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

[LLDM]

s.t.r.e.t.c.h.

Have you even read this thread? Do you have any context at all for this discussion? Preytell how should I have responded? And why do you care? It has nothing at all to do with the subject. You and Trixie can get all personal with me again, but it has nothing to do with the subject, which concerns the manner by which animals may or may not be helped when they may or may not be at risk. A subject that matters to me.

Honestly, I am far more concerned about this crazy business up in Chicago. I would really, really like to know what is up with that seizure. Because on the face of it (and by the horrid reporting), it looks bogus. So even if it isn't bogus, it does damage to all legitimate seizure operations and immeasurable damage to the concept of animal welfare.

But, by all means, let's get back to ostracizing me on my use of inappropriate acronyms.

SCFarm

[Everythingbutwings]

And why do you care?

Look, I simply tried to point out that one can't tell others they are not to hold an opinion, much less speak up about that opinion just because they don't happen to be from Virginia.

You say you are concerned about what's happened in Chicago, but by your very statements you shouldn't be allowed to hold an opinion since that's apparently none of your business.

Why do I care? Because I happen to think that it's okay for people to hold opinions other than mine, even if they are from somewhere else. Who are you to say it has nothing to do with me?

[Trixie]

We merely pointed out that claiming to be referencing a three year old thread, while not actually providing any references to said thread or entendre, is not particularly "witty," nor is it a justification for speaking rudely out of anger. No one called you "the antichrist" either.

You should have responded politely.

[LLDM]

Look, I simply tried to point out that one can't tell others they are not to hold an opinion, much less speak up about that opinion just because they don't happen to be from Virginia.

I never said that. I never implied that. Trixie said I said that. It doesn't mean that I did. Putting words in my mouth, misquoting me, or otherwise trying to make it so doesn't make it so.

You say you are concerned about what's happened in Chicago, but by your very statements you shouldn't be allowed to hold an opinion since that's apparently none of your business.

See above.

Why do I care? Because I happen to think that it's okay for people to hold opinions other than mine, even if they are from somewhere else.

See above.

Who are you to say it has nothing to do with me?

Because you are addressing me, making assumptions about what I said and telling me things that do not make any sense if you had actually read the thread.

We merely pointed out that claiming to be referencing a three year old thread, while not actually providing any references to said thread or entendre, is not particularly "witty," nor is it a justification for speaking rudely out of anger.

I just figured since you have been a poster far longer than I, and have made over 3000 posts, you could not possibly have missed the whole WTF, Helga and Inge joke that went on for over a year - and still pops up on a regular basis. Besides, I wasn't talking to you when I said it. Besides, no one else had a problem with it days ago when I said it. You went back how many pages and dug it up why?.

No one called you "the antichrist" either.

Then why are you being so holier-than-thou with me?

You should have responded politely.

Again, did you read the post I was responding to? Why should I have been polite to someone getting *that* personal because I did not just go along with *their* dogma? I was as polite as I could manage at that moment and tried to temper it with a little humor. Accuse me of being unfunny, fine. But you are defending the person who went all personal and rude, and quite frankly, came pretty close to defamation of character (IMO) on me in the first place. Twice. So why are you quoting me out of context and refusing to let this die. What did I do to you? Where's the Fruitbat?

What is wrong with you guys? What the he!! did I do to you?

I am done here. This thread is so off the rails it ain't even funny. And you guys have added *nothing* of substance whatsoever. And I am done defending myself to the likes of you two. I stand by everything I have said. Disagree all you want. But please stop making things up.

SCFarm

[Fairview Horse Center]

Honestly, I am far more concerned about this crazy business up in Chicago. I would really, really like to know what is up with that seizure. Because on the face of it (and by the horrid reporting), it looks bogus. So even if it isn't bogus, it does damage to all legitimate seizure operations and immeasurable damage to the concept of animal welfare.

That is for sure, as it has made me really think about supporting any group. I am now adamantly opposed to HSUS and of course PETA. I will actively encourage anyone I know to not support animal rights groups.

I am now firmly of the opinion that we had ALL better protect/defend in addition to agressively opposing, or we WILL lose our animals to the crazy nutjobs. This story is not unique. It is about the 4th one I have seen of a bogus rescue in the last year. SCARY!

