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

[LLDM]

@prairiewind2;5161623

This boggles my mind. It is incomprehensible to me. Horses live outside, all over the world. They have for millions of years. Have we altered the species so much that it has become a pitiful, hothouse creature that must have shelter to survive and flourish? I think not.

Um, because horses left to themselves in the wild don’t choose to live in Maine? Wild horses move to where they can find adequate food, water and shelter?

Seriously, why do you even have a barn if it’s so bloody cruel?

You must know you are being ridiculous. No available shelter in a very limited area is vastly different from wild horses fending for themselves. When you remove a horse from its natural environment, then it is on you to provide what the horse can no long provide through its own devices. But you know that.

elysian - sorry but this is the most twisted logic I’ve ever run across. Your entire post has absolutely nothing to do the case at hand. It is so far from germane, you couldn’t hit it with an ICBM from here. Sorry for your, um, er, issues.

[Angela_Freda]

One other thought and then I must get back to my sewing project…

Lets say they took her horses for insufficient fencing [as the law on their books about shelter is not in effect now, it being only Oct.- whether we agree or not on whether they should have shelter 24/7/365 the law says shelter is only required Nov through____]

Did they tell her ‘you need better fencing’, and she upped the amps on the tape? Did they tell her to add a 2nd strand or even more? And she didn’t?
Or did she do nothing? We do not know.
Thing is, you don’t know they’re going to get out ever/again, until they actually do.
That sounds like a lame thing to say, but really… what if she built a 5 board 6’ high fence and they had been in there all year… but then rails fell and they escaped…? If she HAD built a 5 board 6’ high fence, and they had gotten out would AC still have seized them?

[obviously if she made no suggested changes that’s different]

ETA another thing that concerns me, how does the Maine SPCA get rid of animals they’ve taken in?
http://www.lakecountyfl.gov/departments/conservation_and_compliance/animal_services/index.aspx

This place in FL is auctioning them off… click the link, then the ‘other’ tab.
So anyone with a Visa and the winning bid then gets the animals…?

[LLDM]

@regret;5161648

I am the same way. I use just my back door. My pet sitters are told to use the back door.

The notice is clearly posted on the front gate which had to be opened to get in from the road - as evidenced by the pictures published. It was bright yellow on a dark tube steel gate.

SCFarm

[prairiewind2]

[QUOTE=Lieslot;5161644]
Well, it boggles my mind the logic you are applying in comparing apples & pears.
Misty Blue couldn’t have summed it up any better, so I copy & paste her post once more, I hope she doesn’t mind.[/QUOTE]

You both are changing the playing field in order to make your point. I said nothing about shoes, I said nothing about making the horses live ferally off the land without adequate feed. ???

All I said was that horses can live outside. They don’t need a waterproof roof over their heads, and it isn’t “cruel” to have them live that way. You can’t get a much rougher climate than I live in - and this is the part of the world where horses developed, and where they live wild now. That’s not to say I advocate throwing your average Thoroughbred out on the range to survive a winter - and in fact, I didn’t say that.

With adequate feed, most horses do not need a waterproof roof over their heads. With adequate feed, even my Thoroughbred does very nicely here without shelter - of his own choice. He may be a hotblood, but he is not a hothouse flower.

Liz

[Alagirl]

it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad, a study on what folks are hung up in general (especially in a flow of half truth, lies and innuendo, few known facts).

If you believe everything PP has posted, you should believe that she is a victim of over zealous neighbors and AC. While true, it rarely ever happens, it is not completely unheard of that people are bullied buy the community and officials.
Remember, just because you are not paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you.

If you don’t believe anything she ever wrote, you should not believe she spend copious amounts on designer clothes, when she might have just found the need to replace 20 year old rags with something presentable. After all even walmart’s junk was designed by somebody, and depending on your location, the Salvation Army and Goodwill Thrift stores hold enormous treasures, sometime with tags on still.

And because you are not liquid in the monetary department also should not prevent a person from having a getaway to recharge batteries.

Seems we are at the stage again that we assume about PP’s financial status to the point of begrudging her anything pleasurable in life.

