VA Legislation Alert! "Volunteers" can come on your property

[JSwan]

I originally wrote that I didn't mean to single you out personally. I still mean that, and don't intend for any comment to be a personal attack. Using your activity was merely an example to illustrate a point.

Maybe I should have used a breeder from the sporthorse breeding forum so that I didn't come across as targeting you specifically? If so - please chalk it up to my laziness and again - not a personal attack.

Or maybe I should have used pictures of my horses because the poor things are poster children for the Fugly blog. Good thing they are all gelded!

I did try to present some background info about the Bill and offer a few arguments as to why it was a bad Bill. Reasonable people will differ on whether or not volunteers have a place in law enforcement. Obviously I have grave concerns.

What is ironic is that we have a good HI in this area and I respect her. We still have HI's in this state, it's that no new appointments can be made. No comment I've made against this Bill should be construed to be an attack on her. She's a good egg.

We all care about animals, and many of us either work with rescues or donate time or money when we can. No one is more or less moral because of what they do or don't do, or that they refuse to divulge the extent of their work or amount of money they've donated.

I hope I've not demanded that because I respect everyone's privacy and hope they respect mine as well. There is no halo over my head and I've not seen a halos over anyone else!

An additional reason I used your business as an example is because the people who wish to become HI's would indeed consider you a "backyard breeder". You're not, of course. Some folks just feel the need to paste labels on anything and make sweeping generalizations. They don't wear halos either - they just think they do.

So you guys finally start posting real and valid arguments as to what is wrong with THIS bill and then you go and make personal insults. Who is using scare tactics again?

Could ANY of you all started out by simply saying that this bill left open the real possibility that private citizens would be allowed to set their own agenda in investigating the conditions of any animals without cause on private property and would not require permission or supervision by anyone?

JSwan - We may not always agree, but I thought you were better than this. Make your points with logic and I will listen. Try to bully me and scare me and well, let's just say I can't print my response to you here in public. I thought those were the tactics of your opponents.

[equinelaw]

That's overly dramatic. That's the scare tactic used to get this type of legislation passed. We have plenty of ACO's in this state, and many citizens prefer that animal welfare not be the red headed stepchild of government. Make animal control a true part of infrastructure, not easily palmed off to poorly run animal hoarding "rescues", politically motivated volunteers, and operating on the fringe.

The fact is that this program existed in the past. This is not new. The program was discontinued not because of abuse of power by ACO's - but because of abuse by HI's. We tried it - and people ran roughshod over innocent people and interfered in investigations. In other words - they DIDN'T HELP.


I am very much aware of the background behind this Bill. All of you seem to be speaking from the point of outsiders, which is ok. But understand that a lot of citizens had legitimate concerns about this Bill, and many government agencies opposed it as well. Law enforcement officials, VACA, VDACS, there is NO support for the HI program.

That does not mean that we don't care about animal welfare in this state. It means that there are some pretty sharp people who know exactly who wants to be HI's and why. And it has little to do with animal welfare, and everything to do with pursuing their own goals. That should concern you.

Heck - didn't you recently complain about HSUS and the pig lady? There was another recent thread on the inaugural parade and how HSUS lied about an injured horse. We all know about Katrina. The blizzards out west. We all know about PETA's little white van and the dogs found in dumpsters or who simply disappear and only their collars are found. The Philadelphia horses that were seized by an ignorant SPCA and a stupid vet. The HSUS mess in Louisiana. These are groups that swoop in, get their pictures and draft a press release, and then leave and use it to get donations.

I don't want those people to be deputized. I've seen PETA in action. They're just plain scary, angry people. This state is the headquarters for PETA. They are a releasing agency. That Bill would have allowed every PETA employee to be a HI.

No. No way. No way in hell. Invite them down to your state and give them a badge if you want. I'd prefer to support good animal welfare legislation - and the HI program isn't good legislation.


LLDM - It's ironic that you insist that people be responsible. What on earth are you doing being a horse breeder? There are thousands going to slaughter every day, horses being turned loose, horses starved and neglected. You do realize the people who would become HI's under this Bill would want to shut you down for being a "backyard breeder", right? It doesn't matter that your horses are expensive. You're nothing but a backyard breeder. Irresponsible. Contributing to the slaughter industry.

Be careful what you wish for - you might get it.

