The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 226
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    NorthEast
    Posts
    24,514

    Default

    Out and out LIES used against breeders and owners is acceptable by these groups.

    THAT is why I refuse to support them. DEFHR has lied, injected horses and in fact, broken the law.
    Apparently DEFHR is not the only liar:

    My other vcomplaint about these FUNDED rescues is: Due to the numbers of volunteers, they are able to look after horses and keep them in conditions that no normal horse owner would be able to afford. They then take these unrealistic standards i.e. water in a bucket must be clear of grass or mouth droppings and must be fresh AT ALL TIMES 24/7 that no one without hundreds of volunteerrs could achieve. They then try and change the laws so those without these free resources are unable to own horses.
    Add up the number of rescues and hundreds of volunteers is probably an under assessment. I do not know what DEFHR has now but at one time they had over 50 and they also bragged that when they made the seizure call that they had inexcess of 50 volunteers come out.



    Any rescue gets flooded with volunteers during and right after a seizure. Believe me...it dwindles fast. Name one...a SINGLE rescue...that has hundreds of volunteers showing up on a regular basis providing individual one on one care for the horses so they can implement unrealistic care standards.

    Just one. Go ahead...we'll wait...
    You jump in the saddle,
    Hold onto the bridle!
    Jump in the line!
    ...Belefonte


    13 members found this post helpful.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Oct. 30, 2009
    Posts
    1,909

    Default

    So....who do you recommend we support Mr. Fairfax? Please enlighten us. I am not familiar with any of the rescues mentioned. I like to contribute locally.
    "I've spent most of my life riding horses. The rest I've just wasted". - Anonymous



  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MistyBlue View Post
    Apparently DEFHR is not the only liar:






    Any rescue gets flooded with volunteers during and right after a seizure. Believe me...it dwindles fast. Name one...a SINGLE rescue...that has hundreds of volunteers showing up on a regular basis providing individual one on one care for the horses so they can implement unrealistic care standards.

    Just one. Go ahead...we'll wait...[/INDENT]
    I think that what the issue here is is not really about the rescue's management itself, but that they work with the HSUS to try, along with other, to implement unrealistic standards, which would make in the end so hard as to be impossible to keep animals, which is the end goal of all those animal rights groups and their followers.

    All this can be seen as guerrilla warfare against our use of animals, one place at the time, one more opportunity to throw a wrench in our animal use, to eventually eliminate all uses.

    I come to animal welfare from another angle, lets work on making all better, starting with humans and that then includes our animals.
    I will say, we have and keep improving doing that, no need to, because someone, somewhere may abuse anything, here animals, we need to eliminate all animal uses.
    Those that see eliminating all uses as the only right way to help animals are way too short sighted, ignoring all that animals give us thru proper uses, as is right in this world, the way it works for all.
    Eliminating all human use of animals is absurd in a world we are all a symbiotic part of.

    Rescues, by working with and thru animal rights groups, the little financial help those rescues may get from them is not enough reason to give them one more platform to try to bring their influence to bear, thru them, to eventually eliminate all animal uses.

    Keep your eye on the ball here, that is what is important, not so much the details, that murk the issues.

    Just more opinion in these complicated topics.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb. 15, 2004
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    7,991

    Default

    Damn*d if they do, damn*d if they don't... someone will always find something to criticize and b*tch about a rescue that does its work well. Must be nice to live in a glass house!

    GG had a posting on FB yesterday calling for volunteers and I have seen similar ones from DE. The Donkey Sanctuary near me has many many volunteers, it does not mean they all show up on the same day all the time!!! It's great to have back up.

    I agree with nutter!


    3 members found this post helpful.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    31,919

    Default

    don't dismiss the message because you hate the delivery man.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Apr. 15, 2008
    Posts
    2,813

    Default

    fairfax, take a breath. everything's OK.

    as i recall, the house on that property was quite a bit of a dump, unless they've renovated it since i saw it last. (and doesn't the woman who runs ERL live in a house on the property too? been a while since i've been there...)

    the last 501c3 i stopped donating to because of how much the CEO was making was paying her $150k/yr--in 1995. god knows what she makes now. (--actually, it's a he now, and it's over $450k.)

