The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr. 2, 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    5,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Now, rare as that may be, this one time I do agree with you that anyone convicted of animal abuse should be monitored and not again be permitted to own or have animals under their care, as that one Vick fellow.
    OMG, I just had to post (and I hope my amused tone is clear, not intended to be denigrating in any way) because I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH BLUEY ABOUT AN ANIMAL WELFARE ISSUE!

    In all seriousness, that is a very valid point and an important issue and it IS used. Problems do commonly occur with follow-up, person moves to another state, etc, but like most legislation, the real solution is better enforcement, not more legislation.

    I don't agree though, that there is any type of perceived slope to "they're coming to take them away." Details of management, reporting, etc for agriculture may change, but no, no one will come take all the animals away. If they do, you are welcome to come to my house and punch me in the face and tell me I was wrong. I am more than willing to take that risk.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr. 3, 2006
    Location
    Spooner, WI
    Posts
    2,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IdahoRider View Post
    Convicted abusers and those convicted of neglect are routinely denied animal ownership for a period of time, or limited on the number they can own. The prosecutor always has the ability to seek whatever conditions they feel are appropriate (and that they feel a judge will go along with).

    In my experience, it isn't a case of the prosecutor not having the ability to ask for X, Y or Z or the judge's ability to impose a sentence of X, Y or Z. The problem comes from the convicted person picking up and moving to another jurisdiction entirely and starting over again. One jurisdiction isn't going to track behavior once A) the original terms of probation have been met and B) they don't track behavior once the person leaves that jurisdiction.

    There was a woman here in Idaho that was charged and convicted on neglect. She had a couple of hundred dogs living in squalor. This was in 1998? Maybe 1999? She was prohibited from owning any more than a certain number of animals as part of her sentencing (which was a plea agreement, if I remember). In 2003 she charged with neglect again. This time she had over 500 dogs. The county in Idaho never really tracked her through probation, she picked up and moved to Oregon and started all over again.

    Jurisdictions need to communicate better and enforcement needs to improve. But there is already an already adequate legal ability available in the court system.
    Sheilah
    I can certainly attest to this practice. I had the privilege of watching our notorious move from place to place every time things heated up. She was finally caught after years of avoidance. OMG! the stories I could tell about my 5+ year fiasco. Law enforcement was afraid of her, everyone was afraid of her. Anyway she was a puppy miller and horse miller. I bought my farm from her. Location, location, location. However what a horrific mess. Those poor animals. All of 300 of them. o_O

    She got jail time and was convicted of fraud. She could not own animals. A week after she got out jail, I could hear many dogs barking again. Contacted my neighbor, he said, "we have it covered", a few days later it was silent again. Claimed they were her boyfriends dogs. She could not be near animals either. So she left the area.

    I thought she was dead, hadn't heard a peep for 10 years or so. Found out from my local humane society that she is indeed alive and well and still milling in S. WI.

    I've been here 17 years, she was milling way before I stepped onto the scene and she's still at it. She has several alias' and has at least a dozen pages of rap sheets in combination. So crazy, you can't hardly believe it.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2011
    Posts
    3,920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hurleycane View Post
    from Wiki: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    I was told a bill died in Oregon where the following could occur. An AC escorted by a local police authority (Sheriff etc) COULD enter any property to view animals if there was a report of abuse or starvation. If they found an animal THEY deemed not fit, they could then enter the home and seize ALL material showing apicture of an animal i.e. if horse investigated..picture albums, computers..books anything to do with horses and that could also include horse trailers etc. What was even worse..they wouold go to court..and even if the judge said..bad seizure the horses or livestock WO"ULD "NOT be returned to the rightful owner. They became permanent property for the county.

    This was a bill sponsored by HSUS and others..I think the person who told me said it was a couple of years ago



  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    47,072

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildlifer View Post
    OMG, I just had to post (and I hope my amused tone is clear, not intended to be denigrating in any way) because I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH BLUEY ABOUT AN ANIMAL WELFARE ISSUE!

