rude people on my land. I would resent them whether they were hunters or not. But *this* law doesn't ban stupid, rude people from my property.

Just wait until any yahoo volunteer can legally come to check you out whenever they feel like it - and this isn't looking for a dog. This is going through your barn and inspecting you and yours. Oh, so the hunter yahoos don't count? How do I know they are looking for a dog? Hey, let's just dress up the Humane Inspectors as hunters, take away their guns and then they can come poke around all they want under the current laws. There, you happy now?

I know someone in CA who had their dog in a crate while they went to work. A small fire broke out and the firemen brought the dog outside. The woman was cited for cruelty to animals because "there was no food or water in the cage." That's California's problem. Maybe they *were* being cruel. I don't know, I wasn't there. Were you there? How long was the dog in the crate? Eight hours? Nine? Eleven? How many hours a day without food or water in a small cage do YOU think is cruel? And how many hours a day did the dog actaully stay in the cage? I'm guessing you don't even know.

You have no idea what's in store for you. Ah, the last bastion of the alarmist. Guess what? No one knows what's in store for them. Life is funny like that.

SCFarm

LLDM

Feb. 5, 2009, 01:24 PM

[quote=LLDM;3859295]LLDM, I have a question here: who is "we"? What animal rights groups do you belong to, or do you represent? Obviously if you are referring to a group of volunteers as 'we', you are involved in some groups. So please, for the sake of clarity, tell the good folks here which groups your involvement in as 'we' is referring to.

O.M.G. Are you serious? Are you paranoid? When I said "we" I meant the state of Virginia. There are currently at least two very professional 3(c)501 horse rescue groups in that operate in the state of Virginia and that work in partnership with our legal state authorities with cruelty and neglect cases. They also train their own investigators. I happen to support them through donations - not that it is ANY of your business - and moral support where I can.

So, now if I am anti animal starvation and neglect I must be some vapid animal rights activist? FOAD. No wonder I am taking the time to argue with you people. You guys are scaring me more than the PETA folks, who I am also very opposed to.

SCFarm

Anne FS

Feb. 5, 2009, 01:50 PM

Which was posted by someone from PA, BTW which was both inaccurate and, none of their business if they don't live here or pay VA state taxes. IMO.

1) What is inaccurate? It WILL apply to horses.
2) Have you never heard of precedent?
As someone who has both (a couple) hounds and horses you BET I'm going to watch what other states do, because as those laws pass, they are used as examples for other states to emulate. Surely you know this and are being disingenuous.

All of us who are involved in animal welfare keep an eye out for legislation all over the country. I learned about this VA legislation from someone in VA who wanted the word spread, which is what I did. Posting it here helped get the word out to those who do live in VA, and also serves to alert people in other states to take a look at what is happening in their own states.

Then why not simply argue for much stricter criteria for the volunteers? Why not be specific in what you consider the appropriate qualifications are?

Agreed. One of the main objections to this bill is because it doesn't provide strict criteria at all. Again, you are either playing devil's advocate or totally not understanding what is being said. You keep acting as though no one but AR people are doing anything. Not true.

They know the difference between a much loved pony in sagging barbed wire and a rickety run in and and emaciated, starving horses with good fencing and a good shelter.

No, not always. And it's the "not always" that's the problem. There are people who have been cited for their horses who roll during a muddy Spring for "harboring animals in a filthy condition."

Anne FS

Feb. 5, 2009, 01:58 PM

[QUOTE=LLDM;3860724] "How many hours a day without food or water in a small cage do YOU think is cruel? And how many hours a day did the dog actaully stay in the cage? I'm guessing you don't even know." [\QUOTE]

I actually do know the person this happened to. So, wrong again.

Just lovely how you added the "small" to the cage. Wrong again. What makes you think it was small? Nice editing job there.

Third, how is it possible to keep food in a beagle's crate for longer than 3 minutes? Even LOTS & LOTS of food. So you're saying that a dog cannot go for 8, 9, or 11 hours without food? This is what I mean by giving authority to people who don't know what they're talking about. Without a thought as to "how long was the dog in there?", "dogs must always have food in front of them" - and yes, THAT one I've heard more than once from the people who work at my local shelter, a citation was issued. As people become more and more removed from direct animal love and knowledge and experience, they do and say the most ridiculous things, and once such idiocy becomes "official," not just us, but the animals we love and protect, are in trouble.

I'm really glad you keep posting - discussion is helpful, and you are helping me to understand how you and others think, and I really am trying to see your point of view.

Chief2

Feb. 5, 2009, 02:05 PM

Actually, I am usually quite pragmatic and level-headed. You certainly must realize that this thread is being seen by a far wider audience than the good citizens of Virginia. Educating the masses usually doesn't work when the teacher gets frustrated and starts ranting at them.

As for what is and is not my business, it only seems fair to me that if a 'volunteer' wants to come onto someone's property and peer into the dark corners to see what is going on whenever they wish to, the least they can do is to publicly disclose all animal-related groups they belong to. I know of several folks in the rescue movement, both for large and small animals, who are members in good standing with Friends of Animals, HSUS, and PETA. After reading through this thread from start to finish, your posts echo much of what is said in these groups, and reflects their agendas as well.

So, since you seem so determined to enter people's properties, peer into their goings on et al, asking which groups you hold memberships in, in addition to your rescue donations, seems to be quite an appropriate response. If you are feeling it an invasion of your privacy to be asked about this, and but see your uninvited and clearly unwanted presence on anyone else's property as a perfectly fine because you have appointed yourself as a guardian to animal welfare, and are flying on no one else's official radar but your own, then I think you have as much of a problem as all of the people you are trying to educate. Just the liability issues alone to the landowner would make even a paranoid owner blanche.

So, I ask again. In addition to your rescue donations, which animal rights groups do you belong to? Because, regardless of how outraged and offended you claim to be by the question, I don't believe you are uninvolved.

Guilherme

Feb. 5, 2009, 02:14 PM

So, it isn't volunteers that are the problem then. It would be unqualified people or people with agends at cross purposes from the laws they are designated to investigate and/or uphold.

In our "cattle siezure case" the AC was fully qualified with specific training well in excess of that manadated by state law.

She also had an "agenda" and it was her "agenda" that got us all into the Charlie Foxtrot.

"Vetting" was poorly done in her case by a well paid official (our local sheriff). Who's gonna undertake the unpaid task of "vetting" volunteers?

Then why not simply argue for much stricter criteria for the volunteers? Why not be specific in what you consider the appropriate qualifications are?

OK, let's say we set high standards. Who's gonna do the "vetting?" Who pays for it? Who will make the grant/don't grant appointment decision?

The "legal authority" issue is a good point - and worthy of a hard look. But the reason I keep bringing up the hunters with guns issue is that because around here there is a bit of a hunter Mafia thing goin' on, which includes some of the law enforcement folks. Personally I would much rather have a person on my property with a badge and no gun than with a gun and no badge. But maybe that's just me. "Authority" means different things to different people in different situations. I've been taking the more immediate and practical definition.

In this case there is only ONE definition of "authority" and that comes from the enabling statute. When you discuss criminal laws you have very strict rules. You don't have a distinction between "legal" and "practical" definitions.

Note, too, that our legal system frowns on "prior restraint." We don't punish people for what they might do we act on what they have done. This means that any system to "prevent animal abuse" runs squarely into a bunch of Constitutional problems. Professional ACs have enough problems dealing with these issues when well trained to do so; I shudder to think of a bunch of dilletanti having significant authority in this regard.

Remember, too, that anybody can do a "windshield" inspection of about anything. They can report to the proper authority anything they see. They can take photographs, video, audio, etc. As long as they don't enter, physically, onto the property of another they can observe and record as they wish.

Given that, I wonder just why we need a corps of unpaid "humane inspectors" who can't do anything more than a paid inspector can do?

G.

Anne FS

Feb. 5, 2009, 02:20 PM

Our local library has meeting rooms available for various organizations and posts the schedule. It is enlightening to attend the animal rights groups meetings.

Attend a few in your own community. Some of the folks are genuine animal lovers who do want to help, and if that's all you have in your community, that's wonderful, join in! while others - oi - are very open about striving for a totally "petless, meatless" society and actively plan as to how that can be accomplished. The basic step is to get people who subscribe to the "petless society" in positions of authority, starting with AC.

Periodicals like "The Animals Agenda" and "Satya," both of which no longer publish, were among the most revealing. My library actually subscribed to AA (not published since 2002; Satya stopped either last year or the year before) and until they got wise to the fact that they were being a little too open in their anti-pet plans, were quite the revelation as to hidden agendas.

LLDM

Feb. 5, 2009, 02:22 PM

[quote=LLDM;3860724] "How many hours a day without food or water in a small cage do YOU think is cruel? And how many hours a day did the dog actaully stay in the cage? I'm guessing you don't even know." [\QUOTE]

I actually do know the person this happened to. So, wrong again.

Whether or not you know them is irrelevant. Were you there? Do you know how long? Are you sure this person's standards are up to yours? Even people you know can surprise you. And I am asking - not accusing.

Just lovely how you added the "small" to the cage. Wrong again. What makes you think it was small? Nice editing job there.

Since when is a crate not a small cage? :confused: ADDED: And you said it was carried out. How big could it be?

Third, how is it possible to keep food in a beagle's crate for longer than 3 minutes? Even LOTS & LOTS of food. So you're saying that a dog cannot go for 8, 9, or 11 hours without food? This is what I mean by giving authority to people who don't know what they're talking about. Without a thought as to "how long was the dog in there?", "dogs must always have food in front of them" - and yes, THAT one I've heard more than once from the people who work at my local shelter, a citation was issued. As people become more and more removed from direct animal love and knowledge and experience, they do and say the most ridiculous things, and once such idiocy becomes "official," not just us, but the animals we love and protect, are in trouble. Water was what jumped out at me - not food. Just sayin'.

I'm really glad you keep posting - discussion is helpful, and you are helping me to understand how you and others think, and I really am trying to see your point of view.

Good. If you are really trying to help your cause then you need to be much, much better at your message. Disrespecting volunteers in a generic manner is not likely to win you friends. Nor is shutting down legislation meant to help animals when the news for animals is getting worse by the day.

SCFarm

LLDM

Feb. 5, 2009, 02:35 PM

So, I ask again. In addition to your rescue donations, which animal rights groups do you belong to? Because, regardless of how outraged and offended you claim to be by the question, I don't believe you are uninvolved.

I am not trying to educate anyone. And I don't respond to bullies. I am neither offended or outraged. I am simply pointing out that jumping up and down waving red flags and poorly worded arguments isn't making your case or friends out of people that live in the states whose laws you are trying to manipulate. In fact it is quite annoying. Bullying me is even more annoying.

Reasonable, well articulated posts will get responses in kind. I don't give a damn what you believe. You are just one of the rude, stupid people to which I object so strongly. And just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean anything, even if you would like it be so. Believe whatever you like, since you already do. :rolleyes:

SCFarm

JSwan

Feb. 5, 2009, 03:19 PM

Just popping in again - not that it matters.

First, everyone, please remember that our retrieval law and the HI issue are in no way related.

Second, HI's in this state are not new. The program was discontinued years ago because there WAS ABUSE of the authority granted. Again, this program existed but was discontinued because of the very problems outlined in some of these posts.

Third, the HI Bill that the OP referred to didn't just reinstate that program. It EXPANDED it.

So what was actually proposed was restarting a program shut down because of abuse of power, interference in investigations, and people acting outside the scope of the law. At the same time, expanding it so that any releasing agency could nominate as many HI's as they wanted and the court had to appoint them for a term of 4 years. No background check. No ability to oppose the appointment. A lot of power and no accountability.

Folks, no matter what your stance in on animal rights or animal welfare that's just a bad Bill. I'm sorry - it is.

The groups that are interested in restarting this program are the very same type of people that got it shut down in the first place. People who want power so that they can further their own agenda.

As a resident of this state, I don't want that type of law. Nothing more to it than that. I work in dog rescue and am just as concerned about animal welfare as anyone else, but I prefer that ACO's do the job.

And we can help animals by supporting a professional cadre of ACO's who are treated well, are trained, educated and respected. That is done at the local level, not by more state laws.

Again - that program was not new. It was an existing program that was shut down because of abuse of power. Nothing has changed except the people deprived of that power keep wanting it back.

We help animals by making sure there are good laws in place. This isn't one of them.

twobays

Feb. 5, 2009, 03:36 PM

No, not always. And it's the "not always" that's the problem. There are people who have been cited for their horses who roll during a muddy Spring for "harboring animals in a filthy condition."

I'm not doubting you, but I'd like to know more about this. Could you point me towards a news article or government document that documents any case where the owner of a muddy horse was cited for "harboring animals in a filthy condition"?

cowgirljenn

Feb. 5, 2009, 03:37 PM

And we can help animals by supporting a professional cadre of ACO's who are treated well, are trained, educated and respected. That is done at the local level, not by more state laws.

And in most places, an ACO/SO/livestock officer/whoever can take a volunteer with him/her if he's dealing with something he's not trained in. We've sent volunteers out with deputies who were not horse people. They followed the same laws as the sheriff's officers - actually, I'm more strict about sticking to the rules than some deputies we've come in contact with!

I LOVE the idea of helping more animals. I would like to make it easier as well. BUT I run a rescue and this law scares me. I've seen well-meaning people who would JUMP to sign up to be a volunteer investigator. And they would be a disaster. They would take horses who were stalled because they thought it was cruel or would take horses who not ridden daily because they thought it was cruel. They would take your horse who lost a little weight even though you were working to get the weight back on.

The only way this law could work, IMHO, is if the volunteers were thoroughly trained, vetted, supervised and re-trained periodically. But then who would administer the plan? And who would pay for it?

MSP

Feb. 5, 2009, 03:37 PM

LLDM

Feb. 5, 2009, 03:44 PM

1) What is inaccurate? It WILL apply to horses. The *all PETA volunteer* thing was inaccurate.
2) Have you never heard of precedent? Why yes I have.
As someone who has both (a couple) hounds and horses you BET I'm going to watch what other states do, because as those laws pass, they are used as examples for other states to emulate. Surely you know this and are being disingenuous. I object to out of state people harassing VA legislators. Harass your own since you pay them and not ours.

All of us who are involved in animal welfare keep an eye out for legislation all over the country. I learned about this VA legislation from someone in VA who wanted the word spread, which is what I did. Posting it here helped get the word out to those who do live in VA, and also serves to alert people in other states to take a look at what is happening in their own states.

But you will take a chance on really annoying people who might otherwise agree with you by spinning it the way you did. You did manage to get other out of state folks to respond to VA legislators. Yes, that really annoys me. Pay attention all you want, but don't waste my tax money on your agenda.

Agreed. One of the main objections to this bill is because it doesn't provide strict criteria at all. Again, you are either playing devil's advocate or totally not understanding what is being said. You keep acting as though no one but AR people are doing anything. Not true.

You have shown not one iota of evidence (let alone proof) that this is an Animal Rights activist sponsored piece of legislation. Yet you throw that around like it is some indisputable fact.

Yes, to a large extent I am playing the devil's advocate. And while I might understand what you are getting at, hinting at (and some of you are bullying about) - I am responding to precisely what your are saying. It doesn't really matter what you are *doing* if what you are saying doesn't reflect it properly. Painting are who question you as extremists is off putting and wildly unpopular with all except those who already agree with you. And those are not the one's you need to convince.

No, not always. And it's the "not always" that's the problem. There are people who have been cited for their horses who roll during a muddy Spring for "harboring animals in a filthy condition."

Whose selectively quoting now? I specifically said the two good rescues I just described knew and taught the difference. I never claimed no one ever got it wrong, officials or otherwise.
************************************************** *****
In our "cattle siezure case" the AC was fully qualified with specific training well in excess of that manadated by state law.

She also had an "agenda" and it was her "agenda" that got us all into the Charlie Foxtrot.

"Vetting" was poorly done in her case by a well paid official (our local sheriff). Who's gonna undertake the unpaid task of "vetting" volunteers?

Look, there is no perfect solution. But by your argument no one is qualified, so by extension, no one is allowed to investigate any animal welfare case. But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that is not what you are arguing for.

OK, let's say we set high standards. Who's gonna do the "vetting?" Who pays for it? Who will make the grant/don't grant appointment decision?

Paid or unpaid, we have to take our best shot an figuring that out. Will it be perfect? No, of course not. So, the next best thing is a back up plan that can get the stupid and "agenda" people fired quickly and the wrongly accused put right quickly. Nothing is perfect, we all do the best we can.

In this case there is only ONE definition of "authority" and that comes from the enabling statute. When you discuss criminal laws you have very strict rules. You don't have a distinction between "legal" and "practical" definitions.

