• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

UPDATE: Passed Senate - contact Governor BAD slaughter legislation in NJ vote Monday

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • UPDATE: Passed Senate - contact Governor BAD slaughter legislation in NJ vote Monday

    UPDATE: The bill passed in the Senate and is on the way to the Governor who has NOT been agriculturally friendly. However, if we make a case, perhaps we can get this slowed down long enough to modify the language and make this workable.

    Current law would close down horse sales (remember not every horse goes to slaughter) and can cause issues in transporting horses. Also gives SPCA some standing in horse issues where it has been with Dept of Ag

    OK... here we go again

    NJ has no equine slaughter houses, never has, isn't likely to have one. But AR people have pushed through a no slaughter for human consumption in NJ law. Not a fan, especially since the goal is to work against all slaughter of all animals in all states, using this for leverage, but I guess is made enough people feel good that it got through the Assembly

    The problem is in the amendments, which authorize the NJSPCA to stop trailers in NJ to see they aren't
    transporting to slaughter. These non-government, uniformed and armed SPCA 'officers' can stop you and ask for proof that you aren't slaughtering your horse. OK... they wouldn't go after ME would they? Well, there is a fine involved AND some of the proceeds go to SPCA. Still you say... they wouldn't

    I say wouldn't they? A local columnist in the Star Ledger is on a rant about SPCA. They are saying they plan to stop CARS with pets in them and fining drivers for unrestrained pets - no law against it, but they will be doing this none-the-less. Another report came in to him about a woman with a dog with a corded coat. She had a guy in a black uniform banging on her door because her dog wasn't groomed enough. Another woman had them on her case because her dog spends much of the day in her yard with a covered porch, but no specific dog house. She works from home and lets him in and out at will.

    Anyway... if you are from NJ PLEASE see below, contact your legislators and ask them to VOTE NO on the slaughter bill as it stands now. At least the amendments about transport need work. This is opposed by NJ Horse Council, the Equine Advisory Board and the Farm Council

    The NJSPCA has put in changes that can affect you – the average horse owner It is proposed that the SPCA can stop horse trailers and make you prove that you are not taking your horse to slaughter or be subject to a fine A fine that is collected by the SPCA and for their benefit (see something fishy here?)' The bill needs more work to be useful. It is opposed by NJ Farm Bureau on behalf of horses, NJHC, and other horse interests

    The bills are linked below

    The Assembly passed this bill and the originator of the bill (Lesniak) was not interested in hearing criticism

    PLEASE VOTE NO on NJ A2023/S1976 Horse Slaughter
    A ban on horse slaughter does not provide a solution!
    New Jersey A2023 and
    New Jersey S1976
    are posted for a final vote on Monday June 25 in the New Jersey Senate.

    The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has been pushing hard for these bills passage -your voice is needed now!

    As currently written, transportation within the state would be enforced by NJSCPA agents who are also cited as the direct beneficiaries of the proposed fines! This could lead to severe harassment of responsible, tax-paying horse owners. How can it be determined what the final destination of the horses is ?

    If those bills were to pass and could be enforced, it would not just create a welfare crisis for horses, but would bring it home to New Jersey. What would happen to the hundreds of horses that are currently sold weekly throughout the state to dealers that may or may not sell them for slaughter? This bill would effectively shut down the rescue efforts done through the Camelot Auction and other auctions, that offer the horses another opportunity for a good home.

    There are no solutions offered in these bills, only bans.
    We need to be focusing our attention on the actual welfare of horses, not some emotional appeal that makes the situation worse.

    Please send a message to your State Senator and ask him or her to oppose A2023/S1976 when it comes to a vote in the Senate.

    You can find your state Senator at the link below:
    http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/abcroster.asp
    please contact them ASAP

    HSUS has been pushing for the bill’s passage if legislators do not hear from horse owners, they do not know they are making a mistake.
    Last edited by Drive NJ; Jun. 26, 2012, 11:25 AM. Reason: Updating info

  • #2
    It is proposed that the SPCA can stop horse trailers and make you prove that you are not taking your horse to slaughter
    that is ridiculous. How do you prove that anyway? "uh see the saddles there? we were going to RIDE them in the NJ horse park."


    and the rest of the law? does that mean you can't slaughter your own horse for your own consumption, or pay a small mobile packer to come slaugher your own horse(s) for human consumption? that's certainly well within your rights.