Why yes, I did recently complain, but it wasn't because of anything to do with this situation. In that case there was no investigation or seizure. They came to her house and offered to take all the animals and care for them at their expense.

It wasn't do gooders run amok, constitutional violations or unsavory investigation methods, it was just a plain, simple flat out lie. The final result was no harm to the pig lady or the pigs, but the local humane society cut their hours by 1/3, let 2 staff members go, got rid of the free spay and neuter program and is struggling to survive.

So now there are real cases in that county where animals are being abused and neglected and nobody and no funds with any relation to LE to help those animals.

As I said, I was pretty happy with how things were turning out, but we as a nation are broke. There is not enough money for AC in many places now. And I mean in the last few months.

In my state, the one where I have lived fewer years then in VA where I spent most of my life and my law school education, we no longer have funds for CHILD ABUSE cases. I cannot see how they can or will pay for much animal abuse enforcement when children are not even funded now. We work and do not get paid.

I am talking about right now--not all the things that led up to now. The world has changes i just the last few months. We, as a group, changed the social mores on animals. We got pretty close to what we wanted. But completely unrelated events caused by the economy now make what we worked so hard for nearly impossible without more $$$$.

For example, in my pig case the pigs were OK. They would have been better off if there had been a huge influx of funds and help. However, they were taken not because they were abandoned, but because they were suspected of being abused and neglected. Whether or not that was true, they were returned because they were too expensive to help.

In mid crisis the humane society either had to help the animals or close up shop. The present model is not working. Its not working because of lack of funds.

I don't really think seizures or investigations are the problem. I can certainly think of many examples from the past where that was the problem--AC people who are as clueless as the abusers, but right now there may be no AC officers and now way to fund seizing anything.

Any suggestions that save money are better then nothing at all. I am not clear from the text of the bill why I can not become and volunteer or others that have posted in this thread could not become volunteers.

Are you saying that only certain people are allowed to do that or that only certain people are likely to do it? If PETA of the HSUS were actually having to do rescues how long would their illusion of being any good at it last? It is very easy to point fingers and do PR, but when its your $$$ that is being spent and you are suddenly accountable its a lot harder to hide.

And they would have to work with folks like us instead of in secrecy and behind closed doors. PETA and the HSUS may be the ones who have to be careful what they wish for. They may find themselves having to take orders from you.

Finding and seizing animals is the easy part. No matter who does hat they will quickly find that they had better be right because housing and re-homing animals is the hard part. If they just kill them all they have lost all credibility with the average supporter.

Make them walk the walk.

This bill is dead, but the reason it was started and the arguments that kept it alive are much more broad then just this one bill.

[pAin't_Misbehavin']

I don't want those people to be deputized. I've seen PETA in action. They're just plain scary, angry people. This state is the headquarters for PETA. They are a releasing agency. That Bill would have allowed every PETA employee to be a HI.

No. No way. No way in hell. Invite them down to your state and give them a badge if you want. I'd prefer to support good animal welfare legislation - and the HI program isn't good legislation.

Not unless she promises to keep them over there in Aiken with her. We both live in SC - where the highway patrol thinks running over fleeing suspects (and sometimes their neighbors) is a perfectly acceptable method of immobilizing them - so we don't need anymore wild-eyed fanatics with badges, thanks.

[Chief2]

JSwan - We may not always agree, but I thought you were better than this. Make your points with logic and I will listen. Try to bully me and scare me and well, let's just say I can't print my response to you here in public. I thought those were the tactics of your opponents.

No, LLDM, actually, these are:

[QUOTE=LLDM;3862565]
You all have been rude, mean and accusative when all I've done is ask questions, challenge your poorly worded arguments and paraphrase your own words back to you in an attempt to show you how this is coming across.

PETA training, right to the core.

[LLDM]

No, LLDM, actually, these are:

You all have been rude, mean and accusative when all I've done is ask questions, challenge your poorly worded arguments and paraphrase your own words back to you in an attempt to show you how this is coming across.

PETA training, right to the core.

Well then, their training is better than yours isn't it? If PETA IS winning the PR battle you have only yourself to blame. You especially are the one who resorts to accusations and the one I was referring to in the statement above. When all else fails shoot the messenger - that'll surely help! If your logic is so poor you can't make a reasoned rational argument don't be surprised when people won't think your way.

