• 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

  • #41
    Originally posted by D_BaldStockings View Post
    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.


    [I]No mention of a vet making a decision - up to the officer. THIS ALLOWS AN OFFICER TO MAKE A DECISION WITHOUT WAITING FOR POTENTIALLY HOURS FOR A VET. AS OPPOSED TO LETTING AN ANIMAL DIE ON THE STREET. IAM FINE WITH THIS.

    …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
    LIEN IS FINE, THE ANIMAL CAN BE SOLD BY THE COUNTY, MANY HORSES ARE ACTUALLY SOLD BY ANIMAL CONTROL AND THERE HAVE BEEN REASONS FOR THIS, I SUPPORT THIS.

    (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.


    COST MUST BE REMEDIED OR ANIMAL ADOPTED, FINE WITH ME.

    So if a vet's treatment inadvertently damages, he has no liability if it was pursuant to a seizure.
    YES, NO LIABILITY FOR TREATING VET OF INJURED ANIMAL WITHOUT RESPONSIBLE OWNER.
    (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.

    YES, HAPPENS WITH ANIMALS RUN OVER BY CARS ALL THE TIME.
    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. AGREE-LET YOUR ANIMALS OUT, ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES.


    (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. FINE WITH THIS.


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

    JUDGE ? NOT A PROBLEM IF AUTHORITIES FIND YOUR ANIMAL WONDERING AND NEED TO SEIZE ANIMAL, IT IS ON YOU TO DEMONSTRATE YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE.…
    (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.

    YES, THIS IS GOOD.

    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.
    I SEE NO INCENTIVE-THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WANT YOUR ANIMALS !


    (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. FINE WITH THIS, WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR THE CRAZY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT CARE FOR THEIR ANIMALS ? HAVE YOU EVER READ ABOUT A SEIZURE CASE ? WITH THE GOP CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING WHERE IS THIS MONEY MAGICALLY COMING FROM ?

    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.
    I READ IT THE FIRST TIME BUT , HEY I DON'T OWN THE TIN FOIL HAT....

    Comment


    • #42
      Why would anyone think it makes any sense to have animal rights extremists, that are after abolishing all use of animals, making rules to manage animals?
      Ever heard of conflict of interest?

      Any time any of those animal groups are involved, the devil will be in the details, of course.

      That is why so many fought the ill-drafted "ban horse slaughter bill" of 2007, didn't make any sense as written and would have easily been used to stop most anything else we do with horses.
      All the money and influence the HSUS threw at it was not enough to get it passed, it was so bad and non-sensical.

      The same with most any other those groups present, thankfully, so clear heads easily prevail.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by Bluey View Post
        Why would anyone think it makes any sense to have animal rights extremists, that are after abolishing all use of animals, making rules to manage animals?
        Ever heard of conflict of interest?

        Any time any of those animal groups are involved, the devil will be in the details, of course.

        That is why so many fought the ill-drafted "ban horse slaughter bill" of 2007, didn't make any sense as written and would have easily been used to stop most anything else we do with horses.
        All the money and influence the HSUS threw at it was not enough to get it passed, it was so bad and non-sensical.

        The same with most any other those groups present, thankfully, so clear heads easily prevail.
        Bluey, who told you "animal extremists " are making any rules ? The above amendment to California law are sensible. I think that tin foil hat needs to be recyled by some of you. Animal laws are written by many people not "animal extremists".

        Seems to me the new rules are aiming at making animal owners more responsible for their animal's welfare instead of having the tax payer pick up the bills. Seems that someone advocating for less government spending would support those changes.

        Comment


        • #44
          So if an agent of whatever A/C, police, independent shelter personnel, whoever decides to seize (your) animal, You are OK with

          1. them being the sole decision makers as to whether they should have seized the animal, knowing if they found the seizure unwarranted they would be charging themselves with the bill -that is laughable, no?
          2. having them charge you for treatment, housing, etc that they deem necessary and at whatever rate they choose to set?
          3. Having 14 days from seizure date to pay up the entire bill or your animal is forfeit?
          This regardless of whether seizure is warranted or not.

          Even California judges do not appreciate the end run around the justice system this represents.


          My, my.

          Do you believe in animal ownership at all?