    Comment


    • #3
      This is an example of Under Ground Law and can be challenged. When Susan Parisio challenged the University of Davis on their minimal care for equine standards (they printed that it was THE LAW) she was not able to proceed very far as the courts would not hear her challenge as it was NOT A LAW...however many peace officers in California were interpreting it as such, and prosecuting. Since it is not a law, a lawyer can demand the dropping of all charges. However, that does cost the individual to defend themselves
      The Elephant in the room

      Comment


      • #4
        Your tinfoil hats are slipping!





        <hides reynolds wrap>

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Drive NJ View Post

          This is opposed by NJ Horse Council, the Equine Advisory Board and the Farm Council
          Of Course it is.


          Originally posted by Drive NJ View Post
          What would happen to the hundreds of horses that are currently sold weekly throughout the state to dealers that may or may not sell them for slaughter? This bill would effectively shut down the rescue efforts done through the Camelot Auction and other auctions, that offer the horses another opportunity for a good home.
          And there you have the real agenda.

          Since we are talking about deception:

          Frank Carper's minions would no longer be able to use the "big bad truck" as their most successful advertising tool.

          ************************
          \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Drive NJ View Post
            I say wouldn't they? A local columnist in the Star Ledger is on a rant about SPCA. They are saying they plan to stop CARS with pets in them and fining drivers for unrestrained pets - no law against it, but they will be doing this none-the-less.
            Actually... there is.

            http://www.danielrrosen.com/2012/06/...strained-pets/

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by oldpony66 View Post

              It's been on the books for many years. But does not state that dogs have to be in seat belts, etc..

              http://www.lombardolawoffices.com/ne...nt-enforcment/

              Comment


              • #8
                I don't see anything in the text of A2023 or S1976 that says or implies that SPCSA people can stop trailers...where is does it say?

                Comment


                • #9
                  They interpret it any way they like

                  Originally posted by Canaqua View Post
                  I don't see anything in the text of A2023 or S1976 that says or implies that SPCSA people can stop trailers...where is does it say?
                  NJSPCA interprets the laws to their favor. The law about dogs having to ride with seat belts does NOT read that way at all, it only says animals must not be transported in a cruel manner. (Any animal)

                  One officer insists that cruel is loose in the car with his head hanging out the window.... another will interpret it as a horse riding backwards in a trailer...

                  And they will interpret it to mean they can pull over horse trailers to check and see where the horses are going to, and if all proper paperwork is aboard. A big money-maker for them if they can even make it LOOK like you might be transporting a horse to slaughter (no coggins on board). Sure, you might win in court, but in the end, it will be costly to defend yourself. Many will just give up and pay the $250 fine.
                  Last edited by Shannna; Jun. 23, 2012, 12:21 PM. Reason: Last paragraph disappeared.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Remember that "on the books" does not equal either funded or enforceable.

                    This sounds about like passing a law that you can't grow coconuts in Connecticut.

                    Probably could give the Camelot sale killer buyers a bit of a headache, though.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      OK, but WHY would one pull over for an SPCA person? I know that I don't have to pull over for ANYONE who is not in a marked police cruiser here in Mass and I can't imagine you have to pull over for a private citizen in NJ either. If someone, not law enforcement, tries to impede my progress...by blocking the road or something, THEY are the ones in trouble, not me.

