• 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

Tin Foil Hatters Unite. More animal rights attacks

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

  • #21
    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?
    Yo/Yousolong April 23rd, 1985- April 15th, 2014

    http://notesfromadogwalker.com/2012/...m-a-sanctuary/

    Comment


    • #22
      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.
      Proud Member Of The Lady Mafia

      Comment


      • #23
        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.

        Comment


        • #24
          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...
          Yo/Yousolong April 23rd, 1985- April 15th, 2014

          http://notesfromadogwalker.com/2012/...m-a-sanctuary/

          Comment


          • #25
            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?

            Comment


            • #26
              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...

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Angela Freda View Post
                JBhorses?
                Jill Burnell the seizure is discussed in the sport horse breeding section.

                Comment

                • Original Poster

                  #28
                  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.
                  The Elephant in the room

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    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".

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Tin foil is the new black fedora.

                      Comment


                      • #31
                        Originally posted by tangledweb View Post
                        Tin foil is the new black fedora.
                        I should sig that!

                        Comment


                        • #32
                          Wait...who is it exactly that is wearing the Shiny Side Out Tin Foil Hat?? Someone related to this thread??

                          Comment


                          • #33
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #34
                              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

                              Comment


                              • #35
                                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.

                                Comment


                                • #36
                                  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.

                                  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.

                                  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.

                                  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.


                                  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.

                                  Comment


                                  • #37
                                    Sounds like a more than fair procedure to me. Why again, is this objectionable?

                                    Comment


                                    • #38
                                      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

                                      Comment


                                      • #39
                                        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.

                                        Comment


                                        • #40
                                          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.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X