[Bluey]

Why does it always have to be this pervasive Us Vs Them mentality.

We all admittedly are animal lovers , we all agree on the importance of animal welfare and we all agree that legislation to define those things are important.

It is the grey areas that are always subject to personal experience and interpretation.

Honest question for those who call out the "Tin Foil Hatters". What about their/out cynicism and speculation do you really take issue with? We are not suggesting no legislation. Just pointing out the potential fallibility in the one provided by the OP. The law is fine , great , dandy ...but it allows for personal interpretation. I think asking for more definition is not a bad thing? Who would it hurt ..nobody. It could only prevent issues.

I understand nobody likes the boy who cried wolf. Just remember in the end the wolf did come.

It is easier to jump on the posters than address what doesn't has defense.
Still don't see anyone that read any of the links provided.
Hard to debate when you don't know "the rest of the story", only go by myths and propaganda from animal rights extremists and their supporters.

Already forgot the HSUS lawsuit where the circus did prove they paid someone to lie about the level of care and supposed abuse?
That time the HSUS tripped big time, counting that no one would questions what they do.
Sadly not everyone can defend themselves, glad someone finally did and prevailed.

I heard the deposition the president of the HSUS presented to Congress in the very misguided "ban horse slaughter bill", that would have impacted all we do with horses, not just horse slaughter, that the HSUS pushed so hard for.

Very telling, how highly that one person thinks of himself and his power, he even practically threatened the senators with the might of his association if they didn't vote the way he demanded of them.

Yes, there is so much more to this than many here seem to know or even seem to want to know.
Sad, because not paying attention is really going to eventually curtail our rights to have animals to the point of no return and will end, as the HSUS president said: "One generation and no more domestic animals and none too soon for me".

[cowgirljenn]

Very few people here are RARA (I don't know if any are, but I'm going to guess in a big group of people there's likely to be someone in every extreme). Very few people here think that there should be no punishment for neglected or abused horses. So everyone here HAS some common ground: they care about horses (and all animals) and they are concerned about their health and safety.

If everyone took a step back and stopped worrying about fighting and agendas and suspicion, you could all probably agree that we need good legislation that protects animals and that does not throw the animal owner under the bus. The question becomes: how do we get to that good legislation?

We don't have proof that HSUS, PETA, or the Tin Foil Hat Brigade are behind the laws proposed in CA. They may simply be badly written laws that were proposed by animal control officers who have found themselves in a bad position. What DO you do when you find an animal who is down, injured, and obviously suffering without an identifiable owner? I sure hope you don't do what one county we had to work with did: just leave the animal suffering (with a shattered leg) for days.

The law has holes - and most laws do. Those people who live in CA need to work with their legislators to close those holes. Require a veterinarian evaluation before an animal can be euthanized.

The hearing and costs issues might be harder. The animal owner should help cover the costs of the rehabilitation of his/her animals if he/she is they are determined to be neglected (by a court with a Judge or JP). The county should have to pay for the costs of caring for the animals if the seizure was not valid. That's how it works in several states. It makes the counties leery of seizing unless they have a solid case, and that's how it should be. Can we rationally discuss problems with these procedure? Any ideas for a solution?

What other specific problems do you guys have with this law? (Not just 'HSUS must be behind it so I hate it!'). Lets discuss them. Even if you don't live in CA, a rational discussion of the problems/holes and ways to fix them can help if similar legislation is proposed or already in place in your state.

[Lynnwood]

Can we rationally discuss problems with these procedure? Any ideas for a solution?

What other specific problems do you guys have with this law? (Not just 'HSUS must be behind it so I hate it!'). Lets discuss them. Even if you don't live in CA, a rational discussion of the problems/holes and ways to fix them can help if similar legislation is proposed or already in place in your state.