I can, will and do make philosophical arguments to make points about various types and examples of practical "authority". Luckily, for all concerned, nothing I write here will end up as any actual law. ;)

Note, too, that our legal system frowns on "prior restraint." We don't punish people for what they might do we act on what they have done. This means that any system to "prevent animal abuse" runs squarely into a bunch of Constitutional problems. Professional ACs have enough problems dealing with these issues when well trained to do so; I shudder to think of a bunch of dilletanti having significant authority in this regard.

I will refrain from comment on the use of the "d" word. But here's the thing - animal neglect does not go from *might* to *has happened* directly. Neglect is a lengthy process. Many good rescues do try to intervene in a benign, educational manner before a situation deteriorates into full blown, no-question-about-it neglect which seems to require one or more dead bodies on the property these days.

If you are saying there is no place for reasonably vetted and educated volunteers to monitor at-risk situations where people have resisted any effort to turn deteriorating situations around, I have to respectfully disagree. Our AC officers are already overworked and underpaid. And they *already* work with such volunteers - whether it is unofficial or not.

Remember, too, that anybody can do a "windshield" inspection of about anything. They can report to the proper authority anything they see. They can take photographs, video, audio, etc. As long as they don't enter, physically, onto the property of another they can observe and record as they wish.

Where do you live that all animals can be seen from public roads? Or even from the land of concerned neighbors? Do you think it is cheaper to have a fleet of helicopters and pilots for the AC folks to use? And less expensive?

Given that, I wonder just why we need a corps of unpaid "humane inspectors" who can't do anything more than a paid inspector can do?

For the exact same reason there is such a thing as Neighborhood Watch. We can't afford to have enough cops to do the job. And people tend to have a better idea of what goes on in their neighborhoods - what is normal and what is suspicious.

Seriously, I get you have problems with whole idea. Maybe you have never seen a public-private partnership that works. But done right they are quite effective.

G.

************************************************** **********
Our local library has meeting rooms available for various organizations and posts the schedule. It is enlightening to attend the animal rights groups meetings.

Attend a few in your own community. Some of the folks are genuine animal lovers who do want to help, and if that's all you have in your community, that's wonderful, join in! while others - oi - are very open about striving for a totally "petless, meatless" society and actively plan as to how that can be accomplished. The basic step is to get people who subscribe to the "petless society" in positions of authority, starting with AC.

Periodicals like "The Animals Agenda" and "Satya," both of which no longer publish, were among the most revealing. My library actually subscribed to AA (not published since 2002; Satya stopped either last year or the year before) and until they got wise to the fact that they were being a little too open in their anti-pet plans, were quite the revelation as to hidden agendas.

Again, painting your opposition as all zealots can be quite self defeating. Just like there is no more a clear demarcation between animal welfare advocates and animal rights extremists than there is between very hungry and starving. Please don't push the advocates toward extremism by shutting down those advocates unnecessarily. You are rallying the troops to battle when what you really need is a good, well written amendment which results in a *better* law, not another attempt to help animals shot down by the "privacy zealots". Which is really how it came across to me.

SCFarm

Anne FS

Feb. 5, 2009, 03:48 PM

it only seems fair to me that if a 'volunteer' wants to come onto someone's property and peer into the dark corners to see what is going on whenever they wish to, the least they can do is to publicly disclose all animal-related groups they belong to.

Agreed.

Here's the thing, though: HSUS and PETA (particularly HSUS, as the tide is turning against PETA) representatives are actually being APPOINTED by legislatures to be part of state-appointed committees on animal issues.

JSwan, I need you to state this clearly, as I can't do it as well as you.

Issue: AR (which more and more means anti-pet) people are actively trying to put themselves in positions of authority over the rest of us by getting on the Boards of humane societies and volunteering to be the "investigators" of all of us.

Issue: In addition, AR advocates, meaning those whose goal is ultimately NO companion animals for anyone, are increasingly being appointed to make laws affecting animal owners. Definitely putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

LLDM

Feb. 5, 2009, 03:52 PM

JSwan

Feb. 5, 2009, 03:54 PM

The only way this law could work, IMHO, is if the volunteers were thoroughly trained, vetted, supervised and re-trained periodically. But then who would administer the plan? And who would pay for it?

That's one of the issues. Advocates for this program do not want to report to ACO's. They want to be somewhat independent of the ACO's.

That is not acceptable.

In this state, ACO's are the ones who receive the training, supervision and all the geegaws associated with law enforcement. It is not unusual for any law enforcement officer to call upon others for guidance. State police will consult with CPO's, CPO's consult with local deputies, etc. There are MOU's already in place for that.

Since all animal related matters fall under the auspices of the State Vet, that office (including extension agents, vets, inspectors) can be called upon as well.

Of course that is not perfect. I don't think any solution will be perfect. I stopped by our local shelter today and there was a note on the door asking people to wait a few days before surrendering their pet. A lady I know found 6 dogs abandoned in a foreclosed house. Horses have been turned loose.

I don't claim to have all the answers, not do I believe that all localities do a good job with animal welfare.

This Bill is already dead. It was tabled the other evening. I hope it stays dead and citizens support their local ACO's and insist that these fine folks receive the training and support they need.

MSP - The answer to your question is that it depends. In the case of this Bill, the intent of its proponents was to initiate investigations on their own, and to "take on" certain activities. And they did not want to report directly to an ACO. The Bill does not tell the whole story - but if you are active in rescue you'd have heard and read what these folks wanted to do.

LLDM - No need to be angry with me. I did not join this discussion until after page 1. I do not start threads on political matters, nor did I intend to discuss this Bill or my thoughts about it on the Internet. I merely read a bit of inaccurate information and thought I'd correct it and offer my thoughts and a bit of background information. Just to place this Bill into context.

Guilherme

Feb. 5, 2009, 04:00 PM

Bottom Line for me: appointing private citizens to enforce criminal laws is generally a bad idea. Law enforcement is a public function and should be done by properly funded public agencies.

Entering upon the property of another to determine the existence of a criminal act is NOT being a "neighborhood watch."

IMO there is NO room for "private-public" parnerships in the enforcement of criminal laws.

G.

Anne FS

Feb. 5, 2009, 04:04 PM

Disrespecting volunteers in a generic manner is not likely to win you friends.

I didn't. This discussion is about a bill discussed in AR circles as a means to put their members in positions of authority. You are trying, and failing, to change what I have said.

I do disrespect volunteers who know nothing about animals and their care, and who are members of organizations actively working to eliminate pet ownership.
Big difference.

Nor is shutting down legislation meant to help animals when the news for animals is getting worse by the day.

This bill will not help animals.

What "news for animals is getting worse by the day"? There are plenty of us out there making lives better for animals every single day. Thousands of us. And we are doing it and have been doing it without PETA and HSUS.

Remember the Katrina thread on here? How HSUS was all over the news with their cameras and their HSUS-shirted volunteers singing their own praises? And then people who were acutally there in LA actually doing all the real work came here and said that they'd seen with their own eyes who was doing the dirty work and it wasn't HSUS. They even posted photographs on this msg. board of HSUS workers filling dumpsters with donated crates and other items. Why? It wasn't cash, baby, and it's never been about the animals, it's about the money for them, and although the other workers said don't do that, give us the crates, we can send them elsewhere, HSUS had no interest - it was dumpster city.

Anne FS

Feb. 5, 2009, 04:22 PM

Oh, man, LLDM (LOL)

re: the dog crate

<<Since when is a crate not a small cage? And you said it was carried out. How big could it be?>>

You make very "AR-quality" assumptions. Jes' sayin'.

You are so totally proving the point of the importance of educated "for the animals" people in positions of authority.

I have 4 dog crates in my house. They are 48" long x 30" W X 33" high. I think a fireman could carry them outside, whether my beagle or my GSD was in one of them. Heck, I carry them myself, even lifting one (sans dog) into the bed of the pickup truck when I go to training. But they ain't no small cages. Your assumption that by definition a crate is a small cage is interesting.

Anne FS

Feb. 5, 2009, 04:30 PM

The muddy horses case was a woman from New England who I met through another message board and she told us about the incident when it happened to her. She was terrified of losing her horses and we were all very pleased when things turned out all right in the end. But going through all that hassle and fear and legal expense because of some ignorant AC person who just loved "saving horses" was a wake-up call for a lot of people.

cowgirljenn

Feb. 5, 2009, 04:35 PM

Can some one please clarify for me...

Can AC just walk onto your property any time they want with out a WARRANT in VA?

It depends on what they can see. If your horses are in your barn, back behind your horse, or someplace they're not visible from the road, they would need your permission.

If the horses are visible in a field from a public roadway, the Open Field Doctrine can come into play. The open field doctrine says that things in plain sight can be searched/viewed/etc without a warrant.

cowgirljenn

Feb. 5, 2009, 04:36 PM

That's one of the issues. Advocates for this program do not want to report to ACO's. They want to be somewhat independent of the ACO's.

That is not acceptable.

Agreed. It sounds like they don't really want to have to report to anyone. How scary is that?

Guilherme

Feb. 5, 2009, 04:42 PM

It depends on what they can see. If your horses are in your barn, back behind your horse, or someplace they're not visible from the road, they would need your permission.

If the horses are visible in a field from a public roadway, the Open Field Doctrine can come into play. The open field doctrine says that things in plain sight can be searched/viewed/etc without a warrant.

Things in "plain view" may support an "exigent circumstances" entry. They will support a search warrant when put into an appropriate affadavit. The problem comes when somebody "jumps the gun" and enters without circumstances being truly "exigent."

G.

MSP

Feb. 5, 2009, 05:04 PM

Unless it is an emergency, animal in distress, they should get a warrant. I don't get how they can use what they find against the target in a court of law if it was obtained with out warrant. Stuff like this can happen:

http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/cases/cruel/nance.htm

In this opinion, the Court of Appeals disagrees with the trial court about the lawfulness of seizing the horses. No law was violated by the officers’ observing the horses from public locations. Those observations gave the officers reason to believe that a crime was being committed—animal cruelty. However, the officers should have gone to a judge and obtained a search warrant to seize the horses. There was no emergency of such a nature as to prevent obtaining the warrant—the officers had permitted several days to elapse from the initial observing of the horses until they seized them. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of animal cruelty and sends the case back to the trial court.

And for those who don't think this is an out-of stater's business, read this case from PA

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081221/NEWS/812210331/-1/NEWS01

Miss Kittipie's owner, Linda Jones-Newman, watched in horror as her 13-year-old quarter horse was killed by lethal injection under the direction of the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Now, the agency is being accused in federal court of violating Jones-Newman's civil rights. The Pennsylvania case could set precedent across the United States for the way SPCAs seize and destroy property without recourse for owners. The case will be heard in Wilkes-Barre federal court.... [Veterinarian Ellen] Johnson later admitted, at a preliminary hearing in court, that Miss Kittipie's condition was chronic rather than an emergency.... Kevin Newman says that without discussion and with no opportunity to get another vet's opinion, humane officers walked Miss Kittipie out of her stall the day of the raid and instructed Johnson to kill her, right in front of the owners.... The lawsuit brought by Linda Jones-Newman accuses the PSPCA of violating her civil rights by abusing its authority. It says humane police officers, acting as agents of the state, or acting under the color of law, seized property without notice and did not allow the Newmans an opportunity for defense.... A judge later dismissed all charges against Linda and one against Kevin. He paid $75 in a total fines for faulty sanitary conditions of four dogs. The PSPCA was ordered to give the animals back.... Some of the animals that lived through the ordeal were returned from the PSPCA in deplorable condition, according to Newman......

Brookes

Feb. 5, 2009, 05:13 PM

Not from Virginia, don't pay taxes in Virginia, shoot never even been to Virginia. . . however. . "We" watch, when I say we, I mean dog owners, breeders, show dog owners, handlers etc. from all over the country. When we see this type of thing we know what the hidden agenda is, we know who is behind the agenda. We fight it anywhere and anytime we can.

If we don't fight it we will find that piece by piece our rights to own animals, and what we can do with them, can and will slip away. This truly has nothing to do with "animal welfare". It has to do with our rights to own pets, period. If we let these little pieces of legislation through, then what is next? What will that next legislation be? They will just become bolder and bolder until we are all fighting tooth and claw to keep our beloved pets.

I show dogs, and yup there are times when they are crated, at shows or at home. Before they go into the ring we remove the water from the crates. Why? So they don't make a stinking mess all over their freshly groomed coats. Little does anyone realize that about every 4 minutes the crate doors are opened and water is offered. So I would be fined for not giving my dog constant access to water. Dang I'm going to jail/hell for sure. As for having food in front of them at all times...ummm what happens when the dog eats it? Or should I just back up the semi and unload 2 tons of kibble into my kennel??? Oh but wait free feeding setters can cause bloat, yup and then they die. Uneducated H.I.'s? No thank you very much.

It's this type of unrealistic garbage that makes us keep a close watch on what goes on nationwide. If truly beneficial legislation were proposed we would back it 100%. However giving some 12 hour trained dorf access to my animals/property without a warrant, sooo not gonna happen.

equinelaw

Feb. 5, 2009, 05:20 PM

Why is everyone citing cases of AC abuse? That is not what is being proposed. That is what we have now. So we all agree we do not like what we have now? But we can't or won't change it?

Any evidence given to LEO by a private citizen is admissible. Sure you might get a small civil fine for trespassing, but private citizens are not bound by the 4th and neither is any of their evidence.

There are guidelines and training manuals and rules of procedure for AC and HI. Although HI often have the force of law behind them and show up with armed LEO's, I have no control over them either. They are basically deputized but not public employees.

So do we deputize more people and get more protection under the 4th or deputize fewer people and let them run amok anyway?

What we have right now does not work. It is getting much better and is on the very brink of actually working, but there will be no $$$$ in the future to continue the good work that took years of struggle to gain.

10 years ago there was no chance of a seizure around here. Now its almost possible to get animals saved beofre they are dead. But they ran out of money.

There has to be a new plan of some sort and it can't rely on public funding. CA is paying state employees with IOUs soon. 3 states have decided they cannot afford to prosecute crimes under $10K. Half the sates have cut 50% of the legal budget to prosecute and defend crimes. Private donations are drying up.

So what now? Forget about animals again until we can afford to care? Have citizens help out?

Guilherme

Feb. 5, 2009, 05:37 PM

Ummm, when a citizen gives a "tip" to an LEO it may be used as part of an affadavit to obtain a warrant. If the citizen is at all "in league" with law enforcement, even as a "motivated volunteer," there's a real chance that the evidence will seen as not independant and evidence siezed under a warrant supported by such testimony may be rejected as "fruit of the poison tree." An LEO can't use civilian surrogates to evade 4th Amendment restrictions.

By the way, ask me how I know this. :(

I deeply disagree that somehow our animal welfare laws are "not working." They work as well as laws against DUI, capital murder, rape, aggravated assault, etc. They are designed to permit the prosecution of offenders.

As far as DAs determining what to prosecute, that's an absolute right of the DA. They can take or not take a case on pretty much any ground they desire (as long they don't afoul of the civil right laws). The "rationing" of assistant DA time by decling entire categories of cases is absolutely normal behavior. Try to get a bad check prosecuted in a major city, for example. One local office does not prosecute cases brought by constables (elected law enforcement officials; no specific training is required to be a constable).

Again, if you want some sort of "intervention law" that would permit ACs (paid or unpaid) to be able to act on complaints then that's something to explore. Of course you might find the Constitution a problem. So do we sacrifice Consitutional protection to get "animal protection?" Sounds like subject upon which reasonable men can differ.

G.

equinelaw

Feb. 5, 2009, 06:14 PM

LexInVA

Feb. 5, 2009, 06:22 PM

Can some one please clarify for me...

Can AC just walk onto your property any time they want with out a WARRANT in VA?

And are they proposing that any volunteer can do the same?

I was under the impression AC was law enforcement and unless they get permission from owner or a warrant they can not enter your property.

Is there a link to this bill where we can read the text?

Yes and no. It depends on the circumstances of that particular instance, what the policy of the AC is in that jurisdiction, whether or not they are actual police officers (here in VA you have both police officers and citizens doing the AC work), and what leads them to conclude that something is not right. If they are law enforcement, there's a certain threshold that has to be reached before they can legally cross into your property or perform any act as a police officer. If they are private citizens, they can actually do whatever they want (not with the open blessing of the law though) if they have the desire to go poking around your property so long as they don't get caught or are not identified. In rural areas, you usually get citizens doing the AC work with maybe one or two appointed police officers handling the legal part of things if there is enough manpower while in urban areas like where I live, you have a few sworn police officers whose sole duty as a sworn officer is Animal Control and they are supported by a staff of citizens who look after the animals at the shelters.

Guilherme

Feb. 5, 2009, 07:18 PM

No, the opposite. Right now they are not associated wit LEO in any way. They can collect and turn over any evidence they want. As a private citizen I can give more then a "tip". I can go raid my friends house and bring the drugs or stolen stuff in. I can go into anyone's property and bring the police whatever I want. I am just not inclined to do so.

