Horrendous Case of 'Alleged' Abuse in VA -

It seems from other posts that some (many?) of these horses ended up here because they were bought by Anne whatever-she-calls-herself from normal (not in need of rescue) situations.

I can see how someone with good intentions could still have things get out of hand through circumstances (trying to help too many horses, husband seems kind of dubious, lots of donations at first but then the money all goes away) but she was still buying horses very recently–well after the point that it was clear she couldn’t support the ones she had! That one’s just on her.

Perhaps of interest:

http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlines/Divorce-File-Sheds-Light-on-Peaceable-Farm-Owners-Finances-340452142.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_Charlottesville_Newsplex_-_CBS19__ABC16__FOX27

Even Yours Anonymously would have trouble blowing through $12,000 a week.

Curiouser and curiouser.

It occurs to me that we really don’t have all the facts here. This situation was created over an extended period of time, and the people involved are savvy enough to have lawyered up immediately, rather than respond in the moment to the abuse. For those involved who’ve commented, they “didn’t know nothing” and all point the finger at Shumate, that seems a bit odd. If you’re involved enough to be on the Board of this organization, and bright enough to lawyer up immediately, I have difficulty believing any form of the “I was too naive, or too trusting, or too dumb or too whatever” to ever ever ever check on what was actually going on at a rescue which I am on the Board of."

I can see a scenario where the whole thing was some sort of borderline tax dodge / loophole or barely legal slight of hand tax shelter, where no one on that Board ever gave a rats butt about the horses, so of course they never bothered to check on them. But I don’t see a scenario where they ever had genuine concern at any time, because - not only would they not have allowed this, they would have responded differently. I wonder if more of them belong in jail right along side Shumate.

In my life I have known people who become obsessed with one thing after another, involving the duty to care for precious living creatures that they are obsessed to create / acquire at one point, and then just walk away from, without a backwards glance. They may make a token gesture of accountability, or throw a few dollars back over their shoulder, as they walk away, and it may involve horrendous emotional abuse (like father’s ignoring their own children) or it may involve animals, but the dynamic is similar; their concern for other living things is something they can turn off like a light switch.

I see a bit of that here, in both the former owners of these animals and in a Board that lawyered up to protect THEMSELVES rather than chipping in to help the animals, who could end up spending more on their legal fees than providing for these animals would cost.

For these kinds of folks the priorities are “Me first, regardless of who gets hurt.” And I’d be willing to bet that if you look into the lives of these folks there will be a history of cycles of abuse and abandonment, irrespective of how “bright and shiny” their social facade can be.

If there were a way to remove these people from the genepool I’d support it.

[QUOTE=DownYonder;8378368]
So the tie-in between the individuals on the board is Goland/Shumate’s ex-husband, Tony Goland. Two of the board members work or did work at the same large “mult-national consulting firm” as he does, and another is a college associate of his.

Let me guess how this went.

Tony: Hey guys, my wife is starting a non-profit to rescue neglected/abused animals. Why don’t you join the board? It would be a win-win - she needs high profile board members to help attract donors and sponsors, and it would look good on your resumes and public profiles.

It will be interesting to find out if a single one of them EVER visited the premises. It will also be interesting to find out at what point Tony and his wife split, and if he was even slightly aware there were serious issues going on with her mentally and ethically.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree with this. I do doubt that the ex-husband didn’t have a clue what was going on, especially because of her previous issues in other states (while they were apparently still married).

EDITED:

The judge released her on $75,000 bond. Conditions include: she is not permitted on the Somerset property without Sheriff’s office supervision. She is not permitted to own animals. She is not permitted to spend more than $100 online (presumably to keep her from buying more horses).

http://ht.ly/UDbIq

I am sorry to report that it appears she will be granted bond. As I type, I understand that the amount is being discussed.

This is a link to a public facebook post from the Charlottesville media:

https://www.facebook.com/NBC29/photos/a.117869833752.96673.82899253752/10153267898778753/?type=3&theater

If she is let out, all will do well to avoid putting animals into her care. She has used the aliases Anne Goland, Anne Shumate, Anne Williams, among others.

Still planning to attend the hearing to which the entire Peaceable Farms board has been summonsed next Wednesday.

