Sad situations that are going to be happening too much...

[LLDM]

@vineyridge;5160857

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.

No, nothing in the law as it is written prohibits canvas structures. It does, however, seem to prohibit structures that have collapsed as counting as 3 sided water proof structures. And hers must have collapsed completely such that they were not repairable. Hence, the reason they have not been repaired or rebuilt? So even PP doesn’t seem to think they worked out really well.

Being poor and powerless doesn’t exclude someone from having to comply with the law. And if she is too poor to provide the minimum of adequate shelter for her horses, then she will get the attention of the AC. And then she will have to explain to a judge were she was when AC got called yet again to come out and check on her horses.

She might want to think twice about any advice to play the “poor card” in front of a judge who has just found out she spent two weeks at the WEG.

Really, I think I am showing more respect to PP than you are. I am expecting that she has made considered, adult choices and that she will deal with the consequences of those choices. You are the one making her out to be some sort of hapless victim. Heck, she used to BE law enforcement, and still is in a way, right?

SCFarm

[BLBGP]

@AppJumpr08;5160449

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.

What I don’t understand is if she knew she was in over her head and just didn’t want to ask for help, why was she breeding? Perhaps I’m missing something that people who are in touch with her know. I completely understand pride, but even proud people know when they should or shouldn’t be taking on a new and expensive foal.

Perhaps the answer is that she has the complete ability to take on a new foal and it just isn’t being talked about here. If that is true, I apologize for even bringing it up.

Hopefully the facts will come out or, if not, things will end well for both PP and the horses, whatever that may be.

[vineyridge]

Given the circumstances of the seizure, I would consider her a victim. And I’m not saying she IS poor and powerless, just that she is being treated by the system as if she were.

[AnotherRound]

@vineyridge;5160594

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”.

WTF??

I don’t think you have much of a clue of what its like to live in the northeast.

This is the most uninformed, made up idea of whatever goes through your brain and how it might be reconfigured to apply to a part of the country you apparently don’t understand I’ve ever seen.

[Alagirl]

@AnotherRound;5161116

WTF??

I don’t think you have much of a clue of what its like to live in the northeast.

This is the most uninformed, made up idea of whatever goes through your brain and how it might be reconfigured to apply to a part of the country you apparently don’t understand I’ve ever seen.

I think her post was an exercise in truth finding.

There is the law. the intention of the law, the wording of the law and the way it plays out.

There is the structure, it’s intended purpose, expected (or assumed) life span, etc.

And of course the over all experience across the board with the ‘powers’ that don’t agree with a lot of things (in this case viney mentioned HSUS, which does not like us having fun with horses)

Actual living experience in the North East is not required for this particular exercise, thus attacking her for not being there is not crucial to the matter.

[LLDM]

@vineyridge;5161081

Given the circumstances of the seizure, I would consider her a victim. And I’m not saying she IS poor and powerless, just that she is being treated by the system as if she were.

Again, what was AC supposed to do when they got a report of loose horses and found no one around and no water? They are not allowed to “do things” on people’s private property. They can seize or not seize - that’s all.

(I can’t even IMAGINE how much people would HOWL if AC started showing up and feeding and watering people’s animals when they weren’t home! OMGiH - Invasion of Privacy!!!)

PP was not treated like anything in this case. She was not there to be treated well or poorly. She was not there - of her own volition. Not because of an emergency, or funds or lack there of. She was not there to prevent the seizure because she had found something else to do. For several (sorry, TWO) weeks.

PP’s horses were treated like they were in trouble. And, considering the circumstances, they were in trouble, since they were getting loose and no one was around to fix the fences. The whole water issue was just another layer. The horses were both a hazard to others (drivers on the road) and in danger themselves (from drivers on the road or a million other things that happen to loose horses).

Please explain to me what you think should have happened here?

SCFarm

[goeslikestink]

[QUOTE=Mozart;5159726]
Man, I swore to myself I would not post on this thread again but here I go…

1. Several people have mentioned that
   a. We should back off and be respectful to PP
   b. Those neighbours are pretty quick to get on TV.