As for others messing in a Virginia issue, COME ONE COME ALL! and I hope Virginian's will help to lobby against other state's "scary" laws as needed.

I have personally sent quite a long letter to 3 of the CBS reporters.

[equinelaw]

I am not sure what conditions were like inside that barn in Chicago, but the complete and utter lack of any sense by the reporters was a good example of how incredibly stupid people can be.

Of course the reporters did not seize those horses, but the power of suggestion is so strong he saw things that were no there because someone in authority told him to look for them.

This thread is full of examples of AC out of control and out of their minds. Whether paid of volunteer, I think we can all agree that proper TRAINING is needed no matter who has the power to seize.

Here, they do not recognize a starving animal. In other places, they may not recognize a healthy one. I know once you get into Government contracts things can get expensive but getting experienced people to volunteer to TRAIN all welfare workers about large animals may make us all feel better?

[Trixie]

LLDM, I quoted you directly, and I don’t feel that it was out of context. I do have a problem with the attitude that it’s “inappropriate” for someone to contact a legislator with their opinion, for, as far as I can tell, it’s their right as a US citizen.
That’s why I asked you WHY you felt that folks should mind their own business, when laws that set precedence are everyone’s business. Furthermore, those outside opinions help our legislators to foster a global perspective.

If the lawmaker is concerned with only the opinions of his constituents, most serious letters DO have a return address. Surely, if the lawmaker doesn’t feel the opinion is valid, he or she can disregard it.

Yes, I remember the “Where’s The Fruitbat” debate. However, “FOAD” is not the acronym that they used, it was “WTF” – therefore, one wouldn’t assume, in a completely separate discussion three years later when one is speaking out of obvious anger (and furthermore, admitting to being angry) that we are to decode an unrelated acronym as “Fruitbats Often Are Despicable.” That doesn’t make any sense.

As for why you should be polite, that’s up to you. I know that when I’m working in an industry, I avoid responding out of anger in a public forum regarding that industry because it makes ME look bad. However, any way you choose to behave is truly your prerogative, and it’s your reputation.

[equinelaw]

The poster that LLMD has responded to was calling her a lair and a PETA plant. That is not polite.

[LLDM]

Trixie - You have a PM.

[JSwan]

I know once you get into Government contracts things can get expensive but getting experienced people to volunteer to TRAIN all welfare workers about large animals may make us all feel better?

This program is touted as a way for AC to be "cheap".

This is problematic for me for several reasons.

It takes away training slots for existing ACO's.

These people did not want to report to ACO's; they wanted to be autonomous and not be in the existing "chain of command" but separate and apart.

With nothing more than a 12 hour course. That is less time than it takes to get a drivers license. The hunter education course is much longer than that. (in this state)

Cheapening AC cheapens the concept of animal welfare as a legitimate part of public safety and a functioning society. It strengthens the perception (and reality in some jurisdictions) that Animal Control is the red headed stepchild. Marginalizing Animal Control also marginalizes animal welfare - for both livestock and companion animals. Shuffled off into a corner - to be dealt with haphazardly by a combination of volunteers, paid staff, unsupervised rescues - salted with a few crooks and quacks.

One argument I happen to espouse is that Animal Control and animal welfare must be serious subjects for government; not a subject easily palmed off onto special interest groups, volunteers, or other entities with their own agenda.

When I oppose the HI program (as it existed in this state), I do so because I DO believe that it is preferable to spend our resources and fill our training slots with paid professionals. I insist that animal welfare be taken seriously - and that means I want our ACO's to be treated and respected for what they are. Law enforcement officers. I want good people in those positions. Just like I want good firefighters, cops and teachers. If the locality does not have an ACO, then the job can be done by other LEO's. It's done all the time.

ACO's are not the red headed stepchild. Animal welfare is not just a subject to be dealt with in 30 seconds at the end of a busy BOS meeting. But it must also be balanced with the rights of citizens, and there must be some protections against overzealous people. In this state, we were unable to overcome those obstacles and decided instead on improving professionalism and education among the ACO's. (understand that these are intended to be broad sweeping statements. I don't actually hang out with the governor or AG)

I think that's the right direction, as it is more likely to result in a balance between rights and responsibilities.

