1. You can absolutely 100%agree that JB should be out of the business and that her animals should have better homes.
2. You can absolutely agree that the seized animals should have been seized.
3. You can totally agree, that given the circumstances, RS should have gone to a vet clinic for evaluation and the clinic he went to charged fair and reasonable services for a job well done.
4. You can completely, 100% agree that RS was a BCS 3, and that is reprehensible and didn't happen overnight and needed to be addressed. Additionally you can agree his farrier/dental visits were not up to snuff as well.
So everyone here is in complete agreement with all of the above, right? Good. Now here's where complex thought gets in the way of a JB FOX News Frenzy.
5. It's possible some of us might have a different idea of what constitutes "serious injury". RS may have looked awful, the loser in the stallion fight rarely looks good. Personally I have a definition of serious that has been refined by 40+ years around these animals. When bones are not broken, soft tissues are not compromised, sutures are not used, abx/nsaids are discontinued in short order, and major organs are not involved... well it's probably not serious.
6. It's also possible that you may believe that the injuries he had do not rise to the level of care he received.
DANGER WILL ROBINSON - COMPLEX THOUGHT PROCESS AHEAD - PLEASE SKIP OVER IF YOU ARE A FROTHY SPITTLE POSTER. IF YOU ARE NOT SURE IF YOU FIT THIS DESCRIPTION, LOOK AROUND. IF YOU DON'T SEE ANYONE WHO DOES, CHANCES ARE, YOU ARE THAT PERSON.
And what I mean by level of care is not a disparagement of UC Davis. It's a term of art best described as bringing a gun to a boxing match in the medical care terms. A "human" example is if a homeless person (who magically has insurance) got in a fight with someone and ended up with a severely battered face. If they went to ER, they may have been admitted for an inpatient stay (overnight) but after a thorough evaluation (xrays, evaluation of the symptoms, observation, etc.) they would be discharged and sent home with instructions for keeping the wounds clean, taking abx and maybe some tylenol for pain and a follow up visit scheduled with their regular doctor. The fact that they needed a regular sammich, healthier diet, a visit to the shoe store and dentist would be duly noted.
7. What would NEVER EVER happen is said person would take up residence in a hospital when the only care being rendered is all of the above, just because the person didn't have a "home". That's not what inpatient admissions are for - for people OR horses. They are for the sick (and for damn good reason - many vet hospitals would try to get the non critical out quickly due to risk of salmonella outbreaks).
8. Ideally, in the horse world what would happen is said horse would be admitted, evaluated, treated and discharged in short order with good instructions for care packed in his lunch box along with his sammich. Which clearly he needed.
9. But what if he was homeless? And this is the crux of the matter. RS shouldn't be homeless. There should be an alternative arrangement more suited to the care he requires (basic wound care, basic horse care and basic food & water) under the purview of the MCHS. That's not (in my mind) an unreasonable request.
Which brings me to my final point. MCHS has a fiduciary duty to the county as well as a duty to protect the animals of Marin County. It also needs to maintain a strong defensible legal position to best serve its clients (Marin county residents). It does not yet own RS and the three other horses (and whoever else is seized, should that be the case), but before this is all over, I imagine what it will reasonably expect $$$ for the care of these animals in the event they are returned to their original owner (be that Rising Star in the case of RS or JB in the case of the other horses). By creating a situation where the cost of taking care of RS during this period far exceeds what it should be for a non-disputed horse in exactly the same condition with reasonable facilities, they have not improved their position.
If they were to present that bill/legal liability, under those circumstances, to someone who was not responsible for his current condition and who they NEVER consulted with, advised, notified or even acknowledged as the owner during the entire process, I would not be surprised if that person was really really angry. OK, let me correct that statement. If I was that person I would be beyond livid. I would also recognize that if they lost their lawsuit against JB, that bill would be the first thing to be contested and there is a very real possibility the total amount owed could be far less, thus leaving MCHS and the residents of Marin county holding the financial bag.
COMPLEX THOUGHT PROCESS OVER - FROTHY SPITTLE POSTERS MAY RESUME READING!
So when I question that bill, before you (the generic you) take finger to keyboard and hit that enter key with your frothy spittle post, STOP and reread items 1-4. Take any allegations, reference et. to those topics OUT of your post so as to reduce the amount of people who question your intellect. Don't accuse people of things they have clearly have not said. Did you check it twice? Is there anything left in your post that makes any sense? Good. Post away!