Instead of attacking me, why don't you just make a better case for your own opinions?

I refuse to be bullied into defending myself to the likes of you. Who I am is public information and easily checked. You are the anonymous poster here. Your agenda is much more hidden than mine. Go figure.

SCFarm

[equinelaw]

Not unless she promises to keep them over there in Aiken with her. We both live in SC - where the highway patrol thinks running over fleeing suspects (and sometimes their neighbors) is a perfectly acceptable method of immobilizing them - so we don't need anymore wild-eyed fanatics with badges, thanks.

We already have a similar law in SC. S.C.A.R.E. and their members were all authorized to do this type of work. Except our people do not get immunity, so they were sued out of existence. S.C.A.R.E is shutting down and we will have no other statewide agency to handle equine investigations or rescues.

They had burn out, but they also got tired of convicted abusers (not falsely accused ones) suing them for years. All the way to the SCt years. It gets old. I am pretty sure I am still allowed to investigate? Which really does not matter since I have done and will do it without any official help all I want. If I were in VA and a bill like this passes I might sign up to do investigations there too. I am still not hearing that it is only open to PETA and their workers.

The only real opinions I have about PETA from people who are not part of PETA is what I see here on COTH. And yeah, I think LLDM has a point. I begin to get so sick of the PETA paranoia, the misinformation and scare tactics that I tend to prefer PETA to the opposition or at least loose all interest in helping the other side. Or actually either side since both seem too extreme and too dogmatic.

PETA gets a whole lot of good stuff for welfare done. Including pressuring large businesses for better welfare and getting laws passed. If I don't pay attention to words and only look at actions I see a lot of actions I like. Same with the HSUS.

Neither organization does rescue work. They cannot investigate or seize any more animals then someone is willing to pay for after that is done. Unless they start paying for that too. I think they should. They have $$$$$, let em spend it on animals.

If PETA would like to come to Aiken, fund the SPCA and run AC they are more then welcome. We need all the help we can get and since everybody gets a hearing within 48 hours, I am not worried about fly masks, mud, or crated dogs being taken away forever with a guilty verdict. How hard is it to explain a fly mask?

I could not find anyone to do an investigation or seizure in the Lexington VA area 4 years ago, so I just watched 4 horses starve to death. PETA would be better then that too. VA is a large state. There are areas where nobody does a thing.

However, I do not hunt with hounds, I do not hunt with guns or arrows, wear fur, I do not abuse, starve, or breed my animals. I do not buy and sell animals. I do not feel any present or near future threat from AR groups at all.
I do not believe the slippery slope argument has any merit at all. Society changes over time. One day we may think pets are obsolete. That does not mean a small minority will force us to give up our pets. It means the majority will.

[gieriscm]

When I lived in VA I was a member of a mounted volunteer search and rescue team. While SAR is a law-enforcement function in VA, most departments had little $$$ allocated to it. Usually one guy would be in charge of it in addition to his other duties, and he would coordinate with the volunteer teams when an incident occurred. We worked very closely with the Sheriff's departments to make sure that they knew our capabilities, and periodically these people would attend training with us so that they could get to know us. Also, if a search was underway for a lost or missing person, we were not permitted to just show up; we had to be called to the scene by the responsible authority, usually the sheriff's office.

So, why couldn't AC or the Sheriff's office (it varies by county who investigates, as in some AC is under the Sheriff's office, and in others it's not) currently use a "volunteer investigator" such as a vet, someone from a legitimate rescue, or other credentialed, experienced professional who is willing to help with cases if there's no public $$$ available? They already have the power to do it with no special legislation required.

[LLDM]

So, why couldn't AC or the Sheriff's office (it varies by county who investigates, as in some AC is under the Sheriff's office, and in others it's not) currently use a "volunteer investigator" such as a vet, someone from a legitimate rescue, or other credentialed, experienced professional who is willing to help with cases if there's no public $$$ available? They already have the power to do it with no special legislation required.

What a good idea! I do know that this IS done already - and what I thought this bill was about when I first saw this thread. I could not for the life of me understand why you guys would be so actively against it.

If it is not happening now in many parts of Virginia, it is likely that officials do not really know about this option, do not know who to call or are unwilling to go "outside" to get help. That, or they just don't have the time, money or inclination to do any AC type work. We still have a lot of "old boy" network issues. Like no one wanting to turn in their buddy's kennel full of hounds starving on the off season.