Understand also that in this state, there is already this public/private partnership in the form of the unfunded mandate that every jurisdiction operate an animal shelter. Unfortunately, many of these shelters are not operated very well - but because they are "free", local government does not do anything about it. Some of these shelters are hellholes.

It's not a good idea to continue to marginalize or politicize animal control.



I was appalled by an old episode of an Animal Cops episode. The one with the lady with the blond ponytail. She seized a perfectly healthy horse because it had nothing to eat (lived in a lush green field) had obviously been abused (ran from the guys chasing her with ropes), and was obviously abandoned (owner was at work).

The horses seized by the SPCA (a nonprofit shelter) in Philadelphia). A case in Louisiana. Cases here.

There are plenty of cases of people abusing their authority. I'd prefer not to add HI's back on that list in my state. They were the worst.

The "hound expert" in my rescue insisted that my beagle was a Coonhound. She's an "expert" on hounds and hunting dogs but can't identify the most popular hound breed in the US? Do you want that person to have a badge?

[equinelaw]

No, but the people with the badges are idiots too So this bill is dead. We are past this bill. We are moving on.

G. said in his area a trained large animal expert must be consulted. I am suggesting a bill that provides trained large animal experts to volunteer to train the ACOs or whomever has the badge.

Becuase it is kind of standardized and it does not take long to teach body condition scores, basic horse keeping standards and what is and is not neglect. I am not saying they must actually be able to DO the stuff a D pony clubber can do, just know what they are looking at and know who to ask if they do not know.

Lets say there was such a program. The volunteers need a 1 day training and testing to make sure they are experts and have a set of standards to apply. Then they train, for free the ACO staff.

I'd sign up for such a program. I think you would too. I think half of COTH would. I know we do not all agree on barefoot v shoes or grain v hay only, but we all seem to know a starving horse when we see it and the BCS is not hard to apply.

I could train a group to not do almost everything we have talked about on this thread in half a day. Someone, somewhere would have to decide if H20 24/7 was a legal necessity, but we can all train someone to do a dehydration test in 2 minutes.

Pick a book. The PC manual, a Farnum book, any book and all use it. Take out the ignorance and much of the personal discretion. Feed, water, feet, and wounds.

[JSwan]

I see no reason for the program you envision.

First, the animal control course already covers most of that.

What is does not cover is the extensive law enforcement education an LEO/ACO requires in order to do their job. That comes from the academy and HI's cannot attend the academy. ACO duties involve more than body condition scoring. These are LEO's.

Second, I see no reason volunteers should be placed in a position of authority over ACO's. This is an inappropriate insertion of special interest groups over government. Not only would I not volunteer for that, I'd donate a helluva lot of money to stop it.

Third, as Animal Control exists in this state, LEO's and ACO's already have resources available to them to assist in determining the status of an animal.

You assert that the volunteers need not be barefooters or maybe even Parelli types - but here is the problem with that assertion.

You can't control who the volunteers are. That's what we ran into here. You cannot stop a particular group from volunteering. There can be no "No PETA allowed" signs. No, "Strasserites Need Not Apply".

You do get the PETA people. You do get people who think horseshoes are inhumane. You cannot exclude a group of people based upon their beliefs - and those with the strongest beliefs are the ones most likely to want to volunteer.

That's what we ran into here. People who ignored what they were taught, got their badge, and went out and not only screwed people, but interfered in lawful investigations that resulted in criminals going free.

No thank you.

No, but the people with the badges are idiots too So this bill is dead. We are past this bill. We are moving on.

G. said in his area a trained large animal expert must be consulted. I am suggesting a bill that provides trained large animal experts to volunteer to train the ACOs or whomever has the badge.

Becuase it is kind of standardized and it does not take long to teach body condition scores, basic horse keeping standards and what is and is not neglect. I am not saying they must actually be able to DO the stuff a D pony clubber can do, just know what they are looking at and know who to ask if they do not know.

Lets say there was such a program. The volunteers need a 1 day training and testing to make sure they are experts and have a set of standards to apply. Then they train, for free the ACO staff.

I'd sign up for such a program. I think you would too. I think half of COTH would. I know we do not all agree on barefoot v shoes or grain v hay only, but we all seem to know a starving horse when we see it and the BCS is not hard to apply.

