[QUOTE=Coanteen;5160548]
But imagine how much worse they’d be if your horses kept eating her garden ;)[/QUOTE]
:lol:
H2 - horse tied to tree at night - makes one wonder - what the owner was thinking - and how reporters manage to write things that beg for explanation.
LLDM, I don’t think the fact that the pipe structure has a broken frame in October says anything about how or whether it held up in the winter–and I doubt if it were intended for horse shelter anyway. She might have had NO shelter at all, in which case the law was violated. But if the pipe thingie was intended to be an animal shelter, it might have held up through the winter and come down later in a windstorm. Not likely, but possible.
As to leaky roofs, the law is quite clear that a shelter MUST have a waterproof roof. There is no play in those joints. Waterproof does not mean leaky. Also wondering about barns we have here with very long sides but open at both ends. They wouldn’t qualify either, would they? These are really standard barns and provide lots of shelter, but they are not three-sided and don’t have doors at the ends.
All I’m saying is that this is one of those laws or regulations that shouldn’t have gone on the books in the current form. I"d say I see the hand of HSUS and some of the other animal rights organizations who haven’t a clue about horsekeeping and want to make animal owners’ lives as difficult as possible in the way the law or regs got written. You should never write a law that encourages selective enforcement. Regs should be completely clear as to what is required and what is not, even if it takes pages of definitions and clarifications. In fact, I believe such vagueness is considered a defect by the US constitution–I’m sure you’ve heard the term “void for vagueness”.
You forgot the darn apples, Thomas. 
I do believe a neighbor was criticized for feeding the horses apples. Those damn non-horse people should know better!
I was under the impression that PP herself posted about the problems with her tarp shelters. Yep, here it is: http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=239084&highlight=shelter There are pictures PP posted too, so you can see for yourself. The debris in the press pictures look quite like the shelters in the pictures she posted. Ergo, no they did not prove to be adequate.
As to leaky roofs, the law is quite clear that a shelter MUST have a waterproof roof. There is no play in those joints. Waterproof does not mean leaky. Also wondering about barns we have here with very long sides but open at both ends. They wouldn’t qualify either, would they? These are really standard barns and provide lots of shelter, but they are not three-sided and don’t have doors at the ends.
No, open at both ends would hardly be appropriate in Maine. “Here” where you are is Mississippi if I am to believe your location. What is appropriate there would be a whole different story, again, as I am sure you know.
All I’m saying is that this is one of those laws or regulations that shouldn’t have gone on the books in the current form. I"d say I see the hand of HSUS and some of the other animal rights organizations who haven’t a clue about horsekeeping and want to make animal owners’ lives as difficult as possible in the way the law or regs got written. You should never write a law that encourages selective enforcement. Regs should be completely clear as to what is required and what is not, even if it takes pages of definitions and clarifications. In fact, I believe such vagueness is considered a defect by the US constitution–I’m sure you’ve heard the term “void for vagueness”.
Wow. Okay. First, trying to write prefect laws is not easy to do - for anyone, even those with the best of intentions. Sorry, but the HSUS reference is what I seem to run into when people are over reaching. Whenever someone doesn’t like something like this they want to blame HSUS. Sorry, I will call “load of crap” on that defense. I have read the links to the laws people have been posting and it sounds a lot like human beings trying to get it right - balanced between protecting animals and reasonable burdens for people/animal owners.
And no, this does not rise anywhere close to “void for vagueness” standards. They are plain English, easily understood, with clear intent - to provide adequate shelter for the health of the appropriate type of animal. If you don’t know what is appropriate for the health of the type of animal you own, maybe you shouldn’t own it? (Note: “You” meaning anyone in general, not anyone specifically.)
And yes, it is completely appropriate for there to be room for interpretation in the laws. We have Judges, not computers. We have police officers, not robocops. Most of law enforcement - over 85% - is handled completely in the field by police officers and other officials and never makes it to any sort of judge or magistrate. This is by design. It is called “disgression” and it’s how this country functions. By design. And when that fails, we have the entire rest of the justice system to sort it out.
SCFarm
If you’re a lawyer with experience in the dirty day to day grinding of the legal system, you know perfectly well that’s not how things work. People have to KNOW definitely what they can and cannot do. For those trying to live within bounds there is no room for interpretation. They can get caught up and ground to flour if their interpretation is not the one that the police use. Of course we have judges, not computers, but that’s because laws AREN’T written and passed by computers; they are written, then compromised by politicians who have been influenced by many different things (and money). They often don’t come out the way they went in, even if well written at inception. Regs are the same way, and they are frequently used to clarify the ambiguities of the written language in the statutes. But then are not published in the same way that the statutes are. Have you ever read laws that have been amended so many times and not cleaned up after amendment that they are literally contradictory?