    and i have no problem with people who run rescues or other charitable organizations trying to get laws changed--how the hell else are they going to put themselves out of business? they're just supposed to keep taking abused and neglected animals in without trying to change the conditions that cause the abuse and neglect?

    just some ramblings on my part.... and full disclosure: i'm a DEFHR donor, and a member of the MHC.

    and an additional ramble: what's on the 990 about volunteers may not be what's actually happening on the ground. when i volunteered for a TR stable, we were supposed to keep track of our hours so the organization could put in for matching money, etc, based on volunteer hours and other donations. sometimes we remembered to, sometimes we didn't. i'm not saying that anyone was trying to commit fraud anywhere, but volunteer numbers and hours are probably not accurate.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Aug. 22, 2001
    Location
    Almost Aiken
    Posts
    2,679

    Default

    The screaming capitals in the title... a little on the hysterical side, no? Certainly doesn't make me inclined to take the post seriously. (Misspelling doesn't help )


    3 members found this post helpful.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2007
    Location
    Maryland USA
    Posts
    1,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    don't dismiss the message because you hate the delivery man.
    I don't need to dismiss a message. I can't even find the message in all that.

    I've given to DEFHR in the past and I'll continue to do so. Somebody upset that practically all non-profits have some paid staff and upset that HSUS has a thing about animals in circuses, but no claim that DEFHR has ever been to a circus, said anything about a circus or owned a pair of clown shoes does not sway me in any direction.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,987

    Default

    The University of Davis published their MINIMAL equine standards of care. Many of you will remember this was the study where a 12 X 12 stall was not going to be acceptable. It was going to changed to 12' 5" by 12' 5". All 10 by 10 stalls would be considered unacceptable for any horse over 14.2 (this would eliminate most show grounds). This study was taken from an R.E.M. study of shetland ponies in Great Britain. The study had absolutely NOTHING to do with correct size stall for horses.

    U of Davis accepted and published a study by a H.S.U.S. and D.E.F.H.R. sponsored academic who used the G.B. study and changed the facts to support his claim that small stalls were equine abuse.

    He took the Henneke weight score which was ONLY developed for Quarter Horse breeding mares to determine the ideal weight for BREEDING and he used this study to make his own evaluation as to equine weight abuse. The results of this were adapted by D.E.F.H.R. and used as their excuse to "rescue" horses from owners.

    On the website for U. of D. it stated these "facts" as LAW.

    Susan Parisio challenged these and other findings with the California state legislature.

    The following is taken from the objection to the U.of D determination that because they printed it...it was law and therefore they would able to state so on their website.

    3. Provide a complete description of the purported underground regulation

    The specific sections of this document alleging underground regulations are identified by page number, and/or title of the section on that page. California Code are bolded; statutes and their official language are in italics; specific sections of the document and the reasons are in regular type.



    Preface (page 5)

    Statement of Reasons:

    This training manual was written by two employees of the Center for Equine Health (CEH) and a private practice veterinarian. Prior to publication, as a purported legal standard, it was not peer reviewed. The Center for Equine Health possesses no regulatory authority, and as such, cannot issue legal standards; therefore, this publication is not a legal document.



    The Center for Equine Health has written, published, disseminated and provided training using the underground regulations set forth in the manual titled: MINIMUM STANDARDS OF HORSE CARE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (CEHMSOC). (Attachment A) The stated purpose of this document is to, “assist law enforcement officials with equine abuse, neglect and cruelty cases by establishing the minimum LEGAL standards required for the care of horses in California”. The secondary purpose of this document is to, “clearly define equine abuse, neglect and cruelty based on the minimum accepted standards of horse care and on California state laws”. The document goes further, and states that due to law enforcement possessing little knowledge regarding the standards of horse care, “equine cases often have undesirable outcomes in that offenders are not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for their crimes”.

    (Center for Equine Health)



    The Center for Equine Health (CEH) is a research center located within the School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis. It is not a regulatory body and possesses no enforcement authority, thus CEH has no authority to create legal standards.