I could train a group to not do almost everything we have talked about on this thread in half a day. Someone, somewhere would have to decide if H20 24/7 was a legal necessity, but we can all train someone to do a dehydration test in 2 minutes.

Pick a book. The PC manual, a Farnum book, any book and all use it. Take out the ignorance and much of the personal discretion. Feed, water, feet, and wounds.

[Guilherme]

I've got to agree with JSwan.

I was personally involved with our local AC fiasco. I knew all the major players. I was present at many of the hearings.

Using "volunteer humane investigators" opens a door. Who walks in the door? What do we do with them after they do? How, and upon what grounds, will we "show them the door?" Who will manage and run the program? These are just a few of the problems with a "volunteer humane investigator" program.

If it's structured similar to programs for reserve deputies and police officers (which tend to have some pretty rigorous requirements) then I don't have all that much of a problem using them as "force multipliers" for paid ACOs. They can be additional sets of eyes and ears. BUT, and here's the thing, if they are going to assist an appointed ACO they must follow the same rules and be subject to the same liabilities as an appointed ACO. This means what they do can cause their appointing agency to be sued. And it means that the volunteer, him/herself, can be sued (any person acting under color of law is subject to a Federal Civil Rights claim). It's unlikely that a state or municipality will defend the volunteer in the event of a suit.

Put another way, using the "volunteer humane inspector" to circumvent, directly or indirectly, any Constitutional, statutory, or regulatory restrictions on regular ACOs will be a dangerous road to travel.

Again, the use of unpaid volunteers to assist in the delivery of governmental services is not, of necessity, a Bad Thing. It does, however, need to be closely controlled. That means a WHOLE lot more than just extra education.

G.

[equinelaw]

I've got to agree with JSwan.

I was personally involved with our local AC fiasco. I knew all the major players. I was present at many of the hearings.

Using "volunteer humane investigators" opens a door. Who walks in the door? What do we do with them after they do? How, and upon what grounds, will we "show them the door?" Who will manage and run the program? These are just a few of the problems with a "volunteer humane investigator" program.

If it's structured similar to programs for reserve deputies and police officers (which tend to have some pretty rigorous requirements) then I don't have all that much of a problem using them as "force multipliers" for paid ACOs. They can be additional sets of eyes and ears. BUT, and here's the thing, if they are going to assist an appointed ACO they must follow the same rules and be subject to the same liabilities as an appointed ACO. This means what they do can cause their appointing agency to be sued. And it means that the volunteer, him/herself, can be sued (any person acting under color of law is subject to a Federal Civil Rights claim). It's unlikely that a state or municipality will defend the volunteer in the event of a suit.

Put another way, using the "volunteer humane inspector" to circumvent, directly or indirectly, any Constitutional, statutory, or regulatory restrictions on regular ACOs will be a dangerous road to travel.

Again, the use of unpaid volunteers to assist in the delivery of governmental services is not, of necessity, a Bad Thing. It does, however, need to be closely controlled. That means a WHOLE lot more than just extra education.

G.

I am sorry. Were you not the person who said after your fiasco they now have a rule that a large animal expert must be consulted before a seizure? And that you liked that rule?

Now you do not like it or you simply think the expert must be paid and cannot be pro bono?

Why is it a problem to just sit them all down at once before an expert is needed and explain how to tell and abused horse from a normal horse?

Eh, never mind. Its not really my problem and I get more clients from screw ups then from prevention and forsight. Fixing the problem would leave these threads without all the fun horror stories about ACO screwing up. No fun in that.

[Fairview Horse Center]

I am sorry. Were you not the person who said after your fiasco they now have a rule that a large animal expert must be consulted before a seizure? And that you liked that rule?

Wouldn't the "large animal expert" be an on call large animal Vet?

Body scores are sometimes difficult to learn & are still then subject to interpretation. People try to come up with a score for one area, but you have to take in the whole horse. Some horses have a great topline, nice coverage over their hips, top of tail, neck/shoulder, but can still be a bit ribby. Others you can't see a single rib, but their topline starts dropping a bit, hip bones not looking well rounded. I prefer to see the first, and they will be darn close to that 5 score. Others as soon as you see a hint of rib, they are calling it a 3, no matter what the other areas look like. They think you find the lowest score area, not an average.