Well, seems once again Warhol was right. Everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame. Unfortunately, in PP’s case, she made her life very public. Yes, this is a horse BB but when my horse friends and I know ALL about her woes she could be called Famous. Or maybe Infamous, after all of this. Regardless, once you have put yourself out there, you can’t take it back when things go sideways.

Which leads me to my second point.
2) Where were her friends? Not cyber friends or people who say “yes, get that saddle, take on those kittens, breed that filly”. I mean REAL friends, friends who will show up and help you look after your horses, bring a weedwhacker, help you fix your fences. Friends that are solid enough to say “Jaime…we are worried about you. Can we talk about what is going on here?”

I hope that if, one day, the cheese slips off my cracker a little and I start being unrealistic about my limitations, my real friends will sit me down and kindly perform an intervention.

An internet community can be a fun diversion but it is no substitute for REAL friends.[/QUOTE]

if one had difficulties as she true does then a true freind would say no to that you have implied due to her circumstances
why make things worse when you cant afford what you have and if a ture freind would say get the kitty done, dont breed and reduce your herd to something you can comfortably afford or keep one or two for riding purposes that way horses would have plenty of nosh and she would have money to support herself and them perhaps as in regarding to the eletric etc

[goeslikestink]

[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]

and you think thats going to help pp- wrong

deary deary - if one is saying in one breath shes hoarder then thats just going to esculate problems giving her more room to continue breeding and being over stocked and her budget is lmited as it is

if one is a true freind- then dont speand out any money but get your hands dirty and clean the yard up, often whats outside dirt is inside dirt

so start in her home - get her help and assistnece from wherever you get it
as in help of being warm as if ill as some claim then the 1st is to get water on and warm for her not for the hroses

shes human being - horses are a luxury not a nessicity ,

as shes a human- then house cleaned, warm water and food
get her the help and assitence she required to live

for exsample as i said before --------- a boiler is an essential living item
get her help of the state it might be she cant look after herself as some are implying with this so called illness shes surpose to have so needs assistence

if it as bad as one claims she shouldnt have horses as this requires full time care from an able bodied person as they are our responsiblity and your dependants as they depenad on you to meet there needs
which isnt happening ----- be all and end all proven via photos
and those i shall add taken from her web pages to now some of those horses are the same and will add they are not up to weight as in the photos on her web pages so depending on when she got them till now they are underweight

look closer and you will see, so she strugglling already and its not even winter yet

did the ac do the right thing yes they did, 1— was a problem of the horses being left to fend for themselves regardless of circumstances
2- the horses could have cause a major pile up on road accident not only risking there lives but the lives of other human beings wether it be one or many thats ahuge no no when you have horses your boundary fence must be sufficent to contain the horses or live stock within its boundaries

the a bove is a major issue with human rights

3- the facilities one has to offer, isnt enough for the amount of horses she has
and not surficient nor is it a safe enviroment for them to be in

thats a major issue with animals rights

you can not play god and think every think going to be ok when you leave your animals to fend for them selves

other people will get hurt if not the aniamls themselves and pp is so lucky she didnt get done for a major road pile up

she needs to address her home and the eviroment and one surely shouldnt pay for a new barn so that she can get her horses back or more of them thinking she has new faclities to do so
you will feeding a fire witht fuel to make it bigger and worse

what one should be doing if she get the horses back is to reduce her herd

she hasnt got proper facilties to breed and shouldnt be doing so,
she needs to look to reduce her costs not flipping well increase the costs
by giving her the means to do so
as you may think she wont but she will given the opportunity of catching that bus thats says

what if i do xyz iw ill make xyz and then my problesm will be solved unfortunately in the real world that dont happen

one would think if she had any brians cells left and in the real world she would realise she has brought this on herself and no excuses can
say - oh i didnt know that would happen - urm yeah mate it does
its life you do something worng you get cuaght - simple

[Spoilsport]

To Thomas’ list of “bads” as seen through COTH-ers’ eyes we can now add:

cops are crooked

prosecutors are crooked

judges are no better

a statute that says you must provide shelter is “void for vagueness” and actually may mean that you don’t need to provide shelter at all

this woman who left her horses alone to go the WEG is “poor and powerless” and a victim of the system

she has probably been tortured by now

Maybe the ACLU will take up her cause because they have nothing more important to do :rolleyes:

[BaroquePony]

cops are crooked

prosecutors are crooked

judges are no better

I was born in Chicago …

The best way to not have to find out some of these things is to not put yourself in a position to have to deal with the authorities :yes: if at all possible.