A person who is so inclined is less under control as a free agent then they would be associated with LEOs.

You can do this once. Maybe twice. By number three the word will be out that you're not what you seem to be.

And it might end up with the first two cases getting new trials.

People, like those who have posted on this thread, seem unhappy about cows, a muddy horse, a dog in CA and horses lying in fields mistaken for dead. Those were all examples of AC at work. So I assumed they were "unhappy examples" I do not personally know of a single case of animals wrongfully seized. I have no unhappy posts about that.

If the pros can screw up that bad why do you assume that amatuers would do any better?

I personally barely like the way it works because there is not standards and a lack of prosecution. I believe that was changing, but it changed right when we ran out of luxury cash for pet (literally) projects like humane treatment for animals.

Prosecution depends on the DA.

I think these volunteers should have the power to investigate and collect evidence and maybe ask for a 48 hour hold from a magistrate, but not seize off property or PTS animals with no hearing.

You would have like the San Francisco Committee of Vigilence, then, I presume?

Any investigation that does not entail entry under color of law is OK by me. Any authority to enter absent warrant, permission, or exigency is a "non starter."

But then again, I do not have any fear or PETA coming to take my dog. Or anyone else. I have 2 dogs in here right now nobody else ever wanted and gave up hope long ago they would ever be "rescued" from me:)

You should study history more. Particularly the poetry of Pastor Niemöller:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

G.

equinelaw

Feb. 5, 2009, 07:42 PM

Godwin's law. Lame.:D

Guilherme

Feb. 5, 2009, 08:46 PM

Godwin's law. Lame.:D

Well, Sieg Heil, y'all.

G.

LLDM

Feb. 5, 2009, 09:29 PM

I didn't. This discussion is about a bill discussed in AR circles as a means to put their members in positions of authority. You are trying, and failing, to change what I have said.

No, I am simple interpreting what you have said - since you have been unclear and left it OPEN to interpretation.

I do disrespect volunteers who know nothing about animals and their care, and who are members of organizations actively working to eliminate pet ownership.
Big difference.

Then you should have said that. You did not.

This bill will not help animals.

Why not? If you were clear about the specifics instead of sounding more alarmist than the zealots kjore people would likely stop and listen.

What "news for animals is getting worse by the day"? There are plenty of us out there making lives better for animals every single day. Thousands of us. And we are doing it and have been doing it without PETA and HSUS.

So tell that story. And lose the disrespecting tone toward other organizations - That's PR rule #1. Just don't mention them and people will be less likely to question your motives.

Remember the Katrina thread on here? How HSUS was all over the news with their cameras and their HSUS-shirted volunteers singing their own praises? And then people who were acutally there in LA actually doing all the real work came here and said that they'd seen with their own eyes who was doing the dirty work and it wasn't HSUS. They even posted photographs on this msg. board of HSUS workers filling dumpsters with donated crates and other items. Why? It wasn't cash, baby, and it's never been about the animals, it's about the money for them, and although the other workers said don't do that, give us the crates, we can send them elsewhere, HSUS had no interest - it was dumpster city.

Again, it doesn't matter what they do wrong (okay it does, but not in the fight for public opinion) it matters what you do right. Making them look bad doesn't automatically make you look good. Your message, your actions, your results make you look good. By bringing them into the argument, you put yourself on their level. I really don't think that is what you want.

Bottom Line for me: appointing private citizens to enforce criminal laws is generally a bad idea. Law enforcement is a public function and should be done by properly funded public agencies.

Your opinion. Care to defend it? What makes it so bad?

Entering upon the property of another to determine the existence of a criminal act is NOT being a "neighborhood watch."

Then help write legislation that *makes* this program like "neighborhood watch".

IMO there is NO room for "private-public" parnerships in the enforcement of criminal laws.

That's because there is no room in your head to come up with a solution that does work. If you refuse to explain your position and just state it over and over again, you aren't going to change anyone's mind or ever find any reasonable compromise.

G.

You almost had me a couple times, and then you go all rigid and righteous on me.

SCFarm

LLDM

Feb. 5, 2009, 09:36 PM

If we don't fight it we will find that piece by piece our rights to own animals, and what we can do with them, can and will slip away. This truly has nothing to do with "animal welfare". It has to do with our rights to own pets, period. If we let these little pieces of legislation through, then what is next? What will that next legislation be? They will just become bolder and bolder until we are all fighting tooth and claw to keep our beloved pets.

Man I so hate the "slippery slope" "don't take away my riiiiggghhhts" arguments.

Here's a thought - when you can get people to take their responsibilities seriously, then we can do away with the people who have to clean up after the people who don't. Until then there is an argument to be made that if you get to keep the *right* to own pets you have to do your part to make sure everyone else who has pets treats them properly too.

SCFarm

JSwan

Feb. 6, 2009, 07:34 AM

So what now? Forget about animals again until we can afford to care? Have citizens help out?

That's overly dramatic. That's the scare tactic used to get this type of legislation passed. We have plenty of ACO's in this state, and many citizens prefer that animal welfare not be the red headed stepchild of government. Make animal control a true part of infrastructure, not easily palmed off to poorly run animal hoarding "rescues", politically motivated volunteers, and operating on the fringe.

The fact is that this program existed in the past. This is not new. The program was discontinued not because of abuse of power by ACO's - but because of abuse by HI's. We tried it - and people ran roughshod over innocent people and interfered in investigations. In other words - they DIDN'T HELP.

I am very much aware of the background behind this Bill. All of you seem to be speaking from the point of outsiders, which is ok. But understand that a lot of citizens had legitimate concerns about this Bill, and many government agencies opposed it as well. Law enforcement officials, VACA, VDACS, there is NO support for the HI program.

That does not mean that we don't care about animal welfare in this state. It means that there are some pretty sharp people who know exactly who wants to be HI's and why. And it has little to do with animal welfare, and everything to do with pursuing their own goals. That should concern you.

Heck - didn't you recently complain about HSUS and the pig lady? There was another recent thread on the inaugural parade and how HSUS lied about an injured horse. We all know about Katrina. The blizzards out west. We all know about PETA's little white van and the dogs found in dumpsters or who simply disappear and only their collars are found. The Philadelphia horses that were seized by an ignorant SPCA and a stupid vet. The HSUS mess in Louisiana. These are groups that swoop in, get their pictures and draft a press release, and then leave and use it to get donations.

I don't want those people to be deputized. I've seen PETA in action. They're just plain scary, angry people. This state is the headquarters for PETA. They are a releasing agency. That Bill would have allowed every PETA employee to be a HI.

No. No way. No way in hell. Invite them down to your state and give them a badge if you want. I'd prefer to support good animal welfare legislation - and the HI program isn't good legislation.

LLDM - It's ironic that you insist that people be responsible. What on earth are you doing being a horse breeder? There are thousands going to slaughter every day, horses being turned loose, horses starved and neglected. You do realize the people who would become HI's under this Bill would want to shut you down for being a "backyard breeder", right? It doesn't matter that your horses are expensive. You're nothing but a backyard breeder. Irresponsible. Contributing to the slaughter industry.

Be careful what you wish for - you might get it.

LLDM

Feb. 6, 2009, 08:28 AM

JSwan

Feb. 6, 2009, 08:56 AM

I originally wrote that I didn't mean to single you out personally. I still mean that, and don't intend for any comment to be a personal attack. Using your activity was merely an example to illustrate a point.

Maybe I should have used a breeder from the sporthorse breeding forum so that I didn't come across as targeting you specifically? If so - please chalk it up to my laziness and again - not a personal attack.

Or maybe I should have used pictures of my horses because the poor things are poster children for the Fugly blog. Good thing they are all gelded!

I did try to present some background info about the Bill and offer a few arguments as to why it was a bad Bill. Reasonable people will differ on whether or not volunteers have a place in law enforcement. Obviously I have grave concerns.

What is ironic is that we have a good HI in this area and I respect her. We still have HI's in this state, it's that no new appointments can be made. No comment I've made against this Bill should be construed to be an attack on her. She's a good egg.

We all care about animals, and many of us either work with rescues or donate time or money when we can. No one is more or less moral because of what they do or don't do, or that they refuse to divulge the extent of their work or amount of money they've donated.

I hope I've not demanded that because I respect everyone's privacy and hope they respect mine as well. There is no halo over my head and I've not seen a halos over anyone else! :D

An additional reason I used your business as an example is because the people who wish to become HI's would indeed consider you a "backyard breeder". You're not, of course. Some folks just feel the need to paste labels on anything and make sweeping generalizations. They don't wear halos either - they just think they do.

So you guys finally start posting real and valid arguments as to what is wrong with THIS bill and then you go and make personal insults. Who is using scare tactics again?

Could ANY of you all started out by simply saying that this bill left open the real possibility that private citizens would be allowed to set their own agenda in investigating the conditions of any animals without cause on private property and would not require permission or supervision by anyone?

JSwan - We may not always agree, but I thought you were better than this. Make your points with logic and I will listen. Try to bully me and scare me and well, let's just say I can't print my response to you here in public. I thought those were the tactics of your opponents.

equinelaw

Feb. 6, 2009, 11:23 AM

That's overly dramatic. That's the scare tactic used to get this type of legislation passed. We have plenty of ACO's in this state, and many citizens prefer that animal welfare not be the red headed stepchild of government. Make animal control a true part of infrastructure, not easily palmed off to poorly run animal hoarding "rescues", politically motivated volunteers, and operating on the fringe.

The fact is that this program existed in the past. This is not new. The program was discontinued not because of abuse of power by ACO's - but because of abuse by HI's. We tried it - and people ran roughshod over innocent people and interfered in investigations. In other words - they DIDN'T HELP.

I am very much aware of the background behind this Bill. All of you seem to be speaking from the point of outsiders, which is ok. But understand that a lot of citizens had legitimate concerns about this Bill, and many government agencies opposed it as well. Law enforcement officials, VACA, VDACS, there is NO support for the HI program.

That does not mean that we don't care about animal welfare in this state. It means that there are some pretty sharp people who know exactly who wants to be HI's and why. And it has little to do with animal welfare, and everything to do with pursuing their own goals. That should concern you.

Heck - didn't you recently complain about HSUS and the pig lady? There was another recent thread on the inaugural parade and how HSUS lied about an injured horse. We all know about Katrina. The blizzards out west. We all know about PETA's little white van and the dogs found in dumpsters or who simply disappear and only their collars are found. The Philadelphia horses that were seized by an ignorant SPCA and a stupid vet. The HSUS mess in Louisiana. These are groups that swoop in, get their pictures and draft a press release, and then leave and use it to get donations.

I don't want those people to be deputized. I've seen PETA in action. They're just plain scary, angry people. This state is the headquarters for PETA. They are a releasing agency. That Bill would have allowed every PETA employee to be a HI.

No. No way. No way in hell. Invite them down to your state and give them a badge if you want. I'd prefer to support good animal welfare legislation - and the HI program isn't good legislation.

LLDM - It's ironic that you insist that people be responsible. What on earth are you doing being a horse breeder? There are thousands going to slaughter every day, horses being turned loose, horses starved and neglected. You do realize the people who would become HI's under this Bill would want to shut you down for being a "backyard breeder", right? It doesn't matter that your horses are expensive. You're nothing but a backyard breeder. Irresponsible. Contributing to the slaughter industry.

Be careful what you wish for - you might get it.

Why yes, I did recently complain, but it wasn't because of anything to do with this situation. In that case there was no investigation or seizure. They came to her house and offered to take all the animals and care for them at their expense.

It wasn't do gooders run amok, constitutional violations or unsavory investigation methods, it was just a plain, simple flat out lie. The final result was no harm to the pig lady or the pigs, but the local humane society cut their hours by 1/3, let 2 staff members go, got rid of the free spay and neuter program and is struggling to survive.

So now there are real cases in that county where animals are being abused and neglected and nobody and no funds with any relation to LE to help those animals.

As I said, I was pretty happy with how things were turning out, but we as a nation are broke. There is not enough money for AC in many places now. And I mean in the last few months.

In my state, the one where I have lived fewer years then in VA where I spent most of my life and my law school education, we no longer have funds for CHILD ABUSE cases. I cannot see how they can or will pay for much animal abuse enforcement when children are not even funded now. We work and do not get paid.

I am talking about right now--not all the things that led up to now. The world has changes i just the last few months. We, as a group, changed the social mores on animals. We got pretty close to what we wanted. But completely unrelated events caused by the economy now make what we worked so hard for nearly impossible without more $$$$.

For example, in my pig case the pigs were OK. They would have been better off if there had been a huge influx of funds and help. However, they were taken not because they were abandoned, but because they were suspected of being abused and neglected. Whether or not that was true, they were returned because they were too expensive to help.

In mid crisis the humane society either had to help the animals or close up shop. The present model is not working. Its not working because of lack of funds.

I don't really think seizures or investigations are the problem. I can certainly think of many examples from the past where that was the problem--AC people who are as clueless as the abusers, but right now there may be no AC officers and now way to fund seizing anything.

Any suggestions that save money are better then nothing at all. I am not clear from the text of the bill why I can not become and volunteer or others that have posted in this thread could not become volunteers.

Are you saying that only certain people are allowed to do that or that only certain people are likely to do it? If PETA of the HSUS were actually having to do rescues how long would their illusion of being any good at it last? It is very easy to point fingers and do PR, but when its your $$$ that is being spent and you are suddenly accountable its a lot harder to hide.

And they would have to work with folks like us instead of in secrecy and behind closed doors. PETA and the HSUS may be the ones who have to be careful what they wish for. They may find themselves having to take orders from you.

Finding and seizing animals is the easy part. No matter who does hat they will quickly find that they had better be right because housing and re-homing animals is the hard part. If they just kill them all they have lost all credibility with the average supporter.

Make them walk the walk.

This bill is dead, but the reason it was started and the arguments that kept it alive are much more broad then just this one bill.

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Feb. 6, 2009, 11:42 AM

I don't want those people to be deputized. I've seen PETA in action. They're just plain scary, angry people. This state is the headquarters for PETA. They are a releasing agency. That Bill would have allowed every PETA employee to be a HI.

No. No way. No way in hell. Invite them down to your state and give them a badge if you want. I'd prefer to support good animal welfare legislation - and the HI program isn't good legislation.

:eek: Not unless she promises to keep them over there in Aiken with her.:lol: We both live in SC - where the highway patrol thinks running over fleeing suspects (and sometimes their neighbors) is a perfectly acceptable method of immobilizing them - so we don't need anymore wild-eyed fanatics with badges, thanks.:winkgrin:

Chief2

Feb. 6, 2009, 12:23 PM

JSwan - We may not always agree, but I thought you were better than this. Make your points with logic and I will listen. Try to bully me and scare me and well, let's just say I can't print my response to you here in public. I thought those were the tactics of your opponents.

No, LLDM, actually, these are:

[QUOTE=LLDM;3862565]
You all have been rude, mean and accusative when all I've done is ask questions, challenge your poorly worded arguments and paraphrase your own words back to you in an attempt to show you how this is coming across.

PETA training, right to the core.

LLDM

Feb. 6, 2009, 12:39 PM

No, LLDM, actually, these are:

You all have been rude, mean and accusative when all I've done is ask questions, challenge your poorly worded arguments and paraphrase your own words back to you in an attempt to show you how this is coming across.

PETA training, right to the core.

Well then, their training is better than yours isn't it? If PETA IS winning the PR battle you have only yourself to blame. You especially are the one who resorts to accusations and the one I was referring to in the statement above. When all else fails shoot the messenger - that'll surely help! :rolleyes: If your logic is so poor you can't make a reasoned rational argument don't be surprised when people won't think your way.

Instead of attacking me, why don't you just make a better case for your own opinions?

I refuse to be bullied into defending myself to the likes of you. Who I am is public information and easily checked. You are the anonymous poster here. Your agenda is much more hidden than mine. Go figure.

SCFarm

equinelaw

Feb. 6, 2009, 01:28 PM

:eek: Not unless she promises to keep them over there in Aiken with her.:lol: We both live in SC - where the highway patrol thinks running over fleeing suspects (and sometimes their neighbors) is a perfectly acceptable method of immobilizing them - so we don't need anymore wild-eyed fanatics with badges, thanks.:winkgrin:

We already have a similar law in SC. S.C.A.R.E. and their members were all authorized to do this type of work. Except our people do not get immunity, so they were sued out of existence. S.C.A.R.E is shutting down and we will have no other statewide agency to handle equine investigations or rescues.

They had burn out, but they also got tired of convicted abusers (not falsely accused ones) suing them for years. All the way to the SCt years. It gets old. I am pretty sure I am still allowed to investigate? Which really does not matter since I have done and will do it without any official help all I want. If I were in VA and a bill like this passes I might sign up to do investigations there too. I am still not hearing that it is only open to PETA and their workers.