Understanding *WHY* this legislation is felt to be needed would go a long way towards crafting a bill that would work as intended and not cause undue duress (and wasted money) to individuals and the courts with frivolous accusations.

SCFarm

[Guilherme]

When I lived in VA I was a member of a mounted volunteer search and rescue team. While SAR is a law-enforcement function in VA, most departments had little $$$ allocated to it. Usually one guy would be in charge of it in addition to his other duties, and he would coordinate with the volunteer teams when an incident occurred. We worked very closely with the Sheriff's departments to make sure that they knew our capabilities, and periodically these people would attend training with us so that they could get to know us. Also, if a search was underway for a lost or missing person, we were not permitted to just show up; we had to be called to the scene by the responsible authority, usually the sheriff's office.

So, why couldn't AC or the Sheriff's office (it varies by county who investigates, as in some AC is under the Sheriff's office, and in others it's not) currently use a "volunteer investigator" such as a vet, someone from a legitimate rescue, or other credentialed, experienced professional who is willing to help with cases if there's no public $$$ available? They already have the power to do it with no special legislation required.

I think AC is done this way in a lot of rural counties. It was done that way here before our first paid AC officer. It's still done that way in at least two others I can think of.

Comparison of mounted SAR and AC is dicey. SAR is not, in its essence, a "law enforcement" activity. It's more of a "humanitarian effort" (looking to rescue folks in trouble).

A "mounted sheriffs posse" (and I'm aware of a couple) would be a closer match. The mounted voluteers are almost universally reserve deputies who are appointed by the sheriff, carry a gun, have arrest powers, etc. Counties that have them, I understand, also have some pretty strict rules that govern them. A mounted, reserve deputy must follow the same rules that a groun-pounding, paid deputy must follow. They have extensive training requirements. The county is liable for what they do. Indeed it's daunting enough that our last two sheriffs have declined to authorize one for our county because of administrative and liablity issues.

I'm a volunteer in our local DA's office. I help out in the General Sessions Court (the first level criminal court). I'm not a TN lawyer. I operate under a set of rules set down 12 years ago by our then DA. I'm closely supervised by one to four assistant DAs. I have virtually no discretion. I spend a fair amount of time "consulting" with my supervisors when I run into matters that are not clearly addressed in my rules. I am VERY aware of the limits of volunteers in service to the state. I have the power to "muck up" somebody's life (even if I don't have the authority). I walk my road very cautiously. I cringe when I see other volunteers (constables, reserve officers, "citizen activists," etc.) show up carrying their "torch." So do my supervising assistant DAs. Perhaps this explains some of my reluctance to see large numbers of "torch carrying" volunteers turned loose on society without a very strict program of control.

I still don't see the question to which the answer is "A large contingent of volunteer humane investigators."

G.

P.S. As a result of the debacle in our county, TN law now requires that a vet, county extension agent, or designated person with specific training in the husbandry of large animals swear by affadavit that large animals are being kept in cruel conditions before a court an order a siezure.

[Tamara in TN]

P.S. As a result of the debacle in our county, TN law now requires that a vet, county extension agent, or designated person with specific training in the husbandry of large animals swear by affadavit that large animals are being kept in cruel conditions before a court an order a siezure.

seems like just yesterday

best

[pAin't_Misbehavin']

[QUOTE=equinelaw;3863446]We already have a similar law in SC. S.C.A.R.E. and their members were all authorized to do this type of work. Except our people do not get immunity, so they were sued out of existence. S.C.A.R.E is shutting down and we will have no other statewide agency to handle equine investigations or rescues.

They had burn out, but they also got tired of convicted abusers (not falsely accused ones) suing them for years. All the way to the SCt years. It gets old. [QUOTE]

O.M.G. I just read that case. It's called State of SC v. Martin, and it's a slip opinion, 2008-SC-R0528.002, if anyone wants to read it.

It shows what a train wreck ensues when volunteer organizations get involved in law enforcement.

According to the opinion, SCARE removed the Martin's horses in August of 2003. Under the law, they could do this, but a hearing had to be held within three days to protect the Martin's due process rights. A hearing was scheduled some fifteen days later - and no one from the State bothered to show up!