    In all seriousness, that is a very valid point and an important issue and it IS used. Problems do commonly occur with follow-up, person moves to another state, etc, but like most legislation, the real solution is better enforcement, not more legislation.

    I don't agree though, that there is any type of perceived slope to "they're coming to take them away." Details of management, reporting, etc for agriculture may change, but no, no one will come take all the animals away. If they do, you are welcome to come to my house and punch me in the face and tell me I was wrong. I am more than willing to take that risk.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fairfax View Post
    I was told a bill died in Oregon where the following could occur. An AC escorted by a local police authority (Sheriff etc) COULD enter any property to view animals if there was a report of abuse or starvation. If they found an animal THEY deemed not fit, they could then enter the home and seize ALL material showing apicture of an animal i.e. if horse investigated..picture albums, computers..books anything to do with horses and that could also include horse trailers etc. What was even worse..they wouold go to court..and even if the judge said..bad seizure the horses or livestock WO"ULD "NOT be returned to the rightful owner. They became permanent property for the county.

    This was a bill sponsored by HSUS and others..I think the person who told me said it was a couple of years ago
    ^^^^

    There you have it, what you think would never happen almost did.

    We did have a thread on that a while ago.

    Don't kid yourself, animal rights extremists are still out there giving it a good old try every chance they get.
    Right now, one example, the HSUS has entered a "nuisance" suit against the beef board and the pork board, just to annoy and make them use resources defending themselves, resources they really should be using to promote their industries.
    Yeah senseless, but then, they have millions upon millions to play with and decided now is the time to spend some of them, while putting their 50+ lawyers to work somewhere to earn their keep.

    What I really think will happen is that humans will eventually change so much they may not need so much else that we make use of today, including animals.

    Whoever we become or make ourselves into and whatever we transform our animals to fit future needs and wants, we will be a different sort of human, living in a different kind of world, making today's debates of animal welfare or animal rights moot.
    Unless we self destruct before that.



  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr. 2, 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    5,623

    Default

    No, no, it "almost" did not. All we have here is a report of what Fairfax "was told" and random details that may or may not be accurate. Oh dangit, I'm correcting facts again. But at any rate, the bill did NOT pass (reportedly, if it existed, but either way...) and if you look at introduced legislation on a state and federal level, all kinds of ridiculous things can get submitted. Actually passing and becoming law is a whole 'nother ball of wax. These days, introducing a bill has about as much weight as starting an online petition, ROFL.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2011
    Posts
    3,920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildlifer View Post
    No, no, it "almost" did not. All we have here is a report of what Fairfax "was told" and random details that may or may not be accurate. Oh dangit, I'm correcting facts again. But at any rate, the bill did NOT pass (reportedly, if it existed, but either way...) and if you look at introduced legislation on a state and federal level, all kinds of ridiculous things can get submitted. Actually passing and becoming law is a whole 'nother ball of wax. These days, introducing a bill has about as much weight as starting an online petition, ROFL.
    The person who told me is a legislativbe assistant in the state of Washington. She has posted on this forum but I do not remember what her "name" is. I did take notes when she sent me the information and I have a note stating I did speak to her about it. The shocking part was the going into the home, barn or any other building and seizing any picvture i.e. of a horse IF a horse was to be seized. There was another part I omitted. If the person decided to forego a trial they could sign over the horses and pay a fine. IF they decided to fight..that was when they still lost their horses. I believe it was also posted here on COTH..maybe last fall?

    You can ROFL on the ground as long as you want. Of course you are going to dispute anything and everything I say.


    Now..again..who are you>??? Why are you involved?

    I think someone who isnt on dial up may be able to locate this bill and find out more information ++

    This is a piece of an email sent to me from her..