          Comment


          • #45
            I think the loop hole that involves non trained animal professionals certainly could complicate things. How many regular law enforcement agents or even A/C agents have gratuitous amounts of equine experience ?

            What happens when one misdiagnoses "suffering" and puts a bullet in your pony with a treatable ailment ?

            Quite frankly the first hand experience I've had with law officers and horses was FRIGHTENING at best. Including a loose horse that slipped on a sidewalk went over backwards and was convulsing in the street with her brains oozing out while they stood around and watched. They were "helping" catch her by playing round up with ATV's. The very distraught owner finally had to beg one of them to shoot her it took 3 shots ... real marksmen they were.
            Last edited by Lynnwood; Feb. 12, 2013, 12:28 AM.
            "I would not beleive her if her tongue came notorized"

            Comment


            • #46
              I have made my assessments of the amendments, I guess it got a bit boring on the pro-carriage thread so I see many of the pro-carriage members threatening that "they will come after your pleasure horses" with yet another bit of legislation. I think the pro-carriage members want everyone to believe that every time the government enacts or proposes new regulations PETA & HSUS seek to come after your animals.

              News flash pro-carriage people, government makes laws, ordinances and rules that effect your animals, but it does NOT mean that PETA or HSUS are coming after your animals.

              For goodness sakes, I am amazed at the lack of realistic perception of the tin foil hat brigade on here.

              Comment


              • #47
                Oh dear lord and now because any of us who support carriage horses dare to speak ......it becomes about them.

                SV did I say a word about anyone coming for any animals ?? I'm fairly certain I said this legislation:
                "..
                (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."

                Could get complicated and has the potential to be ugly.
                "I would not beleive her if her tongue came notorized"

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by D_BaldStockings View Post
                  So if an agent of whatever A/C, police, independent shelter personnel, whoever decides to seize (your) animal, You are OK with

                  1. them being the sole decision makers as to whether they should have seized the animal, knowing if they found the seizure unwarranted they would be charging themselves with the bill -that is laughable, no?
                  2. having them charge you for treatment, housing, etc that they deem necessary and at whatever rate they choose to set?
                  3. Having 14 days from seizure date to pay up the entire bill or your animal is forfeit?
                  This regardless of whether seizure is warranted or not.

                  Even California judges do not appreciate the end run around the justice system this represents.


                  My, my.

                  Do you believe in animal ownership at all?
                  and hearing themselves if the actions were justified....

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by Lynnwood View Post
                    I think the loop hole that involves non trained animal professionals certainly could complicate things. How many regular law enforcement agents or even A/C agents have gratuitous amounts of equine experience ?

                    What happens when one misdiagnoses "suffering" and puts a bullet in your pony with a treatable ailment ?

                    Quite frankly the first hand experience I've had with law officers and horses was FRIGHTENING at best. Including a loose horse that slipped on a sidewalk went over backwards and was convulsing in the street with her brains oozing out while they stood around and watched. They were "helping" catch her by playing round up with ATV's. The very distraught owner finally had to beg one of them to shoot her it took 3 shots ... real marksmen they were.
                    No this is what you posted. which has some horror story of "first hand experience I've had with law officers and horses was FRIGHTENING at best". Just more drama on the PETA HSUS front from you.

                    I pay to have both my horses boarded at a stable that would handle any emergency if I was not available as they saw fit. I am not responsible for animal owners who allow their animals to be loose, ill, wounded and needing immediate medical attention.

                    Really, your dramatic post is over the top, as usual.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Oh, I see the entire pro-carriage party has joined this thread. Welcome, let's now see the drama and the PETA HSUS bashing.

                      Comment


                      • #51
                        Originally posted by stolen virtue View Post
                        No this is what you posted. which has some horror story of "first hand experience I've had with law officers and horses was FRIGHTENING at best". Just more drama on the PETA HSUS front from you.

                        I pay to have both my horses boarded at a stable that would handle any emergency if I was not available as they saw fit. I am not responsible for animal owners who allow their animals to be loose, ill, wounded and needing immediate medical attention.

                        Really, your dramatic post is over the top, as usual.
                        never mentioned PETA or the HSUS.

                        Since you were not there to watch untrained officers try to make choices and handle the situation I have to just sum up your remarks to ignorance.