The only real opinions I have about PETA from people who are not part of PETA is what I see here on COTH. And yeah, I think LLDM has a point. I begin to get so sick of the PETA paranoia, the misinformation and scare tactics that I tend to prefer PETA to the opposition or at least loose all interest in helping the other side. Or actually either side since both seem too extreme and too dogmatic.

PETA gets a whole lot of good stuff for welfare done. Including pressuring large businesses for better welfare and getting laws passed. If I don't pay attention to words and only look at actions I see a lot of actions I like. Same with the HSUS.

Neither organization does rescue work. They cannot investigate or seize any more animals then someone is willing to pay for after that is done. Unless they start paying for that too. I think they should. They have $$$$$, let em spend it on animals.

If PETA would like to come to Aiken, fund the SPCA and run AC they are more then welcome. We need all the help we can get and since everybody gets a hearing within 48 hours, I am not worried about fly masks, mud, or crated dogs being taken away forever with a guilty verdict. How hard is it to explain a fly mask?

I could not find anyone to do an investigation or seizure in the Lexington VA area 4 years ago, so I just watched 4 horses starve to death. PETA would be better then that too. VA is a large state. There are areas where nobody does a thing.

However, I do not hunt with hounds, I do not hunt with guns or arrows, wear fur, I do not abuse, starve, or breed my animals. I do not buy and sell animals. I do not feel any present or near future threat from AR groups at all.
I do not believe the slippery slope argument has any merit at all. Society changes over time. One day we may think pets are obsolete. That does not mean a small minority will force us to give up our pets. It means the majority will.

gieriscm

Feb. 6, 2009, 01:32 PM

LLDM

Feb. 6, 2009, 01:44 PM

So, why couldn't AC or the Sheriff's office (it varies by county who investigates, as in some AC is under the Sheriff's office, and in others it's not) currently use a "volunteer investigator" such as a vet, someone from a legitimate rescue, or other credentialed, experienced professional who is willing to help with cases if there's no public $$$ available? They already have the power to do it with no special legislation required.

What a good idea! I do know that this IS done already - and what I thought this bill was about when I first saw this thread. I could not for the life of me understand why you guys would be so actively against it.

If it is not happening now in many parts of Virginia, it is likely that officials do not really know about this option, do not know who to call or are unwilling to go "outside" to get help. That, or they just don't have the time, money or inclination to do any AC type work. We still have a lot of "old boy" network issues. Like no one wanting to turn in their buddy's kennel full of hounds starving on the off season.

Understanding *WHY* this legislation is felt to be needed would go a long way towards crafting a bill that would work as intended and not cause undue duress (and wasted money) to individuals and the courts with frivolous accusations.

SCFarm

Guilherme

Feb. 6, 2009, 01:59 PM

When I lived in VA I was a member of a mounted volunteer search and rescue team. While SAR is a law-enforcement function in VA, most departments had little $$$ allocated to it. Usually one guy would be in charge of it in addition to his other duties, and he would coordinate with the volunteer teams when an incident occurred. We worked very closely with the Sheriff's departments to make sure that they knew our capabilities, and periodically these people would attend training with us so that they could get to know us. Also, if a search was underway for a lost or missing person, we were not permitted to just show up; we had to be called to the scene by the responsible authority, usually the sheriff's office.

So, why couldn't AC or the Sheriff's office (it varies by county who investigates, as in some AC is under the Sheriff's office, and in others it's not) currently use a "volunteer investigator" such as a vet, someone from a legitimate rescue, or other credentialed, experienced professional who is willing to help with cases if there's no public $$$ available? They already have the power to do it with no special legislation required.

I think AC is done this way in a lot of rural counties. It was done that way here before our first paid AC officer. It's still done that way in at least two others I can think of.

Comparison of mounted SAR and AC is dicey. SAR is not, in its essence, a "law enforcement" activity. It's more of a "humanitarian effort" (looking to rescue folks in trouble).

A "mounted sheriffs posse" (and I'm aware of a couple) would be a closer match. The mounted voluteers are almost universally reserve deputies who are appointed by the sheriff, carry a gun, have arrest powers, etc. Counties that have them, I understand, also have some pretty strict rules that govern them. A mounted, reserve deputy must follow the same rules that a groun-pounding, paid deputy must follow. They have extensive training requirements. The county is liable for what they do. Indeed it's daunting enough that our last two sheriffs have declined to authorize one for our county because of administrative and liablity issues.

I'm a volunteer in our local DA's office. I help out in the General Sessions Court (the first level criminal court). I'm not a TN lawyer. I operate under a set of rules set down 12 years ago by our then DA. I'm closely supervised by one to four assistant DAs. I have virtually no discretion. I spend a fair amount of time "consulting" with my supervisors when I run into matters that are not clearly addressed in my rules. I am VERY aware of the limits of volunteers in service to the state. I have the power to "muck up" somebody's life (even if I don't have the authority). I walk my road very cautiously. I cringe when I see other volunteers (constables, reserve officers, "citizen activists," etc.) show up carrying their "torch." So do my supervising assistant DAs. Perhaps this explains some of my reluctance to see large numbers of "torch carrying" volunteers turned loose on society without a very strict program of control.

I still don't see the question to which the answer is "A large contingent of volunteer humane investigators."

G.

P.S. As a result of the debacle in our county, TN law now requires that a vet, county extension agent, or designated person with specific training in the husbandry of large animals swear by affadavit that large animals are being kept in cruel conditions before a court an order a siezure.

Tamara in TN

Feb. 6, 2009, 02:07 PM

P.S. As a result of the debacle in our county, TN law now requires that a vet, county extension agent, or designated person with specific training in the husbandry of large animals swear by affadavit that large animals are being kept in cruel conditions before a court an order a siezure.

seems like just yesterday :lol:

best

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Feb. 6, 2009, 03:02 PM

JSwan

Feb. 6, 2009, 03:03 PM

However, I do not hunt with hounds, I do not hunt with guns or arrows, wear fur, I do not abuse, starve, or breed my animals. I do not buy and sell animals. I do not feel any present or near future threat from AR groups at all.
I do not believe the slippery slope argument has any merit at all. Society changes over time. One day we may think pets are obsolete. That does not mean a small minority will force us to give up our pets. It means the majority will.

What you're really saying is that you don't care about what happens to other people as long as nothing you like to do is targeted. So - if I like to hunt or fish, it's ok to target me because you don't like to do those things.

I take it back. You'd not be a good Humane Investigator. :no: Law enforcement officers aren't supposed to go around enforcing their own personal moral code. They're supposed to enforce the law.

By all means invite PETA down to Aiken. Keep an eye on your dogs - they tend to disappear when their little white van is on the road. If your dogs do go missing, look for their bodies in the nearest shopping center dumpster.

Many people in this state prefer to spend what resources we have on professional development and hiring of paid ACO's - not divert resources to train or handle complaints from HI's. Our law enforcement agencies agree. Though many localities suffer budget problems, I don't know of one jurisdiction that has laid off ACO's. We're doing fine, thanks.

Since none of y'all appear to have read what I'd written - this program was discontinued several years ago because of problems with HI's. This Bill was not a stand alone Bill. There are others that complemented it.

You already know for a fact that HSUS lies. You witnessed it firsthand. Do you really think that if such people become HI's they will suddenly stop lying?

We tried this program. It didn't work and made things worse. If you'd like to have such a program, by all means contact your elected representatives and ask them to patron a Bill. In YOUR state.

LLDM - I responded politely to your post and would appreciate you at least letting me know you read it. I meant no offense but was only trying to provide a tiny bit of background information so folks could place this Bill into context. If I went into great detail I'd probably crash the COTH servers....

Paint Misbehavin - My memory is a bit fuzzy but the Georgia Equine Care Act is being challenged on due process ground as well. I can think of several other cases in which due process was an issue. (or lack thereof).

gieriscm

Feb. 6, 2009, 03:18 PM

Comparison of mounted SAR and AC is dicey. SAR is not, in its essence, a "law enforcement" activity. It's more of a "humanitarian effort" (looking to rescue folks in trouble).

Sometimes yes. Other times you'd end up with a kidnapping, murder investigation, or suicide. Hence in VA SAR falls under the jurisdiction of LE versus fire/rescue, though the volunteer searchers were not deputized. If we were in a rural area and wanted to search a farm, a deputy would contact the landowner and ask permission for access; we couldn't just ride around willy-nilly. I don't recall any instances where the landowner refused.

And in VA, my point is that the Sheriff's department has the authority to use volunteers when needed, so there's no reason for a new law. The Sheriff's just need to use the power they've been given. Whether or not they want to is another matter.

equinelaw

Feb. 6, 2009, 03:59 PM

[QUOTE=equinelaw;3863446]We already have a similar law in SC. S.C.A.R.E. and their members were all authorized to do this type of work. Except our people do not get immunity, so they were sued out of existence. S.C.A.R.E is shutting down and we will have no other statewide agency to handle equine investigations or rescues.

They had burn out, but they also got tired of convicted abusers (not falsely accused ones) suing them for years. All the way to the SCt years. It gets old. [QUOTE]

O.M.G.:eek: I just read that case. It's called State of SC v. Martin, and it's a slip opinion, 2008-SC-R0528.002, if anyone wants to read it.

It shows what a train wreck ensues when volunteer organizations get involved in law enforcement.

According to the opinion, SCARE removed the Martin's horses in August of 2003. Under the law, they could do this, but a hearing had to be held within three days to protect the Martin's due process rights. A hearing was scheduled some fifteen days later - and no one from the State bothered to show up!

So the Martins asked the court to vacate the seizure order. Another three weeks passed before a hearing on the Martin's motion to vacate was held. Then the magistrate refused to vacate the seizure order and return the horses. Instead, he ordered SCARE to schedule another hearing. In effect, giving SCARE a "do-over." The owners appealed.

A year and a half later the circuit court ruled the magistrate made the right decision. The owners filed a motion for reconsideration. These are routine motions, filed to preserve the right to appeal. Normally you get a ruling in a couple of weeks. More than two years later the circuit court ruled on the motion.

Finally, five years after the seizure the SC Supremes said the magistrate was wrong - he should have ordered the return of the horses if the state failed to show up at the hearing.

Were the Martins convicted abusers? Yes, but in another case which didn't go to trial until a year and a half after the seizure of the four horses at issue here. Does the fact that the Martins were abusing their horses mean the State doesn't have to give them due process? No. Because if the government gets to deprive some people of their property without notice and an opportunity to be heard, then it can deprive anybody of their property without due process.

It's why I represented the guy accused of dog-fighting that I posted about earlier. Would I take great pleasure in grinding the testicles of dog-fighters into a paste and serving to the SOBs on crackers?:yes: But if we allow a bunch of volunteers to swoop down on someone, take away all their pit bulls, and kill the dogs within twenty-four hours - what's to stop that same group doing it again? To someone who legitimately rescues pitbulls? Or to someone who keeps hunting dogs? Or sheepdogs? And of course, in this guy's case, because so much evidence had been destroyed the criminal charges against him were dismissed. I didn't represent him in the criminal action - I brought the civil suit against the blue-juice happy volunteers and the gummint agency that loosed them.

I didn't realize SCARE had folded their tents after this one. Their website is still up, and they're still soliciting donations, but their message board is down.

It wasn't just the Martin's never ending cash for lawyers, but the constant battle with people who do not feed their horses yet have funds to sue for years grinds people down.

The Martin's sued the state too. But since they had immunity they were out early. The Martin's had a good lawyer. It took weeks to round up all 60 horses. Many had never been handled before. It reads like they swooped in and seized them all at once, but I had one of the last horses' caught. The volunteers were not in charge of the case---its just that seizure was impossible without their help and funds.

They were convicted, went to jail, got out and started suing. Due process problem? Yes, but it was the State that dropped the ball and now everyone knows what to do and the State's Attorney has trained his people on how to do it right. The state's screw up are not part of the appeal since they got out on summary judgment in the start. It was Martin v State+SCARE+ about 20 other parties in the start.

But the case was really about whether the Martin's had to pay for board and care on the horses they could get back. They were not entitled to the one's that they were convicted for, but they can get the others back. For less then $1,000 a year per horse including all care and training. Harmless error but they still needed to figure out how much $$$ to get the other horses back.

They were charged with 60 counts of cruelty. The jury just came back with 4 counts after randomly shuffling the pictures and picking out a number they felt comfortable with. Because it was all so new, all so radical to even think of criminal convictions for horse neglect just 5 years ago. The jurors said they thought all were neglected, but they felt 60 was too much and none was not enough.

See its an important case. It s a lot of work and took our state from a place where horses were never saved to a state where we have both a way to seize them and due process for the owners. But it was all done with volunteers--even the training the state was done with pro bono attorney help. And of course all criminal trials in SC take a long time these days.

And now we have no $$$ to save any horses at all. So close and yet so far. But now the Trexlor's think they will do the same thing, but they are not aware of the Martin case.

My Pit Bull was taken with no due process and killed by the state. They admitted it was a mistake. They have immunity. I actually do not care who takes my pet and kills it--state or volunteers, but we have a rule that there must be a hearing. I honestly do not think any animals should be put down until after a hearing and after a conviction.

In contrast, the system in place for neglected and abused children is much, much worse. No due process at all in any meaningful way and no training for attorney or attorney GAL's. I'd take my chances with animals before I'd take my chances with children any day!

equinelaw

Feb. 6, 2009, 04:11 PM

What you're really saying is that you don't care about what happens to other people as long as nothing you like to do is targeted. So - if I like to hunt or fish, it's ok to target me because you don't like to do those things.

I take it back. You'd not be a good Humane Investigator. :no: Law enforcement officers aren't supposed to go around enforcing their own personal moral code. They're supposed to enforce the law.

By all means invite PETA down to Aiken. Keep an eye on your dogs - they tend to disappear when their little white van is on the road. If your dogs do go missing, look for their bodies in the nearest shopping center dumpster.

Many people in this state prefer to spend what resources we have on professional development and hiring of paid ACO's - not divert resources to train or handle complaints from HI's. Our law enforcement agencies agree. Though many localities suffer budget problems, I don't know of one jurisdiction that has laid off ACO's. We're doing fine, thanks.

Since none of y'all appear to have read what I'd written - this program was discontinued several years ago because of problems with HI's. This Bill was not a stand alone Bill. There are others that complemented it.

You already know for a fact that HSUS lies. You witnessed it firsthand. Do you really think that if such people become HI's they will suddenly stop lying?

We tried this program. It didn't work and made things worse. If you'd like to have such a program, by all means contact your elected representatives and ask them to patron a Bill. In YOUR state.

LLDM - I responded politely to your post and would appreciate you at least letting me know you read it. I meant no offense but was only trying to provide a tiny bit of background information so folks could place this Bill into context. If I went into great detail I'd probably crash the COTH servers....

Paint Misbehavin - My memory is a bit fuzzy but the Georgia Equine Care Act is being challenged on due process ground as well. I can think of several other cases in which due process was an issue. (or lack thereof).

What I really mean is what I said I am not afraid of your slippery slope scare tactics because I simply do not care if they win on half of the things you fight them over.

I think everybody lies I think you lie. I think you are exactly like the HSUS, but on the other side. Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I do not but I have never thought you do not have as strong as a personal interest or agenda as they do. You help animals too, but they have a differing ideal then you do. Neither are "right". Its just a matter of who wins. In general I find PETA paranoia makes me hear the message less, not more.

You are not doing fine. I watched horses starve and there was nobody to stop it. You are not all of VA and you do not own all of VA. NoVa is not like the rest of VA. They call it "occupied VA" in the rest of the state.

As stated earlier, we do have such a program here. My dog is not in a dumpster.

tkhawk

Feb. 6, 2009, 05:41 PM

Normally maybe. But I have seen posters on this board who view owning an animal as a form of slavery. Being on this board they must have horses-or had them and they did confirm having a dog. Yet they say they would be ok for domestic animals to go away in a generation or two.

That is scary-you get someone who has horses, dogs and know how much value they can add to a human's life and they believe in the end of domestication-then how easy is it to turn people who have no experience with horses against horses?

Reading J Swan's post that only 12 hrs is required was a little concerning. It is one thing if you have volunteers who have had a couple of months training and such. But just anyone off the street who can't tell much about horses or other stuff -well not sure how effective that is. Agencies are severely understaffed-probably why I thought they wanted to go this route-get people, no pay, no pension/benefits etc-free labour. But still without proper rules/training/procedures-it could lead to major problems. But it got shelved anyways..

equinelaw

Feb. 6, 2009, 05:59 PM

If in 2 generation having animals is seen to be like having slaves then it will be wrong to have animals. Like it was 2 generation after tehy decided it was wrong to have slaves.

You of all people know context and culture make what is normal seem normal. Sometimes its random and illogical.