    What the thread on Cloth taught me is how far ahead they really are.
    For instance, the Alaska situation is especially troubling as they are trying to put that into state statute. It is already in bill form and ready to go before the legislature. Once legislation passes the legislature and is signed into law by the governor it is extremely difficult to ever get rid of. In the case of the hen scale, it would take at least a year with introducing and passing another bill, just to
    get it off the books. My experience also tells me that the agency
    responsible for that legislation, state veterinarian, just didn't go out looking for it. More likely groups are pushing it and probably more. Likely, most states have that or similar legislation already IN the door. Reading that CA standard now! Yikes, an actual picture of a tangle in a mane.



  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr. 2, 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    5,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairfax View Post
    Now..again..who are you>??? Why are you involved?
    0.o

    Are you aware that you are posting on an internet bulletin board? Soooo...any member can reply to a topic. I'm not sure what you think you are "involved" in or particularly qualified for here other than an online stream of chatter. You like to make a lot of assumptions though, so I'm just going to back slowly away from the particular can of nuts...


    6 members found this post helpful.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug. 5, 2009
    Posts
    1,576

    Default

    Having lived east of the Cascades in Oregon for many years (although many years ago) I can't see that sort of legislation being seriously considered at all, no matter what the person in Washington State said. As for Alaska, one of the bastions of individualism, can't seeing anything like that flying there also.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    In Jingle Town
    Posts
    35,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by betonbill View Post
    Having lived east of the Cascades in Oregon for many years (although many years ago) I can't see that sort of legislation being seriously considered at all, no matter what the person in Washington State said. As for Alaska, one of the bastions of individualism, can't seeing anything like that flying there also.
    Gosh, I can't believe I am actually posting on this....


    but there is a lot you are also not seeing: Legislation like this being brought in under the radar....
    it's an old game, really, tag something on here, something else there, and before you know it, you have legislation nobody wants.

    Or bills nobody reads....

    So just assuming that the people don't want the laws is a far cry from the representatives voting on the crap!

    and let's not forget the tried and true tactic of diversion: Blow one law out of proportion to draw all the attention while slipping another one in....
    Quote Originally Posted by Bristol Bay View Post
    Try setting your broomstick to fly at a lower altitude.
    GNU Terry Prachett



  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct. 1, 2005
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    6,700

    Default

    Legal definition of property: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...erty+%28law%29

    If I own a house or apartment, my property, I can define the conditions of use under rental or lease agreement. I can't say you can't own animals, but I can say you can't keep them on my property.

    Zoning ordinances- no chickens in town (which is actually changing back the other way, rapidly), no dairy cows, etc- presumably for the greater social benefit of urban folks who don't want to hear roosters crowing or cows mooing (or have the smell).

    Animal welfare ordinances- if you keep an animal (horse, dog, whatever), legally defined conditions (often not motivated by real animal expertise, beware) on how you must meet their basic welfare needs. A good thing theoretically but read the fine print.

    Legal jurisdictions like Boulder CO who change terms from 'pets' to 'companions,' big beware.

    Seemingly good legislation like outlawing puppy mills- really big beware because of the fine print. These are most dangerous- what legislator would vote against a law that has a warm and fuzzy title? The answer is most of them for politically correct reasons, never mind what flawed provisions might be included in the legislation, which serve to outlaw what animals we can own and/or how we can own them.


    1 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Isn't that cruelty to animals?
    By Alagirl in forum Off Course
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Mar. 1, 2012, 10:29 AM
  2. What is attacking my animals?
    By KristiKGC in forum Off Course
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Aug. 10, 2010, 11:10 PM
  3. PSA Your animals might not be responsible
    By Robin@DHH in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Dec. 26, 2009, 01:52 PM
  4. What do you need to drive to AK with animals?
    By dacasodivine in forum Off Course
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Dec. 14, 2009, 07:59 PM
  5. Do you vaccinate your old animals?
    By carrievalentino in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: Apr. 1, 2009, 04:56 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
  •