    The Center for Equine Health recently published a booklet, “to arm California law enforcement agents…in detecting and describing neglect cases”. In an interview for Horse.com, (Attachment B), Carolyn Stull, one of the authors of this publication, said she “recognized the need for a publication aimed at assisting law enforcement officials with identifying cases of substandard equine care “ Stull and her colleagues designed CEHMSOC to “serve as a basic guidebook for law enforcement officials”. (Horse.com Jan. 2011)



    The statutes that make up the section of California Penal Code, California Food and Agriculture Code and California Health and Safety Code, that apply to crimes of cruelty to animals are strict liability statutes. These laws state; any person, every person, whoever commits a violation of any of those statues can be alleged to be guilty of cruelty to animals. The penalties for a violation of these statutes can range from an infraction to a felony conviction.



    The CEHMSOC publication effectively redefines, interprets, expands and then makes more specific California’s State laws.



    And here is the U.of D. study regarding weight

    CEHMSOC Minimum Standards for Feed ( page 17)

    CEHMSOC document states; Horses must be fed an adequate diet to maintain proper body condition or adequate body weight. A body condition score of 3 on the Henneke Scale…is the minimum standard. Horses confined without available pasture to graze must be fed at least once, but preferably twice daily, at a minimum.

    No where in any section of the California Penal Code, the Food and Agriculture Code or the Health and Safety Code defining crimes of cruelty to animals, transport of horses to slaughter, or horses for hire, is weight or body condition mentioned. CPC § 597 T, animals in confinement, states adequate food. Food and Agriculture Code § 19348.5, care of horses for slaughter, states…adequate food. Health and Safety Code §25988, standards for horses for hire, states (d)…adequate feed.

    CEHMSOC document states, “The Henneke Body Condition Scoring System is a scientific method of evaluating a horse’s body condition regardless of breed, body type, gender or age.” (Henneke System, page 18; Photos of Various Henneke Body Condition Scores, pages 19 & 20).




    No where within the California State Legislative law procedure has ANY of the standards presented by D.E.F.H.R., H.S U S and the author been peer reviewed, debated and passed by elected officials.

    Parisio and the California Horsemens Association attended meetings and tried to negotiate with the U.of D. They were rebuffed and their views and concerns rejected.

    At that time, Parisio decided to challenged these "new laws"

    After a submission of over 100 pages, it was reviewed by the state legislative body and

    SHE LOST...but for a very specific reason. The State Legislative body COULD NOT RULE ON SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT A LAW.

    They had no jurisdiction.

    U of D did get the message and removed the statement LAW from their website.

    They were required to remove the Henneke score after the late Dr. Don Henneke who developed the score refuted not only their use but their interpretation.

    Kathleen and DEFHR said...no problem...we will develope our own score. The problem they have is nothing is peer reviewed and nothing they have presented has passed "the smell test". Just because they have one HSUS sponsored vet say ...YUP...sounds good to me...they must use hundred of horses involving a great selection of breeds in order to have a scientific study with interpretive results studied.

    They are trying to make it an underground law by presenting it to ACF and Police "as an existing law"



    Now...I am AGAIN under attack for responding to a poster who QUESTIONED the validity of hundreds of volunteers. Re-read my response.

    CCF...please do donate LOCALLY where your dollars will have a meaningful impact. Not provide tips to Finnland (DEFHR had paid for trips to Finnland and Haiti???) to provide seminars for law enforcement.

    I am well aware of the high turnover of volunteers and the need for numbers. If, however, using the standards that 50 horses maintained by 15 FREE volunteers is demanded of a small breeder with 15 horses and themselves..hopefully most of you will be able to see the impact.

    The defence of Mt Airey as an expensive place to reside...yes it is. Therefore if it was ALL ABOUT THE ANIMALS they could move about 20 miles away...other side of the lake and not on the Washington D.C. side and the bang for their buck could be enormous.

    Horse owners are under attack. It starts with small interpretations becoming non debated laws and before you know it...ownership takes on a new interpretation. HSUS and ifs affiliates consistantly say...we have volunteers who are horse owners...okay...but they do attack and try and destroy horse breeders.

    They exert big pressure. During the Canterbury case a vet was going to testify however he was President of the Maryland TB Racing Association. He was told if he testified ON THE BEHALF of Canterbury, the Maryland Horse Council AND HSUS would "disrupt" the racing season. Therefore he refused to testify...however Dr. Henneke did agree to testify on BEHALF of Canterbury.

    The New care in New Hampshire is very disturging because it clearly shows the long arm of DEFHR and HSUS and AC/Police.