12 hours is more then many paid people get now. The system is broken. Someone said if you do not like this solution then help come up with another one. Don't just shoot any solution down because it is somehow tainted with AR people.

They were then accused of being a PETA plant. They calmly explained that kind of talk actually works for the opposition. I tend to agree because that's what it does for me.

It makes me doubt which side is right and which side is wrong. And if I do not like the way people on my side talk and treat each other, which side to I end up on?

Because AR and slaughter and animal welfare are our version of religion and politics. It causes people to chose extremist sides and stop looking for solutions. JSwan often forgets she is not the only voice on a thread.

Guilherme

Feb. 6, 2009, 08:27 PM

Sometimes yes. Other times you'd end up with a kidnapping, murder investigation, or suicide. Hence in VA SAR falls under the jurisdiction of LE versus fire/rescue, though the volunteer searchers were not deputized. If we were in a rural area and wanted to search a farm, a deputy would contact the landowner and ask permission for access; we couldn't just ride around willy-nilly. I don't recall any instances where the landowner refused.

And in VA, my point is that the Sheriff's department has the authority to use volunteers when needed, so there's no reason for a new law. The Sheriff's just need to use the power they've been given. Whether or not they want to is another matter.

Point taken on SAR activities. :)

You're correct that a local sheriff can use volunteers. They even have a name: posse comitatus.

Use of volunteers is still a "dicey" business and must be carefully considered.

G.

JSwan

Feb. 6, 2009, 08:29 PM

Oh great. You can't focus on the issue so you start calling me a liar again.

I do not start these types of threads, and I don't have any agenda. I'm just a private individual and posted to give some background information to help people place this Bill into context.

No scare tactics and no slippery slope argument. All I wrote is that I think it's bad public policy, in this context, to give a very large pool of volunteers law enforcement authority.

That's a legitimate concern and simply an expression of a different view than yours. It's not unusual for a citizen to express reservations about special interest groups. Whether at the federal, state or local level, many people just plain dislike the influence they have.

You also do not know me and have no idea about my personal morality, philosophy, religion or politics. So do me a big favor and stop peering into my soul from your keyboard. Every time you do - you're wrong.

I don't "own" Virginia, but I do live here and am very much aware of the animal welfare work being done - statewide. Not just in my little corner of it. I'm also very familiar with the HI program before it was discontinued. Feel free to disagree with my concerns over this legislation, but you cross the line when you call me a liar.

I did not start this thread, I did not participate in it until several pages in, and I have done nothing but express my concerns, correct a few misunderstandings, and try and give some historical perspective about the Bill.

What I really mean is what I said I am not afraid of your slippery slope scare tactics because I simply do not care if they win on half of the things you fight them over.

I think everybody lies I think you lie. I think you are exactly like the HSUS, but on the other side. Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I do not but I have never thought you do not have as strong as a personal interest or agenda as they do. You help animals too, but they have a differing ideal then you do. Neither are "right". Its just a matter of who wins. In general I find PETA paranoia makes me hear the message less, not more.

You are not doing fine. I watched horses starve and there was nobody to stop it. You are not all of VA and you do not own all of VA. NoVa is not like the rest of VA. They call it "occupied VA" in the rest of the state.

As stated earlier, we do have such a program here. My dog is not in a dumpster.

equinelaw

Feb. 6, 2009, 08:44 PM

Actually I have never called you a lair before. In this case I said I think everybody lies and I think you lie. If everybody lies that would have to include you. You have called me a liar on several occasions so I guess I thought it was OK if I said I think everybody lies sometimes.

You do always take a small thing and take it to its most extreme conclusion. Along the way you make wild accusations, say nasty things, then take it back, make up and be all sweet again to whoever you insulted. Its so predictable its boring. But inthe end PETA is always coming to take your animals or some such doomsday result. That is what LLDM was trying to get across. Its rhetoric but not convincing.

I see you as an extremist just like you see PETA. You throw PETA and HSUS around and constantly tell me, and others, they will come for my animals soon.

I do not really care much about you at all to peer through my computer screen. I mostly ignore you unless you are being funny, but you seem to always want to STOP things from happening or PETA will come and take your animals away!

I do read your posts. I am not sure you re-read them when someone responds to them. I do not have an agenda. You do.

Here is an example of convincing vs rhetoric. Typical slaughter thread. County, who has posted 5,000 posts on the topic does the math and shows me that there is a 99.5% chance most horses will not end up at slaughter. That's a powerful statement.

JSwan

Feb. 6, 2009, 09:02 PM

I always read everyone's posts. Otherwise I would not have known to correct LLDM on a couple of points, or been able to offer my thoughts on the subject. I don't recall calling anyone a liar - that would be out of character for me. I do call people ignorant a lot. That's not an insult.

If my posts bother you so much, then just put me on your ignore list. Everyone on this BB eventually disagrees with another poster. Animal welfare is a deadly serious subject for me and though I don't like to speak publicly about it - there isn't much else to talk about on this BB except whether or not a particular saddle makes ones butt look too big.

This was a Bill in MY state legislature. I had information about it I thought I'd share since the subject was brought up. RNB and others commented upon the dual agency Bill - also a Bill in the legislature. If I thought it would help I'd post my thoughts on why that Bill was killed. But I have no doubt that there would be people accusing me of scare tactics or slippery slope arguments so why bother.

The reason I brought up PETA and HSUS, in this thread, was because those are the groups that lobbied for this Bill. If the NRA or Paris Hilton had lobbied for it I would have mentioned them too. And I would have been forthright and direct and just as critical.

If I had an agenda I would not waste my time on the COTH BB. I'd be out trying to take over the world so I could realize my dream of outlawing spandex on fat women. There really oughta be a law.

Just sayin.

I see you as an extremist just like you see PETA. You throw PETA and HSUS around and constantly tell me, and others, they will come for my animals soon.

I do not really care much about you at all to peer through my computer screen. I mostly ignore you unless you are being funny, but you seem to always want to STOP things from happening or PETA will come and take your animals away!

I do read your posts. I am not sure you re-read them when someone responds to them. I do not have an agenda. You do.

Here is an example of convincing vs rhetoric. Typical slaughter thread. County, who has posted 5,000 posts on the topic does the math and shows me that there is a 99.5% chance most horses will not end up at slaughter. That's a powerful statement.

equinelaw

Feb. 6, 2009, 09:34 PM

I disagree. Spandex actually pulls in the fat and smooshes it into a tighter, less blubbery package.

Spandex is what girdles are made out of, so it must be good for hiding fat.

MistyBlue

Feb. 6, 2009, 09:48 PM

If only that were true. :no: :winkgrin:
Evidence:
http://bikehugger.com/images/blog/fatguyinspandex-1-01.jpg :lol:

equinelaw

Feb. 6, 2009, 10:02 PM

Do you have a picture of the same man naked so that we might compare smooshiness?

Please say no!:)

LLDM

Feb. 6, 2009, 10:15 PM

What you're really saying is that you don't care about what happens to other people as long as nothing you like to do is targeted. So - if I like to hunt or fish, it's ok to target me because you don't like to do those things.

I take it back. You'd not be a good Humane Investigator. :no: Law enforcement officers aren't supposed to go around enforcing their own personal moral code. They're supposed to enforce the law.

I didn't get that out of what EL said. But then again, I am not looking to discredit EL either. Nor did EL say or imply that their moral code was superior, just what it was and that under those circumstances was not likely to run afoul of PETA. EL in no way disparaged you or yours.

By all means invite PETA down to Aiken. Keep an eye on your dogs - they tend to disappear when their little white van is on the road. If your dogs do go missing, look for their bodies in the nearest shopping center dumpster.

Again, just because PETA is wrong, it doesn't make you any more right.

Many people in this state prefer to spend what resources we have on professional development and hiring of paid ACO's - not divert resources to train or handle complaints from HI's. Our law enforcement agencies agree. Though many localities suffer budget problems, I don't know of one jurisdiction that has laid off ACO's. We're doing fine, thanks.

Sorry, but I don't buy that you personally know what most of the people in the state of Virginia think. I am glad that the people you know are doing fine. Why don't you call up one or two of the better, more professional rescues and ask them how they think it's going, if they think it's all fine and if they really don't need any more help from anyone - especially in counties and the municipalities with no ACOs. How about you personally keep tabs on how many ACOs get to keep their jobs in the next year?

Since none of y'all appear to have read what I'd written - this program was discontinued several years ago because of problems with HI's. This Bill was not a stand alone Bill. There are others that complemented it.

While I will buy that this program had problems, I am not sure I buy that it was a complete and total failure. Are you sure no animals were helped? You say you respect your HI, so there is at least one you don't think is worthless. I really hope she doesn't stumble across this thread though. Ouch.

You already know for a fact that HSUS lies. You witnessed it firsthand. Do you really think that if such people become HI's they will suddenly stop lying?

I tend to agree with EL here - everyone lies at some point or under some circumstances. You said it yourself, no one is wearing a halo. No one.

We tried this program. It didn't work and made things worse. If you'd like to have such a program, by all means contact your elected representatives and ask them to patron a Bill. In YOUR state.

I really dislike absolutes. In a way, claiming absolutes IS a form of truth-stretching, even though it is "just" to make a point. Again, are you sure not one animal was helped by this program? I believe some things may have been made "worse". And it may have been more trouble than the Commonwealth was willing to deal with. But since there still seem to be HI's out there who do not "suck" something decent must have happened once upon a time too. So in my mind, it might just well be worth trying to fix.

LLDM - I responded politely to your post and would appreciate you at least letting me know you read it. I meant no offense but was only trying to provide a tiny bit of background information so folks could place this Bill into context. If I went into great detail I'd probably crash the COTH servers....

With all due respect, if you quote me, address me directly and refer to my personal business in a derogatory way, I think I get to take offense, even if you swear up and down none was intended. I'd really hate to be on your bad side. No offense though. Really. ;)

SCFarm

MistyBlue

Feb. 6, 2009, 10:15 PM

Do you have a picture of the same man naked so that we might compare smooshiness?

Please say no!

LOL...you're lucky we have younger readers on this BB. I just did a google image search for Fat Naked Man...came up with some REALLY scary stuff I could have posted in response, but my inner-mom got the better of me and I won't scar the younger generation of female posters. :lol:

tkhawk

Feb. 6, 2009, 10:21 PM

LOL...you're lucky we have younger readers on this BB. I just did a google image search for Fat Naked Man...came up with some REALLY scary stuff I could have posted in response, but my inner-mom got the better of me and I won't scar the younger generation of female posters. :lol:

Thank God for that. I still can't get the picture out of my head of when I used to live in L.A. We are riding and a half naked heavily , heavily overweight guy with small shorts was walking in the trail. Granted it was hot-my mare spooked and hesitated to go past. At the risk of being called -well whatever it is I will be called-some people should not be allowed to walk shirtless and short shorts!:lol:

JSwan

Feb. 6, 2009, 10:59 PM

SCFarm

Well - I can't figure out how to quote what you wrote so hopefully this makes sense.

Sorry that you think I was singling you out. What I was trying to get across is that there are many people who would consider you one of the bad guys. I don't. I was pretty clear about that actually.

I already wrote that I consider the local HI a good egg. I wish they had all been like her. No need to write, "ouch", because I wrote that my comments were not directed at her. However, I don't think state and local resources need to be diverted to completely revamp a program that could be better spent on ACO's and related activities. Believe it or not, these things don't just appear out of thin air. There is no reason to spend money to fix a failed program when the resources can be better utilized to increase training opportunities, hire and retain ACO's, and fund associated animal control activities.

What disturbs me is that none of you have mentioned other Bills pending in the legislature that do help ACO's do their job. Didn't get an action alert about them? Not surprised.

Did you know about the ACO that was killed in the line of duty? Remember - these are law enforcement officers. Have any of you supported that Bill? No?

How many Virginians bother to work with their local government to make sure ACO's and shelter operations are included in the county budgets? Can't be done? Defeatist attitude - I hate that. It can and is done.

Just because the possibility exists that a county employee may be laid off does not justify throwing up our hands and passing poorly thought out laws.

My comments about halos was an attempt to defend you and defuse the personal attack made by another poster. I'm disappointed you did not see that. None of us should be forced to disclose personal information.

The comment had nothing to do with lying and everything to do with trying to keep the thread on topic.

Unfortunately, it seems some of you are determined to see fights and slights where none are intended. Too bad.

Hopefully some of you are voicing support or opposition to the other animal related Bills in the legislature, and not just bitching on the Internet about how "nothing" is being done . :no:

Finally - please remember that I do work in rescue. I'm pretty cognizant of how many rescues are overflowing. I'm not ignorant of the challenges poorer counties face. But many rescues are still taking dogs from out of state while in state dogs are being put down at shelters. Dogs are being shipped all over the place. Horse rescues are full, too. That's old news.

That's not a reason to support this Bill.

equinelaw

Feb. 6, 2009, 11:21 PM

Well - I can't figure out how to quote what you wrote so hopefully this makes sense.

Sorry that you think I was singling you out. What I was trying to get across is that there are many people who would consider you one of the bad guys. I don't. I was pretty clear about that actually.

I already wrote that I consider the local HI a good egg. I wish they had all been like her. No need to write, "ouch", because I wrote that my comments were not directed at her. However, I don't think state and local resources need to be diverted to completely revamp a program that could be better spent on ACO's and related activities. Believe it or not, these things don't just appear out of thin air. There is no reason to spend money to fix a failed program when the resources can be better utilized to increase training opportunities, hire and retain ACO's, and fund associated animal control activities.

What disturbs me is that none of you have mentioned other Bills pending in the legislature that do help ACO's do their job. Didn't get an action alert about them? Not surprised.

Did you know about the ACO that was killed in the line of duty? Remember - these are law enforcement officers. Have any of you supported that Bill? No?

How many Virginians bother to work with their local government to make sure ACO's and shelter operations are included in the county budgets? Can't be done? Defeatist attitude - I hate that. It can and is done.

Just because the possibility exists that a county employee may be laid off does not justify throwing up our hands and passing poorly thought out laws.

My comments about halos was an attempt to defend you and defuse the personal attack made by another poster. I'm disappointed you did not see that. None of us should be forced to disclose personal information.

The comment had nothing to do with lying and everything to do with trying to keep the thread on topic.

Unfortunately, it seems some of you are determined to see fights and slights where none are intended. Too bad.

Hopefully some of you are voicing support or opposition to the other animal related Bills in the legislature, and not just bitching on the Internet about how "nothing" is being done . :no:

Finally - please remember that I do work in rescue. I'm pretty cognizant of how many rescues are overflowing. I'm not ignorant of the challenges poorer counties face. But many rescues are still taking dogs from out of state while in state dogs are being put down at shelters. Dogs are being shipped all over the place. Horse rescues are full, too. That's old news.

That's not a reason to support this Bill.

That's weird. It ended at "nothing" for about the first 10 minutes. Then it corrected.

No of course I do not do those things. I ever get mixed up in politics.

JSwan

Feb. 6, 2009, 11:27 PM

That's weird. It ended at "nothing" for about the first 10 minutes. Then it corrected.

No of course I do not do those things. I ever get mixed up in politics.

I noticed that too - it was a typo and I went back and corrected it.

I loathe politics and feel the need to take a long hot shower when exposed. Lather, rinse, repeat. I stay out of the fray.

But if any Virginians would like to support the Bill increasing the penalty for assaulting an ACO, I'd be happy to PM you a link to the Bill. There is another Bill that would extend the coverage of a protective order to animals. I know people feel strongly about that one but heck - either pro or con just call or write your legislator.

They don't bite.

LLDM

Feb. 7, 2009, 09:59 AM

JSwan - Who is being defensive again?

Sorry that you think I was singling you out. What I was trying to get across is that there are many people who would consider you one of the bad guys. I don't. I was pretty clear about that actually.

I was simply pointing out the dichotomy between what you were doing and what you were saying about it. I am not offended, just a little confused. And having the right to be offended is not the same as *being* offended. Actually, I was sort of amused. On a side note: No one likes to be singled out and made an example of. I would have felt no better had you used some other breeder as an example.

I already wrote that I consider the local HI a good egg. I wish they had all been like her. No need to write, "ouch", because I wrote that my comments were not directed at her.

I was agreeing with you. However, If I were her, your comments might be pretty hard to take. I am sort of surprised you can't see that.

However, I don't think state and local resources need to be diverted to completely revamp a program that could be better spent on ACO's and related activities. Believe it or not, these things don't just appear out of thin air. There is no reason to spend money to fix a failed program when the resources can be better utilized to increase training opportunities, hire and retain ACO's, and fund associated animal control activities.

This is what I really don't understand. I would *really* appreciate some more detailed information on this point. How much money is associated with this program? What budget does it come out of? Will that money be made available for the alternatives you describe if this Bill fails? At the local level or the state level? How many ACOs will not be hired in order to accommodate this volunteer program?