[Angela_Freda]

[QUOTE=LLDM;5161147]
Again, what was AC supposed to do when they got a report of loose horses and found no one around and no water? They are not allowed to “do things” on people’s private property. They can seize or not seize - that’s all… She was not there to be treated well or poorly…

Please explain to me what you think should have happened here?

SCFarm[/QUOTE]

And what efforts did they take to find her or get hold of her? The neighbors knew she left the state. That’s an interesting piece of information. How did they know that, by following her to the state line? Or because she mentioned it or her trip or they heard of it through the grapevine most small towns have rampantly growing in them? And if the neighbors knew she was away, and perhaps where and why, seems to me some actual investigating might have gone a long way to contacting her. Yes I know, asking them to spend time investigating is so much more effort than rounding up and trailering those horses and then caring for them for weeks or months while this plays out.

If the horses were seized because they were loose, which it appears you are assuming, well… they weren’t. The neighbors, at the advice of AC, contained them. Ie, problem solved, so why seize? Leave them where they are, and keep trying to contact her to apprise her of the problem, and work out a solution to tide over until she gets back. Maybe, just maybe had they contacted her they would have learned of the sitter and could have found local help with the situation? Heck, maybe wait around for the sitter to show up and figure out how to best contain the animals until PP returned.

All of that sure would have saved the town/county/state the cost of housing and caring for animals that otherwise [based on the limited evidence of video/pics we have here] did not need intervention.

If they seized them because there was no food or water… well explain to me how that is evidence of anything in light of the actual condition of the horses, save the bay who may be thin for a myriad of reasons we, nor AC for that matter, are aware of. I honestly don’t care if you feed your horse every other day or 50 times a day as long as it suits his needs and he is otherwise healthy. There is no one way to care for all horses.

A situation like this happened in my area this summer. Almost. AC wanted to take a mans horses, citing they were not being fed/watered. A direct quote to me from the AC dude: ‘I was there this morning and their feed buckets were empty’. Yeah I was there right when AC left. That was about 11 a.m. AC arrived at about 10a.m. If you fed my horse at anytime before 9:30, he too would have no food in his bucket at 10. In fact on several occasion I saw him feed those horses, saw ample stored food, and full, clean water buckets. He bedded them on hay. The ONLY time I saw an empty tub was one the horses had overturned, and when he filled it they sipped a little and walked away. Instead of guzzling. This indicated to me that they were not left for long without water. Simple observation can go so, so far.

I have no idea what the motive there was, other than a local rescue director whose husband is buds with some NH trainer who was looking for young prospect to have on his TV show… and interestingly enough the yearlings they wanted to seize were the horses that ‘rescue’ was most interested in ‘helping’. Further investigation of that org. actually raises the hairs on the back of my neck.

I can also regale you with stories in which AC has stepped up and helped in horrendous situations. I am not painting them all as bad, or as always bad. But they are human, oftentimes not horse savvy humans. And sometimes they can leave you scratching your head.
Like in this case.

[AppJumpr08]

There are a lot of assumptions on this thread. Just because she CHOSE to go off the grid doesn’t mean she’s living with no running water or heat. Just because she CHOSE to make a pile of trash and scrap metal in a spot that is close to the driveway so it can be hauled away more easily doesn’t mean she is living in poverty and her house is stacked to the ceiling with trash and dirt.

No actual media source has reported that the horses got out while she was in KY. That is, so far, simply an internet rumor.
Notice the neighbors who made it on TV say in one breath that they were trying to push hay to the horses, and then say in the next that they are so skinny NOW that you can see their bones. Then the new clips show horses in good weight being loaded onto the trailer.