Maybe when all is settled she’ll humor us with a copy of her bank statements, W-whatevers and a full tax return, not to mention a full inventory (with pictures) of her wardrobe!

There are a few assumptions of the nasty kind floating around:
No power from the ‘official’ supplier= no power at all
Tall weeds=bad horse keeping (btw, with the year coming to an end, and many other things considered, tall grass is really on the low end of everything that needs to be done, looking nice and being important does not always mesh: Tall weeds to offer shelter for the lesser wildlife like insects, not cleaning everything before the frost and snow comes might offer more protection for the perennial vegetation, and I don’t mean flowers)
Money woes= heck, I dunno, she is on food stamps?! She might not be liquid enough to build a huge barn but able to pay a farm sitter.

[Alagirl]

@LLDM;5161689

The notice is clearly posted on the front gate which had to be opened to get in from the road - as evidenced by the pictures published. It was bright yellow on a dark tube steel gate.

SCFarm

You keep coming back with those ‘obvious’ facts, I really wonder how come you are so sure.

[Go_Fish]

[QUOTE=Angela Freda;5161681]
Thing is, you don’t know they’re going to get out ever/again, until they actually do.
That sounds like a lame thing to say, but really… [/QUOTE]

I could take one look at that fencing and pretty much bet that I was going to have a problem. I’d double my bet if my horses had repeatedly gotten out with the fencing I had.

[prairiewind2]

[QUOTE=LLDM;5161680]
Um, because horses left to themselves in the wild don’t choose to live in Maine? Wild horses move to where they can find adequate food, water and shelter?

Seriously, why do you even have a barn if it’s so bloody cruel?

You must know you are being ridiculous. No available shelter in a very limited area is vastly different from wild horses fending for themselves. When you remove a horse from its natural environment, then it is on you to provide what the horse can no long provide through its own devices. But you know that.

elysian - sorry but this is the most twisted logic I’ve ever run across. Your entire post has absolutely nothing to do the case at hand. It is so far from germane, you couldn’t hit it with an ICBM from here. Sorry for your, um, er, issues.[/QUOTE]

Huh? I do wish folks would actually read what I wrote. Where in the world did I say that the horses were going to fend for themselves and live off the land? Sheesh.

Maybe you are forcing your horses to live in a stall most of the time (which we all know is unnatural but don’t want to consider too closely) and I touched a raw nerve. That would explain the kneejerk replies.

Liz

[LLDM]

@Angela Freda;5161681

One other thought and then I must get back to my sewing project…

Lets say they took her horses for insufficient fencing [as the law on their books about shelter is not in effect now, it being only Oct.- whether we agree or not on whether they should have shelter 24/7/365 the law says shelter is only required Nov through____]

Did they tell her ‘you need better fencing’, and she upped the amps on the tape? Did they tell her to add a 2nd strand or even more? And she didn’t?
Or did she do nothing? We do not know.
Thing is, you don’t know they’re going to get out ever/again, until they actually do.
That sounds like a lame thing to say, but really… what if she built a 5 board 6’ high fence and they had been in there all year… but then rails fell and they escaped…? If she HAD built a 5 board 6’ high fence, and they had gotten out would AC still have seized them?

[obviously if she made no suggested changes that’s different]

Ugh, one more time - It doesn’t matter what they told PP. It only matters that her horses IN FACT kept getting out.

Even if they made suggestions, which they may have done, or even if PP followed the directions does not matter.

The ONLY thing that matters is that PP DID NOT IN FACT keep her horses contained. That is no one’s responsibility but hers. Not AC, not the neighbors, not the sitter.

Yes, if she had built a 6 foot solid fence, but they continued to get out, they would have and should have been seized. Simply because, for whatever reason, she was unable to contain them as required by law.

If what she did do to keep them contained was inadequate then she was in violation. Period.

This was, from all we can gather, a chronic problem. It had potentially horrible consequences for both unsuspecting motorists and the horses themselves. Would some of you be happier if she had dead horses and was being sued for criminal negligence because her horses caused a car accident? Her loose horses were a public hazard.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

SCFarm

[Alagirl]

@LLDM;5161708

Ugh, one more time - It doesn’t matter what they told PP. It only matters that her horses IN FACT kept getting out.

