Printable View
Amen to that. All I've ever had to do to get a health certificate is make a call and it's in the mail or ready for pick-up within 24 hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Horse Farm
Sure my horses are healthy and vaccinated but it does give me pause and I sure as heck won't loan out buckets, offer up extra space on my picket line or let my horse do a sniff-and-greet with that in the back of my mind.
From the owner (manager?) of the rescue, regarding her AQHA suspension. Also proof that she is a horse breeder, in some form, at least.
As pointed out by someone else:Quote:
Deanna Tierney
OK. The question of my AQHA suspension has been asked, and I have no problem answering. Back in 2008 I bred my Hancock mare to a halter sire out of Texas. When the filly was born, I submitted my papers to register the foal. I did the DNA testing on the mare as requested and it was found that the breeder had messed up the sire of my mare. I started the long process of getting her papers corrected so I could register the foal. In 2010 I lost foal ( now 2 year old) to colic. Shortly after that we had a big thunderstorm roll thru and my mare was struck by lightning and died. I informed AQHA that I didnt need the corrected papers. Now its 2012 and they suspended me for not mailing the incorrect certificate on a deceased horse back to the office.There it is.
Quote:
1. She bred the mare in 2008
2. 11 months later a foal was born.....so that would be 2009 unless the mare was bred in January or the foal was premature
3. Assuming the foal was born in 2009, the foal would be a yearling in 2010
Yet she claims he was a 2 yo when he died in 2010?????? And isn't it ironic that the mare died too?????
And why would AQHA want the papers on a deceased mare with a deceased foal 2 years later? I would think the suspension would be the breeder of the mare who "messed up" the sire, not the "innocent" 3rd party who bought the mare......unless the person in question tried to pass off the papers of another horse as belonging to this mare......same dam, but perhaps not registered???????
IMO, this "explanation" is full of holes........
So sad all the way around.
Pigeon Fever rang a bell for me, and I remembered watching an Equine Dermatogist presentation video at theHorse.com
You can read more here
http://www.thehorse.com/TopicSearch/...er&nID=6&ID=92
http://m.aaep.org/health_articles_view.php?id=358
It seems more than a bit odd to me that government officials would condone transporting these horses- known to have strangles and pigeon fever - all around. I guess I am trying to understand why they wouldn't try to work out a way to quarantine, assess, and treat in place. Stress can have such a negative impact on immune systems; and my thought would be to try to minimize stress and thoroughly assess the health issues before hauling all over. No doubt the breeder was in over her head; but at least she was receptive to the need to downsize her herd; which makes me think quarantine in place might have been a workable option.
I am curious what the USDA and the state Ag Vet think about this herd being hauled around the state given the known Strangles & Pigeon Fever problem. In re-reading about Pigeon Fever; it sure seems possible to me that an outbreak of PF could cause a whole lot of health problems. If the leg ouchies were related to the PF; I remember the Equine Dermatologist talking about how hard that could be to treat. It's a shame that the euthanized horses probably weren't necropsied. And, the questions about the horse rescue concern me.
There are good rescues who operate w/ transparency and oversight w/ independent Board of Directors, etc. Sadly, the best one that I know of still catches hell when humane euthanasia comes up - they will occasionally fundraise for funds to bail & euthanize an especially sad auction case that has been brought to their attention -- and for not taking in every horse that somebody thinks they should rescue from every auction and Craigslist Ad. The one I am thinking of IS very picky about placements, requires annual vet & progress reports, and they will absolutely take back a horse if requirements aren't met - per their contract. And, the horses that they adopt out cannot be bred. They are just very transparent about their finances as well as the rationale behind their policies, and you can donate directly to the vet, farrier, or feed store. Plus they provide LOTS of communication, pictures, video, and an open door policy (by appointment) as well as open houses. Not to mention being appropriately registered as a non-profit, etc.
Personally, I have a problem with a breeding operation simultaneously running & soliciting funds for a rescue operation -- for me that is a conflict of interest. I have no problem with breeders acting as fosters and taking tax donations for expenses in caring for those fosters -- under the supervision of a reputable rescue organization.
I am not an expert on anything; but I just can't help feeling that perhaps a bad situation has possibly been made worse. I hope I am wrong.
I was just reading on their FB page and the owner is starting to get rude, crude and socially uncouth.
Some lady is sticking up for CCH and catching a bit of h*ll for it. Then, I noticed the NV AG astride one of the rescues horses, a personal saddle horse of the rescues owner. Hmmmm.....
The hauling of these horses with PF and strangles was something I wrote about a while back. Someone wasn't thinking clearly and wanted to move things too quickly. Now the sale barn is prolly infected and all the other horses coming through there, how many will be vacc'd against strangles??
A cluster is possibly in the making....
So true. I bought one with strangles 2 years ago.....I will never do that again. Fortunately the rest of my barn was immune enough but having one very sick horse screwed up my entire summer :(. And he came with a "health certificate" from the sale barn. Go figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonoverMississippi
I've answered this one on other threads - impounding in place is very difficult. You can't send volunteers in to help care for the horses as even if the owner starts out cooperating, they can get belligerent. Most counties don't have enough resources to assign their law enforcement officers to spend time overseeing volunteers feeding twice daily. Additionally, in most situations, there aren't facilities to separate those who need additional feed/treatment/care as there are at holding facilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by ldaziens
As to 'know stranglers and pigeon fever' - who knew the horses had it? The owner? Most of the times owners who are having their horses seized aren't truthful - they'll say nearly anything to keep their horses. So even if she did tell the LEOs on the case about the strangles and pigeon fever, she may not have been believed.