    I don't care if the usual group who don't like me continue to challenge and complain...including asking moderators to have me banned...I publish this for those horse women and men who are not only actively involved but also are concerned.

    Just because a couple of non research posters can't find something doesn't mean it isn't there...and valid.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,987

    Default

    I am not upset about the payment of rescue. I am upset of the "deal" they have with the devil HSUS. I also will challenge their accounting. It was stated by another poster that she was concerned because they showed a negative of about 25,000$.

    The Canterbury case clearly shows something different. In court they claimed their expenses were over ONE HALF MILLION DOLLARS. All they were awarded (for ALL of the rescues involved) was TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.

    If the DEFHR claim of 1/2 million was accurate as out of pocket expenses, why was that not shown in their IRS filings. ?????

    They are involved with HSUS and jointly sponsor MANY initiatives. If it waslks like a duck....etc...


    1 members found this post helpful.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,987

    Default

    Very accurate and informative Analise. As you stated before, you were the P.R. volunteer during the Canterbury case and you were "defending and writing on behalf of Gentle Giants"

    At Gentle Giants when Marsha was there inspecting her horses, there were inexcess of 25 volunteers on a week day including the one who verbally abused her. And was it not on the GG website and blog that a reference to her as a Jeffrey Dalmer and a Hilter was made and posted?

    You were made aware of that and yet you refused to pull those down as did your boss.

    In fact...it was GG that clearly stated there was no such a condition as old age anorexia in equines...DEFHR are now disputing that and claiming THAT is why they, after two years are unable to "fatten them up" .

    Analise...you already knew about Parisio vs U of D as you requested information on it before...



  12. #52
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,987

    Default

    A dump? Built in 1776 and is a historical site?

    I believe the purchase price on it was over 3 million dollars.

    When the allegation was made there were no shelters the judge threw it out because there were structures throughout the property and they were evaluated at $15,000 EACH.

    I am sure you are unaware of the issues and the case and as for your donations...I have no problems.



  13. #53
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    NorthEast
    Posts
    24,514

    Default

    I don't ignore the message. I loathe the HSUS, I loathe stupid people attempting to make stupid regulations and laws and I loathe crooked rescues.

    However as much as I dislike ridiculous exaggeration and hyperbole on the HSUS, crooked rescue, etc side...I really hate the same thing being exhibited in such a public way by the side trying to fix or expose those issues. Why? Because they make the nucking futs people look better...as if they might actually be right because the other side is frothy, shrieky and overly dramatic. Because they thrive on any attention for themselves, the cause is secondary. And the selves they crave attention for aren't what the animal welfare side needs as pseudo-representatives.

    There are *some* points that are valid. There are many that aren't.

    Shooting the messenger doesn't apply here...unless the message was sent tied to the collar of an annoying rabid dog.
    You jump in the saddle,
    Hold onto the bridle!
    Jump in the line!
    ...Belefonte


    8 members found this post helpful.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Apr. 15, 2008
    Posts
    2,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairfax View Post
    A dump? Built in 1776 and is a historical site?

    I believe the purchase price on it was over 3 million dollars.
    ah yes you're right--i stand corrected. i was thinking of the place they were in before this place.



  15. #55
    Join Date
    Jun. 20, 2008
    Posts
    4,136

    Default

    so U of Davis in CA decides that 12 x 12 stalls are too small well that just about makes every stall in the US unacceptable... just for the heck of it I checked the salaries of the Houston SPCA - on their 2010 990 the president and other officers were paid 170-140K and that is in Houston where the COL is lower than in MD. So if you have a bone to pick w/ an organization then don't contribute to it.



  16. #56
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    6,306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairfax View Post

    He took the Henneke weight score which was ONLY developed for Quarter Horse breeding mares to determine the ideal weight for BREEDING and he used this study to make his own evaluation as to equine weight abuse. The results of this were adapted by D.E.F.H.R. and used as their excuse to "rescue" horses from owners.
    Henneke scale is widely used by many rescues and law enforcement [you know the ones who actually CAN put a seizure into action?] in order to asses horses condition.