Since you asked so politely

...
"(b) Every sick, disabled, infirm, or crippled animal, except a
dog or cat, that is abandoned in any city, county, city and county,
or judicial district may be killed humanely euthanized by the officer
if, after a reasonable search, no owner of the animal can be found

What is a reasonable search what is the time frame (perhaps all livestock owners should have an in-case of emergency card at the ACO office defining how to reach them and wishes)? . Who will define "sick, disabled, infirm, or crippled animals" Will their be education provided to train A.C officers and peace officers how to evaluate and handle livestock.

e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any
peace officer, humane society officer, or any animal control officer
may, with the approval of his or her immediate superior, humanely
destroy euthanize any stray or abandoned animal in the field in
any case where the animal is too severely injured to move or where a veterinarian is not available and it would be more humane to dispose of the animal.

Define "too severely injured" There are a lot of grotesque injuries that are treatable , some that are horrifying to look at but not life threatening. Those parameters need to be defined. Humane is subjective. "Ma'am I think your horse broke a leg it was non weight bearing and I put it down"...but wait the autopsy reported it was just an abscess




I don't like the part about the agency being self governing. How can they impartially decide if their own seizure was withing reason vs groundless. Especially since deciding against themselves puts them on the hook for the bill.

[cowgirljenn]

"(b) Every sick, disabled, infirm, or crippled animal, except a
dog or cat, that is abandoned in any city, county, city and county,
or judicial district may be killed humanely euthanized by the officer
if, after a reasonable search, no owner of the animal can be found

What is a reasonable search what is the time frame (perhaps all livestock owners should have an in-case of emergency card at the ACO office defining how to reach them and wishes)? . Who will define "sick, disabled, infirm, or crippled animals" Will their be education provided to train A.C officers and peace officers how to evaluate and handle livestock.

I think defining a reasonable search time is good. And maybe something like: If a veterinarian determines that the animal is suffering and cannot be reasonably made comfortable, the veterinarian may euthanize the animal. (There may be a way to better define 'suffering and cannot be made reasonably comfortable'). If the veterinarian can keep the animal comfortable, the officer must search for X days.

In Texas, with an estray who isn't injured, the officer must search for 15 days and that search must include public notices in the paper. Texas doesn't really have a clause for what to do if the animal is hurt/injured and suffering. I've told officers before that they need to go get a warrant to seize and then a court order (from a judge/JP) to euthanize after a veterinarian determines that that's best. That, however, is not spelled out in our law. I just want to make sure all precautions are covered and that an animal isn't euthanized without an examination and that it isn't left to suffer either.

e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any
peace officer, humane society officer, or any animal control officer
may, with the approval of his or her immediate superior, humanely
destroy euthanize any stray or abandoned animal in the field in
any case where the animal is too severely injured to move or where a veterinarian is not available and it would be more humane to dispose of the animal.

Define "too severely injured" There are a lot of grotesque injuries that are treatable , some that are horrifying to look at but not life threatening. Those parameters need to be defined. Humane is subjective. "Ma'am I think your horse broke a leg it was non weight bearing and I put it down"...but wait the autopsy reported it was just an abscess

I agree - it seems that it would be rare that the agency wouldn't have veterinarians it could call. But if you think of worst case scenario: a horse hit by a car, on the ground, multiple fractures, dying and suffering - a vet might not make it in time to prevent suffering. Could you include something like a phone consultation with a veterinarian? It wouldn't be perfect but it might give more guidance than: Oh that horse is limping, I think he broke his leg!

Or maybe a requirement that all agencies with enforcement powers for animal neglect/abandonment/estray issues should instead be required to have a veterinarian (or two?) on some kind of retainer for these types of situations? They shouldn't be having to hunt one up because they had an incident.. Is that reasonable (to have one on some type of retainer/have an established relationship with one)?

I don't like the part about the agency being self governing. How can they impartially decide if their own seizure was withing reason vs groundless. Especially since deciding against themselves puts them on the hook for the bill.

I do agree there. I think any seizure, whether it is because of a civil violation or a criminal violation, should need a hearing or trial in front of a judge or JP where both sides present their facts/evidence/testimony and the judge/JP then makes the decision.

[michaleenflynn]

And my point is that there is a middle ground that can be found if the name calling and knee-jerking would stop.

I can't believe it took me this long into the thread to remember that I have real-life experience in assisting in drafting animal-welfare legislation - I STG, my brain is like a sieve sometimes

Angela -- you may remember our trials and tribulations here in NYC a couple years back, which I shared on this board, regarding legislation that WE initiated.