                        Its nice that you pay to have your animals "boarded". Unless there is someone on the property 24/7 situations happen. I honestly hope your horses never find themselves in that type of circumstance. Based on the quote below when it happens I hope the persons around them are more compassionate then you.

                        I am not responsible for animal owners who allow their animals to be loose, ill, wounded and needing immediate medical attention.
                        That is the most telling statement you have ever made. Thanks for showing your hand.
                        "I would not beleive her if her tongue came notorized"

                        Comment


                        • #52
                          Originally posted by stolen virtue View Post
                          No this is what you posted. which has some horror story of "first hand experience I've had with law officers and horses was FRIGHTENING at best". Just more drama on the PETA HSUS front from you.

                          I pay to have both my horses boarded at a stable that would handle any emergency if I was not available as they saw fit. I am not responsible for animal owners who allow their animals to be loose, ill, wounded and needing immediate medical attention.

                          Really, your dramatic post is over the top, as usual.

                          No, Dear.
                          Us tinfoil hatters have known for quiet sometime now that HSUS - the PETA with suits, remember - has made great progress in training AC officer all over the country.

                          Now, In Mayfield, you might be right, no boarded horse will ever get loose, and hurt while on the lamb.

                          In other places, with less perfect people, the manure does occasional hit the fan.

                          And here a little example on what can happen when the AC officer has it in for you:
                          http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/sh...d.php?t=277091

                          Oh my carriage horses....
                          At least this one had a happy ending - for the owner......

                          Then of course there is the Basset pack that was decimated by an over zealous AC bunch...irreparable damages...

                          And there is always the possibility that somebody who does not like you does something to your animals.
                          I know, ridiculous....who could possibly not like you.

                          Comment


                          • #53
                            Originally posted by Lynnwood View Post
                            never mentioned PETA or the HSUS.

                            Since you were not there to watch untrained officers try to make choices and handle the situation I have to just sum up your remarks to ignorance.

                            Its nice that you pay to have your animals "boarded". Unless there is someone on the property 24/7 situations happen. I honestly hope your horses never find themselves in that type of circumstance. Based on the quote below when it happens I hope the persons around them are more compassionate then you.



                            That is the most telling statement you have ever made. Thanks for showing your hand.
                            So, are you Lynnwood advocating that additional taxes be paid by citizens to pay for animals picked up and treated by the local government ? That is the jest of the amendments, making owners responsible for the seizure, care of their animals. Also, allowing officers on duty to handle these cases instead of having specialized animal caregivers and judges responsible. Oh, that's right you don't live in this state and have NO vested interest.

                            Love the sentiments of someone who can say that "others should be made to pay for the care of aniamls they don't own". Responsible pet ownership is what is in the bill, really horrific for some of you. I am astounded at the complete lack of responsible responses from the pro-carriage people on basic regulations. It is all for drama for you.

                            Comment


                            • #54
                              Oh SV so now we can't post or have an opinion because we don't live in CA. You're right legislation made in one state never becomes law else where.

                              Are you going to pay for the on duty officers to have specialized training in large animal handling , medical and crisis situations?

                              I don't think I breached the subject at all about the rest of the regulation. I was speaking about issues with having non animal trained officers shouldering responsibilities they are not trained for.

                              I have NO issue that owners should be responsible for the costs associated with seizure and care of their animals if they are found guilty of a crime, that would include animals at large.

                              Your childish grudge against anyone who has spoken in support of carriage horses is getting old.
                              "I would not beleive her if her tongue came notorized"

                              Comment


                              • #55
                                Originally posted by stolen virtue View Post
                                So, are you Lynnwood advocating that additional taxes be paid by citizens to pay for animals picked up and treated by the local government ? That is the jest of the amendments, making owners responsible for the seizure, care of their animals. Also, allowing officers on duty to handle these cases instead of having specialized animal caregivers and judges responsible. Oh, that's right you don't live in this state and have NO vested interest.

                                Love the sentiments of someone who can say that "others should be made to pay for the care of aniamls they don't own". Responsible pet ownership is what is in the bill, really horrific for some of you. I am astounded at the complete lack of responsible responses from the pro-carriage people on basic regulations. It is all for drama for you.
                                comprehension is really not your strong suit.