Personally, I think we SHOULD have robocops. Police tend to come from groups who enjoy the exercise of power, and over my life I’ve come to despise “the system” because of the way police (many, not all) lie and use psychological (and occasionally physical) torture to obtain the results that they want. I personally know of too many cases of police abuse to ever trust them in their dealings with “little” people.
If a person cannot read a statute and know what is prohibited or what is required in every situation, intent is meaningless and often interpretation of intent is subjective. It might be meaningful in court later, but not as people are living their lives. If there is ambiguity, there might be equity later in court, but that’s a hugely expensive burden to put on citizens.
Can you tell me right now what the appropriate shelter would be for a Spanish mustang in the Maine winter?
If by disgression, you mean “discretion”, there is (or should be) no room for discretion in the criminal justice system except in sentencing. If ever anything was subject to abuse, it’s prosecutorial discretion. Too much personal experience with that gone bad to believe that it has fairness as its primary goal. What it does have is moving things along through the system as quickly as possible, and the amount of pressure that can be put on for people to plea bargain cannot be underestimated.
Did you bother to read the part where she’d had them for TEN YEARS before this happened, and had chosen that style of structure for a specific reason? That does not sound “inadequate,” that sounds like “freakin’ heavy snow.” And, by the way, I was in northern NH during that storm, and we got a ridiculous amount of WET snow. So wet that we couldn’t use the snowblowers and I shoveled out the entire property (except the roads) by hand. On the roads, the plow was literally making waves in the snow-slush. And it wasn’t 'cause it warmed up and made it slushy; it came down that way. I then spent the better part of two days shoveling roofs, some of which had in fact started leaking before I got to them. So, yep, I’m seeing how a perfectly adequate structure could potentially not stand up to that mess.
Also, she mentions the she had to make changes to make the roof flush with the walls per the state, which may provide an answer to the “no shelter” charge questions.
[QUOTE=Kementari;5160697]
Did you bother to read the part where she’d had them for TEN YEARS before this happened, and had chosen that style of structure for a specific reason? That does not sound “inadequate,” that sounds like “freakin’ heavy snow.” And, by the way, I was in northern NH during that storm, and we got a ridiculous amount of WET snow. So wet that we couldn’t use the snowblowers and I shoveled out the entire property (except the roads) by hand. On the roads, the plow was literally making waves in the snow-slush. And it wasn’t 'cause it warmed up and made it slushy; it came down that way. I then spent the better part of two days shoveling roofs, some of which had in fact started leaking before I got to them. So, yep, I’m seeing how a perfectly adequate structure could potentially not stand up to that mess.
Also, she mentions the she had to make changes to make the roof flush with the walls per the state, which may provide an answer to the “no shelter” charge questions. [/QUOTE]
(My bolding for emphasis)
:yes::yes::yes::yes:
That storm was extreme. Very Very Extreme.
This is the issue I have with the “three sided structure” wording… given the location of that particular shelter, in the tree line, I don’t see it as cruelty to not have the walls go all the way to the top.
Personally, I think we SHOULD have robocops. Police tend to come from groups who enjoy the exercise of power, and over my life I’ve come to despise “the system” because of the way police lie and use psychological (and occasionally physical) torture to obtain the results that they want. I personally know of too many cases of police abuse to ever trust them in their dealings with “little” people.
Ouch. As someone who volunteers through local PDs…I don’t meet the same types of police officers you seem to. Talk about condemning an entire enormous group of people, who may or may not be called someday to protect your property or save your life. Thank goodness they don’t feel the same way about the public. :no:
However I can now see why you have such little like for the laws as they’re written.
Most everyone else in Maine seems to have figured out what a 3 sided shelter with a waterproof roof is. In a window area with tons of snow, rain, tree branches, etc…tent like structures just don’t cut it in harsh weather. And in New England we get long term harsh weather in winter. Some of the heavier duty stuff like cover its, shelter logics, etc that are put up over metal arched frames can handle the weather for a few years. But a plastic pipe structure with fabric on it just can not handle winter in this area.
And no, nobody gets in trouble if you have a real shelter up and the roof springs a leak. However if the roof is more leak than not and someone reports you…yeah, you’ll have to repair or replace the roof. However I would hope an animal owner would repair that on their own without having to be reported to do it.
Laws and regulations are written to minimum standards.
Most owners, builders and owners try to use more than minimum standards as per regulations to do business, build and live by.
No, most people don’t go to palatial lenghts, but somewhere above minimum at least.
