This happened just up the road from where I used to live with Morgans. It took years and a long court battle to get the horses out of an awful situation. For more information google “Beth Hoskins”
2 Likes
Here is a screen shot of a post from November of 2022, in which Ms. Rareshide was soliciting for donations and she described her goals. Horrifically ironic.
1 Like
Wow. 
There’s even bare spots in the left pasture pic on the flyer in what looks like springtime.
1 Like
Agreed…almost looks overgrazed.
1 Like
You nailed the question, thank you.
It is not so easy to be a 501c3 as many people think. But if the smaller ones can skate, for a time, anyway … in any case, this sounds like a mess.
People get over their heads and … I don’t know. They convince themselves things are better than they are. Or they want help but don’t know how to get it. Or they procrastinate solving situations. Or … don’t know, this is clearly a horror for the poor horses.
1 Like
And governance. Who makes the decisions, who takes the actions, who is on the board of directors.
FYI to anyone who may be (or has been) asked to be on a board of directors for a 501c3 – don’t accept until you thoroughly research your responsibility & liability under the law. If you were a named director for a rescue, even if you were no longer active, and a situation like this developed, you might experience some consequences. If you had not already formally resigned in writing, on record, in the approved 501c3 manner.
Above is re not having a mission statement.
But also just to note that with a certain number of horses under care, it might be easy to be in excess of $50k yearly income.
Hypothetically, if a rescue collecting board is bringing in a monthly income of $500 per horse, then that is $6k per year per horse.
At that rate 9 horses will add up to $54k per year. Based on the owners paying board.
It’s very possible that most rescues support horses for less cost per horse per month. So they need less income per horse. But the care of such a large animal makes <$50k per year income a very small rescue.
(And I agree with those who don’t see how this model of owners paying board is a ‘rescue’, in fact and purpose.)
I think this is a cogent summary. Spending ‘profits’ on capital investment works for cash accounting. I’m sure that some large 501c3’s have more sophisticated accounting that would capitalize a large project rather than expensing it all in the same year. But upgrades & improvements to existing facilities probably would expense the same year incurred.
Part of the logic behind a 501c3 structure like this indeed is to pay oneself a salary or stipend to run it. Even if it isn’t a full-time salary but a monthly stipend of $x.
Sometimes someone does get the idea that they can run a 501c3 or other non-profit primarily for their own benefit without the donors realizing it - basically, a scam. Depending on the cause, that can be harder to manage than they realize. Creating a plausible face for the charity turns out to be a large and expensive project that does in fact require most of the incoming cash. Faking the plausible appearance and activity can be discovered – there are people who tend to be suspicious of charities and will investigate on their own.
Those situations tend not to end well and it becomes a reputation-ruiner for the scammer. Or ‘leader’ if they really only meant to skim a limited amount and it still didn’t go well.
I actually agree with paying a dedicated leader a stipend to run a charity, and/or perform needed services on an ongoing basis, because otherwise people are never able to sustain the effort indefinitely. The charity takes time away from other income-producing activities and tends to be a large personal sacrifice on the part of the leader. It almost always becomes unsustainable, financially and otherwise, and that is the end of the charity, in so many cases. To the heartless people who say “oh they should make the sacrifice for the cause” I say “you do it for a year and see where you are”.
(Except for the small handfull of people who have abundant other income and a lot of spare time, along with the skills and the will to do it. This is a vanishingly rare combination to find in a single person. Charities depend on the efforts of regular people who have other regular life responsibilities to handle as well.)
2 Likes
WOW! People are PAYING her a monthly fee yet she wants money to provide feed? That’s a crazy statement.
2 Likes
@OverandOnward and @Bogey2,
No, the way I read this, the Foundation was not for board and retirement boarders did not pay board to the Foundation.
It says specifically that donations are for “unexpected cost, additional hay/feed for horses that may need more help during the cold months and to provide upgraded services and facilities…can stay at the same low monthly rate.” (Emphasis mine.)
I don’t think you could set up a legit 501c3 just to routine board costs unless you could identify a charitable purpose. For instance, that might fly if it was a therapeutic riding center or maybe even a rescue, but even then, it’s sketchy.
1 Like
But all the retirement boarders did pay board. Apparently up to almost $600 a month. And when she received donations to the foundation she apparently asked them to be made out to her. So where is the line? And then also her own personal horses were well fed and cared for. No issues with them at all. So the whole picture is really sketchy.
11 Likes
Absolutely agreed, the whole thing is sketchy, especially the 501c3.
If I were one of the boarders, and I was approached to donate to the 501c3, I would ask why, and if I got the argument about unexpected costs, additional feed, etc., I would say - “Tell me what those costs are for my horse, and I’ll pay it. I don’t have the wherewithal to subsidize other people’s retired horses.”