What disturbs me is that none of you have mentioned other Bills pending in the legislature that do help ACO's do their job. Didn't get an action alert about them? Not surprised.

Did you know about the ACO that was killed in the line of duty? Remember - these are law enforcement officers. Have any of you supported that Bill? No?

No, to both - guilty as charged. I have not supported them. I know nothing about them. Haven't fought them either. Do they need support? Is there any controversy about them? Is there an action alert you would like to pass along? I usually let the people who are actually educated about such things handle them unless they ask for help. When someone does ask for help with a Bill, I generally expect them (and their fellows) to be able to explain it and defend their opinions without getting defensive (or abusive).

How many Virginians bother to work with their local government to make sure ACO's and shelter operations are included in the county budgets? Aside from voting for the folks who tend to support such things? Nope. Can't be done? No one said that. :confused: Defeatist attitude - I hate that. It can and is done. WTF are you talking about? I *DO* support my local government's shelter operations - and our ACO's are mostly very good. But *MY* local government is in good financial shape compared to most in this state. My concern here the majority the small counties with lots of animals and very, very few resources to help the ones in trouble.

Just because the possibility exists that a county employee may be laid off does not justify throwing up our hands and passing poorly thought out laws.

JSwan, with all do respect, I *never* said it should be passed as is. My whole entire point was that people who were from out of state and had no idea what was going on here might want to mind their own business. AND I wanted to know what so was darn bad about a Bill that seemed, on its surface, to be helpful and cost effective.

And although it's been like pulling teeth, I've gotten an education on the objectionable nature of this bill.

So, my next question was along the lines of 'can it be fixed?' I mean really, before we throw the baby out with the bathwater and frustrate our legislators (by appearing as alarmists, reactionaries or zealots) are there positive changes in the Bill we could request as the *reason* we are coming out against *THIS* particular piece of legislation?

I thought this track would be much more positive and effective than reading some (sorry Anne FS) poorly worded, vague, kinda alarmist post on CoTH and winging off some uninformed email to my local senator and congressman.

Damn, you would have thought I wanted to start WWIII. :lol:

My comments about halos was an attempt to defend you and defuse the personal attack made by another poster. I'm disappointed you did not see that. None of us should be forced to disclose personal information.

Um, I was agreeing with you. And thank you.

The comment had nothing to do with lying and everything to do with trying to keep the thread on topic.

And I was just trying to support EL's point about "lying" - which, if I am not mistaken, was a counter argument to the whole idea that proving PETA lies about some things does not prove that their opposition never lies and is right about any particular issue. Lying isn't always black and white. The whole point of real debate is to present one's point in as positive a light as possible. In that vein, on man's exaggeration is another man's lie. Again, I didn't read EL's statement as personal against you (although I know how easy it is to feel that way - :yes:) , but as a general statement about human nature.

Unfortunately, it seems some of you are determined to see fights and slights where none are intended. Too bad.

At this point, I think we are all a bit guilty of that.

Hopefully some of you are voicing support or opposition to the other animal related Bills in the legislature, Here's were I get so frustrated. This statement is just fine. and not just bitching on the Internet about how "nothing" is being done . :no: But this makes a leap of logic that is simply NOT in evidence. I jumped into this thread for the exact *OPPOSITE* reason. The call to people to *STOP* a Bill that was not so bad, IMO from what was posted, and did not follow logically. And I was slightly incensed that out of state people wanted to effect the passage of a Bill in MY state on information that seemed IMO very misleading.

Finally - please remember that I do work in rescue. I'm pretty cognizant of how many rescues are overflowing. I'm not ignorant of the challenges poorer counties face. But many rescues are still taking dogs from out of state while in state dogs are being put down at shelters. Dogs are being shipped all over the place. Horse rescues are full, too. That's old news.

That's not a reason to support this Bill.

I do challenge you or anyone to find anywhere that I have called for anyone to actually support this Bill. I have repeated asked what was wrong with it, why and how it could be fixed (or if it could be fixed). No, I refused to jump on the bandwagon of people actively trying to stop this Bill without a whole lot more information being presented. By that time the Bill had already been defeated.

What are your ideas for helping the poor counties and the animals in those counties?

SCFarm

JSwan

Feb. 7, 2009, 10:30 AM

This is where the English language fails. There is no plural "You". It's hard to jump back and forth from making a general comment and a specific one. German is much better but I need a lot of Scotch to remember all the verbs.

I wrote before that if I got into the detail necessary to explain everything I'd crash the COTH servers. I tried to condense it as much as possible. I draw the line at public/private partnerships in a different place than you.

Nor do I wish to discuss what's before the legislature. There are many Bills that could affect animal owners and it's up to the individual to read them and pass along their thoughts to their representative. The LIS is up and running and all citizens have access.

During the year there are countless opportunities for citizens to voice their thoughts on various regulations proposed. There are opportunities for all citizens at the local level too. It does take time to read up and become familiar with the details and background and players, as well as the complexities of many of these programs. It can take an enormous amount of time.

It's a bit unfair to ask a person to explain it ten words or less. In fact, the only way to be concise is to issue a blanket statement and then one can't help but sound like Rush Limbaugh.

In other words, I can't make it easy for folks to become educated and I'm no longer very interested in trying.

ETA - I cannot express how quickly the Bill went down the drain. There was no interest in patronage. The only patron dropped out and another was found right before the filing deadline. No law enforcement agency supported it. VACA and the VHC did not support it. The AG did not support it. It was quickly assigned to a subcommittee and tabled unanimously. That is why action alerts went out - because the Bill had NO support from the first. I don't know how to express how unpopular this program was and how much strong resistance there is to opening it back up again. What else can I say? It failed and fails every time.

There are other good Bills that merit consideration and I'd encourage you to read up on those and voice your opinion if you'd like.

A while back there was a comment period on a regulation that would have affected every horse owner in the state. It was regarding the Coggins requirements. I tried to get people to write with their comments and was met with silence.

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. So residents of this state who wish to participate go forth and do what you will. Or don't.

Fairview Horse Center

Feb. 7, 2009, 12:33 PM

However, I do not hunt with hounds, I do not hunt with guns or arrows, wear fur, I do not abuse, starve, or breed my animals. I do not buy and sell animals. I do not feel any present or near future threat from AR groups at all.
I do not believe the slippery slope argument has any merit at all. Society changes over time. One day we may think pets are obsolete. That does not mean a small minority will force us to give up our pets. It means the majority will.

Do you use leather products? Do your pets benefit from training of medical personel, development of procedures/drugs using animals?

As a result of the debacle in our county, TN law now requires that a vet, county extension agent, or designated person with specific training in the husbandry of large animals swear by affadavit that large animals are being kept in cruel conditions before a court an order a siezure.

And so it should.

I think it's bad public policy, in this context, to give a very large pool of volunteers law enforcement authority.

That's a legitimate concern and simply an expression of a different view than yours. It's not unusual for a citizen to express reservations about special interest groups. Whether at the federal, state or local level, many people just plain dislike the influence they have.

I TOTALLY agree!

PETA's agenda is only to create "ads" for their fundraising. The more outrageous their acts, the more attention they get. Just think of all the good the money to pay for a Super Bowl Ad could really do. Instead, it just goes to more fundraising.

What I personally REALLY wish, is that eveyone would be as concerned with obese horses, as they are with ones that are too thin. Can I go onto a property and get a warrant to remove horses so severely overweight they are in danger of foundering? Lame horses that are packing an extra 100 lbs on their painful feet/legs? Why is there no one fighting for those animals? Recent studies show that about 60% of all horses are seriously overweight. What about the torture being done to severely overweight cats and dogs. I think vets should be able to seize them at their offices. They sure see enough of those.

The thing I see that is so worrysome to me are the seizures of 30, 50 etc horses, and only 1 or 2 are seriously underweight. That to me points more to a specific horse issue, rather than a neglect problem. The power to do that needs to be taken away, not enhanced.

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Feb. 8, 2009, 03:09 PM

This is where the English language fails. There is no plural "You".

Is, too!:winkgrin: We just have to convince people in other parts of the country that y'all is always plural.:lol:

Some non-southerners think we use it to address one person - for example, asking the waiter, "Do y'all have sweet tea?" - but we mean y'all as in the restaurant owner and staff. We tend to think in collective terms more so than folks in other parts of the country, IME. But I digress.

equinelaw - I know you didn't mean to imply animal ownership could ever be equated with human slavery, right?:yes:

Guilherme

Feb. 8, 2009, 03:17 PM

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Feb. 8, 2009, 03:24 PM

Beg to differ, here. "Y'all" is singular; "all Y'all" is plural. :lol:

G.

No, no. Being a social people, we need a super-plural to indicate everyone is welcome - "all y'all come over after church Sunday.":lol: Or, if you are in the Appalachians, "y'uns" and "y'unses" serve the same purpose.:yes:

Fairview Horse Center

Feb. 8, 2009, 03:28 PM

equinelaw - I know you didn't mean to imply animal ownership could ever be equated with human slavery, right?:yes:

It definitely does!

They come into the kitchen and purposely trip me to order up their IMMEDIATE dinner. They wake me out of a sound sleep to let them in and out. Then they make me stand in the freezing cold in my barefeet, while they bark at a shadow, do nothing, but sniff around, refusing to come in. They take great joy in waiting until I sit down, lay down to bark/scratch to come in.

I work to earn money for food they turn their nose up as. I scurry around cleaning up after them. I sneak out to the barn to give one horse a treat, and do they accept it quietly? NOPE, they have to alert the entire barn so I have to give everyone something. They make fences, doors, buildings all toys that we have to keep fixing, because they entertain themselves at our expen$e. We put a hose in a trough to try to give them water, and they have to drag it all over the field, so we can't get anything else done but stand there holding it.

We won't even get into the bed/couch hogging. :no:

This is a form of human slavery. They definitely control us. ;)

Guilherme

Feb. 8, 2009, 03:31 PM

No, no. Being a social people, we need a super-plural to indicate everyone is welcome - "all y'all come over after church Sunday.":lol: Or, if you are in the Appalachians, "y'uns" and "y'unses" serve the same purpose.:yes:

You could be right, and we just have a "regional variation." :cool:

I first learned to "speak Southern" in South Texas and that's not really The South as most folks understand it. East Texas, however, is and that's the usage that I remember from Houston. ;)

Ah, Texas. They say the South ends in Dallas and the West begins in Ft. Worth. That leaves Grand Prarie right in the middle, which is about the best spot in the world for it. :lol:

G.

equinelaw

Feb. 8, 2009, 03:37 PM

Is, too!:winkgrin: We just have to convince people in other parts of the country that y'all is always plural.:lol:

Some non-southerners think we use it to address one person - for example, asking the waiter, "Do y'all have sweet tea?" - but we mean y'all as in the restaurant owner and staff. We tend to think in collective terms more so than folks in other parts of the country, IME. But I digress.

equinelaw - I know you didn't mean to imply animal ownership could ever be equated with human slavery, right?:yes:

How the hell would I know? This thread is days old.:)

I am sure I did not because I do not think that, but maybe it was in a post referring to the concept of how things can be "clearly right" one year and "clearly morally wrong" the next. Slavery is always a good example of that, because who supports slavery? Anything else and its crap shoot to assume there is a consensus on "moral right and wrong".

I do know I just saw the most craptastic seizure of abused horses to date. The link is on Fugly. The newsclips and extended video are horrifying in the lack of even basic common sense.

The horses are just fine and the reporter is saying they are starving and can barely stand. "Look" he says, "its eating grass! The poor thing is starved!" They live in a barn with no electricity and no heat!

It was AC--not untrained volunteers. A few 300lb+ AC officers, so maybe their concept of starved is off, but The horses had what looked like MANURE on their feet!

The system is not proving training to AC officers or volunteers.

Somebody somehwere on this thread, G? said they now require a TRAINED large animal expert before a seizure. I gotta say a hell yeah to that idea.

Fairview Horse Center

Feb. 8, 2009, 04:23 PM

I do know I just saw the most craptastic seizure of abused horses to date. The link is on Fugly. The newsclips and extended video are horrifying in the lack of even basic common sense.

The horses are just fine and the reporter is saying they are starving and can barely stand. "Look" he says, "its eating grass! The poor thing is starved!" They live in a barn with no electricity and no heat!

It was AC--not untrained volunteers. A few 300lb+ AC officers, so maybe their concept of starved is off, but The horses had what looked like MANURE on their feet!

OH, MY, that article and those videos should strike terror into every one that owns an animal. Being able to seize healthy, cared for horses by calling them neglected is CRAZY. I am so angry. :mad: The reporter is calling the horse weak, and staggering to get his balance. Nope, the horse is dragging his handler around a bit, then gets a bit "up" and jigs on the way to the van. The weight is fine, coats look healthy and even groomed. The horses are being kept in a closed shed, but horror of horrors, no heat? The article says, "According to trainers, horses can be in the cold, but not for days at a time." How stupid is this?!?! Ladies, I guess we all have to now heat our run-in sheds, or we are in danger of losing our horses. And boy if they are not obese, look out - arrested for neglect. Don't you know that if hay is in front of a horse, and they drag you to it, they are starved animals? The fact that this actually happened, and CBS ran it as a top story like it is valid is just terrifying.

The story ends with the anchor saying, again,"there was no electircity in that barn!" <shakes head>

A couple of those horses looked to be quite a bit on the porky side.

Here are the starved horses. The 2nd photo is actually one giving a buck (not the "weak" one that was jigging).

equinelaw

Feb. 8, 2009, 04:46 PM

I would actually be less concerned if it were clueless cat ladies doing this, but that was State action. That was AC.

"Look!" the reporter said as the horse gets a treat, "They have given him a sucrose tablet for strength so he doesn't fall down!"

Fairview Horse Center

Feb. 8, 2009, 04:58 PM

"Look!" the reporter said as the horse gets a treat, "They have given him a sucrose tablet for strength so he doesn't fall down!"

Yes, that was about 3 seconds before he was jigging. I guess it worked. :rolleyes:

pAin't_Misbehavin'

Feb. 8, 2009, 06:53 PM

I
This is a form of human slavery. They definitely control us. ;)
:lol: I stand corrected.

I first learned to "speak Southern" in South Texas and that's not really The South as most folks understand it. East Texas, however, is and that's the usage that I remember from Houston.
I expect you're right. I was just reading Cormac McCarthy, and apparently Texans use the form "your-all" for the plural possessive. New one on me, but it makes sense.:yes:

I would actually be less concerned if it were clueless cat ladies doing this, but that was State action. That was AC.
I haven't had time yet to watch the video, but AC has from time to time been a thorn in my side for crazy reasons, so I'll believe you. I had an AC officer get after me years ago over my GSD, who expressed a vociferous dislike of my neighbor. Later turned out the old perv was peekin' in my windows at night! But we didn't know it at the time. Anyway, Axl won the day finally by snatching the old fellow's flashlight as he leaned over my fence and depositing it at my back door.:lol:

Trixie

Feb. 8, 2009, 08:08 PM

My whole entire point was that people who were from out of state and had no idea what was going on here might want to mind their own business.

Why? As far as I’m concerned, this is a public bulletin board and a public legislative issue being discussed. Legislature in the individual states is actually quite important for ALL Americans to discuss, since what happens in one place often sets precedent for what happens in another. I’d certainly rather see people discussing what our politicians are discussing rather than ignoring politics entirely and accepting the status quo.

Here's a thought: Be careful what you say - and how you say it.

You may wish to take the same advice, since um, what was it you said:

So, now if I am anti animal starvation and neglect I must be some vapid animal rights activist? FOAD.

Oh, right. “FOAD.” If you’re going to be telling people to watch their mouths, perhaps consider not using acronyms for something that is, at the very least, in poor taste?

LLDM

Feb. 9, 2009, 08:20 AM

Trixie - I have explained my position multiple times. You are welcome to take my comments out of context all you want. It doesn't change what I said or why I said it. Explaining it again is unlikely to help you understand it any better at this point.

What I do not understand is why many of the people on this thread think bullying me will work. Or when I defend myself and refuse to back down, how more bullying is going to work even better. See how you feel when people start getting personal - very personal - about you.

Your opinion isn't worth any more than mine is.

SCFarm

Trixie

Feb. 9, 2009, 09:29 AM

I'm sorry you feel bullied, but telling people to "FOAD" is never appropriate. I see you put the name of your business in your post, which is admirable, as that kind of attitude really doesn't reflect well on it, regardless of what people throw your way.

I maintain that I'd rather see people have a healthy (mind you, NOT a pile on) discussion about precedent here. It's ignorant to think that just because someone is from another state they shouldn't be concerned in the politics of our state: because similar bills can very easily be passed there. As much as one might want to think of Virginia as insular, legislation affects everyone.

Believe me, I work in Washington. The amount of hoopla surrounding any legislation passed anywhere has people protesting in our streets here all the time.

