So the report mentioned the AC man and a woman who held a voluntary position as an advisor with the State. Which one of them has the authority to seize other people’s property outside the city of Dedham ?
I’ve sat on my hands for…eh…60 pages, trying not to post. Damn…!
This entire thread reminds me of the last big Claussen/Shaw Christmas gathering my family+extended family held. it was 60-plus people, at least three generations, multiple political/economic/religious views, and so on.
Thank God we never did that again!
Carry On!
[QUOTE=AppJumpr08;5160269]
We aren’t literally only doing one 8’ x 16’ shelter to squeak by. Obviously there are other parts that need to be addressed too. We are all aware of that, and are also aware that a band aid isn’t the way to go right now.[/QUOTE]
That is really nice of you guys. And since on the internet you can’t read tone, I promise I’m not being facetious. I admit I am prone to proceeding with caution when I only know someone virtually but I’m presuming there are people who know her personally involved with this rescue (unlike the sad Chanter fiasco).
Are there arrangements with a vet to see if the filly is in foal?
Yeah, and, its about how the stone walls fall down on their own and due dilligence is needed on both sides to keep them in repair. It forces the two neighbors to work together each on his own side, to put the stones back and keep the boundaries clear. Something he’d rather not have to do, but finds necessary for the sake of his neighbor relations. And any animals which need them, apparently. :winkgrin:
Actually, Frost’s poem is a very good description of why PP really should have put her due diligence into maintaining her fences. Good fences make good neighbors. Might have saved her some grief.
1 Like
Good grief! Her horses looked in good shape - and you’re bringing up rapists and molesters and "other heinous thing"s in the same breath and thread as pp???!!!
I’m…speechless. :no:
Liz
Yeah, that’s brainless.
I like equispits questions. I am very curious as to
1 - why hasn’t any of the notifications or going before a judge happened yet?
2 - who IS allowed to take horses in ME?
3 - IS anyone allowed in her township?
4 - are the people who actually took the horses legally authorized to do that?
5 - what are the charges? I assume there aren’t any yet, because that would be public record, and nobody knows that, and the news hasn’t reported anything about it.
6 - isn’t she supposed to have been charged by now, if she is? If they haven’t charged her, yet, and have missed the deadline, why aren’t her horses returned?
Well I’d like to know.
[QUOTE=BLBGP;5160422]
That is really nice of you guys. And since on the internet you can’t read tone, I promise I’m not being facetious. I admit I am prone to proceeding with caution when I only know someone virtually but I’m presuming there are people who know her personally involved with this rescue (unlike the sad Chanter fiasco).
Are there arrangements with a vet to see if the filly is in foal?[/QUOTE]
Yes people involved have known her in person for a long time. And I don’t think this is a “rescue” situation… this is a situation where a stubborn and proud woman has been trying to maintain a farm on her own for a long time. She’s realizing now she can’t always do everything alone, and is willing to accept the offers of help that others may have made before.
And I don’t see offering to help her fix up the facilities she already has, and perhaps add enough to them to increase the comfort levels of her existing horses, her neighbors, and herself as enabling her to rush out and breed or buy a bunch more horses.
I don’t know on the filly - seeing as PP doesn’t even know where she is right now, probably not. I would also assume, that since the state made no contact with PP during the seizure, that they even know the filly was exposed to a stallion.
[QUOTE=AnotherRound;5160447]
Yeah, that’s brainless.
I like equispits questions. I am very curious as to
1 - why hasn’t any of the notifications or going before a judge happened yet?
2 - who IS allowed to take horses in ME? [/QUOTE]
- Seizure for observation and examination. Seizure of animals for observation and examination is as follows.
A. Whenever a humane agent, a state veterinarian or a person authorized to make arrests has reason to believe that an animal may be disabled, diseased, dehydrated or malnourished, humane agent, state veterinarian or person shall apply to the District Court or Superior Court for authorization to take possession of the animal and turn it over to the applicant or other suitable person for examination and observation for a 30-day period. At the end of 30 days, the court must receive a report from the person in possession of the animal and either dissolve the possession order or set the matter for hearing within 30 days. [1997, c. 690, §64 (AMD).]
B. If the owner is known, the owner must be advised of the time and place of hearing and asked to show cause why the animal should not be seized permanently or disposed of humanely. [1995, c. 490, §23 (AMD).]
