The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 229
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    6,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairfax View Post
    This link works. Those who can not get to it...try a refresh and regoogle.
    this link? What link?



  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb. 20, 2010
    Location
    All 'round Canadia
    Posts
    5,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairfax View Post
    Coanteen...thank you for posting with your typical sarcasm. I have worked with lLiz and I have also watched her work on other projects.
    Well, I've seen you post, and now I suppose I have seen Liz post via yourself as proxy, and I can easily call up the bill itself to have a gander at its wording and compare it with Liz's post, so...at least I wholeheartedly agree with the first sentence in your title!

    On a more serious note, I don't think that gross misrepresentation of the tinhat variety is helpful under the "at least they try to alert people" guise. Because that type of manure is the equivalent of crying wolf, not useful alerting.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    42,946

    Default

    More tin foil material:

    http://links.mkt2242.com/servlet/Mai...FORWARD_INFO%%

    Yeah, animal rights extremist groups are on the move on many fronts.
    That is where your donations go, to get articles published, laws passed, not to those cute sad faces looking at you from their mailing letters asking for money for shelter animals.

    For those that are still on the fence, not working for those groups as some here seem to be, pause a minute and reflect how you see any one those groups attack.
    You will find that AR groups have insinuated time and again, now for decades, that those they attack are evil incarnate, to the point that you can just hear their name and already "know" they are bad to the bone, without real reason, you don't know, but you have been primed to respond like that.

    Be honest and you will see how that works and, if you realize it or not, that is what is happening with ANY animal use, including horses, with those that don't know about horses, so don't have any way to relate to how truthful those impressions AR groups's stories and media releases so many media stories depend on are.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    6,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    More tin foil material:

    http://links.mkt2242.com/servlet/Mai...FORWARD_INFO%%

    Yeah, animal rights extremist groups are on the move on many fronts.
    That is where your donations go, to get articles published, laws passed, not to those cute sad faces looking at you from their mailing letters asking for money for shelter animals.
    Not my donations, I donate locally, and see the good works done with that money...


    8 members found this post helpful.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec. 19, 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    OK, I'm somewhat offended. I did take the time to look up the bills (google makes things very easy) and read through them, although I admitted I read through rather quickly, since I've recently read through several bits of legistlation this weekend dealing with horses and education as well as local union issues, but I digress...
    Where's the part that CA animal owners should be upset about?


    5 members found this post helpful.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun. 29, 2011
    Posts
    170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairfax View Post
    I took this from Black Horse AS IS. You can research on your own as to the bills. Liz is well known for her accuracy in research so I am willing to take what she says until it is absolutely proven wrong
    Right. "Researcher Liz" -- part of your crack investigative team. Interesting you say she is "well known for her accuracy in research" -- By who's standards? Yours?

    Reading her "research" makes one wonder if she may be living off the grid in a cave surrounded by automatic weapons prepping for the black helicopters...


    12 members found this post helpful.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    4,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela Freda View Post
    JBhorses?
    Jill Burnell the seizure is discussed in the sport horse breeding section.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2011
    Posts
    3,248

    Default

    I sent her an email.

    This is strictly information. It must be checked and double checked for accuracy. The point is,. more and more people need to know about anything along its lines that may directly affect them. This little group of do nothings but tear away at everyone else..can continue to do that. I will continue to get information out there when I discover it. At least I am trying to do something.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    4,652

    Default

    It's not "information" when it is just more slippery slope.

    I do understand regulation, I work in it everyday, I am expected to make sense of some of the crap legislation that comes across my desk. I have yet to see the HSUS PETA legislation that is suppose to be "coming our way".


    6 members found this post helpful.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2007
    Location
    Maryland USA
    Posts
    1,580

    Default

    Tin foil is the new black fedora.


    9 members found this post helpful.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    33,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tangledweb View Post
    Tin foil is the new black fedora.
    I should sig that!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bristol Bay View Post
    Try setting your broomstick to fly at a lower altitude.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Apr. 26, 2000
    Posts
    3,162

    Default

    Wait...who is it exactly that is wearing the Shiny Side Out Tin Foil Hat?? Someone related to this thread??


    1 members found this post helpful.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2006
    Posts
    2,982

    Default

    Fact checking information before "getting it out there" would go a long, long way towards gaining credibility.

    That is, if the end goal is actually disseminating valid information and not just on making noise as a means of seeking attention.
    Sheilah


    15 members found this post helpful.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2006
    Posts
    2,982

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finzean View Post
    Wait...who is it exactly that is wearing the Shiny Side Out Tin Foil Hat?? Someone related to this thread??
    Leo's "source" would be one of the (mostly) women who huddle with him on the Forum Of Misfit Members. I think she might occasionally post on COTH, but only when the heathen non-believers treat her One And True Messiah poorly and then only anonymously.
    Sheilah


    8 members found this post helpful.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    19,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IdahoRider View Post
    Fact checking information before "getting it out there" would go a long, long way towards gaining credibility.