Your opinion isn't worth any more than mine is.

I'm not exactly sure of your point with this.

JSwan

Feb. 9, 2009, 09:50 AM

I don't know what FOAD means. :confused: but I take it it's not a compliment?

My participation was intended to be nothing more than giving some background on this Bill - which has been dead for days and is starting to smell. No point in rehashing it.

It was also intended to be nonpartisan. Whether one thinks a particular animal welfare Bill is a good or bad piece of legislation does not have to fall along party lines.

I suspect the real intent here is to just argue for the sake of arguing, or to accuse people of bullying. That's pointless. In the case of the bullying accusation; it's also inaccurate.

Presenting information on the history and issues of this Bill isn't bullying at all. It's simply presenting information. Don't read so much into it.

I hope that the persons who expressed interest in learning more actually spent the weekend doing so. Like I wrote before - it can take an extraordinary amount of time to finally understand and appreciate a particular issue.

If I was to recommend anything, it would be to not wait until the session starts to get involved. By then it's difficult to get up to speed, and one tends to rely upon action alerts. You'll never get a complete picture from action alerts; they tend to be alarmist in nature. Full of half truths, rhetoric or extremely partisan.

The truth is always somewhere in between. But it does require a person to seek it out, and that takes time and effort.

Guilherme

Feb. 9, 2009, 09:55 AM

I don't know what FOAD means. :confused: but I take it it's not a compliment?

"F**k Off And Die?" A cousin to "Eat S**t And Die?"

Concur with your comments. Stupidity has never been a "party line" thing.

Or, to paraphrase Napolean: Intelligence has its limits, stupidity has none.

G.

JSwan

Feb. 9, 2009, 09:57 AM

"F**k Off And Die?" A cousin to "Eat S**t And Die?"

G.

Oh.

I really do need to get out more.

MSP

Feb. 9, 2009, 10:36 AM

I didn't know what it meant either! I guess I don't get out enough either!

J swan, I think they call that shooting the messenger.

Here in MS it is All Y'all ! And they say things like "bless your heart" and "don't start nothin there won't be nothin". Wise words to live by! :winkgrin:

Tryin2Event

Feb. 9, 2009, 10:44 AM

This is a direct result of the growth of government. Follow the money. What campaigns did PETA give money to? There is your answer of why this is happening. And it is going to get worse and worse.

"A government that is strong enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson

LLDM

Feb. 9, 2009, 11:12 AM

I'm sorry you feel bullied, but telling people to "FOAD" is never appropriate. I see you put the name of your business in your post, which is admirable, as that kind of attitude really doesn't reflect well on it, regardless of what people throw your way.

I never told "people" to FOAD. It was clearly directed at Chief2, who IMHO was beyond inappropriate and bullying me by making ridiculous accusations. I was angry. Maybe it was inappropriate, but what about Fruitbats Often Are Despicable offends you so much? You are welcome to interpret it differently of course. It is a free country.

I maintain that I'd rather see people have a healthy (mind you, NOT a pile on) discussion about precedent here. It's ignorant to think that just because someone is from another state they shouldn't be concerned in the politics of our state: because similar bills can very easily be passed there. As much as one might want to think of Virginia as insular, legislation affects everyone.

Again, please read my posts for comprehension. Where did I ever say that no one should discuss it? Please refrain from restating my arguments incorrectly. What I did say was that it was inappropriate for people from out of state to call or write the Virginia legislators about a bill that did not directly concern them. If people are worried about such laws they should contact their own legislators, IMO and not waste the resources of some other state.

Precedent is precedent, nothing more. It is not law. And Virginia laws can not compel other states to DO anything. Precedent is only applicable if situations are enough alike. EL did a really good job of explaining the localities in which and the situations in which this law might prove helpful for animals with no other options. So before dismissing this bill out of hand, I thought it would be nice if the discussion included the reasons this bill even existed in the first place.

I still contend that the original post which called people to action was not representative of the real issues (BOTH Pro and Con). I am truly sorry you disliked my method of getting the real issues out in the open. Oh, wait....

Believe me, I work in Washington. The amount of hoopla surrounding any legislation passed anywhere has people protesting in our streets here all the time.

Gee, that's so much better than when I lived there and people were rioting in the streets over issues. Discourse is generally helpful.

I learned a lot on this thread. But then again, I actually read it.

I'm not exactly sure of your point with this.

Pretty much the same as yours.

JSwan - The FOAD was NEVER aimed at you. When I thought you overstepped, I said so directly and thought we came to a reasonable place of agreeing on much and agreeing to disagree on the rest. I do appreciate the discussion. As I said above I learned a lot on this thread and much of it was from you.

To me bullying is when those arguing with you go personal - which did happen to me several times in this thread. Each time I responded as I thought appropriate. No one has to like it. I didn't either.

SCFarm

Trixie

Feb. 9, 2009, 11:47 AM

I never told "people" to FOAD. It was clearly directed at Chief2, who IMHO was beyond inappropriate and bullying me by making ridiculous accusations. I was angry. Maybe it was inappropriate, but what about Fruitbats Often Are Despicable offends you so much? You are welcome to interpret it differently of course. It is a free country.

Secret decoder ring, anyone? :rolleyes:

As far as I can tell, Chief2 is a person. Secondly, if you're going to MAKE UP definitions, don't be surprised when people don't understand you. Your new "definition" is certainly not common knowledge or remotely googleable. Nice arguement for your bad behavior, though.

Everythingbutwings

Feb. 9, 2009, 12:07 PM

When a state changes, or considers changes to a law, it quite frequently has ramifications that affect laws in other states. Think of legalizing gay marriage, for example. Voter ID's, states have their own rules regarding what is or isn't acceptable identification but there is a huge push for a nationalized identification system.

How late and what days liquor can be sold, how old you have to be to drive, all vary from state to state and sometimes county/district by district. Gun control laws, there are a myriad of important issues that are regulated state by state that have impact on other jurisdictions.

To object to someone from another part of the country expressing their concerns over legislation in another state is rather self centered and ridiculous.

I would expect my representatives, simply by having been voted in to office by people in the area where I live, (whether or not my opinion is in the majority there), to act in the interest of those who elected them. To basically tell others that they are not to express their rights to free speech under the constitution by speaking their minds is quite silly and very much a selfish and self centered way to behave.

LLDM

Feb. 9, 2009, 12:09 PM

Secret decoder ring, anyone? :rolleyes:

As far as I can tell, Chief2 is a person. Secondly, if you're going to MAKE UP definitions, don't be surprised when people don't understand you. Your new "definition" is certainly not common knowledge or remotely googleable. Nice arguement for your bad behavior, though.

Oh for crying out loud, it was a joke. I was laughing the first time I wrote it too, as I was trying not to be pissed off. Surely you have been around COTH long enough to know about Where's The Fruitbat (WTF)? Helga and Inge? It was a spin off of an old COTH BB longstanding joke. Personally, I thought it was rather creative myself. But I will admit to a double entendre. Where I come from, wit can often be risque and still socially acceptable.

So, just for the background and in case anyone missed it - Here:
http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=30044&highlight=WTF+Helga

SCFarm

Everythingbutwings

Feb. 9, 2009, 12:11 PM

It was a spin off of an old COTH BB longstanding joke.

FOAD is a long way from an old COTH BB longstanding joke. :cry:

oldenmare

Feb. 9, 2009, 12:19 PM

Okay - people - will everyone please take a step back and BREATHE for a minute....

While I may or may not agree with MANY MANY things posted here, I will say that knowing LLDM personally, she does not use the "F" word on a regular basis or throw out phrases like "FOAD" meaning "F off and die". Just not her language.

And I say this while disagreeing with many of her points - but that is not the point of my post.

Its too easy to misinterpret the written word as inflection is often missing.

Calling people names is petty and immature. Regardless of who is doing the calling and whether the person initiated the name calling or is simply responding to it.

Oldenmare - who is going out to play with her horses on this lovely winter day.... (of course, a day at -30, ice and wind would be preferable to the nature this thread has taken).

LLDM

Feb. 9, 2009, 12:20 PM

Ah yes, I forgot how stunningly effective it is to affect the laws in one's own state by lobbying the legislators of some other state. Silly me. Because we all know that all the laws in all the states are exactly alike and that all legislators are like lemmings and all states have the exact same issues and people and problems, and and... :rolleyes:

Yep, that's me - selfish beeyotch. Wanting my own opinions. Caring about neglected animals in poor counties with no dedicated ACOs. Hoping to find solutions that don't cost the Virginia tax payers more money during economic downturns. Thinking that a public - private partnership might work. And daring to question the call to arms over a Virginia state bill *might* have more to it than "volunteers can come on your private property" aspect to it. Yep, that's me, the antichrist. :uhoh:

SCFarm

LLDM

Feb. 9, 2009, 12:21 PM

FOAD is a long way from an old COTH BB longstanding joke. :cry:

s.p.i.n.o.f.f.

SCFarm

Everythingbutwings

Feb. 9, 2009, 12:23 PM

s.t.r.e.t.c.h.

LLDM

Feb. 9, 2009, 12:41 PM

s.t.r.e.t.c.h.

Have you even read this thread? Do you have any context at all for this discussion? Preytell how should I have responded? And why do you care? It has nothing at all to do with the subject. You and Trixie can get all personal with me again, but it has nothing to do with the subject, which concerns the manner by which animals may or may not be helped when they may or may not be at risk. A subject that matters to me.

Honestly, I am far more concerned about this crazy business up in Chicago. I would really, really like to know what is up with that seizure. Because on the face of it (and by the horrid reporting), it looks bogus. So even if it isn't bogus, it does damage to all legitimate seizure operations and immeasurable damage to the concept of animal welfare.

But, by all means, let's get back to ostracizing me on my use of inappropriate acronyms.

SCFarm

Everythingbutwings

Feb. 9, 2009, 12:48 PM

And why do you care?

Look, I simply tried to point out that one can't tell others they are not to hold an opinion, much less speak up about that opinion just because they don't happen to be from Virginia.

You say you are concerned about what's happened in Chicago, but by your very statements you shouldn't be allowed to hold an opinion since that's apparently none of your business.

Why do I care? Because I happen to think that it's okay for people to hold opinions other than mine, even if they are from somewhere else. Who are you to say it has nothing to do with me?

Trixie

Feb. 9, 2009, 12:49 PM

We merely pointed out that claiming to be referencing a three year old thread, while not actually providing any references to said thread or entendre, is not particularly "witty," nor is it a justification for speaking rudely out of anger. No one called you "the antichrist" either. :dead:

You should have responded politely.

LLDM

Feb. 9, 2009, 01:28 PM

Look, I simply tried to point out that one can't tell others they are not to hold an opinion, much less speak up about that opinion just because they don't happen to be from Virginia.

I never said that. I never implied that. Trixie said I said that. It doesn't mean that I did. Putting words in my mouth, misquoting me, or otherwise trying to make it so doesn't make it so.

You say you are concerned about what's happened in Chicago, but by your very statements you shouldn't be allowed to hold an opinion since that's apparently none of your business.

See above.

Why do I care? Because I happen to think that it's okay for people to hold opinions other than mine, even if they are from somewhere else.

See above.

Who are you to say it has nothing to do with me?

Because you are addressing me, making assumptions about what I said and telling me things that do not make any sense if you had actually read the thread.

We merely pointed out that claiming to be referencing a three year old thread, while not actually providing any references to said thread or entendre, is not particularly "witty," nor is it a justification for speaking rudely out of anger.

I just figured since you have been a poster far longer than I, and have made over 3000 posts, you could not possibly have missed the whole WTF, Helga and Inge joke that went on for over a year - and still pops up on a regular basis. Besides, I wasn't talking to you when I said it. Besides, no one else had a problem with it days ago when I said it. You went back how many pages and dug it up why?.

No one called you "the antichrist" either. :dead:

Then why are you being so holier-than-thou with me?

You should have responded politely.

Again, did you read the post I was responding to? Why should I have been polite to someone getting *that* personal because I did not just go along with *their* dogma? I was as polite as I could manage at that moment and tried to temper it with a little humor. Accuse me of being unfunny, fine. But you are defending the person who went all personal and rude, and quite frankly, came pretty close to defamation of character (IMO) on me in the first place. Twice. So why are you quoting me out of context and refusing to let this die. What did I do to you? Where's the Fruitbat?

What is wrong with you guys? What the he!! did I do to you?

I am done here. This thread is so off the rails it ain't even funny. And you guys have added *nothing* of substance whatsoever. And I am done defending myself to the likes of you two. I stand by everything I have said. Disagree all you want. But please stop making things up.

SCFarm

Fairview Horse Center

Feb. 9, 2009, 02:00 PM

Honestly, I am far more concerned about this crazy business up in Chicago. I would really, really like to know what is up with that seizure. Because on the face of it (and by the horrid reporting), it looks bogus. So even if it isn't bogus, it does damage to all legitimate seizure operations and immeasurable damage to the concept of animal welfare.

That is for sure, as it has made me really think about supporting any group. I am now adamantly opposed to HSUS and of course PETA. I will actively encourage anyone I know to not support animal rights groups.

I am now firmly of the opinion that we had ALL better protect/defend in addition to agressively opposing, or we WILL lose our animals to the crazy nutjobs. This story is not unique. It is about the 4th one I have seen of a bogus rescue in the last year. SCARY!

As for others messing in a Virginia issue, COME ONE COME ALL! and I hope Virginian's will help to lobby against other state's "scary" laws as needed.

I have personally sent quite a long letter to 3 of the CBS reporters.

equinelaw

Feb. 9, 2009, 02:12 PM

I am not sure what conditions were like inside that barn in Chicago, but the complete and utter lack of any sense by the reporters was a good example of how incredibly stupid people can be.

Of course the reporters did not seize those horses, but the power of suggestion is so strong he saw things that were no there because someone in authority told him to look for them.

This thread is full of examples of AC out of control and out of their minds. Whether paid of volunteer, I think we can all agree that proper TRAINING is needed no matter who has the power to seize.

Here, they do not recognize a starving animal. In other places, they may not recognize a healthy one. I know once you get into Government contracts things can get expensive but getting experienced people to volunteer to TRAIN all welfare workers about large animals may make us all feel better?

Trixie

Feb. 9, 2009, 02:13 PM

LLDM, I quoted you directly, and I don’t feel that it was out of context. I do have a problem with the attitude that it’s “inappropriate” for someone to contact a legislator with their opinion, for, as far as I can tell, it’s their right as a US citizen.
That’s why I asked you WHY you felt that folks should mind their own business, when laws that set precedence are everyone’s business. Furthermore, those outside opinions help our legislators to foster a global perspective.

If the lawmaker is concerned with only the opinions of his constituents, most serious letters DO have a return address. Surely, if the lawmaker doesn’t feel the opinion is valid, he or she can disregard it.

Yes, I remember the “Where’s The Fruitbat” debate. However, “FOAD” is not the acronym that they used, it was “WTF” – therefore, one wouldn’t assume, in a completely separate discussion three years later when one is speaking out of obvious anger (and furthermore, admitting to being angry) that we are to decode an unrelated acronym as “Fruitbats Often Are Despicable.” That doesn’t make any sense.

As for why you should be polite, that’s up to you. I know that when I’m working in an industry, I avoid responding out of anger in a public forum regarding that industry because it makes ME look bad. However, any way you choose to behave is truly your prerogative, and it’s your reputation.

equinelaw

Feb. 9, 2009, 02:25 PM

The poster that LLMD has responded to was calling her a lair and a PETA plant. That is not polite.

LLDM

Feb. 9, 2009, 02:25 PM

Trixie - You have a PM.

JSwan

Feb. 9, 2009, 03:06 PM

I know once you get into Government contracts things can get expensive but getting experienced people to volunteer to TRAIN all welfare workers about large animals may make us all feel better?

This program is touted as a way for AC to be "cheap".

This is problematic for me for several reasons.

It takes away training slots for existing ACO's.

These people did not want to report to ACO's; they wanted to be autonomous and not be in the existing "chain of command" but separate and apart.

With nothing more than a 12 hour course. That is less time than it takes to get a drivers license. The hunter education course is much longer than that. (in this state)

Cheapening AC cheapens the concept of animal welfare as a legitimate part of public safety and a functioning society. It strengthens the perception (and reality in some jurisdictions) that Animal Control is the red headed stepchild. Marginalizing Animal Control also marginalizes animal welfare - for both livestock and companion animals. Shuffled off into a corner - to be dealt with haphazardly by a combination of volunteers, paid staff, unsupervised rescues - salted with a few crooks and quacks.

One argument I happen to espouse is that Animal Control and animal welfare must be serious subjects for government; not a subject easily palmed off onto special interest groups, volunteers, or other entities with their own agenda.