Even if they made suggestions, which they may have done, or even if PP followed the directions does not matter.

The ONLY thing that matters is that PP DID NOT IN FACT keep her horses contained. That is no one’s responsibility but hers. Not AC, not the neighbors, not the sitter.

Yes, if she had built a 6 foot solid fence, but they continued to get out, they would have and should have been seized. Simply because, for whatever reason, she was unable to contain them as required by law.

If what she did do to keep them contained was inadequate then she was in violation. Period.

This was, from all we can gather, a chronic problem. It had potentially horrible consequences for both unsuspecting motorists and the horses themselves. Would some of you be happier if she had dead horses and was being sued for criminal negligence because her horses caused a car accident? Her loose horses were a public hazard.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

SCFarm

Alright, lose horses are a danger, but hmmm, in this case the horses were NOT out.

Plus you don’t know if the horses got out by themselves or if nosy neighbors or passer-bys thought they needed more room and tore down the fence.

And yes, I think it is totally possible for people to call authorities on incidents they caused themselves to get others in trouble. My nephew used to instigate and then tattle on his cousins when he was younger, I still don’t trust that kid!

[Carolinadreamin]

Alagirl, I think the point a few posters made about the tall grasses/weeds was they would ground out the fence should they be in contact with the tape/wire.

[MoonoverMississippi]

Wow, just wow. It is quite interesting to see all the differing opinions, and how many people can take a smidge of information and suddenly turn it into a large amount of “fact”. Many posts here are reminicent of the old telephone game; one poster suggests a possible scenerio, and five posts later it has morphed into a new “fact”.

As far as those commenting that horses have lived for centuries without shelters…wild animals also travel large distances over the seasons, dependent on weather and available forage; horses kept to one small area are unable to, thus they are dependent on responsible owners to provide them with the ability to protect and feed themselves.

I’m also amazed at those who feel that the authorities should be responsible for taking care of her horses until they are able to contact her and only then, dependent on her answers, decide whether to seize the animals; what happened to personal responsibility? SHE is responsible for making sure her animals are contained and unable to escape, SHE is responsible for making SURE her animals are provided with food and water, SHE is responsible for making sure there are ways to contact her should something happen. Not her neighbors, not the authorities.

I have passed up opportunities to travel, to see friends, and attend events that would be “once in a lifetime opportunities” because of such mundane matters as making sure my animals have winter hay, decent fences and shelter, etc. (not to mention non-horse obligations). I would LOVE a new saddle for fit my hard-to-fit horse, but my ancient one will have to do because I have other obligations that have to have priority. My property would never make others sigh in jealously, but is is decent, clean, and, most importantly, safe and protective. That is my responsibility as a horse owner, both to myself and my neighbors.

It is called personal responsibility. PP has the responsibility to provide fencing that ensures her animals do not encroach on others’ property, or, god forbid, get hit by a car, injuring themselves or others (yes, accidents happen, but when it is a common occurance, that is not an accident). She has the responsiblity to make sure that her animals are cared for (food and water), regardless of who does the actual work. She also has a responsibility to follow local ordinances, whether she agrees with them or not. Leaving town, she had the responsibility to make sure she was easily contacted should something happen requiring someone to get ahold of her, not expect, as some here seem to, that others should have to hunt her down.

I find it sad to think that the money spent on new tack and a trip could have easily taken care of the majority of her responsibilities, and none of this would have happened. I hope this is a wake up call for her to realign her priorities.

[MHM]

@vineyridge;5161558

CatsonLap, Angel has a new family. Typically suburban with two small kids. She choose them herself, and they love having her. They have an elderly golden retriever that she adores. She’s living the life she wants to live with them. She’s happy and they are happy. I keep up with her.

Completely off-topic:

I am so glad to hear this! :yes::yes::yes:

[Alagirl]

@Carolinadreamin';5161716

Alagirl, I think the point a few posters made about the tall grasses/weeds was they would ground out the fence should they be in contact with the tape/wire.

If they tried to make that point, they didn’t touch on it. It was about how dumpy it looks.