For years a large segment of the NYC carriage industry wanted to codify standard/best practices in local law. The reasons were simple:

• We wanted a compulsory industry-wide standard that we would be held accountable to, something that we could point to to help dispel the lies and misinformation continually put out by our adversaries
• We wanted the compulsory industry-wide standard to bring the very few stragglers who did not do things the way the majority did; this was not necessarily because they were doing things the "wrong" way, but simply because we wanted everything to be uniform
• We already WERE a pro-active group, but wanted to be able to PROVE that

The bill that was passed by the NYC Council - which I helped to write - was comprehensive; it included things like stall size, turn out, vet checks, horse ID, hours/areas of operation, driver training and licensing, vehicle inspection, and forced the city to finally comply with its own 1981 law which said that a Horse Advisory Board be formed, which would include a vet, a member of the general public, an ASPCA rep, a DoH rep, and 2 reps from the riding and driving stables, who would meet quarterly to address any issues regarding our horses.

The bill had teeth; DoH, ASPCA, and DCA were given new powers regarding each of the above listed, and it was implemented within 90 days.

What do you think the response was from the RARAs?

They fought it tooth and nail; disparaged it, lied about it, tried every way they could to stop it.

Because there IS no middle ground for them.

The ASPCA went along with it by remaining silent; part of that was political in nature, and part was that as a governing body, they couldn't really object to upgrades and codification of best practices. What they did say, however, is although they would enforce the new law, they would continue in their efforts to ban us Then of course, they partnered with NYCLASS and gave them $450,000 to do their lobbying for them

No, I am not against legislation, just will never appease the enemy and let them get a foot in the door.

[Showjumper28]

We are not tramping through fields looking for downer cows and cripple horses to shoot willy nilly.

This actually made me LOL and I scared the dog when I did so.

[Alagirl]

[/COLOR]I think defining a reasonable search time is good. And maybe something like: If a veterinarian determines that the animal is suffering and cannot be reasonably made comfortable, the veterinarian may euthanize the animal. (There may be a way to better define 'suffering and cannot be made reasonably comfortable'). If the veterinarian can keep the animal comfortable, the officer must search for X days.

In Texas, with an estray who isn't injured, the officer must search for 15 days and that search must include public notices in the paper. Texas doesn't really have a clause for what to do if the animal is hurt/injured and suffering. I've told officers before that they need to go get a warrant to seize and then a court order (from a judge/JP) to euthanize after a veterinarian determines that that's best. That, however, is not spelled out in our law. I just want to make sure all precautions are covered and that an animal isn't euthanized without an examination and that it isn't left to suffer either.





I agree - it seems that it would be rare that the agency wouldn't have veterinarians it could call. But if you think of worst case scenario: a horse hit by a car, on the ground, multiple fractures, dying and suffering - a vet might not make it in time to prevent suffering. Could you include something like a phone consultation with a veterinarian? It wouldn't be perfect but it might give more guidance than: Oh that horse is limping, I think he broke his leg!

Or maybe a requirement that all agencies with enforcement powers for animal neglect/abandonment/estray issues should instead be required to have a veterinarian (or two?) on some kind of retainer for these types of situations? They shouldn't be having to hunt one up because they had an incident.. Is that reasonable (to have one on some type of retainer/have an established relationship with one)?

[COLOR=#000000]

I do agree there. I think any seizure, whether it is because of a civil violation or a criminal violation, should need a hearing or trial in front of a judge or JP where both sides present their facts/evidence/testimony and the judge/JP then makes the decision.

well in this context, the vet 'known to ordinarily treat cats and dogs' gives me a pause...I mean, there is this vet chick in NYC...the infamous one, card carrying WAR member who has no idea what to do with a horse...sure, she's got a license and all...but goodness gracious...really?

That lady is probably one of the top people who can't tell a chestnut from a cancer tumor....

I don't have a problem with the county having a vet on retainer, I think it is cost efficient for them, and thus for us, but what if the stray animal is NOT a cat or dog? What about a bird? Or Lizard?