C. If the court finds at the hearing that the animal is disabled, diseased, dehydrated or malnourished, the court shall:
(1) Declare the animal forfeited and order its sale, adoption or donation; or
(2) Order the animal to be disposed of humanely if, given reasonable time and care, the animal’s recovery is doubtful. [1987, c. 383, §4 (NEW).]
5-A. Seizure by state humane agent or state veterinarian without court order. A state humane agent or a state veterinarian who has reasonable
101
cause to believe that a violation of section 1031 or 1032 has taken place or is taking place may take possession of and retain the cruelly treated animal. Upon taking possession of an animal under this section, the humane agent or the state veterinarian shall present the owner with a notice that:
A. States the reason for seizure; [1993, c. 468, §22 (NEW).]
B. Gives the name, address and phone number of the humane agent or the state veterinarian to contact for information regarding the animal; and [1995, c. 490, §24 (AMD).]
C. Advises the owner of the ensuing court procedure. [1993, c. 468, §22 (NEW).]
If the owner can not be found, the humane agent or the state veterinarian shall send a copy of the notice to the owner at the owner’s last known address by certified mail, return receipt requested. If the owner is not known or can not be located, the humane agent or the state veterinarian shall contact the animal shelter or shelters used by the municipality in which the animal was found. The humane agent or the state veterinarian shall provide the shelter with a description of the animal, the date of seizure and the name of a person to contact for more information.
3 - IS anyone allowed in her township?
4 - are the people who actually took the horses legally authorized to do that?
5 - what are the charges? I assume there aren’t any yet, because that would be public record, and nobody knows that, and the news hasn’t reported anything about it.
6 - isn’t she supposed to have been charged by now, if she is? If they haven’t charged her, yet, and have missed the deadline, why aren’t her horses returned?
Well I’d like to know.
All very good questions. And I would also like to know the answers to many of them (I’m sure PP would too!).
I have really refrained from posting, except in the very beginning, mainly to not add to the pile on, and also because I’m finding not only the situation itself to be heartbreaking, but even moreso, the divisiveness of the the thread. I’ve seen the best and the worst of humanity in some of these posts. I’m hoping that some who read this one will reflect and moderate a bit, and peace can be restored.
Hopefully I’ve gleaned enough information from browsing through the thread to have picked up what’s pertinent.
So here are the things we know:
- We know that PP was at WEG
- We know tht she said she had hired a sitter to look in on the horses.
- We know that a complaint was called in while she was out of town and AC took the horses, stating that they had no water, and that they could not locate the owner.
- We know that AC said there was a previous charge for cruely pending.
- We know that there have been prior incidents of her horses getting loose.
Here are things we are assuming from various reports, but DON’T know.
- We don’t know the exact details or circumstances of the previous animal cruelty charge.
- We don’t know the neighbors motivation or involvement, only that they seemed happy to have the animals removed.
- We don’t know why the horses were found without water.
- We don’t know when/if the sitter was actually taking care of the horses.
- We don’t know the actual state of PP’s health, motives, finances, future plans for breeding, shelter, fencing, or employment. We’re only guessing from the things she’s posted here on COTH or from 3rd party information.
So, instead of ripping PP, the neighbors, AC, or each other apart, why not just stop making assumptions, and accept that none of us really have ALL the facts, and may never really know the entire truth of the situation. We can judge PP, ACO, the neighbors, and each other all we want, but in the end it will only result in wasted time, and possibly, innocent victims and ruined reputations.
Open discussion of the general principles of horse care standards., etc. is good. Concern and offers of help for PP and the horses is good. Assuming that we, as third party onlookers with a limited access to the facts are fit to make a judgement of any of the parties involved without definitive knowledge of the facts is destructive.
I think this may play out to be either a case of a well meaning person who is in over their head, or a huge misunderstanding. But without the facts, I’m not willing to point a finger at anyone, and can only hope that the situation is resolved to the bests interests of the people and the animals involved. And once the situation is resolved, and facts can be verified, I’ll jump in with offers to help where appropriate.
1 Like
[QUOTE=AnotherRound;5160428]
Actually, Frost’s poem is a very good description of why PP really should have put her due diligence into maintaining her fences. Good fences make good neighbors. Might have saved her some grief.[/QUOTE]
Or not. I live next to a self-avowed horse hater who has said she would like my horses to die. I’ve got great fences (four-strand electric tape, all nice and tight) - but they haven’t improved relations with her one bit! :lol:
I live in a fence-em-out state, so I guess I don’t actually need fences at all, at least to keep the neighbors happy or be legal. Nor do I legally need a waterproof shelter for my horses, who survived quite happily (Thoroughbred included) without one, until they came to my property and I put myself in hock to build them a barn and spoil them rotten. (And still the ungrateful wretches have the gall to stand out in Wyoming blizzards, butt to the wind, and spurn my beautiful barn. :lol:)
I guess what I’m saying is that while I don’t keep my property in the same shape as pp might, much of what everyone is in a tizzy about is quite legal here - hundreds of thousands of horses survive quite nicely, and the people freaking on the thread look a bit like Chicken Little to me. 