When I oppose the HI program (as it existed in this state), I do so because I DO believe that it is preferable to spend our resources and fill our training slots with paid professionals. I insist that animal welfare be taken seriously - and that means I want our ACO's to be treated and respected for what they are. Law enforcement officers. I want good people in those positions. Just like I want good firefighters, cops and teachers. If the locality does not have an ACO, then the job can be done by other LEO's. It's done all the time.

ACO's are not the red headed stepchild. Animal welfare is not just a subject to be dealt with in 30 seconds at the end of a busy BOS meeting. But it must also be balanced with the rights of citizens, and there must be some protections against overzealous people. In this state, we were unable to overcome those obstacles and decided instead on improving professionalism and education among the ACO's. (understand that these are intended to be broad sweeping statements. I don't actually hang out with the governor or AG;))

I think that's the right direction, as it is more likely to result in a balance between rights and responsibilities.

Understand also that in this state, there is already this public/private partnership in the form of the unfunded mandate that every jurisdiction operate an animal shelter. Unfortunately, many of these shelters are not operated very well - but because they are "free", local government does not do anything about it. Some of these shelters are hellholes.

It's not a good idea to continue to marginalize or politicize animal control.

I was appalled by an old episode of an Animal Cops episode. The one with the lady with the blond ponytail. She seized a perfectly healthy horse because it had nothing to eat (lived in a lush green field) had obviously been abused (ran from the guys chasing her with ropes), and was obviously abandoned (owner was at work).

The horses seized by the SPCA (a nonprofit shelter) in Philadelphia). A case in Louisiana. Cases here.

There are plenty of cases of people abusing their authority. I'd prefer not to add HI's back on that list in my state. They were the worst.

The "hound expert" in my rescue insisted that my beagle was a Coonhound. She's an "expert" on hounds and hunting dogs but can't identify the most popular hound breed in the US? Do you want that person to have a badge?

equinelaw

Feb. 9, 2009, 03:24 PM

No, but the people with the badges are idiots too So this bill is dead. We are past this bill. We are moving on.

G. said in his area a trained large animal expert must be consulted. I am suggesting a bill that provides trained large animal experts to volunteer to train the ACOs or whomever has the badge.

Becuase it is kind of standardized and it does not take long to teach body condition scores, basic horse keeping standards and what is and is not neglect. I am not saying they must actually be able to DO the stuff a D pony clubber can do, just know what they are looking at and know who to ask if they do not know.

Lets say there was such a program. The volunteers need a 1 day training and testing to make sure they are experts and have a set of standards to apply. Then they train, for free the ACO staff.

I'd sign up for such a program. I think you would too. I think half of COTH would. I know we do not all agree on barefoot v shoes or grain v hay only, but we all seem to know a starving horse when we see it and the BCS is not hard to apply.

I could train a group to not do almost everything we have talked about on this thread in half a day. Someone, somewhere would have to decide if H20 24/7 was a legal necessity, but we can all train someone to do a dehydration test in 2 minutes.

Pick a book. The PC manual, a Farnum book, any book and all use it. Take out the ignorance and much of the personal discretion. Feed, water, feet, and wounds.

JSwan

Feb. 9, 2009, 03:37 PM

I see no reason for the program you envision.

First, the animal control course already covers most of that.

What is does not cover is the extensive law enforcement education an LEO/ACO requires in order to do their job. That comes from the academy and HI's cannot attend the academy. ACO duties involve more than body condition scoring. These are LEO's.

Second, I see no reason volunteers should be placed in a position of authority over ACO's. This is an inappropriate insertion of special interest groups over government. Not only would I not volunteer for that, I'd donate a helluva lot of money to stop it.

Third, as Animal Control exists in this state, LEO's and ACO's already have resources available to them to assist in determining the status of an animal.

You assert that the volunteers need not be barefooters or maybe even Parelli types - but here is the problem with that assertion.

You can't control who the volunteers are. That's what we ran into here. You cannot stop a particular group from volunteering. There can be no "No PETA allowed" signs. No, "Strasserites Need Not Apply".

You do get the PETA people. You do get people who think horseshoes are inhumane. You cannot exclude a group of people based upon their beliefs - and those with the strongest beliefs are the ones most likely to want to volunteer.

That's what we ran into here. People who ignored what they were taught, got their badge, and went out and not only screwed people, but interfered in lawful investigations that resulted in criminals going free.

No thank you.

No, but the people with the badges are idiots too So this bill is dead. We are past this bill. We are moving on.

G. said in his area a trained large animal expert must be consulted. I am suggesting a bill that provides trained large animal experts to volunteer to train the ACOs or whomever has the badge.

Becuase it is kind of standardized and it does not take long to teach body condition scores, basic horse keeping standards and what is and is not neglect. I am not saying they must actually be able to DO the stuff a D pony clubber can do, just know what they are looking at and know who to ask if they do not know.

Lets say there was such a program. The volunteers need a 1 day training and testing to make sure they are experts and have a set of standards to apply. Then they train, for free the ACO staff.

I'd sign up for such a program. I think you would too. I think half of COTH would. I know we do not all agree on barefoot v shoes or grain v hay only, but we all seem to know a starving horse when we see it and the BCS is not hard to apply.

I could train a group to not do almost everything we have talked about on this thread in half a day. Someone, somewhere would have to decide if H20 24/7 was a legal necessity, but we can all train someone to do a dehydration test in 2 minutes.

Pick a book. The PC manual, a Farnum book, any book and all use it. Take out the ignorance and much of the personal discretion. Feed, water, feet, and wounds.

Guilherme

Feb. 9, 2009, 04:46 PM

I've got to agree with JSwan.

I was personally involved with our local AC fiasco. I knew all the major players. I was present at many of the hearings.

Using "volunteer humane investigators" opens a door. Who walks in the door? What do we do with them after they do? How, and upon what grounds, will we "show them the door?" Who will manage and run the program? These are just a few of the problems with a "volunteer humane investigator" program.

If it's structured similar to programs for reserve deputies and police officers (which tend to have some pretty rigorous requirements) then I don't have all that much of a problem using them as "force multipliers" for paid ACOs. They can be additional sets of eyes and ears. BUT, and here's the thing, if they are going to assist an appointed ACO they must follow the same rules and be subject to the same liabilities as an appointed ACO. This means what they do can cause their appointing agency to be sued. And it means that the volunteer, him/herself, can be sued (any person acting under color of law is subject to a Federal Civil Rights claim). It's unlikely that a state or municipality will defend the volunteer in the event of a suit.

Put another way, using the "volunteer humane inspector" to circumvent, directly or indirectly, any Constitutional, statutory, or regulatory restrictions on regular ACOs will be a dangerous road to travel.

Again, the use of unpaid volunteers to assist in the delivery of governmental services is not, of necessity, a Bad Thing. It does, however, need to be closely controlled. That means a WHOLE lot more than just extra education.

G.

equinelaw

Feb. 9, 2009, 06:54 PM

Fairview Horse Center

Feb. 9, 2009, 07:09 PM

I am sorry. Were you not the person who said after your fiasco they now have a rule that a large animal expert must be consulted before a seizure? And that you liked that rule?

Wouldn't the "large animal expert" be an on call large animal Vet?

Body scores are sometimes difficult to learn & are still then subject to interpretation. People try to come up with a score for one area, but you have to take in the whole horse. Some horses have a great topline, nice coverage over their hips, top of tail, neck/shoulder, but can still be a bit ribby. Others you can't see a single rib, but their topline starts dropping a bit, hip bones not looking well rounded. I prefer to see the first, and they will be darn close to that 5 score. Others as soon as you see a hint of rib, they are calling it a 3, no matter what the other areas look like. They think you find the lowest score area, not an average.

We see lots of posts on here from very experienced breeders about some of their broodmares that get taken down at the end of their nursing each foal. I think the term used is they "look like crap". They are pouring the food into these mares, but they just give it all to their babies. Breeders make the best choice as to when weaning should occur - give the baby a good start, but not let the mare get dangerously thin. Do we want uneducated people to just "rescue" all of those horses?

Public opinion can be so varied. Which group can we say has the right to be "right".

equinelaw

Feb. 9, 2009, 07:14 PM

Wouldn't the "large animal expert" be an on call Vet?

Body scores are sometimes difficult to learn & are still then subject to interpretation. People try to come up with a score for one area, but you have to take in the whole horse. Some horses have a great topline, nice coverage over their hips, top of tail, neck/shoulder, but can still be a bit ribby. Others you can't see a single rib, but their topline starts dropping a bit, hip bones not looking well rounded. I prefer to see the first, and they will be darn close to that 5 score. Others as soon as you see a hint of rib, they are calling it a 3, no matter what the other areas look like. They think you find the lowest score area, not an average.

I assume if they seize horses for eating grass or having mud on them or all these other stories there is no Vet on call. Most ACs do not have a Vet.

Maybe give Vets continuing education credits for teaching horse course to ACs?

Fairview Horse Center

Feb. 9, 2009, 07:20 PM

I think before ANY seizure should take place, an "independent" large animal vet would have to be present. Make a phone call.

AC: "Hi Dr xyz, I need to you come to ____ to examine some horses."

The call should be paid by the county.

The vet should be hired, and subject to malpractice laws. That would be the best protection from this kind of bogus seizure.

I think their has to be some enity that is responsible, that in a case like this, would be held liable for punitive damages.

Trixie

Feb. 9, 2009, 07:31 PM

We see lots of posts on here from very experienced breeders about some of their broodmares that get taken down at the end of their nursing each foal. I think the term used is they "look like crap". They are pouring the food into these mares, but they just give it all to their babies. Breeders make the best choice as to when weaning should occur - give the baby a good start, but not let the mare get dangerously thin. Do we want uneducated people to just "rescue" all of those horses?

Some folks that take in OTTB's report the same issues within a few months off the track - they "crash" before they start perking up and gaining weight nicely. That's not to say they're mistreated by any stretch, but it could easily look that way to someone who doesn't know anything about OTTBs.

Guilherme

Feb. 9, 2009, 09:10 PM

I am sorry. Were you not the person who said after your fiasco they now have a rule that a large animal expert must be consulted before a seizure? And that you liked that rule?

Now you do not like it or you simply think the expert must be paid and cannot be pro bono?

Why is it a problem to just sit them all down at once before an expert is needed and explain how to tell and abused horse from a normal horse?

Eh, never mind. Its not really my problem and I get more clients from screw ups then from prevention and forsight. Fixing the problem would leave these threads without all the fun horror stories about ACO screwing up. No fun in that.

I have no idea if you are asking a question or making a statement.

I said if "volunteers" are trained to proper standards AND managed appropriately that their use is not, automatically, a Bad Thing. I also used the example of the reserve deputy/police officer. In any event that would require them to fully comply with the law, including the use of a large animal expert if they suspect problems with livestock.

G.

equinelaw

Feb. 9, 2009, 09:34 PM

I have no idea if you are asking a question or making a statement.

I said if "volunteers" are trained to proper standards AND managed appropriately that their use is not, automatically, a Bad Thing. I also used the example of the reserve deputy/police officer. In any event that would require them to fully comply with the law, including the use of a large animal expert if they suspect problems with livestock.

G.

Ahhh. Is the "them" that's getting people confused. A few posts ago I suggested volunteers train ACOs so THEY would not make mistakes. Not that any volunteers would do any law enforcement at all. So, understandably I am confused why "they" would have to comply with any laws or anything.

My suggestion is that experts volunteer time to train ACO's to tell abuse from a muddy horse and skinny from fat. Not on the day of a seizure, not during a seizure, not in anticipation of a seizure, just have training classes by experts to train the people who keep making these mistakes. Those experts could donate their time to teach the classes.

I suggested a basic test and qualification for an "expert" because in all reality many people could have the knowledge but not a degree in Vet science or Animal science or Equine science.

Basic at a minimum, but I am not opposed to continuing after seeing that thread a week ago saying the shelter manager made over $100K a year.

Fairview Horse Center

Feb. 9, 2009, 09:49 PM

I suggested a basic test and qualification for an "expert"

But who would get to decide on the test, and qualifications?

equinelaw

Feb. 9, 2009, 10:01 PM

But who would get to decide on the test, and qualifications?

Who decides now? I think a test is pretty easy to develop, but as I said, once you get Govnt. contractors involved it turns into $$$$ hell.

There are guidelines and associations for ACOs out there. There are basic horse how to books out there. There is the internet. I think we are talking about a pony club c or B rating for management but without all the riding and tack part. 4-H extension materials with lab work?

I think the test could be the qualifications if the test was like a PC test or a CR test? because you wouldn't want to exclude someone like GHM because he does not have a degree. I really think PC covers it all. Stables and ponies kept at grass IIRC.

From the examples given it seems the most basic stuff is not known. One day its well look at all the screw ups AC does and the next its "I do not see a problem" makes no sense. I think just a C rating in PC management is miles above the training they get now.

BTW--I looked at the background of the IL case. Hay touching manure was abuse. Like in the stall. I just don't think that's realistic. Unless you always use haynets its gonna happen. Who much expertise is needed to explain that?

Fairview Horse Center

Feb. 9, 2009, 11:13 PM

OK, this is what I sent to the reporters that had their names in the broadcast.
I just felt that I wanted to do something to try to give them a clue. They will probably not read a word.

Here is an education about horses by someone that manages a large boarding facility for over 30 years. I hope you take the time to read this, unless you really don't care about accurate reporting.

The reporting of the "rescue" of the horses was absolutely horrible. These horses were in good weight, groomed, healthy, and spunky. What kind of political mess is going on in Chicago, that even the news reporters are involved with stealing someone's horses. You SHOULD be investigating the corruption that allowed this to happen.

Unheated barns? Thank GOD! The most unhealthy place for a horse to live is in a closed, heated barn. Horses urinate, and a days worth of ammonia from urine MUST have air flow so the horses are not damaging their lungs by breathing ammonia. LOTS of ventilation. Their fuzzy coats keep them warm. They should NEVER be in a heated barn.

A barn with no electricity (lights) is a hassle for the PEOPLE working in it, but the horses are much safer. 99% of barns that burn killing all inside are due to an electric problem.

The reporter that stated the horses should have been presented with flowing manes and bright shiny coats must have needed glasses. My immediate reaction to seeing those horses was, WOW, they are even well groomed, and the coats are shiny. It was EXACTLY the moment in the tape that the reporter said they were not. LOOK before speaking. (or were you just trying to manipulate people's thoughts?)

The horse dragging the person to the hay was NOT weak. ALL horses will drag you to a pile of hay if you let them. Draft horses are pushier than most. There was not a skinny horse in the bunch of them. Most were OVER weight, fatties. LOOK at them.

When it is sub freezing, the horse's stalls will freeze to the ground in a solid bottom, including frozen down manure. The dampness makes them freeze within a few hours of being "out of body temperature". Urine will make the bedding (shavings) damp and totally frozen. You CAN'T clean it out of a stall without a jack hammer until you get a warm up. The good thing is frozen urine and poop does not smell, so no damage to lungs. It is unsightly, yes, but not unhealthy at ALL. It is what ALL stabled horses have to deal with if they live in the northern parts of the US, or Canada, Russia, Germany, etc. As soon as it warms up, the caretakers have a LOT of work, digging out the thawing mess. I understand that is what was happening that day. It was beginning to thaw.

Heated water is what causes most barns to burn. Well over 75% of the barns in the US deal with water without heated buckets and troughs. We crack ice 3 or 4 times a day. Sometimes the buckets freeze up within an hour of cracking them.

Horses in the wild do not live at the river. They travel sometimes a day away to graze, returning to drink. Horses need ENOUGH water, at intervals, not constant water. People that own horses and work in barns do not provide 24 hour staff in 99% of the barns. We check water late in the evening, knowing that it will freeze, and the horse will have to wait until morning to have more water.

When I first began to manage a barn, I found almost empty buckets at my 11 PM check and filled them up. I did this for a year before realizing that what I had filled was not touched again all night. Horses eat the bulk of their dinner and hay, then drink all they want.

Horses shiver if cold, but it is a VOLUNTARY reflex, not INVOLUNTARY like us. When they get a bit chilly, they "turn on their vibrator" That to them is like stomping their feet, or like some people, jiggle a foot. It is a mild exercise that raises their body temperature. If they are NOT shivering, they are NOT cold. Horses are WELL prepared to live in sub-zero temperatures for the entire winter. They just need enough hay to maintain their weight.

The horses shown were not weak. One was jigging with his exuberance on the way to the trailer. Another gave a little head toss (kind of a yee ha buck). This is CLEARLY what HEALTHY horses do when kept up for a few days due to weather, and finally get back outside to play.

This report should have a "reprint", as so many things were misleading (intentional?), wrong, and outright lies. Investigate the corruption that is doing this. Investigate your fellow reporters. This has been sent to all 3 of you. Rob Johnson, Anne State, and Dorothy Tucker. Those horses were STOLEN from their owner, and you helped them, and contributed to the brainwashing of all who heard your report.