So the Martins asked the court to vacate the seizure order. Another three weeks passed before a hearing on the Martin's motion to vacate was held. Then the magistrate refused to vacate the seizure order and return the horses. Instead, he ordered SCARE to schedule another hearing. In effect, giving SCARE a "do-over." The owners appealed.

A year and a half later the circuit court ruled the magistrate made the right decision. The owners filed a motion for reconsideration. These are routine motions, filed to preserve the right to appeal. Normally you get a ruling in a couple of weeks. More than two years later the circuit court ruled on the motion.

Finally, five years after the seizure the SC Supremes said the magistrate was wrong - he should have ordered the return of the horses if the state failed to show up at the hearing.

Were the Martins convicted abusers? Yes, but in another case which didn't go to trial until a year and a half after the seizure of the four horses at issue here. Does the fact that the Martins were abusing their horses mean the State doesn't have to give them due process? No. Because if the government gets to deprive some people of their property without notice and an opportunity to be heard, then it can deprive anybody of their property without due process.

It's why I represented the guy accused of dog-fighting that I posted about earlier. Would I take great pleasure in grinding the testicles of dog-fighters into a paste and serving to the SOBs on crackers? But if we allow a bunch of volunteers to swoop down on someone, take away all their pit bulls, and kill the dogs within twenty-four hours - what's to stop that same group doing it again? To someone who legitimately rescues pitbulls? Or to someone who keeps hunting dogs? Or sheepdogs? And of course, in this guy's case, because so much evidence had been destroyed the criminal charges against him were dismissed. I didn't represent him in the criminal action - I brought the civil suit against the blue-juice happy volunteers and the gummint agency that loosed them.

I didn't realize SCARE had folded their tents after this one. Their website is still up, and they're still soliciting donations, but their message board is down.

[JSwan]

However, I do not hunt with hounds, I do not hunt with guns or arrows, wear fur, I do not abuse, starve, or breed my animals. I do not buy and sell animals. I do not feel any present or near future threat from AR groups at all.
I do not believe the slippery slope argument has any merit at all. Society changes over time. One day we may think pets are obsolete. That does not mean a small minority will force us to give up our pets. It means the majority will.

What you're really saying is that you don't care about what happens to other people as long as nothing you like to do is targeted. So - if I like to hunt or fish, it's ok to target me because you don't like to do those things.

I take it back. You'd not be a good Humane Investigator. Law enforcement officers aren't supposed to go around enforcing their own personal moral code. They're supposed to enforce the law.

By all means invite PETA down to Aiken. Keep an eye on your dogs - they tend to disappear when their little white van is on the road. If your dogs do go missing, look for their bodies in the nearest shopping center dumpster.

Many people in this state prefer to spend what resources we have on professional development and hiring of paid ACO's - not divert resources to train or handle complaints from HI's. Our law enforcement agencies agree. Though many localities suffer budget problems, I don't know of one jurisdiction that has laid off ACO's. We're doing fine, thanks.

Since none of y'all appear to have read what I'd written - this program was discontinued several years ago because of problems with HI's. This Bill was not a stand alone Bill. There are others that complemented it.

You already know for a fact that HSUS lies. You witnessed it firsthand. Do you really think that if such people become HI's they will suddenly stop lying?



We tried this program. It didn't work and made things worse. If you'd like to have such a program, by all means contact your elected representatives and ask them to patron a Bill. In YOUR state.


LLDM - I responded politely to your post and would appreciate you at least letting me know you read it. I meant no offense but was only trying to provide a tiny bit of background information so folks could place this Bill into context. If I went into great detail I'd probably crash the COTH servers....

Paint Misbehavin - My memory is a bit fuzzy but the Georgia Equine Care Act is being challenged on due process ground as well. I can think of several other cases in which due process was an issue. (or lack thereof).

[gieriscm]

Comparison of mounted SAR and AC is dicey. SAR is not, in its essence, a "law enforcement" activity. It's more of a "humanitarian effort" (looking to rescue folks in trouble).

Sometimes yes. Other times you'd end up with a kidnapping, murder investigation, or suicide. Hence in VA SAR falls under the jurisdiction of LE versus fire/rescue, though the volunteer searchers were not deputized. If we were in a rural area and wanted to search a farm, a deputy would contact the landowner and ask permission for access; we couldn't just ride around willy-nilly. I don't recall any instances where the landowner refused.