And if I WASN’T a boarder and I was approached to donate, I would as “Why? Why would I support someone else’s retired horses? Either they should support them fully or they should make the tough decision to euth.”
I don’t think there’s a compelling argument for donating to the 501c3 even if it wasn’t shady.
8 Likes
To the more general point of the charity / caregiving side of this sad story …
I personally have no idea of the motives of the person who runs this organization and this is not about her. If she was seriously well-intentioned and thought she had come up with a good model to give horses a good retirement. Or if it was all to benefit herself in the hopes that the horses would be fine on grass and need minimal care, since they aren’t working. I am not judging because I don’t know.
Looking from another point of view, I think it is alarming and disturbing how easy it is for someone who gathers horses for any purpose to find themselves unintentionally in a neglect situation like this. Finding they can’t care for the number of horses they have as their responsibility. Whatever their motives were – they may have had good motives.
Either through buying horses, or boarding other people’s horses, or a ‘charity’ situation like this. And then not knowing, or not doing, whatever is necessary to resolve a deteriorating situation for the horses.
Sadly, horse rescue in general is known to have situations like this develop. In my home state I’m personally aware of a guesstimate of an average of at least two rescues per year that end up with law enforcement seizures of their neglected, starving horses.
A care-crisis can develop (quickly) because: Maybe over-populated because they can’t say ‘no’ to the next one in need. Maybe a weather/drought crisis undermines the grass forage they rely on. Maybe low donations, or poor financial management, or skimming. Whatever the reason is. Even a well-intentioned rescue can’t control the weather or the economy.
And as a result, sadly, at times a huge burden on other horse rescue organizations in the area arises from the need to rescue numbers of neglected horses from a failing rescue.
It is too common a situation. It happens everywhere. It happens to people with only good motives.
Rescue A starts with land and all good intentions. But Rescue A ends up with more horses than they can support. The horses’ condition goes downhill. Especially as many were likely vulnerable anyway, already in poor condition, and/or aged, and/or chronically injured or ill, etc. That’s what rescues, gather, after all.
Unfortunately Rescue A may not handle the situation well. They may end up under pressure by other rescues and in difficult personal negotiations to reduce their numbers. Or, they may end up in a law enforcement seizure.
Then Rescue B (and possibly Rescues C, D and E) are called on by law enforcement or another rescue to come pick up some volume of horses from Rescue A. Not one or a few, but possibly dozens.
Usually one rescue organization takes the lead to coordinate with other organizations, trying to find a safe spot for each and every horse. Based on each horse’s condition and needs and each rescue’s capability to provide for them. And these are not simple problems.
I have known of situations where there were so many horses, so many rescue organizations, and so many trailers that it took days to load and re-home every horse at a large failed rescue facility. The lead organization set up communications like an airport control tower. To manage when and where each trailer could park so they could load which horses. Then leave to make way for the next trailer to load more. Managing how to gather horses that couldn’t even walk as far as the load areas. And which horses were better off to try to recover in place for a few weeks, or be put down, than put them through transport.
Horses that may have been healthy at one time in Rescue A, but that are now in very poor condition and need high-cost care.
So the end result is that Rescue A’s failures actually increased the overall load on rescue generally in that area.
Maybe 30 to 50 horses that should have been safe in Rescue A are now added to the total number of horses in need in that area. There is always a rescue capacity limit. That is one of the greatest challenges of horse rescue.
Horses rescued from Rescue A are now taking spots in other rescues, reducing their ability to intake the normal stream of neglected horses that come into rescue. The other better-managed rescues now have to say ‘no’ to law enforcement who won’t seize until the neglected horse has a destination other than auction. Leaving horses in neglect situations. Or, LE will go ahead with seizure, and the neglected horses end up at auction. Because the usual nearby rescue doesn’t have a spot for them.
I hope all that makes sense.
Sometimes I think that maybe I would like to run a for-profit retirement farm OR help manage a rescue facility. But these stories just freeze my soul with how easy it might be to unintentionally end up in the same situation, numbers of horses under care, and inadequate resources to care for them, for reasons beyond my control.
Anyway … if there is any point to this, it is …
HOW do we prevent these neglect situations from developing? How do we educate people who want to do horse rescue BEFORE they plunge into it? In fact, how do we educate owners of numbers of horses?
AND … how do we provide a better off-ramp to someone who does recognize that they have too many horses and not enough resources? A ‘911’ number they can call for help, even just for advice? And some known triggers that should have them calling before the hay runs out?