Assumptions can only get you so far folks, and there are many more parts to the story that are unavailable to the general public at the moment due to pending court cases. But just because they aren’t public knowledge doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

No one said everything PP has chosen to do recently is exactly the choices they would’ve made. No one has said that there isn’t work that needs to be done and some changes that need to be made before the horses come home. And no one is saying that just building some new fencing and slapping up a shed is the be all end all answer either, but it’s something that a few of us are willing to do to help someone out in a tough spot. And I for one would’ve been willing to do that if the horses hadn’t been seized. Everyone needs an extra hand every now and then, and just because they do, doesn’t mean they are a horrible person who isn’t worth helping. Especially if they aren’t used to asking for help.

But I’m not going to tell an adult woman who I strongly believe is not a hoarder that she has to change everything about her horse keeping practices, especially based on what I’ve read on the internet. I’m well aware that I don’t know the whole story either, but I have the advantage of being close enough to PP to meet her in person, have a conversation, actually walk around her property, and make decisions based on what I’ve seen and heard with my own eyes and ears, and not what is or is not posted or reported on the internet. And I fully intend to do that.

This case has been a huge wake up call to me - that things as reported by the media aren’t always as they appear at first glance. There is so much more to the story than has been reported, and at some point I would assume it will be public information.

Until then, I really do think that the armchair quarterbacks who aren’t able to see for their own eyes what things are in real life should perhaps relax on the judgements that are so easy to make from behind a screen and keyboard.

And yes I suppose I could be wrong about the whole thing. At which point I’ll admit I was wrong, and have another piece of knowledge to live my life by. But until that happens, I’m choosing to give PP the benefit of the doubt.

[Coanteen]

@Angela Freda;5161388

If the horses were seized because they were loose, which it appears you are assuming, well… they weren’t. The neighbors, at the advice of AC, contained them. Ie, problem solved, so why seize? Leave them where they are, and keep trying to contact her to work out a solution for the fencing. Heck, maybe wait around for the sitter to show up and figure out how to best contain the animals until PP returned.

Yes, they were contained, but in a smallish round pen with no visible hay, where the neighbors dumped them after they got out. If PP had left round bales, she must’ve left them in a pasture out of which the horses escaped before being contained in the round pen by the neighbors - given prior escape issues on top of the most recent escape AC could hardly put them back into the pasture, right?

Or are you suggesting by “figure out how to best contain the animals until PP returned” that the neighbors and/or AC should at that point have fixed her fences for her so the horses could go back in with the hay but not escape? Are they even allowed to do that, go on someone’s property and start building stuff?
Or maybe the neighbors should’ve started a chore schedule of feeding and cleaning in the round pen until PP got back? And should one of those non-horsey neighbors get hurt, who assumes liability?

Did they know there was a sitter? If the horses were in a pasture with round bales and water troughs (pre-escape), non-horsey people could easily assume there was no sitter, or maybe there was someone who came once a week to make sure everything was fine. Before I got into horses I thought ones living out in pasture didn’t need daily looking-after.

[AppJumpr08]

I also want to pose a question to the masses.

If PP’s horses were a known issue to the ACO, and had gotten out in the past, and he’d had to deal with them, and there was an open investigation that had been going on for a year, how is it that the ACO didn’t have a single phone number to reach her at?

[WaningMoon]

[QUOTE=JoZ;5157270]
Well I for one have trouble believing that the place was without electricity, though I realize that was only a small aside in your post. Maybe I am too naive. Not having electricity SERVICE could so easily be translated into not having electricity – but a generator running on propane could supply electricity, couldn’t it?

To answer your question though – I think it is likely that no entity involved here, including PP, is totally right or wrong. Under current guidelines, rules, etc. AND with the way everything else in this sad situation aligned, there might NOT have been anything AC could’ve done differently.[/QUOTE]

Have said no one word so far, as I know how that can go. But yes, you are correct about the electric. AND the thing that made me say anything is this. It is common in many parts for water to be gravity fed. My last three homes have had gravity fed water. Depending on the lay of the land of course. NO electric of any kind needed.

No matter the why and hows of this situation, I feel for PP.