                                No, the problem as it is presented is not the billing, at least not in the top spot.

                                The AC officer (for brevity sakes) is the sole and only entity in this spiel: gets to decide - on his/her own - if the animal is so gravely ill that it can't be treated.
                                Then he/she picks the vet - if applicable - or kills it outright.

                                THEN the AC office hears your case, the same people who acted in the case.
                                Normally you would expect an impartial judge or mediator.

                                And it seems that if you found guilty in this kangaroo court, you lose all your other animals as well - and can't own any for 5 years, not be around them...
                                accuser, judge and hangman. Streamlined proceedings....

                                And you are stuck with the bill.

                                Now, we have heard the lovley stories of vets who give you the hairy eyeball if you don't run that 13 year old lab through chemo and radiation when the cancer is already everywhere....not to mention those who quadruple their rates because it's 18:01

                                Comment


                                • #56
                                  Alagirl, how many horses do you have ? Do you Alagirl have any horses that may be impacted by this bill ?

                                  I have two horses. What say you ?

                                  I just realized that I have never read posts by you of your horses. Do you show ? event ? drive carriages ? or just trail ride your horses ?

                                  Comment


                                  • #57
                                    Originally posted by stolen virtue View Post
                                    Alagirl, how many horses do you have ? Do you Alagirl have any horses that may be impacted by this bill ?

                                    I have two horses. What say you ?

                                    I just realized that I have never read posts by you of your horses. Do you show ? event ? drive carriages ? or just trail ride your horses ?
                                    She has one horse in CA and its name is Legal Precedent
                                    "I would not beleive her if her tongue came notorized"

                                    Comment


                                    • #58
                                      Originally posted by Lynnwood View Post
                                      Oh dear lord and now because any of us who support carriage horses dare to speak ......it becomes about them.

                                      SV did I say a word about anyone coming for any animals ?? I'm fairly certain I said this legislation:
                                      "..
                                      (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."

                                      Could get complicated and has the potential to be ugly.
                                      This actually sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Should they be warehousing and treating these sick abandoned animals at public expense forever? I mean, if your horse gets out you're probably calling everywhere and looking for it, not sitting on your ass waiting to maybe be found as its owner, so you should be perfectly safe with the "reasonable search" proviso.
                                      Proud Member Of The Lady Mafia

                                      Comment


                                      • #59
                                        Seems that we have some posters that are still utterly clueless about who animal rights extremist groups are.
                                        This may help enlighten them, if they take the time to read thru these pages and be astounded, amazed and if smart enough, alarmed about who those groups are and how they attack our owning and using animals on so many fronts, while lining their pockets all along:

                                        http://activistcash.com/organization...united-states/

                                        ---"Overview
                                        The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a radical animal rights group that inaccurately portrays itself as a mainstream animal care organization. The words “humane society” may appear on its letterhead, but HSUS is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials and television commercials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And quite unlike the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth."---

                                        http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=6510

                                        Remember, we are answering here a poster that said her HSUS shelter was where she got her dog.

                                        That kind of misinformation is how the HSUS can trick people into thinking they are this wonderful organization that cares so much for poor abandoned animals and hide their real decades long goal of eliminating eventually all uses of animals by humans and yes, horses too.

                                        Comment


                                        • #60
                                          Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                                          Seems that we have some posters that are still utterly clueless about who animal rights extremist groups are.
                                          This may help enlighten them, if they take the time to read thru these pages and be astounded, amazed and if smart enough, alarmed about who those groups are and how they attack our owning and using animals on so many fronts, while lining their pockets all along:

                                          http://activistcash.com/organization...united-states/
                                          Bluey, is every piece of legislation aimed at animals part of this "long game" that RARA's are playing? Because that's the impression I get from the Tinhatters here. Even if a piece of legislation is posted that seems utterly reasonably to the vast majority of the non-RARA posters here on COTH, there'll be a vocal minority claiming that it is just a tiny step in the RARA game for the ultimate goal.

                                          It would seem that any and all animal welfare, animal control, etc legislation is part of that ultimate goal. Would that be correct? Or could you point out some laws that you consider free of such influence?
                                          Proud Member Of The Lady Mafia

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X