PP needs to do a clean up, no question, and fix fences, no secret here, but suburbia soccer moms ranting on about what they do believe is facts is not helpful, rather nasty, really.

I am still trying to find the follow up article from the paper…

[LLDM]

@Alagirl;5161701

You keep coming back with those ‘obvious’ facts, I really wonder how come you are so sure.

Um, I did some very basic research before posting. I followed the links to the news stories and looked at the pictures posted. I also googled PPs name (from the stories) and found the charges from last winter and the conviction from July. I also found a reference to her current job.

I figured if I was going to post my opinions, I should try to be reasonably sure of my assertions. The searching I did only took a few minutes. Most was easily verified or came from official (government public record) sites.

SCFarm

[Alagirl]

@LLDM;5161728

Um, I did some very basic research before posting. I followed the links to the news stories and looked at the pictures posted. I also googled PPs name (from the stories) and found the charges from last winter and the conviction from July. I also found a reference to her current job.

I figured if I was going to post my opinions, I should try to be reasonably sure of my assertions. The searching I did only took a few minutes. Most was easily verified or came from official (government public record) sites.

SCFarm

So you based you opinion on a few pictures and yes, I googled the infractions, too, all I found was a conviction in January, the 11th, to be precise, and a fine of 750$.

I consider the news story bias and not representative, and given how I can make my messy lot look good, I don’t put too much stake in the pictures either.

That leaves you knowledge on how the front gate is the only way to her house.

I have seen a similar sensationalistic story from both sides before, I don’t jump to conclusions of guild or innosence on second hand sources…

[maybedog]

I am so happy to hear the good Angel news too !! There was a big uproar on that thread too but look you naysayers, a happy ending!!! I am to the point now that I scroll through and only read the positive posts here. The negatives are just repeated and repeated again. Getting too monotonous for me! I posted on a now closed thead. PP I hope you are able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and hold your head up high. Your posts have pulled me out of some of my worst moods. You have a gift and when all is said and done I hope you will write a book. No doubt it will be a best seller. I wish you the best and hope this will be quickley resolved.

[mbm]

[QUOTE=prairiewind2;5161693]
You both are changing the playing field in order to make your point. I said nothing about shoes, I said nothing about making the horses live ferally off the land without adequate feed. ???

All I said was that horses can live outside. They don’t need a waterproof roof over their heads, and it isn’t “cruel” to have them live that way. You can’t get a much rougher climate than I live in - and this is the part of the world where horses developed, and where they live wild now. That’s not to say I advocate throwing your average Thoroughbred out on the range to survive a winter - and in fact, I didn’t say that.

With adequate feed, most horses do not need a waterproof roof over their heads. With adequate feed, even my Thoroughbred does very nicely here without shelter - of his own choice. He may be a hotblood, but he is not a hothouse flower.

Liz[/QUOTE]

btw: a friend of mine is at the wild horse paddocks where they have the captured overrun of wild horse from the ranges around here.

and do you know she has pics of wild horses that are in the 20’s? several of them! several stallions in their teens - and she is giving info about only some of the hundreds and hundreds that are there.

as for shelters: I belive PP was saying that her shelter lasted many years, and that the beauty of it was that if something happened to it (like eventually did) that any animal in it would not be crushed or injured badly but the collapse.

the storm that eventually did in her shelter destroyed other shelters/barns too. and those that were made of wood/heavier material would of caused a crushing hazard to those inside once the weight of the wet snow got so heavy as it did in that storm.

[MHM]

@Alagirl;5161727

If they tried to make that point, they didn’t touch on it. It was about how dumpy it looks.

It was stated on this thread that the tall grass and weeds were an issue because they would short out the electric fence, but I’m not sifting through ~1300 posts to find and quote those statements.

[Carolinadreamin]

[QUOTE=Alagirl;5161727]
If they tried to make that point, they didn’t touch on it. It was about how dumpy it looks.

PP needs to do a clean up, no question, and fix fences, no secret here, but suburbia soccer moms ranting on about what they do believe is facts is not helpful, rather nasty, really.

I am still trying to find the follow up article from the paper…[/QUOTE]

Talking about assumptions…