AND … how do we provide temporary stopgaps to provide more forage – temporarily – and leave the horses in place for better days? For owners and small rescues who are suffering a situation that will be remedied over time (maybe weeks or months), and they just need some help to bridge that gap?
I think that as a horse community we could do better. But first we have to believe that we can – and that we should.
8 Likes
“… to support the owners of the older and unsound horses living at The Byrd’s Nest.”
Support the owners? I’ve never read a mission statement like this. Don’t get what the plan is and how they are executing it.
They are claiming to keep the cost down for the owners? Basically subsidizing the ability of these horses to retire indefinitely, I guess.
I guess a charity can be for anything that people are willing to donate for. But this is not the general picture I’ve always had of horse ownership. But if it works - worked - ok I guess.
There is another retirement 501c3 (I think) out there that takes a large donation of several thousand $$ to place a horse there, and then that’s the last payout the owner ever makes. This facility takes legal ownership of the horse, so all decisions are their prerogative. They say they keep the previous owner who placed the horse there updated. They have strict, written policies on what supportive care they provide, and what care they don’t provide. They also have a strict numbers limit for intakes, also based on a horse’s condition and needs (which pasture herd it will fit with, etc.)
Basically, they have defined the conditions that they euthanize instead of treat. (Example: No surgery.) I think the previous owner has the option to pay for some extras, but they don’t have final say. If the charity decides “no we’re going to euth” that’s what happens.
They appear to have managed well for at least a couple of decades. (I think in Virginia? I’d have to search my database of thousands of possibly useful links to find it.)
2 Likes
If the clients are paying board, for their own horses, how does Byrd get donations for those same horses her foundation doesn’t own?
If the horses aren’t the property of the foundation, then how can donations be to pay for their care?
And if so, wouldn’t the horse owner then be receiving the benefit from the donation and that be considered income?
If retirement board for my horse is $600, but I only pay $300, and then $300 in donations to the foundation that doesn’t own the horse cover the rest… Um… I don’t get how that’s legit…
1 Like
I’m just spitballing here because I don’t actually know a ton about this. In theory though, it would be like a charity that provided low cost spay/neuters where the owners paid a flat fee, regardless of the actual cost of materials/equipment/medicine. In this case the charity the foundation provides (allegedly, anyways) is low/fixed-cost retirement for their horses. It doesn’t need to own the horses to do this.
ETA: There’s probably some semantics involved regarding board (what is billed to the owners) vs expense (what it actually costs the facility). I imagine your last statement would be reworded as “Monthly retirement expense per horse is $600, but the owner only pays $300 in board, and then $300 in donations to the foundation covers the remainder of the expense to keep said boarded horse.”
1 Like
This is my understanding of how Ryerss Farm in Pennsylvania works. Not many complaints about mismanagement that I am aware of.
1 Like
I mean, there are lots of horse businesses and charities that have somewhat questionable financials, I’m sure, so that alone sadly wouldn’t result in people’s backs being up. If they’re small, the horses get fed, and people don’t have to pay a bundle to retire a horse that’s no longer rideable but not unhealthy enough that they feel justified in putting down, I’m sure many people don’t ask questions. Until the horses stop getting fed.
It’s really tough. I know many people who can’t bring themselves to let go of a beloved horse, even if they’re retiring and on a fixed income. Sometimes especially, because they aren’t riding much or at all, so the horse is their last connection to the past. But horse rescue can’t operate on the same model as say, a dog rescue. Few people want unrideable old horses, while an older dog (especially with a good temperament) can make an even better pet for some households than a puppy.
Some people get into rescue because they have good hearts, some because they are working out mental health issues, and others are like this woman.
With the Internet, it makes it easy to make rescues look like paradises and solicit donations, too, but this is why I would never donate to any place I hadn’t seen with my own eyes (or was seen by someone I trusted 100%).
4 Likes
I was told it is a red flag if the organization’s by-laws or other organizational documents don’t stipulate regular audits by outside, non-affiliated CPAs (at least every two years). It is also a red flag if the organization won’t provide you with copies of audits done within the last couple of years. And if you ask about audits before you donate and the organization gets huffy with you, walk away.
6 Likes
They do a really nice job. The way it works is that owners make a large “donation” of money at the time the horse goes there and then the farm owns the horse and the owner severs all ties. Not for me, but it’s a model that has worked for them.
1 Like
A good question to ask is whether or not the nonprofit carries officer & directors insurance. Of course anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time, but having this in place gives you some protection as a member of a BoD.
8 Likes
This!!! No one should serve as a board member or officer of a charity unless it has a current D&O insurance policy in place. And you should ask for proof of coverage ever year.
6 Likes