Just remember where I live, the times I’ve lived through (Civil rights era) and that I was involved on the other side from Mississippi government. Things down here aren’t much better now. The police from every background exercise power that is essentially untrammelled as it relates to the poor and powerless. The lawyers and judges are no better.
Around here the legal system for most of the people who get their employment from it is 95% about winning and losing, and almost anything goes if it wins.
True story: we appealed a murder conviction with evidence that had been destroyed and mishandled by the police and the crime lab. We won in the state Supreme court on those grounds. Prosecution filed a motion for rehearing. Before the motion was reheard, there was an election and one of “our” judges was replaced by a former prosecutor. Decision was 5-4 in our favor before the election and 5-4 against after it. Color me cynical.
Still wondering
Has PP ever been heard from? Does anyone actually know her IRL??
This thread is huge, and It seems there are no real facts. I hope she is ok and that it is a horrid misunderstanding.
But one never knows these days. 
[QUOTE=Sannois;5160781]
Has PP ever been heard from? Does anyone actually know her IRL??
This thread is huge, and It seems there are no real facts. I hope she is ok and that it is a horrid misunderstanding.
But one never knows these days. [/QUOTE]
Yes she’s been heard from. I and a couple other COTHers are in almost daily touch with her right now. I haven’t yet met her IRL, but other posters on COTH have, and I’ll be meeting her IRL in the next week or so.
Just read the latest link provided regarding her shelters. And saw the photos.
Shelters like that make a heck of a lot of sense now that I think about it. I have seen portable canvas stalls etc at barns and shows. Never thought about doing something similar for run-ins. I like the concept and it appears that PP was working on improving her design. After going through the hurricanes/tornados past years and worrying so badly about flying debris - I would really give serious thought to “going canvas”. PP makes good points regarding her experiences and observations and her decision to build as she did.
(Appjumper I sent you a PM)
I have had email contact with her for a good while, off the forum, and I met her IRL at WEG multiple times.
She struck me as exactly as she comes across in her posts. 100% what I was expecting.
Yes, yes… “discretion”. My fingers get ahead of me sometimes and fall back on phonics. It the spell checker doesn’t catch it, then it must be right, right?
But really, aside from everyone’s personal feelings about their local law enforcement…
But are you really trying to tell me that PP scoured the legal code and could not come up with anything would satisfy AC? Did she even bother to call and ask them before she built what she was planning? Would that not make sense if she had been cited once and had to rebuild what had collapsed before? Wait, there wasn’t anything… so she hadn’t rebuilt them yet…
Look, I am truly sorry that PP is having such a rough time. But blaming everyone else for her problems will not help her. Not now, not this winter, not next year. Nor will it help her horses.
People get in trouble. They get in over their heads sometimes. Someone has to do something at some point. AC beat all of her friends to the conclusion that things were not working out for her, at least as far as the animals were concerned - which is their job. And it seems that you all agree that something needs to be done, because you’re planning on doing something.
If you guys can fix up her place and help get her back on her feet, I think that’s great. But you better make sure you make it a long term thing, or we will be right back here next year having the same conversation. Looks like it might just end up being up to you guys, her friends, to decide if she gets her horses back. And THAT is a huge responsibility. Fix up her place, bring it up to spec, and likely she can get them returned. Then it’s on you all to keep it up or ensure she does. I wish you good luck with that.
SCFarm
LLDM, it’s not just MY local law enforcement. If you have any knowledge of how different law enforcement is for the poor and powerless everywhere, you’d know I’m not just blowing smoke.
Would point out that there is nothing in the law as written that prohibits canvas structures.
PP seems to have been treated as poor and powerless.
vineyridge,
I know exactly what you are referring to in terms of how the poor and powerless are treated, though there are some areas (locations) that are exceptions to that rule.
WOW!
I was gone for 5 days and this trainwreck is still chugging, with little more substance than in the beginning, too…:eek:
I have always liked PP and have nothing against. That said, may I just say one thing. I know someone like PP, best intentions, too many irons in the fire, alone, not able to keep their farm and fences up to date, person actually had the misfortune of a horse get killed when it got out, taking trips leaving other people to care for many horses, kind person, never able to turn their back on someone in need, needs outweigh resources, and so on. I think PP has the best intentions but not enough reserve to keep the ship afloat. The person I know is constantly having work days and fund raises, after a while, totally depending on help from other people. I wish PP the best and hope this shows her that her game plan is not working. I hope that she takes the help that the people on this forum have graciously offered and reorganizes, even if it means downsizing. I don’t thin that any person on this forum has not had to downsize and reevaluate due to changed cirmcumstances. I honestly hope that this shows her a better way to fend off the situations that occur due to having too much than is manageable. I have read almost all this thread and I wish her the best and want to say thank you for those of you that have and will help.