    That is, if the end goal is actually disseminating valid information and not just on making noise as a means of seeking attention.
    Sheilah
    Exactly.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    2 members found this post helpful.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Sep. 21, 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairfax View Post
    "AB 1117 gives full authority to humane and peace officers to seize and destroy animals without a warrant."
    There are three ways to seize animals. One is with a warrant. The second is a preseizure, which is done if the immediate seizure is not necessary ( hoarders, failure to provide proof of medical treatment and an animal condition is worsening). The third, is a postseizure. Postseizure is done when conditions are exigent, and without immediate intervention, the animal may die.( Dog locked in a hot car, dog fighting situations, a tethered dog hanging itself on a fence)

    Since this topic suggested that the seizure without the warrant is a problem, here is what is actually written in the AB1117 bill,

    " Whenever an officer authorized under this section seizes or
    impounds an animal based on a reasonable belief that prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others, the officer shall, prior to the commencement of any criminal proceedings authorized by this section, provide the owner or keeper of the animal, if known or ascertainable after reasonable investigation, with the opportunity for a postseizure hearing to determine the validity of the seizure or impoundment, or both."


    The postseizure hearing gives the animal owner their right to argue that the seizure was unfounded and the impounding officer the chance to show that the seizure was necessary and exigent in nature.

    "If it is determined the seizure was
    justified, the owner or keeper shall be personally liable to the
    seizing agency for the cost of the seizure and care of the animal" AB 1117


    "AB 1117 Where the need for immediate seizure is not present and prior to the commencement of any criminal proceedings authorized by this section, the agency shall provide the owner or keeper of the animal, if known or ascertainable after reasonable investigation, with the opportunity for a hearing prior to any seizure or impoundment of the animal."


    So a person is given notice of impending impoundment and given a legal notice to provide evidence why the seizure is invalid prior to the impoundment of the animal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairfax View Post
    AB 1117 gives full authority to humane and peace officers to seize and destroy animals without a warrant."
    Yes, it does. However without a warrant, a seizure must comply with the law and give the owner preseizure or postseizure notices and hearings. the exception is with a stray animal
    "AB 1117 (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 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."

    The term "in the field" is not to be taken literally. It means outside of a medical office, or while an officer is out on patrol. We are not tramping through fields looking for downer cows and cripple horses to shoot willy nilly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairfax View Post
    Together, the two bills essentially give control to the state government to steal animals from people accused of animal abuse"
    Steal?? Seized, with proper notification is very different that stealing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairfax View Post
    even if no evidence exists to prove that animal abuse actually took place. Worse, the tenets of the two laws are so loosely defined, with no clear intent as to what constitutes "abuse" by definition, that virtually anyone who becomes a target of the state could lose their pets or livestock with a simple accusation of abuse."
    In the hearings the seizing agency has to show evidence for the seizure, likewise and animal owner can show documentation to show that the seizure was unfounded. Abuse is defined under the California penal codes 597, which pre and post seizures are based on.


    Quote Originally Posted by Fairfax View Post
    "The California law, burying the wording between words about beating and torture, defines normal activities with animals as abuse," explains Food Freedom News. "And it refers to no standard of what is normal in raising animals, and requires no proof that any animal has been harmed. [Lawmakers have] figured out a way to turn raising animals outside on grass -- the ideal life for those animals and their then producing the healthiest food -- into a felony. And they've done it under the aegis of protecting animals.""
    Normal activities with animals is not defined by law. Abuse and torture are, under 597PC.

    Health and Safety codes, Food and Agriculture codes, 597 PC all come into account when dealing with food production, and the health and safety of the animals. Funny, I don't see any code that states an animal grazing on fields as a felony. Unless the field has no grass on it, and the animals are not being supplemented with additional feed or water. Or the field does not belong to you.


    12 members found this post helpful.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2012
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Sounds like a more than fair procedure to me. Why again, is this objectionable?


    2 members found this post helpful.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Sep. 21, 2009
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    1,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    More tin foil material:

    http://links.mkt2242.com/servlet/Mai...FORWARD_INFO%%

    Yeah, animal rights extremist groups are on the move on many fronts.
    That is where your donations go, to get articles published, laws passed, not to those cute sad faces looking at you from their mailing letters asking for money for shelter animals.

    For those that are still on the fence, not working for those groups as some here seem to be, pause a minute and reflect how you see any one those groups attack.
    You will find that AR groups have insinuated time and again, now for decades, that those they attack are evil incarnate, to the point that you can just hear their name and already "know" they are bad to the bone, without real reason, you don't know, but you have been primed to respond like that.

    Be honest and you will see how that works and, if you realize it or not, that is what is happening with ANY animal use, including horses, with those that don't know about horses, so don't have any way to relate to how truthful those impressions AR groups's stories and media releases so many media stories depend on are.
    So very true, Bluey.