                      I've refused to pull over for an unmarked police vehicle, even with their little light stuck on top. I didn't get in trouble, even. There are weirdos out there who order police paraphernalia through mail and prey on women. When an unmarked wanted to pull me over, I drove to the closest, occupied, gas station and called the police on the phone, to verify that it was, in fact, an officer of theirs. He was, but he said he understood, he'd wanted to tell me a tail light was out, they aren't actually supposed to be pulling you over in an unmarked car.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        At first I thought the idea of the NJSPCA stopping trailers left and right was way overblown, until I spoke to a equine vet friend of mine who used to work for the state. She told me there she was involved in several incidents in court regarding the NJSPCA, whose officers were clueless about horses and livestock. One case involved a stakeout at an auction (not Camelot) and anyone who didn't properly transport their animals was fined. This included a woman who bought a few chickens at the auction and her friend was sitting in the back seat with them while they drove back to her house, which was just down the street. This vet didn't think the idea of the NJSPCA stopping ordinary trailers to make sure horses weren't being shipped to slaughter outlandish at all.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          "Possible" isn't "probable." We all know that generally speaking, horses leaving a sale and bound for slaughter are not going to be riding in private, 2-horse trailers, private or hired goosenecks, or well-known shippers like Brook Ledge. They're going to be in cattle trailers or box trailers, crammed in like sardines, and the NJSPCA officers will have a good idea who these operators are. Probably be laying for 'em just outside of town. I would sumise that as for the pulling-over, they'll probably have the blue lights inside the grille of the car just like the CT "stealth" troopers do. I do not think this is enforcement that most of us should need to be worried about.

                          One of my boarders was on the highway recently and saw a convoy of 4 trailers like these, probably bound north out of New Holland, and there was absolutely no mistaking what they were. It ruined her entire trip to have seen them.

                          Realistically, funding is tight everywhere so if there's any will to enforce this law at all, it's going to be tightly targeted at the people most likely to be violating it--not egregious harassment of private citizens with their pet or show horses.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            LOVE IT.... Scream slaughter is bad, then don't expect government to enforce laws against it.

                            Simple solution is to realize horses are livestock and nothing more. They are NOT companion animals or pets and they don't have rights.
                            The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              OK, but WHY would one pull over for an SPCA person?
                              Maybe they put the law in place to get rid of SPCA officers...
                              The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                The definition of "livestock" is animals raised for food. Horses in the United States do not belong to that category. Historically, they were work animals, which puts them in a unique category of neither livestock nor pets.

                                Since nowadays most places they are "work" animals of a sporting nature, and a great many people indeed do regard them as companion animals and even pets, our society is in a state of transition philosophically as to exactly what our expectations and demands for handling them should be.

                                Even in 1900 these questions were already on the table.

                                There are ideals, there are realities and there are gray areas in the middle; the point I think we can all agree on is that owners themselves need to take humane responsibility for the welfare of their animals--whether work, pet, OR livestock.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Originally posted by SwampYankee View Post
                                  The definition of "livestock" is animals raised for food. Horses in the United States do not belong to that category. Historically, they were work animals, which puts them in a unique category of neither livestock nor pets...

                                  There are many definitions just as there are many types of livestock.
                                  (lîv'stŏk')
                                  n.
                                  Domestic animals, such as cattle or horses, raised for home use or for profit, especially on a farm

                                  Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/livestock#ixzz1yjllaYuS

                                  As for horses being food... I can buy horsemeat to eat. Horses have been eaten in the US before. We sell cattle for export to be eaten. Horses are also transported out of the US to be eaten. Just because it's not available in supermarkets in the US doesn't mean they are not livestock.
                                  The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    You know, I usually stay out of these threads. Since I live in NJ, I thought I'd see what is being said. And, for the first time, I am HIDING ALL POSTS by a COTH-er. Thanks, 7HL.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by JanWeber View Post
                                      You know, I usually stay out of these threads. Since I live in NJ, I thought I'd see what is being said. And, for the first time, I am HIDING ALL POSTS by a COTH-er. Thanks, 7HL.

                                      I know I disagree a lot with 7, but I find him to have a decent head on the shoulders in these topics.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        I find it bizarre, that those that are rescuing horses from slaughter and those opposed to slaughter are up in arms about a law that is trying to prevent horses going to slaughter. Maybe some rescues are more concerned about running a business and making money then really rescuing horses from slaughter. I find it repulsive the "rescues" that are really front people for kill buyers.

                                        Now I am not opposed to slaughter and think it is an option that ALL horse owners should have. I am also not opposed to breeding horses specifically for horsemeat. Before anyone asks, what I would do with my horses, that really is my business and should be my choice.


                                        I am opposed to this law because it's the type of law that RARAs are trying to get passed. Anything and everything to discourage horse ownership and use.

                                        I don't go to NJ to often usually just to the Cowtown Rodeo. There are the occassional RARAs there, but they aren't taken to serious.


                                        I encourage the liberal use of the ignore feature.
                                        The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X