And in VA, my point is that the Sheriff's department has the authority to use volunteers when needed, so there's no reason for a new law. The Sheriff's just need to use the power they've been given. Whether or not they want to is another matter.

[equinelaw]

[QUOTE=pAin't_Misbehavin';3863752][QUOTE=equinelaw;3863446]We already have a similar law in SC. S.C.A.R.E. and their members were all authorized to do this type of work. Except our people do not get immunity, so they were sued out of existence. S.C.A.R.E is shutting down and we will have no other statewide agency to handle equine investigations or rescues.

They had burn out, but they also got tired of convicted abusers (not falsely accused ones) suing them for years. All the way to the SCt years. It gets old.

O.M.G. I just read that case. It's called State of SC v. Martin, and it's a slip opinion, 2008-SC-R0528.002, if anyone wants to read it.

It shows what a train wreck ensues when volunteer organizations get involved in law enforcement.

According to the opinion, SCARE removed the Martin's horses in August of 2003. Under the law, they could do this, but a hearing had to be held within three days to protect the Martin's due process rights. A hearing was scheduled some fifteen days later - and no one from the State bothered to show up!

So the Martins asked the court to vacate the seizure order. Another three weeks passed before a hearing on the Martin's motion to vacate was held. Then the magistrate refused to vacate the seizure order and return the horses. Instead, he ordered SCARE to schedule another hearing. In effect, giving SCARE a "do-over." The owners appealed.

A year and a half later the circuit court ruled the magistrate made the right decision. The owners filed a motion for reconsideration. These are routine motions, filed to preserve the right to appeal. Normally you get a ruling in a couple of weeks. More than two years later the circuit court ruled on the motion.

Finally, five years after the seizure the SC Supremes said the magistrate was wrong - he should have ordered the return of the horses if the state failed to show up at the hearing.

Were the Martins convicted abusers? Yes, but in another case which didn't go to trial until a year and a half after the seizure of the four horses at issue here. Does the fact that the Martins were abusing their horses mean the State doesn't have to give them due process? No. Because if the government gets to deprive some people of their property without notice and an opportunity to be heard, then it can deprive anybody of their property without due process.

It's why I represented the guy accused of dog-fighting that I posted about earlier. Would I take great pleasure in grinding the testicles of dog-fighters into a paste and serving to the SOBs on crackers? But if we allow a bunch of volunteers to swoop down on someone, take away all their pit bulls, and kill the dogs within twenty-four hours - what's to stop that same group doing it again? To someone who legitimately rescues pitbulls? Or to someone who keeps hunting dogs? Or sheepdogs? And of course, in this guy's case, because so much evidence had been destroyed the criminal charges against him were dismissed. I didn't represent him in the criminal action - I brought the civil suit against the blue-juice happy volunteers and the gummint agency that loosed them.

I didn't realize SCARE had folded their tents after this one. Their website is still up, and they're still soliciting donations, but their message board is down.

It wasn't just the Martin's never ending cash for lawyers, but the constant battle with people who do not feed their horses yet have funds to sue for years grinds people down.

The Martin's sued the state too. But since they had immunity they were out early. The Martin's had a good lawyer. It took weeks to round up all 60 horses. Many had never been handled before. It reads like they swooped in and seized them all at once, but I had one of the last horses' caught. The volunteers were not in charge of the case---its just that seizure was impossible without their help and funds.

They were convicted, went to jail, got out and started suing. Due process problem? Yes, but it was the State that dropped the ball and now everyone knows what to do and the State's Attorney has trained his people on how to do it right. The state's screw up are not part of the appeal since they got out on summary judgment in the start. It was Martin v State+SCARE+ about 20 other parties in the start.

But the case was really about whether the Martin's had to pay for board and care on the horses they could get back. They were not entitled to the one's that they were convicted for, but they can get the others back. For less then $1,000 a year per horse including all care and training. Harmless error but they still needed to figure out how much $$$ to get the other horses back.

They were charged with 60 counts of cruelty. The jury just came back with 4 counts after randomly shuffling the pictures and picking out a number they felt comfortable with. Because it was all so new, all so radical to even think of criminal convictions for horse neglect just 5 years ago. The jurors said they thought all were neglected, but they felt 60 was too much and none was not enough.