Would be a different matter if her horses looked in bad shape, of course.
In all honesty, I must also point out I was a journalist for years, and learned long ago that neither the government nor the media are to be trusted without question. So the fact she has been cited for whatever it was, and the media has reported whatever it has, is meaningless to me without lots more documentation.
Liz
[QUOTE=AnotherRound;5160447]
Yeah, that’s brainless.
I like equispits questions. I am very curious as to
1 - why hasn’t any of the notifications or going before a judge happened yet?
2 - who IS allowed to take horses in ME?
3 - IS anyone allowed in her township?
4 - are the people who actually took the horses legally authorized to do that?
5 - what are the charges? I assume there aren’t any yet, because that would be public record, and nobody knows that, and the news hasn’t reported anything about it.
6 - isn’t she supposed to have been charged by now, if she is? If they haven’t charged her, yet, and have missed the deadline, why aren’t her horses returned?
Well I’d like to know.[/QUOTE]
The criminal charges, if any, would be a separate issue from what happens to the property seized.
As I read the law, the authorities have 21 days from the time the horses were seized to hold a hearing to determine if the horses were abused/neglected as defined by the statute. I believe PP has the burden of proving her facility was adequate under Maine law, but I could be wrong. I read the statute pretty quickly. Anyway, if she carries this burden, the horses are returned. If not, they’re either sold or adopted out.
I do not think there is one person on here who has said it is fine. Regardless of what they believe the situation to be.
People need to stop being so black and white and choosing to believe people are ‘picking a side’. I don’t believe most people, except the most narrow minded and judgemental, are strictly siding with ACO or PP.
[QUOTE=Lieslot;5160323]
You’re good Equibrit, I couldn’t find anthing.
Not sure I understand the document correctly, but even fencing would require a permit.[/QUOTE]
gack! welcome to the People’s Republic of Dedham…who on earth would want to live in a place like that ?
Tamara in TN
[QUOTE=Lisa Cook;5160327]
:
Is this where we all hold hands and sing Kum Bah Yah together and everything is right and good in the world again?[/QUOTE]
no no this is where we “puff puff pass”
the singing (or unstoppable giggling) comes in about 30 min;)
Tamara in TN
[QUOTE=prairiewind2;5160467]
Or not. I live next to a self-avowed horse hater who has said she would like my horses to die. I’ve got great fences (four-strand electric tape, all nice and tight) - but they haven’t improved relations with her one bit! :lol:
Liz[/QUOTE]
But imagine how much worse they’d be if your horses kept eating her garden 
Why was a horse tied to a tree, late at night during a lightening storm??? 
(As you said, if the story is correct)
[QUOTE=Tamara in TN;5160533]
gack! welcome to the People’s Republic of Dedham…who on earth would want to live in a place like that ?
Tamara in TN[/QUOTE]
it’s not unusual. I had to have a permit for my fence. . . and I lived in the county. I had to bring in a scale drawing of my property that showed what kind of fence and where I was putting it. Some of what I wanted to do was not allowed, so I altered it. That’s probably why a permit is needed, so they know your intentions. . .then you don’t have to go rip out a fence when it violates a local code. It was quite simple to do. . . …
[QUOTE=cholmberg;5160551]
it’s not unusual. I had to have a permit for my fence. . . and I lived in the county. I had to bring in a scale drawing of my property that showed what kind of fence and where I was putting it. Some of what I wanted to do was not allowed, so I altered it. That’s probably why a permit is needed, so they know your intentions. . .then you don’t have to go rip out a fence when it violates a local code. It was quite simple to do. . . …[/QUOTE]
With permits, if you have one and what you do passes inspection, if there are questions later, the one giving the permit will have to pay for any changes.
That is what one inspector told me.
Okay, we get it. Your point’s been made about a 100 times already…:eek:
well, obviously the person i was speaking too didn’t get it. at all. maybe still doesn’t?
glad to hear you understood what i was trying to say.
