[QUOTE=stripes;6786929]
All this talk about the vet that inspected the horses that were not seized, what about the vet that gave Romantic Star his health certificate??? That’s the vet that deserves to get raked over the coals. JMHO…[/QUOTE]
Seriously??
Because that vet came out EIGHT days before the stallion was injured. WTF was he supposed to do, look into his crystal ball and foresee that the horse would get injured in the future?
Because as far as I know, RS was not seized due to BCS, but due to injuries. Don’t just take my word for it, how about what MCHS states in their press release?
A badly wounded stallion known as “Romantic Star” was seized as a result of untreated serious injuries
Mind you, they pointed out that the three other horses were seized due to malnourishment so I don’t think they missed the boat on RS’ body condition if that was an issue
Another malnourished mare known as “Pookie” was also impounded and transported to MHS for evaluation, treatment and rehabilitative care.
…Officers seized an additional two mares known as “Nutsie” and “Blackie” from the property. Both were found to be nearly emaciated…
They don’t charge by the word, it wouldn’t cost extra to say the stallion was malnourished AND wounded. It might would only help their case. He seems to have fallen into the category of “has not received medically necessary treatment in an appropriate time frame” seizure.
So with a little bit of (easily accessible) information, exactly what kind of coals do you think the vet should be raked over? The “I can’t see into the future” coals or maybe the “This stallion, who is not in great weight, is damned lucky to get out of this hellhole and how fast can I help him” coals?
Consider your answer carefully. This might be a test.