See its an important case. It s a lot of work and took our state from a place where horses were never saved to a state where we have both a way to seize them and due process for the owners. But it was all done with volunteers--even the training the state was done with pro bono attorney help. And of course all criminal trials in SC take a long time these days.

And now we have no $$$ to save any horses at all. So close and yet so far. But now the Trexlor's think they will do the same thing, but they are not aware of the Martin case.

My Pit Bull was taken with no due process and killed by the state. They admitted it was a mistake. They have immunity. I actually do not care who takes my pet and kills it--state or volunteers, but we have a rule that there must be a hearing. I honestly do not think any animals should be put down until after a hearing and after a conviction.

In contrast, the system in place for neglected and abused children is much, much worse. No due process at all in any meaningful way and no training for attorney or attorney GAL's. I'd take my chances with animals before I'd take my chances with children any day!

[equinelaw]

What you're really saying is that you don't care about what happens to other people as long as nothing you like to do is targeted. So - if I like to hunt or fish, it's ok to target me because you don't like to do those things.

I take it back. You'd not be a good Humane Investigator. Law enforcement officers aren't supposed to go around enforcing their own personal moral code. They're supposed to enforce the law.

By all means invite PETA down to Aiken. Keep an eye on your dogs - they tend to disappear when their little white van is on the road. If your dogs do go missing, look for their bodies in the nearest shopping center dumpster.

Many people in this state prefer to spend what resources we have on professional development and hiring of paid ACO's - not divert resources to train or handle complaints from HI's. Our law enforcement agencies agree. Though many localities suffer budget problems, I don't know of one jurisdiction that has laid off ACO's. We're doing fine, thanks.

Since none of y'all appear to have read what I'd written - this program was discontinued several years ago because of problems with HI's. This Bill was not a stand alone Bill. There are others that complemented it.

You already know for a fact that HSUS lies. You witnessed it firsthand. Do you really think that if such people become HI's they will suddenly stop lying?



We tried this program. It didn't work and made things worse. If you'd like to have such a program, by all means contact your elected representatives and ask them to patron a Bill. In YOUR state.


LLDM - I responded politely to your post and would appreciate you at least letting me know you read it. I meant no offense but was only trying to provide a tiny bit of background information so folks could place this Bill into context. If I went into great detail I'd probably crash the COTH servers....

Paint Misbehavin - My memory is a bit fuzzy but the Georgia Equine Care Act is being challenged on due process ground as well. I can think of several other cases in which due process was an issue. (or lack thereof).

What I really mean is what I said I am not afraid of your slippery slope scare tactics because I simply do not care if they win on half of the things you fight them over.

I think everybody lies I think you lie. I think you are exactly like the HSUS, but on the other side. Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I do not but I have never thought you do not have as strong as a personal interest or agenda as they do. You help animals too, but they have a differing ideal then you do. Neither are "right". Its just a matter of who wins. In general I find PETA paranoia makes me hear the message less, not more.

You are not doing fine. I watched horses starve and there was nobody to stop it. You are not all of VA and you do not own all of VA. NoVa is not like the rest of VA. They call it "occupied VA" in the rest of the state.

As stated earlier, we do have such a program here. My dog is not in a dumpster.

[tkhawk]

Normally maybe. But I have seen posters on this board who view owning an animal as a form of slavery. Being on this board they must have horses-or had them and they did confirm having a dog. Yet they say they would be ok for domestic animals to go away in a generation or two.

That is scary-you get someone who has horses, dogs and know how much value they can add to a human's life and they believe in the end of domestication-then how easy is it to turn people who have no experience with horses against horses?

Reading J Swan's post that only 12 hrs is required was a little concerning. It is one thing if you have volunteers who have had a couple of months training and such. But just anyone off the street who can't tell much about horses or other stuff -well not sure how effective that is. Agencies are severely understaffed-probably why I thought they wanted to go this route-get people, no pay, no pension/benefits etc-free labour. But still without proper rules/training/procedures-it could lead to major problems. But it got shelved anyways..

[equinelaw]

If in 2 generation having animals is seen to be like having slaves then it will be wrong to have animals. Like it was 2 generation after tehy decided it was wrong to have slaves.

You of all people know context and culture make what is normal seem normal. Sometimes its random and illogical.