If they were kept isolated at the auction barn, then transporting them there shouldn't be a huge problem if it was done well.
I seem to recall that several COTHers said why didn't she ask for help here.
Well, there is someone on the giveaway forum who is desperately (their word, not mine) looking for homes for a few ponies.
And sadly Joanne, did you notice, noone is stepping out to help in the "desperate" situation. Then when something like this happens everyone is shocked and says, why didnt they ask for help. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Joanne
Welp, for the record, I can't take on any other horses, 'stuck' with the two varmints I already have. I see your point though.Quote:
Originally Posted by anon123456
An update, I read on one of the FB sites, charges have been filed. Can't prove it, just someone posted this.
I'm still not clear on CCH being able to redeem her horses after being cleared of charges (if that is the case) and the *ahem* rescue saying they are their horses, can do with them what they'd like, which is gelding pretty much all of them.
...and I still say, the horses couldn't have been that bad in body weight, except for the hoof lengths, if the sale barn dumped pure, rich alfalfa straight to them and then no horse died. If the horses were THAT thin and bad, all that alfalfa dumped on them would have caused problems in, if not all, a good portion of the horses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneriding24
If past incidents are an indicator, a person with no means to hire a lawyer with bite won't be able to see her horses again.
yep I am being a bit cynical here.
I am confused about something - maybe I missed it. Around here, in seizures, the horses can't be released to adopt until the court case is done, which can take months. The last big neglect case our rescue handled in March the sheriff allowed the owner to sign them over to us to avoid full seizure (saved the county $$, we got the care and homes for the horses, and they already had the evidence they needed for a court case). Had he not signed them over, they would have had to seize and care for the horses, at county's cost, until the disposition of trial, which was 6 months later with a guilty plea - would have been longer if he fought.
So ... did CCH sign the horses over, or what? How did this new rescue get them signed over and able to be adopted out?? I know another local rescue who has been around for years and used to be the go-to for the sheriff had a case in the past where they took in the horses, got them healthy and back up to weight, then the horses had to be returned to the owner (without restitution) when the case was dismissed or he was acquitted or something like that. I would think if they were adopted this could be a problem? Also gelding - can't imagine how that can be done on a horse that is not yet legally theirs?
I won't even talk about the QT, not finding homes, etc. Even in the case I mentioned above, when the horses were all 1-2s, we adopted most out almost immediately, to vetted homes that were prepared to care. It is so much easier to rehab 1-2 starved horses than it is to rehab 22 (or 34 in this case). And those horses shown were nowhere near the condition of the Sumner case our rescue did.
Just things that stood out to me.
I don't understand this either. The rescue says they are theirs, lock, stock and barrel. But the case is ongoing, it seems.
One lady I know, got a rescued mare and foal, took care of them for several years, raised the foal and I think once the foal was grown up, had her started, thinking she owned the horses.
The original owner came back after the horses when his/her court case was over and the lady I know, had to beg on the internet for $9500 (yep, $9500) to 'buy' the horses after all. People chipped in to help her keep the horses but the original owner wouldn't budge on the price. Sort of like, if you want the horses, okay, but you're gonna pay big time for the horses. He/she got their money too.
You don't think rescues would ever lie do you?
hell, it probably cost the original owner that much and more to win the court case.Quote:
Originally Posted by goneriding24
Sucks bigtime for the lady who adopted them...but that's when the heart is involved...
Weird thing with people:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tif_Ann
You got one black puppy on the news with a bad luck story and 400 people call the station, wanting to adopt it.
All while the pound puts 400 of the same kind of black dog to sleep because nobody wants them...
I guess it's the same with horses, when they are fat and happy nobody takes them, not even for free. When they are 'rescued' everybody makes room in the barn for one more mouth to feed.
even if the other horse won't cost as much in vet fees and feed bills...
Found this:
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines...170596096.html
I'd like to see the court documents. So they were allowed to take the horses if they paid the board and vet bills. Sounds good. But does it give them ownership? The criminal charges are still pending - I would still question if they have full ownership; if CCH's ownership has been taken away. Giving them custody and care of the horses is completely different from ownership.
And as a rescue owner, you BET I would have posted a copy of the legal document granting us custody for anyone to see at any time. I like transparency.
well, if you have a herd of horses at home, chances are you don't have a boarding bill factored into the budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tif_Ann
Along with lawyer bills and whatnot...
While I agree, the facilities ought not be out of the money...if you don't lose your court case, should you have to pay for it?
It's not direct a new idea to persuade people to give up their animals by charging them a good bit for the care...it is often suggested when 'not so nice' owners of lost not not so well treated animals could ask for their animals back of which the new care giver has grown fond by now or they don't agree to the old owners care practices.
They can't even get the 501c number off of her. She's "too busy taking care of the horses". You'd think that certificate would be stuck on her wall and her memory.
This whole thing smells to high heaven.
should be the first thing she tells donors...:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyGreen
But she has time to talk to TV...
HSUS/PETA graduate?
I doubt it. She's just another breeder in over her head.