[Angela_Freda]

[QUOTE=Coanteen;5161410]
Yes, they were contained, but in a smallish round pen with no visible hay, where the neighbors dumped them after they got out. If PP had left round bales, she must’ve left them in a pasture out of which the horses escaped before being contained in the round pen by the neighbors - given prior escape issues on top of the most recent escape AC could hardly put them back into the pasture, right?

Or are you suggesting by “figure out how to best contain the animals until PP returned” that the neighbors and/or AC should at that point have fixed her fences for her so the horses could go back in with the hay but not escape? Are they even allowed to do that, go on someone’s property and start building stuff?
Or maybe the neighbors should’ve started a chore schedule of feeding and cleaning in the round pen until PP got back? And should one of those non-horsey neighbors get hurt, who assumes liability?

Did they know there was a sitter? If the horses were in a pasture with round bales and water troughs (pre-escape), non-horsey people could easily assume there was no sitter, or maybe there was someone who came once a week to make sure everything was fine. Before I got into horses I thought ones living out in pasture didn’t need daily looking-after.[/QUOTE]

I am suggesting only that they should have tried a little harder than leaving a note on her gate, to contact her. Had they done so them building anything or repairing anything would not have been necessary. They would have learned of the sitter, could have contacted sitter and sitter, charged with the care of these animals in PPs absence, could have done the building/repairing. That is what I am suggesting.
Investigate. Instead of assume.
Perhaps they did and that incredible reporting simply left out that one detail. As someone pointed out she could have been dead in a ditch, in a hospital, or otherwise indisposed for all they knew.

Are you really suggesting that it is A-ok for AC to come to your property and take your animals without contacting you, assuming abandonment because the neighbors say you left the state? What if one of those horses has choke, a cat or dog was diabetic, or there were other medical issues they need to know before they take them into their care? Even just to be aware of the needs of the individual animals, it makes sense they would try to reach her.

As noted above by Appjumper, it is possible that the AC had or should have had contact info for PP and should have either used that or found it and tried to contact her.
Again, far cheaper to make a few phone calls and/or drive a few places [feed store, her former place of employment as a dispatcher [hello!], Vet, etc] to see if you could locate her, than to wrangle all those horses and haul them away and care for them for months over less than stellar fencing.
I mean if it was known she had ‘left the state’, it’s safe to also assume these people knew her current/past place of employment.

Had they contacted her or otherwise looked into it they may have learned she had a sitter, either from PP or others who knew she was out of state.

AC working off assumptions as you suggest they may have, particularly when they are not horsey, is a very sobering thought we should all think long and hard about before we give it the thumbs up. Even in theory.

[Coanteen]

[QUOTE=Angela Freda;5161449]
I am suggesting only that they should have tried a little harder than leaving a note on her gate, to contact her. Perhaps they did and that incredible reporting simply left out that one detail. As someone pointed out she could have been dead in a ditch, in a hospital, or otherwise indisposed for all they knew.

Are you really suggesting that it is A-ok for AC to come to your property and take your animals without contacting you, assuming abandonment because the neighbors say you left the state? What if one of those horses has choke, a cat or dog was diabetic, or there were other medical issues they need to know before they take them into their care? Even just to be aware of the needs of the individual animals, it makes sense they would try to reach her.

As noted above by Appjumper, it is possible that the AC had or should have had contact info for PP and should have either used that or found it and tried to contact her.
Again, far cheaper to make a few phone calls and/or drive a few places [feed store, her former place of employment as a dispatcher [hello!], Vet, etc] to see if you could locate her, than to wrangle all those horses and haul them away and care for them for months over less than stellar fencing.

Had they contacted her or otherwise looked into it they may have learned she had a sitter, either from PP or others who [i]knew she was out of state[i].

AC working off assumptions as you suggest they may have, particularly when they are not horsey, is a very sobering thought we should all think long and hard about before we give it the thumbs up. Even in theory.[/QUOTE]

Everyone’s working off assumptions, even the one person who’s in contact with PP. I’m saying that many of those who point out that the “anti-PP” people are making assumptions about PP are making their own assumptions, about AC, the cops, the neighbors, the vet, conspiracies, etc. Occasionally to a downright comical degree, like the person who suggested that maybe the neighbors themselves were the pet sitters and then sneakily turned around and claimed PP abandoned the horses.