12 hours is more then many paid people get now. The system is broken. Someone said if you do not like this solution then help come up with another one. Don't just shoot any solution down because it is somehow tainted with AR people.

They were then accused of being a PETA plant. They calmly explained that kind of talk actually works for the opposition. I tend to agree because that's what it does for me.

It makes me doubt which side is right and which side is wrong. And if I do not like the way people on my side talk and treat each other, which side to I end up on?

Because AR and slaughter and animal welfare are our version of religion and politics. It causes people to chose extremist sides and stop looking for solutions. JSwan often forgets she is not the only voice on a thread.

[Guilherme]

Sometimes yes. Other times you'd end up with a kidnapping, murder investigation, or suicide. Hence in VA SAR falls under the jurisdiction of LE versus fire/rescue, though the volunteer searchers were not deputized. If we were in a rural area and wanted to search a farm, a deputy would contact the landowner and ask permission for access; we couldn't just ride around willy-nilly. I don't recall any instances where the landowner refused.

And in VA, my point is that the Sheriff's department has the authority to use volunteers when needed, so there's no reason for a new law. The Sheriff's just need to use the power they've been given. Whether or not they want to is another matter.

Point taken on SAR activities.

You're correct that a local sheriff can use volunteers. They even have a name: posse comitatus.

Use of volunteers is still a "dicey" business and must be carefully considered.

G.

[JSwan]

Oh great. You can't focus on the issue so you start calling me a liar again.

I do not start these types of threads, and I don't have any agenda. I'm just a private individual and posted to give some background information to help people place this Bill into context.

No scare tactics and no slippery slope argument. All I wrote is that I think it's bad public policy, in this context, to give a very large pool of volunteers law enforcement authority.

That's a legitimate concern and simply an expression of a different view than yours. It's not unusual for a citizen to express reservations about special interest groups. Whether at the federal, state or local level, many people just plain dislike the influence they have.

You also do not know me and have no idea about my personal morality, philosophy, religion or politics. So do me a big favor and stop peering into my soul from your keyboard. Every time you do - you're wrong.

I don't "own" Virginia, but I do live here and am very much aware of the animal welfare work being done - statewide. Not just in my little corner of it. I'm also very familiar with the HI program before it was discontinued. Feel free to disagree with my concerns over this legislation, but you cross the line when you call me a liar.

I did not start this thread, I did not participate in it until several pages in, and I have done nothing but express my concerns, correct a few misunderstandings, and try and give some historical perspective about the Bill.

What I really mean is what I said I am not afraid of your slippery slope scare tactics because I simply do not care if they win on half of the things you fight them over.

I think everybody lies I think you lie. I think you are exactly like the HSUS, but on the other side. Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I do not but I have never thought you do not have as strong as a personal interest or agenda as they do. You help animals too, but they have a differing ideal then you do. Neither are "right". Its just a matter of who wins. In general I find PETA paranoia makes me hear the message less, not more.

You are not doing fine. I watched horses starve and there was nobody to stop it. You are not all of VA and you do not own all of VA. NoVa is not like the rest of VA. They call it "occupied VA" in the rest of the state.

As stated earlier, we do have such a program here. My dog is not in a dumpster.

[equinelaw]

Actually I have never called you a lair before. In this case I said I think everybody lies and I think you lie. If everybody lies that would have to include you. You have called me a liar on several occasions so I guess I thought it was OK if I said I think everybody lies sometimes.

You do always take a small thing and take it to its most extreme conclusion. Along the way you make wild accusations, say nasty things, then take it back, make up and be all sweet again to whoever you insulted. Its so predictable its boring. But inthe end PETA is always coming to take your animals or some such doomsday result. That is what LLDM was trying to get across. Its rhetoric but not convincing.

I see you as an extremist just like you see PETA. You throw PETA and HSUS around and constantly tell me, and others, they will come for my animals soon.

I do not really care much about you at all to peer through my computer screen. I mostly ignore you unless you are being funny, but you seem to always want to STOP things from happening or PETA will come and take your animals away!

I do read your posts. I am not sure you re-read them when someone responds to them. I do not have an agenda. You do.

Here is an example of convincing vs rhetoric. Typical slaughter thread. County, who has posted 5,000 posts on the topic does the math and shows me that there is a 99.5% chance most horses will not end up at slaughter. That's a powerful statement.