[D_BaldStockings]

While debating how to improve these bills is perhaps pointing out their failings and that is a good thing; the fact is they have passed and are in force.

Changing existing legislation takes a concerted effort and a lot of money... which is how this got into law in the first place. Now who could have done that??


Yes, there is a wolf.

And it is not the animal owner
-who now stands without recourse to a trumped up seizure, bills and fines;
where agencies are not accountable,
nor does the owner have a right to due process with an impartial judge.

[michaleenflynn]

While debating how to improve these bills is perhaps pointing out their failings and that is a good thing; the fact is they have passed and are in force.

Changing existing legislation takes a concerted effort and a lot of money... which is how this got into law in the first place. Now who could have done that??


Yes, there is a wolf.

And it is not the animal owner
-who now stands without recourse to a trumped up seizure, bills and fines;
where agencies are not accountable,
nor does the owner have a right to due process with an impartial judge.

[Angela Freda]

well in this context, the vet 'known to ordinarily treat cats and dogs' gives me a pause...I mean, there is this vet chick in NYC...the infamous one, card carrying WAR member who has no idea what to do with a horse...sure, she's got a license and all...but goodness gracious...really?

That lady is probably one of the top people who can't tell a chestnut from a cancer tumor....

I don't have a problem with the county having a vet on retainer, I think it is cost efficient for them, and thus for us, but what if the stray animal is NOT a cat or dog? What about a bird? Or Lizard?

The part of the bill about 'a vet known to treat dogs/cats' was in regards to AC finding or needing care for dogs and cats. I did not see that they were recommending or insisting that a horse [or other animal] had to be seen by a Vet who is known to see Dogs/cats.

Michaleenflynn, re: the trials and tribulations of the NYC Carriage horses, yes I know, I've bee reading and commenting in support of the NYC Carriage horses since I learned of it right here on COTH.

'The bill that was passed by the NYC Council - which I helped to write - was comprehensive;...

The bill had teeth; DoH, ASPCA, and DCA were given new powers regarding each of the above listed, and it was implemented within 90 days.

What do you think the response was from the RARAs?

They fought it tooth and nail; disparaged it, lied about it, tried every way they could to stop it.

Because there IS no middle ground for them.

The ASPCA went along with it by remaining silent; '

Can you define 'RARA's as you used it above where I bolded, cause I think I may be confused who exactly you are referring to there.
Maybe for clarity's sake, instead of using the term RARA we could be specific?

[Alagirl]

The part of the bill about 'a vet known to treat dogs/cats' was in regards to AC finding or needing care for dogs and cats. I did not see that they were recommending or insisting that a horse [or other animal] had to be seen by a Vet who is known to see Dogs/cats.

Michaleenflynn, re: the trials and tribulations of the NYC Carriage horses, yes I know, I've bee reading and commenting in support of the NYC Carriage horses since I learned of it right here on COTH.

'The bill that was passed by the NYC Council - which I helped to write - was comprehensive;...

The bill had teeth; DoH, ASPCA, and DCA were given new powers regarding each of the above listed, and it was implemented within 90 days.

What do you think the response was from the RARAs?

They fought it tooth and nail; disparaged it, lied about it, tried every way they could to stop it.

Because there IS no middle ground for them.

The ASPCA went along with it by remaining silent; '

Can you define 'RARA's as you used it above where I bolded, cause I think I may be confused who exactly you are referring to there.
Maybe for clarity's sake, instead of using the term RARA we could be specific?

oh please. 90% of the vets treat dogs and cats. if you don't believe me, try to find a vet for a rabbit or a bird!
it's really curious wording, makes no sense. of course if you think there are no holes in the plot...

[Angela Freda]

oh please. 90% of the vets treat dogs and cats. if you don't believe me, try to find a vet for a rabbit or a bird!
it's really curious wording, makes no sense. of course if you think there are no holes in the plot...

Vets in my area who treat horses do not also treat dogs/cats.
Vets in my area who treat dog/cats, do not also treat horses. They do treat some exotics incl. rabbits and birds though.