[QUOTE=Cartier;8377191]
I think outlawing slaughter is this country is one example of a bad law passed because of hysteria and sheer ignorance. When slaughter was allowed in the USA we could regulate it and set and monitor minimal humane standards. All outlawing slaughter did was move it to Mexico and Canada - which means a longer more brutal, horrific ride for the horses, and effectively no monitoring at all for slaughter in Mexico.

What the lawmakers totally ignored was that there will always be horses that for one reason or another need to be humanely euthanized. Not everyone has the acreage to bury a horse, and not everyone can afford euthanasia.

I have never had to euthanize a horse, and we do have sufficient acreage, but when our 27 year-old mare died, I had to have a man with a back hoe come and bury her. He did it as a favor, but I believe he normally charged something like $500 just to bury a horse. I do not know what a vet would charge to put a horse down, but I would guess it would be about $150-$200. So it is not a cheap proposition.

If it were legal to have horses humanely euthanized and used for food or glue or whatever, at least we would be returning them to the earth in a meaningful manner.[/QUOTE]

When horse slaughter was legal in this country, and Dallas Crowne SH was open, the largest horse neglect case, with over 200 starving/dead horses took place within an hour of it. The horses/property was owned by a veterinarian. (So no reason not to euthanize/or lack of options.).
Animal neglect cases like this have nothing to do with availability of slaughter. A bullet is cheap. This woman obviously didn’t fail to euth because she was worried about disposal issues. And killer buyers will take free horses, to sell to mexico/Canada, so lack of horse slaughter here, is not what caused this problem.

Thanks, Foxhunter, for your update.

Please keep us posted on the outcome of the hearing next week…

[QUOTE=jetsmom;8405814]
When horse slaughter was legal in this country, and Dallas Crowne SH was open, the largest horse neglect case, with over 200 starving/dead horses took place within an hour of it. The horses/property was owned by a veterinarian. (So no reason not to euthanize/or lack of options.).
Animal neglect cases like this have nothing to do with availability of slaughter. A bullet is cheap. This woman obviously didn’t fail to euth because she was worried about disposal issues. And killer buyers will take free horses, to sell to mexico/Canada, so lack of horse slaughter here, is not what caused this problem.[/QUOTE]
You miss the distinction that we need an option for a " humane " way to put horses down.

For any feeling human being, sending a horse to a killer auction, where they will end up slaughtered in Mexico or Canada is barbaric, and NOT an option, and yet there are no other options for many people.

And while a bullet might indeed be cheap, euthanizing a horse with a bullet is not a simple or easy thing to do. Most people could not do it, they’d end up only injuring the horse and / or themselves, and even if they could figure out where to shoot the horse and then get it to hold still, they would have to dispose of the body.

We have a culture in this country where we dump our problems on someone else, or some group instead of taking responsibility ourselves. That culture needs to change regardless of how many rescues prove to be scams.

There are 81 former owners of those 81 seized horses who allowed them to end up in that situation. How many of them came forward to take the horse back and care for it?

[QUOTE=Cartier;8406035]
You miss the distinction that we need an option for a " humane " way to put horses down.

For any feeling human being, sending a horse to a killer auction, where they will end up slaughtered in Mexico or Canada is barbaric, and NOT an option, and yet there are no other options for many people.

And while a bullet might indeed be cheap, euthanizing a horse with a bullet is not a simple or easy thing to do. Most people could not do it, they’d end up only injuring the horse and / or themselves, and even if they could figure out where to shoot the horse and then get it to hold still, they would have to dispose of the body.

We have a culture in this country where we dump our problems on someone else, or some group instead of taking responsibility ourselves. That culture needs to change regardless of how many rescues prove to be scams.

There are 81 former owners of those 81 seized horses who allowed them to end up in that situation. How many of them came forward to take the horse back and care for it?[/QUOTE]
I agree with most of your post. But I wonder how many of the prior owners even know what happened.

At today’s hearing on the seizure of ten horses which she refused to surrender, the judge upheld the legality of their seizure. Unfortunately, the hearing was delayed more than three hours, so I had to leave the courthouse and come back home before it got underway. There were at least three dozen horsey supporters in the courtroom; two or three television media teams; more print/online journalists; two veterinarians as witnesses; and the defendant herself.

Let’s see if this link will work:

http://ht.ly/UP2AK

Thanks again, Anon for keeping us up to date on these goings on.

Anon - did any of the board members show up?

Update
http://www.ratemyhorsepro.com/news/judge-schedules-anne-goland-animal-cruelty-trial.aspx