Here’s more assumptions: maybe AC had PP’s home number (if she has one, another assumption), but not a cell. Maybe the cell battery died. Maybe by some regulation the note on the door is how they are supposed to officially communicate with potential seizure cases. Maybe it is not AC’s role or problem to investigate the possibility that PP may be lying dead in a ditch somewhere within the continental US.

Why is it not ok to make negative assumptions about PP, but perfectly ok to cast aspersions on anyone involved with the seizure?

[WaningMoon]

[QUOTE=quietann;5159004]
I’m assuming a roof is implied…

Tarps get battered to bits in a windy New England winter. (I see you’re from Mississippi!)[/QUOTE]

Think that may depend on how well the tarps are put up. My hay storage shed is a frame covered with tarps. They are on their third winter this yr.

[vineyridge]

Good question about the phones. Unless she had no cell phone, there are always ways to contact people through them. Mine has voicemail and text capabilities.

Even if they didn’t have cell number, her employer most likely did.

The problem to me is that the people who want horses treated as pets don’t understand that there are very different standards of acceptable livestock keeping depending on the area of the country. I will admit to be far more laissez faire about animals because of my background. I see nothing wrong with leaving pasture kept animals for days at a time if they are provided with food and water and have someone check for injury on a daily basis. But then that’s generally how livestock keeping is done here. In other places, horses are turned out to pasture for months at a time without regular checking.

Do we know that it was the neighbors who confined the horses in the round pen with no food and water, presumably pending the arrival of Animal Control?

I will admit that having horses running free with no one to put them back and repair fences would be grounds for some kind of intervention. But that is far from grounds for animal cruelty charges.

To me the ideal solution to this would be for the horses to remain under state control until the fences were repaired and shelter of an acceptable form provided. Once that’s done, horses would be returned, all charges dropped, and the State can get back to trying to deal with starving animals.

[Angela_Freda]

[QUOTE=Coanteen;5161465]
Everyone’s working off assumptions, even the one person who’s in contact with PP. I’m saying that many of those who point out that the “anti-PP” people are making assumptions about PP are making their own assumptions, about AC, the cops, the neighbors, the vet, conspiracies, etc. Occasionally to a downright comical degree, like the person who suggested that maybe the neighbors themselves were the pet sitters and then sneakily turned around and claimed PP abandoned the horses.

Here’s more assumptions: maybe AC had PP’s home number (if she has one, another assumption), but not a cell. Maybe the cell battery died. Maybe by some regulation the note on the door is how they are supposed to officially communicate with potential seizure cases. Maybe it is not AC’s role or problem to investigate the possibility that PP may be lying dead in a ditch somewhere within the continental US.

Why is it not ok to make negative assumptions about PP, but perfectly ok to cast aspersions on anyone involved with the seizure?[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry, I am not saying what I bolded above, just playing devils advocate and giving what I see as the holes in the assumptions we’ve all made. And I’m not as much assuming as seeing things that confuse me about the whole mess, and make me question where AC went from point A to point Z without touching on points in between.

Pared down and generalized, this is a scary situation that I am anxiously waiting to see the outcome of, and learn how this all truly played out. The questions you ask, about the measures AC does/does not have to take to contact you before taking your animals, is one I certainly want to find out about.

And just so you get another chuckle, I too wondered if in fact that ‘sitter’ was the neighbor. I mean, if they consider her a recluse and she never comes to the door when they knock, it makes it equally curious how they would know she left the state. Unless PP’s not really that reclusive but that comment played better on TV, or they were the pet sitter, or saw the pet sitter [and even then they would not know where PP was requiring a sitter, so…].

I can tell you a long drawn out story about how I did some research to find a manager with whom I was supposed to have an interview, but whose message about when/where and even his last name was incomprehensible. I am not law enforcement, and that was before I had a computer of my own or the internet to use… but I still found him. Because I was motivated to. That is why it is so hard for me to understand their inability to somehow get hold of PP.