• 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

Right to Own Animals

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by Bluey View Post
    Now, rare as that may be, this one time I do agree with you that anyone convicted of animal abuse should be monitored and not again be permitted to own or have animals under their care, as that one Vick fellow.
    OMG, I just had to post (and I hope my amused tone is clear, not intended to be denigrating in any way) because I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH BLUEY ABOUT AN ANIMAL WELFARE ISSUE!

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

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

    Bloggily entertain yourself with our adventures (and disasters):
    We Are Flying Solo

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by IdahoRider View Post
      Convicted abusers and those convicted of neglect are routinely denied animal ownership for a period of time, or limited on the number they can own. The prosecutor always has the ability to seek whatever conditions they feel are appropriate (and that they feel a judge will go along with).

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by hurleycane View Post
        from Wiki: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
        I was told a bill died in Oregon where the following could occur. An AC escorted by a local police authority (Sheriff etc) COULD enter any property to view animals if there was a report of abuse or starvation. If they found an animal THEY deemed not fit, they could then enter the home and seize ALL material showing apicture of an animal i.e. if horse investigated..picture albums, computers..books anything to do with horses and that could also include horse trailers etc. What was even worse..they wouold go to court..and even if the judge said..bad seizure the horses or livestock WO"ULD "NOT be returned to the rightful owner. They became permanent property for the county.

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

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by wildlifer View Post
          OMG, I just had to post (and I hope my amused tone is clear, not intended to be denigrating in any way) because I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH BLUEY ABOUT AN ANIMAL WELFARE ISSUE!

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

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

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

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

          We did have a thread on that a while ago.

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

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

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

          Comment


          • #25
            No, no, it "almost" did not. All we have here is a report of what Fairfax "was told" and random details that may or may not be accurate. Oh dangit, I'm correcting facts again. But at any rate, the bill did NOT pass (reportedly, if it existed, but either way...) and if you look at introduced legislation on a state and federal level, all kinds of ridiculous things can get submitted. Actually passing and becoming law is a whole 'nother ball of wax. These days, introducing a bill has about as much weight as starting an online petition, ROFL.
            Life doesn't have perfect footing.

            Bloggily entertain yourself with our adventures (and disasters):
            We Are Flying Solo

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by wildlifer View Post
              No, no, it "almost" did not. All we have here is a report of what Fairfax "was told" and random details that may or may not be accurate. Oh dangit, I'm correcting facts again. But at any rate, the bill did NOT pass (reportedly, if it existed, but either way...) and if you look at introduced legislation on a state and federal level, all kinds of ridiculous things can get submitted. Actually passing and becoming law is a whole 'nother ball of wax. These days, introducing a bill has about as much weight as starting an online petition, ROFL.
              The person who told me is a legislativbe assistant in the state of Washington. She has posted on this forum but I do not remember what her "name" is. I did take notes when she sent me the information and I have a note stating I did speak to her about it. The shocking part was the going into the home, barn or any other building and seizing any picvture i.e. of a horse IF a horse was to be seized. There was another part I omitted. If the person decided to forego a trial they could sign over the horses and pay a fine. IF they decided to fight..that was when they still lost their horses. I believe it was also posted here on COTH..maybe last fall?

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


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

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

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

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

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Fairfax View Post
                Now..again..who are you>??? Why are you involved?
                0.o

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

                Bloggily entertain yourself with our adventures (and disasters):
                We Are Flying Solo

                Comment


                • #28
                  Having lived east of the Cascades in Oregon for many years (although many years ago) I can't see that sort of legislation being seriously considered at all, no matter what the person in Washington State said. As for Alaska, one of the bastions of individualism, can't seeing anything like that flying there also.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by betonbill View Post
                    Having lived east of the Cascades in Oregon for many years (although many years ago) I can't see that sort of legislation being seriously considered at all, no matter what the person in Washington State said. As for Alaska, one of the bastions of individualism, can't seeing anything like that flying there also.
                    Gosh, I can't believe I am actually posting on this....


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

                    Or bills nobody reads....

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

                    and let's not forget the tried and true tactic of diversion: Blow one law out of proportion to draw all the attention while slipping another one in....
                    Originally posted by BigMama1
                    Facts don't have versions. If they do, they are opinions
                    GNU Terry Prachett

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Legal definition of property: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...erty+%28law%29

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

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

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

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

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

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X