    'Henneke’s knowledge and expertise in the field of equine nutrition, reproduction and management was sought after by industry insiders throughout his career. Most notably he developed the Henneke Body Condition Scoring System as part of his doctoral research at Texas A&M University. The body condition score (BCS) system is now a standardized tool used within the horse industry. It is based on both visual appraisal and palpable fat cover of the six major points of the horse that are most responsive to changes in body fat. The Henneke Scoring system is a scientific method of evaluating a horse's body condition regardless of breed, body type, sex or age. It is relied on heavily by rescues and veterinarians in their work. '
    From Rate my horse Pro

    Hey, wasn't it you, Fairfax, who insisted that Henneke was about to distribute a press release any minute, post Marsh Parkinsons case, re: the use of his scale? Funny thing, I have NEVER seen that Press release. Do you have it handy to share with us?
    TIA
    Last edited by Angela Freda; Jan. 24, 2013 at 02:19 PM.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    31,919

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gottagrey View Post
    so U of Davis in CA decides that 12 x 12 stalls are too small well that just about makes every stall in the US unacceptable...
    I guess that IS the point after all!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Aug. 9, 2007
    Posts
    9,075

    Default

    I have more issues with the Red Cross than with HSUS. Remember the head of the Red Cross who flew around, first class only, to the tune of 300,000$ one year? God only knows what his meal expenditures were while he was traveling. Most of the Red Cross money goes for their salaries and expenses, not to the people who need help. Which is why I support the Salvation Army. They take vows to help the poor. And they don't live in mansions and fly first class. And their clothing expenditures are not high in those uniforms they wear.

    Salaries and expenditures, unless they reach the level of excess such as with the Red Cross, don't matter to me. But hey, if someone like OP doesn't like a rescue, then don't contribute. And unless a rescue is ripping people off and lying about things, then just don't contribute. (And yes, I was taken in by Life for God's Stray Animals, east of Atlanta, in the old days. As Gene Tharpe, the newspaper reporter said, when I complained that it was his fault that I got involved, the woman started out in a trailer taking in stray dogs and was really trying to save animals. Then she got a lot of money from publicity, when Anne Cox Chambers, owner of newspapers and a tv station, and others with $$$ started funding her, the woman left all the dogs and cats in GA, and moved to a mansion in California with her lover, leaving her husband as well.)

    What are we supposed to do? Let all the dogs and cats and horses starve or with horses, go to slaughter?



  19. #59
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    31,919

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloudyandcallie View Post
    I have more issues with the Red Cross than with HSUS. Remember the head of the Red Cross who flew around, first class only, to the tune of 300,000$ one year? God only knows what his meal expenditures were while he was traveling. Most of the Red Cross money goes for their salaries and expenses, not to the people who need help. Which is why I support the Salvation Army. They take vows to help the poor. And they don't live in mansions and fly first class. And their clothing expenditures are not high in those uniforms they wear.

    Salaries and expenditures, unless they reach the level of excess such as with the Red Cross, don't matter to me. But hey, if someone like OP doesn't like a rescue, then don't contribute. And unless a rescue is ripping people off and lying about things, then just don't contribute. (And yes, I was taken in by Life for God's Stray Animals, east of Atlanta, in the old days. As Gene Tharpe, the newspaper reporter said, when I complained that it was his fault that I got involved, the woman started out in a trailer taking in stray dogs and was really trying to save animals. Then she got a lot of money from publicity, when Anne Cox Chambers, owner of newspapers and a tv station, and others with $$$ started funding her, the woman left all the dogs and cats in GA, and moved to a mansion in California with her lover, leaving her husband as well.)

    What are we supposed to do? Let all the dogs and cats and horses starve or with horses, go to slaughter?

    the Red Cross does not try ti liberate us from anything but our money.
    And they prefer the people who do share their blood to stay filled up so they can tap them again.
    Slight difference.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    the Red Cross does not try ti liberate us from anything but our money.
    And they prefer the people who do share their blood to stay filled up so they can tap them again.
    Slight difference.
    That is a good way to put it.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: Apr. 13, 2011, 10:04 PM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: Dec. 23, 2010, 06:46 PM
  3. Days End Farm Horse Rescue - 2010 Annual Video
    By Mike Matson in forum Off Course
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Dec. 7, 2010, 07:03 PM
  4. Workers' Compensation Insurance for Barn Workers?
    By Crooked Horse in forum Around The Farm
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May. 3, 2010, 07:33 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Apr. 12, 2010, 10:48 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •