• 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

One eyed Harry from Lisa Ballard/Fox Point Farm (DE) lesson program slaughtered :(

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

  • #41
    There are scammers in all walks of society Gwen, that's true.

    Not all kill buyers are deceitful. They don't need to be; there are plenty of people throwing away horses every day.

    But it's still the responsibility of the horse owner to research who they're giving their animal to.

    Just because someone appears to be a nice person doesn't mean they are.

    The responsibility still falls on the shoulders of the horse owner. If you willingly give your animal away and just believe someone is going to take care of it without actually doing any research, you're an asshat in my book. A naive, trusting one, but still an asshat.

    It appears that Harry's owner did everything by the book, crossing all t's and dotting all i's, and Harry still wound up going for slaughter. The only guarantee a person has is the honesty of the individual taking the horse.
    Homeopathy claims water can cure you since it once held medicine. That's like saying you can get sustenance from an empty plate because it once held food.

    Comment


    • #42
      The tough part...it's expensive to euthanize a horse...$600-$700 for shots and disposal.

      For some people who just don't care (or who just don't have the money), off the poor horse goes to the auction and the knackers. $300 from the meat man vs. $600 out of pocket is a $900 difference. Sometimes, greed wins out.

      I had a mare die and I fed her to the local hunts hounds...sort've Karmic since she chased after those hounds while foxhunting. I'd've been unhappy having to pay United Protein hundreds to take her away.

      I think more people would do "what's right" if it could be done more cheaply.
      "Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc"

      Comment


      • #43
        Trak, a bullet isn't costly, but the person doing the shooting needs to know just where to place the gun barrel for a clean kill.

        I'm lucky; I have enough land where I can bury my horses. Conny is buried on the property, as will be the others when their time comes.

        Renting a backhoe can be somewhat expensive, but living in a farming community, I have access to the farmers and their equipment when I need them.

        I feel badly for the folks who live in suburbia and board, because as you said, euthing and disposal of the body can get very pricey.

        I don't have a problem with horses being fed to the fox hounds. I know it's an old tradition in England, and I find it kind of fitting.
        Homeopathy claims water can cure you since it once held medicine. That's like saying you can get sustenance from an empty plate because it once held food.

        Comment


        • #44
          I don't see selling livestock as greed in any way lots of people do it around here. We call it making a living and enjoy raising livestock.
          Quality doesn\'t cost it pays.

          Comment


          • #45
            If it's true that there was some sort of enforceable lease/buy back/first refusal contract in the OP case, then why are we dinking around trying to make this case about slaughter? This has nothing at all to do with slaughter. If the contract was valid and enforceable and was violated, it makes no difference whatsoever if the horse ended up at a slaughter plant, a petting zoo, or somebody's back yard. That sort of thing should be pursued as a breech of contract issue, not a "boo-hoo, bad, bad slaughter people" sob session.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by county View Post
              But I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to figure out if a horse has no value odds are good the only one that wants it may be the meat man.
              You would think that it wouldn't take a lot of smarts to figure that out, but I'm not so sure.

              We get tons of people contacting the rescue each week wanting us to take in their old, injured, ill, etc. horses that aren't ridable and have extensive health problems. They seem to think we have an endless need for the unwanted and unplacable horses. I know some of this is because too many people in the horse industry claim that rescues exist to catch all the unwanted horses. But that's just not true. Rescues began as a way of helping abused and neglected horses, and that's what some of us still focus on. But people still think we want all their old, ill, injured horses that they don't want to care for.
              Visit us at Bluebonnet Equine Humane Society - www.bluebonnetequine.org

              Want to get involved in rescue or start your own? Check out How to Start a Horse Rescue - www.howtostartarescue.com

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by greysandbays View Post
                If it's true that there was some sort of enforceable lease/buy back/first refusal contract in the OP case, then why are we dinking around trying to make this case about slaughter? This has nothing at all to do with slaughter. If the contract was valid and enforceable and was violated, it makes no difference whatsoever if the horse ended up at a slaughter plant, a petting zoo, or somebody's back yard. That sort of thing should be pursued as a breech of contract issue, not a "boo-hoo, bad, bad slaughter people" sob session.

                Agree with this. A lot of people have mentioned how unenforceable buybacks are--well, let's get some legal precedence for enforcing them here.
                Author Page
                Like Omens In the Night on Facebook
                Steampunk Sweethearts

                Comment


                • #48
                  Hudson is now between 28-30 years old. Beautiful 17.2 HH beauty of unknown breeding. He obviously was very much loved in his youth. If you put your hand out, he'll put his tongue in it and leave it there. When we first bought him he would not walk into his stall until you made the first move. Highly annoying until I realized what he was doing. Exceptional stable manners. Incredibly lovely mover with a jump that makes you catch your breath. Where was he purchased? The meat man. That was 13 years ago. Brought him home and started lightly working him. Realized soon enough that his stifles were sticky. Had him xrayed and the damage to both stifles was extensive. The dealer offered us our money back but we opted to keep him. I have since split with my partner, sold the farm last summer and Hudson will live out his life with Splash in their inexpensive, yet exceptionally good care retirement home.

                  My point? I would bet Hudson's original owner or the next one or the next one would be horrified to know he was going for meat. Once he was used up and of no use to anyone, where do you think they go? If you think there's a big call for "companion" horses, please think again.

                  This isn't about the slaughter issue. It is about responsibility. If you truly don't have a problem with slaughter, so be it. But if you don't want one of yours ending up there, there is only one way to prevent it. Sad but true.

                  http://community.webshots.com/user/ballyduff
                  \"If you are going through hell, keep going.\" ~Churchill~

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by Quinn View Post
                    Hudson is now between 28-30 years old. Beautiful 17.2 HH beauty of unknown breeding. He obviously was very much loved in his youth. If you put your hand out, he'll put his tongue in it and leave it there. When we first bought him he would not walk into his stall until you made the first move. Highly annoying until I realized what he was doing. Exceptional stable manners. Incredibly lovely mover with a jump that makes you catch your breath. Where was he purchased? The meat man. That was 13 years ago. Brought him home and started lightly working him. Realized soon enough that his stifles were sticky. Had him xrayed and the damage to both stifles was extensive. The dealer offered us our money back but we opted to keep him. I have since split with my partner, sold the farm last summer and Hudson will live out his life with Splash in their inexpensive, yet exceptionally good care retirement home.

                    My point? I would bet Hudson's original owner or the next one or the next one would be horrified to know he was going for meat. Once he was used up and of no use to anyone, where do you think they go? If you think there's a big call for "companion" horses, please think again.

                    This isn't about the slaughter issue. It is about responsibility. If you truly don't have a problem with slaughter, so be it. But if you don't want one of yours ending up there, there is only one way to prevent it. Sad but true.

                    http://community.webshots.com/user/ballyduff
                    Absolutely agree. Responsibility is keeping your animals, and horses included, until they die, or providing for their retirement. People who think their lame and unriderable horses will "find a happy home" are deluded. I cannot read the "giveaways" on here where the horses cannot be ridden. Do peple really "think" that someone else would want an unrideable horse?
                    Kudos to you for keep your old horse. I love the obits in the chrono mag where the horses/ponies had retirements after years of work.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      I used to ride at a barn where the instructor/BO told me she had a directive in her will that all her horses be euthanized upon her death, including the young ones who could probably easily be rehomed. Some may be apalled by that but I respected her immensely for it.

                      Comment


                      • #51
                        Originally posted by county View Post
                        I don't see selling livestock as greed in any way lots of people do it around here. We call it making a living and enjoy raising livestock.
                        Selling an animal is greedy/wrong if there is some ethical reason you should not and you do it anyway.

                        For example, if you have an agreement (whether enforceable or not, if you gave your word you have an ethical obligation) to return the horse to the previous owner if you don't want it anymore, and choose instead to ship it to New Holland so you can squeeze $400 out of it, you're greedy and morally repugnant to boot.

                        The talk about the kill buyers is moot. The kill buyer isn't the one who shipped this horse to New Holland. The kill buyer isn't the one who sent him down the road without any ability to keep an eye on how he was doing. The kill buyer didn't decide to "rehome" a horse that they had no more use for and then wash their hands of the situation, placing the responsibility for his end of life decisions in someone else's hands.

                        Comment


                        • #52
                          Originally posted by Ambrey View Post
                          Selling an animal is greedy/wrong if there is some ethical reason you should not and you do it anyway..
                          Perfectly eloquent and precise! This sums up so many of the emmotions and feelings for me on the issue of Horse Slaughter.
                          "All life is precious"
                          Sophie Scholl

                          Comment


                          • #53
                            Originally posted by Ambrey View Post
                            Selling an animal is greedy/wrong if there is some ethical reason you should not and you do it anyway.
                            It's only inherently "greedy/wrong" to sell an animal when it isn't yours to sell (aka theft). All other interpretations are personal quibbles. There is no universal right to expect others to acquiece to one's own quibbles.

                            Comment


                            • #54
                              So has anyone had any experience at enforcing a buy-back or return clause in a contract?

                              It's not my field of law, but I'm not even sure such a clause is enforceable. And if it is, I imagine damages would be limited to the value of the animal. Which, if it went to a kill buyer, would be what? A couple hundred bucks? Doesn't sound like a big deterrent to others, especially given the chances that anybody would get caught in the first place.

                              This is why both of mine are staying right outside my kitchen window where we're all within sight of one another.
                              I'm not ignoring the rules. I'm interpreting the rules. Tamal, The Great British Baking Show

                              Comment


                              • #55
                                Originally posted by greysandbays View Post
                                It's only inherently "greedy/wrong" to sell an animal when it isn't yours to sell (aka theft). All other interpretations are personal quibbles. There is no universal right to expect others to acquiece to one's own quibbles.
                                Theft is a legal term. If you've given your word that you won't do something, and you turn around and do it anyway, that's hardly a "quibble."

                                Or if you lie to get the horse, pretending it will go to a good home when you knew all along it was going to the meat man? Not a quibble.

                                Comment


                                • #56
                                  Originally posted by pAin't_Misbehavin' View Post
                                  So has anyone had any experience at enforcing a buy-back or return clause in a contract?

                                  It's not my field of law, but I'm not even sure such a clause is enforceable. And if it is, I imagine damages would be limited to the value of the animal. Which, if it went to a kill buyer, would be what? A couple hundred bucks? Doesn't sound like a big deterrent to others, especially given the chances that anybody would get caught in the first place.

                                  This is why both of mine are staying right outside my kitchen window where we're all within sight of one another.
                                  There a few states that now recognize intentional infliction of emotional distress in the context of animals. I think a good case could be made that if a promise was broken that Dobbin would be returned or given a good home forever and then sent to slaughter there is 1) emotional distress 2) intention 3) punitives that would make it worth the effort. If the person really suffered damages and distress. Many on COTH would.

                                  I just do not know if you have to "witness" the event like you do in most cases. I think it would depend on the lawyer's skill and the judge and jury. In such a state it would be colorable, but I do not know if it would get last SJ because the actual slaughter was so remote. For example shooting a dog for no reason right in front of the owners was sent onto the jury, but they witnessed it themselves and that is what caused the "emotional distress"

                                  When I was in law school it was the last ruling in VA but the next year the SCt overturned it. I am not sure which states are in and which states are out right now, but its a HUGE change in the law.

                                  Otherwise, lots of states give punitives for fraud. So if you throw in a few $K for punitives on a $300 horse its likely to get around that its risky to do that, but the person would still be paying much more in legal fees they they get back. But there are lots of people who would do that. Spend $5k to get $2 back as revenge and deterrent if they had it.

                                  Is the clause enforceable? Its a contract. If they sign it they should know what they are doing. Its enforceable for real estate, but animals are in a gray area between real property and personal property right now. So in all likelihood whether its enforceable or not depends on one of us, right now, going into court and convincing a judge it is.

                                  We live in interesting times.

                                  Comment


                                  • #57
                                    Ambrey, that might be morally reprehensible, but it's the legality of enforcing buy-back clauses and giveaway contracts with strings attached that are in question here.

                                    If such things are legally unenforceable, then the only guarantee someone has is the honesty and integrity of the person signing the contract. Which, as we all know, might be nonexistent.
                                    Homeopathy claims water can cure you since it once held medicine. That's like saying you can get sustenance from an empty plate because it once held food.

                                    Comment


                                    • #58
                                      Originally posted by pAin't_Misbehavin' View Post
                                      So has anyone had any experience at enforcing a buy-back or return clause in a contract?

                                      It's not my field of law, but I'm not even sure such a clause is enforceable. And if it is, I imagine damages would be limited to the value of the animal. Which, if it went to a kill buyer, would be what? A couple hundred bucks?
                                      What if you can prove the horse was worth more than meat price?
                                      Yo/Yousolong April 23rd, 1985- April 15th, 2014

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

                                      Comment


                                      • #59
                                        How would you go about doing that, Angela?

                                        I'm curious as to how one proves "worth" for a giveaway. Obviously, if the horse was given away or even sold for a few hundred dollars, it'll be hard to prove it was worth more than meat prices.
                                        Homeopathy claims water can cure you since it once held medicine. That's like saying you can get sustenance from an empty plate because it once held food.

                                        Comment


                                        • #60
                                          Originally posted by Angela Freda View Post
                                          What if you can prove the horse was worth more than meat price?
                                          Then you would sue for that amount plus.

                                          Show records, pedigree, training records, insured value from old policies, and you'd also have an equine appraiser look that information over. But for old horses, unsound, giveaways.... you're looking at meat prices.

                                          You know what stops a person from suing? Costs and fees. These cases are usually taken on an hourly rate and a large retainer is required.

                                          Perhaps if the owner was lucky enough to retain an attorney that specialized in ag/equine matters he/she might encounter a different scenario.

                                          Disputing any matter regarding an animal is usually pretty expensive. For the grieving owner of an old horse that was sent to slaughter.... it would be insult upon injury. Heck - even suing over a fraudulent sale is so expensive it practically precludes a suit for all but 5 and 6 figure horses.
                                          Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
                                          Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
                                          -Rudyard Kipling

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X