We see lots of posts on here from very experienced breeders about some of their broodmares that get taken down at the end of their nursing each foal. I think the term used is they "look like crap". They are pouring the food into these mares, but they just give it all to their babies. Breeders make the best choice as to when weaning should occur - give the baby a good start, but not let the mare get dangerously thin. Do we want uneducated people to just "rescue" all of those horses?

Public opinion can be so varied. Which group can we say has the right to be "right".

[equinelaw]

Wouldn't the "large animal expert" be an on call Vet?

Body scores are sometimes difficult to learn & are still then subject to interpretation. People try to come up with a score for one area, but you have to take in the whole horse. Some horses have a great topline, nice coverage over their hips, top of tail, neck/shoulder, but can still be a bit ribby. Others you can't see a single rib, but their topline starts dropping a bit, hip bones not looking well rounded. I prefer to see the first, and they will be darn close to that 5 score. Others as soon as you see a hint of rib, they are calling it a 3, no matter what the other areas look like. They think you find the lowest score area, not an average.

I assume if they seize horses for eating grass or having mud on them or all these other stories there is no Vet on call. Most ACs do not have a Vet.

Maybe give Vets continuing education credits for teaching horse course to ACs?

[Fairview Horse Center]

I think before ANY seizure should take place, an "independent" large animal vet would have to be present. Make a phone call.

AC: "Hi Dr xyz, I need to you come to ____ to examine some horses."

The call should be paid by the county.

The vet should be hired, and subject to malpractice laws. That would be the best protection from this kind of bogus seizure.

I think their has to be some enity that is responsible, that in a case like this, would be held liable for punitive damages.

[Trixie]

We see lots of posts on here from very experienced breeders about some of their broodmares that get taken down at the end of their nursing each foal. I think the term used is they "look like crap". They are pouring the food into these mares, but they just give it all to their babies. Breeders make the best choice as to when weaning should occur - give the baby a good start, but not let the mare get dangerously thin. Do we want uneducated people to just "rescue" all of those horses?

Some folks that take in OTTB's report the same issues within a few months off the track - they "crash" before they start perking up and gaining weight nicely. That's not to say they're mistreated by any stretch, but it could easily look that way to someone who doesn't know anything about OTTBs.

[Guilherme]

I am sorry. Were you not the person who said after your fiasco they now have a rule that a large animal expert must be consulted before a seizure? And that you liked that rule?

Now you do not like it or you simply think the expert must be paid and cannot be pro bono?

Why is it a problem to just sit them all down at once before an expert is needed and explain how to tell and abused horse from a normal horse?

Eh, never mind. Its not really my problem and I get more clients from screw ups then from prevention and forsight. Fixing the problem would leave these threads without all the fun horror stories about ACO screwing up. No fun in that.

I have no idea if you are asking a question or making a statement.

I said if "volunteers" are trained to proper standards AND managed appropriately that their use is not, automatically, a Bad Thing. I also used the example of the reserve deputy/police officer. In any event that would require them to fully comply with the law, including the use of a large animal expert if they suspect problems with livestock.

G.

[equinelaw]

I have no idea if you are asking a question or making a statement.

I said if "volunteers" are trained to proper standards AND managed appropriately that their use is not, automatically, a Bad Thing. I also used the example of the reserve deputy/police officer. In any event that would require them to fully comply with the law, including the use of a large animal expert if they suspect problems with livestock.

G.

Ahhh. Is the "them" that's getting people confused. A few posts ago I suggested volunteers train ACOs so THEY would not make mistakes. Not that any volunteers would do any law enforcement at all. So, understandably I am confused why "they" would have to comply with any laws or anything.

My suggestion is that experts volunteer time to train ACO's to tell abuse from a muddy horse and skinny from fat. Not on the day of a seizure, not during a seizure, not in anticipation of a seizure, just have training classes by experts to train the people who keep making these mistakes. Those experts could donate their time to teach the classes.

I suggested a basic test and qualification for an "expert" because in all reality many people could have the knowledge but not a degree in Vet science or Animal science or Equine science.

Basic at a minimum, but I am not opposed to continuing after seeing that thread a week ago saying the shelter manager made over $100K a year.