    The RARAs are playing the long game - and they are gaining ground.

    Meanwhile, some real animal people stubbornly refuse to advance on the learning curve as it regards this issue, squabble amongst themselves, focus on personalities, parse and split hairs, get defensive/offensive and just about anything else rather than get active. (NOT talking about anyone specifically on this thread)

    "We all must hang together, or we will all hang separately" (paraphrased)
    VP Horse & Carriage Association of NYC

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-F...ref=ts&fref=ts


    1 members found this post helpful.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    4,652

    Default

    Thanks Air Fern for taking the time go through all of the silly points expressed by the "tin foil hat crowd". The existing bill is reasonable and necessary to me.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Aug. 5, 2007
    Posts
    1,146

    Default

    A few links
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...introduced.pdf

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/..._chaptered.pdf

    I find a few of the new amendments to be disturbing
    ...
    (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.


    No mention of a vet making a decision - up to the officer.

    …The cost of caring for and treating any animal properly seized under
    this subdivision shall constitute a lien on the animal and the animal
    shall not be returned to its owner until the charges are paid.


    If a seizure is deemed proper -by who? Read on


    (c) (1) Any peace officer, humane society officer, or animal
    control officer shall convey all injured cats and dogs found without
    their owners
    in a public place directly to a veterinarian known by
    the officer to be a veterinarian who ordinarily treats dogs and cats
    for a determination of whether the animal shall be immediately
    and humanely destroyed euthanized
    or shall be hospitalized under
    proper care and given emergency treatment.

    …The cost of caring for and treating any animal seized under this subdivision shall
    constitute a lien on the animal and the animal shall not be returned
    to the owner until the charges are paid.
    No veterinarian shall be
    criminally or civilly liable for any decision that he or she makes
    or for services that he or she provides pursuant to this subdivision.


    So if a vet's treatment inadvertently damages, he has no liability if it was pursuant to a seizure.

    (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.


    No need to find the owner in this case, or get an expert opinion on the prognosis of recovery; all up to the officer regardless of veterinary experience or lack thereof.


    (2) The postseizure hearing shall be conducted within 48 hours
    of the request, excluding weekends and holidays. The seizing
    agency may authorize its own officer or employee to conduct the
    hearing if the hearing officer is not the same person who directed
    the seizure
    or impoundment of the animal and is not junior in rank
    to that person. The agency may utilize the services of a hearing
    officer from outside the agency
    for the purposes of complying with
    this section.


    The same agency that performed the seizure gets to 'hear' your case.
    Note that the word Judge does not appear here at all.


    (4) The agency, department, or society employing the person
    who directed the seizure shall be responsible for the costs
    incurred
    for caring and treating the animal, if it is determined in the
    postseizure hearing that the seizing officer did not have reasonable
    grounds
    to believe very prompt action, including seizure of the
    animal, was required to protect the health or safety of the animal
    or the health or safety of others. If it is determined the seizure was
    justified, the owner or keeper shall be personally liable
    to the
    seizing agency for the cost of the seizure and care of the animal,
    the charges for the seizure and care of the animal shall be a lien
    on the animal, and the animal shall not be returned to its owner
    until the charges are paid and the seizing agency or hearing officer
    has determined that the animal is physically fit or the owner
    demonstrates to the seizing agency’s or the hearing officer’s

    satisfaction that the owner can and will provide the necessary care.

    So if they decide the seizure was groundless they will put themselves on the hook, otherwise you foot the bill.
    Can you see where this will create pressure and incentive?
    Remember the agency judges the hearing.



    (h) If any animal is properly seized under this section, the owner
    or keeper shall be personally liable to the seizing agency for the
    cost of the seizure and care of the animal. Furthermore, if the
    charges for the seizure or impoundment and any other charges
    permitted under this section are not paid within 14 days of the
    seizure,
    or, if the owner, within 14 days of notice of availability
    of the animal to be returned, fails to pay charges permitted under
    this section and take possession of the animal, the animal shall be
    deemed to have been abandoned and may be disposed of humanely
    euthanized by the impounding officer.


    And you have 14 days from the seizure date to pay up or your animal is killed/forfeited.

    Not even going into the if convicted all animals (including fish tank) must be immediately forfeited AND must not reside with anyone who owns an animal for 5 years...

    Might be worth another read.


    2 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Animal rights group targets proposed racino
    By michaleenflynn in forum Racing
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Nov. 1, 2011, 09:40 PM
  2. Animal rights gone wild?
    By tkhawk in forum Around The Farm
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: Apr. 8, 2010, 07:11 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: Sep. 15, 2009, 06:32 PM
  4. Justice? If the animal rights people get their way.
    By Trakehner in forum Off Course
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: May. 28, 2009, 11:21 AM
  5. Animal rights VS. Animal welfare
    By IveGotRhythm in forum Off Course
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: Jun. 11, 2008, 01:41 PM

Posting Permissions

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