[LauraKY]

Vets in my area who treat horses do not also treat dogs/cats.
Vets in my area who treat dog/cats, do not also treat horses. They do treat some exotics incl. rabbits and birds though.

Mine too, equine vets treat equines, small animal vets treat small animals. IME the few who cross over and do both are good at neither.

Cowgirljenn made some good points, but honestly, I think it was wasted breath (or typed words, in this case). The TFH people like their status as TFH and they're not willing to listen. . The rebuttal seems to be "if you're not with us, you're against us." There's no reasoning with that mind set and after a while, reasonable people can see through it.

TFH =- Tin Foil Hat, lacking any other descriptive title. Maybe the Anti-RARAs would be better, but that doesn't fully describe the situation or the attitude either.

[D_BaldStockings]

The reading of the bill is that dogs and cats require transport to a vet;
-while other animals may be euthed on discovery, by the agent on his discretion alone.

No vet involved.

Clear?

[Alagirl]

The reading of the bill is that dogs and cats require transport to a vet;
-while other animals may be euthed on discovery, by the agent on his discretion alone.

No vet involved.

Clear?

That makes it sooo much better.

[Angela Freda]

this is from researcher Liz at Black Horse

"AB 1117 gives full authority to humane and peace officers to seize and destroy animals without a warrant."

So per Baldstockings reading of the bill, the first sentence of the OP is not accurate?

[Bluey]

Mine too, equine vets treat equines, small animal vets treat small animals. IME the few who cross over and do both are good at neither.

Cowgirljenn made some good points, but honestly, I think it was wasted breath (or typed words, in this case). The TFH people like their status as TFH and they're not willing to listen. . The rebuttal seems to be "if you're not with us, you're against us." There's no reasoning with that mind set and after a while, reasonable people can see through it.

TFH =- Tin Foil Hat, lacking any other descriptive title. Maybe the Anti-RARAs would be better, but that doesn't fully describe the situation or the attitude either.

Are you aware that the HSUS is suing the Beef Association and the Pork Board?
That is the equivalent of them suing the USET, or the AQHA, or AHA, or NCHA.

All those animal rights extremist groups want is to stir the pot and cost anyone that has animals millions defending their rights to have animals.
Then those AR groups will make the best of the disruption in free publicity and telling their myths and propaganda to the general public thru the lawsuits and the publicity that brings them.

All that with money the gullible, clueless public keeps giving them in dribbles and inheritances, thinking they are helping such nice folks that are helping the poor abandoned animals in shelters, millions and millions of dollars a year.

I think it may not be us who is at fault here warning of who those groups are and what they do, but those that are not listening.

[LauraKY]

Are you aware that the HSUS is suing the Beef Association and the Pork Board?
That is the equivalent of them suing the USET, or the AQHA, or AHA, or NCHA.

All those animal rights extremist groups want is to stir the pot and cost anyone that has animals millions defending their rights to have animals.
Then those AR groups will make the best of the disruption in free publicity and telling their myths and propaganda to the general public thru the lawsuits and the publicity that brings them.

All that with money the gullible, clueless public keeps giving them in dribbles and inheritances, thinking they are helping such nice folks that are helping the poor abandoned animals in shelters, millions and millions of dollars a year.

I think it may not be us who is at fault here warning of who those groups are and what they do, but those that are not listening.:(

That's because your message gets confused with the crazy hysteria and some of the over the top conspiracy theories. If people aren't getting the message, usually it's the messenger at fault.

[Alagirl]

That's because your message gets confused with the crazy hysteria and some of the over the top conspiracy theories. If people aren't getting the message, usually it's the messenger at fault.

"oh, you know, they are out to get us, you know. They said so on their convention"
"You are just a crazy hysterical fruit bat"




yep...
conspiracy theories...
You know, it's not paranoid when they really try to get you.

[Bluey]

That's because your message gets confused with the crazy hysteria and some of the over the top conspiracy theories. If people aren't getting the message, usually it's the messenger at fault.

Are you serious?
There are no conspiracy theories, everyone is presenting facts you can check yourself.
READ THE LINKS, the oh so inconvenient facts are there.