Yeah, baby!

My first fan mail!

RTR ~ I'm going to repost this comment as a blog entry so I can answer your questions as best I can ... first, you claim I've said things I cannot clearly recall saying, if you can clear up some of that for me, it'd be great. You also ask questions that I cannot answer, such as asking for "direct hard concrete proof" ... of something that would be next to impossible to prove or disprove (if you doubt what happened, be sure to provide your proof that it didn't).

RivertrailRider said...

regaurdless it is shame this happened....

I can't go by hear say, from either side... very wise decision. Please consult the trial transcripts ... and read both sides, to be sure ...

This is my comment JMO on this subject I have questions....
All i see is your comments on news articles,not comment or interviews with the JACA.. I have yet to be interviewed by Jackson County Animal Control, although I'm sure I'm on their radar by now. I've dared to condemn their actions, and others who have done the same have been targeted, including several far from the county line.

Also do you have direct hard concrete proof , that the dead horse died of colic? Do you have a vet's death ceritificate stating this is so? OR are you going by the owners words? I do not doubt the testimony that the horse died of colic. If you are insinuating that it didn't, please provide documentation to the contrary. Apparently the manner of death was not suspect, as I have yet to see evidence of a necropsy on the dead horse.
As i recall they were not there a the time, the police were looking for them. as i recall from what i read they hired someone to care and feed the horses for them....or am I wrong.?If so What happen to that person? Thinking back to the transcripts, there was someone who helped during the time that Matt had a broken leg. This wasn't within the few months leading to the seizure.
Point You say the owners had the receipts ,ect, to prove they fed the horses, ect.Well So did the JACA
in court according to their bill,in order to have a bill to present to the judge they needed the receipts as well...
hmmmm it could have went both ways now couldn't it.. What is the question here?
Have you actually seen these horses personally beforehand, before the were sized when exactly a year before , a few months or just before they siezed ? No. Have seen you seen these horses personally after they weres siezed.have you solid verificiation from the other vets, stating their condition before they were siezed,during investigation , Did you actually go to the places where these hroses were at , take your vet , other vets to get an accurate acount of these horse's health while in the care of The JACA? No. Have you questioned the state vets that JACA had ..... Remember, The JACA only went on reports, only did their job, sieze the horses on reports their investigation on what they found.. which iswhat any AC should do, in many cases they don't... You claim that JCAC only went on reports ... this is not true. They shopped around to find a vet that would report what they wanted him to. Please read the vets' testimony in the transcripts ... both sides.
For instance there is one hrose in our area that is real thin see his ribs,backboens sticing up near a skeleton hardly any apsture, jsut ina lot, no sign of feed/hay around. yes they were investigated, but the AC wouldn't do anything about it , as long as they had food water....on the premise.. That is the sad norm. That is why people are shocked at the seizure move. According to the law, owners are to be given 30 days to comply with warnings. I believe that JCAC broke the law, and found a judge that would enable them to do so.
So My question if they seen food/water o n the proeprty ,then why were the horses siezed? That's a GREAT question. Why were 65 healthy horses seized, JCAC? We know there was hay and water available, or there would not have been 65 healthy horses. We can see the hay and water in JCAC's own photos.
Was it bcause of the dead horse laying there ,not taken care of right away presumbly that died of colic/ probably and probably there were thin horses as well.
Again teh owners weren't availible the time ..... That is only according to the sensationalized media reports, not the facts in the trial transcripts. The men were not on the run at any time.

Now it is up to the legal system , they go by hard facts, certianly must have been from the JACA other witnesses...Oh yeah that is right they lied under oath according to you ..hm maybe they should punshished for lying under oath , do you have the proof that they did , if so then take them to court. Where did I say someone lied under oath? Show me, please. I am reporting that witnesses allegedly lied under oath, because that is the understanding that I have of this case. Anyone with a solid background of horse care and farm management can see huge problems with some of the "expert" testimony. Just give it shot.
Why didn't the owner's lawyers appeal the rulings in the first place , put a temporary halt on sending the horses to auction? Appeals were filed. There is a lien on the horses. In Onsted at Tom Moore's, JCAC announced that there was NOT a lien on the horses, even after the auctioneer was served with the papers right there in public in front of everyone. Why?
This isn't just black and white there are a lot of grey areas in between as well.
Also that picture of that colt..
First if he was a walking skeleton when he was siezed, it is possible the wieght just started coming on him, i do not see a walking skelton as you claim (no, I didn't ... I think I called him Slim) ,yes he is ribbie, , he is also a young colt , they go through growth spurts, they do go through a ganglystage are a bit ribby, Our 11/2 yr old filly is right now a bit ribby,no not like this colt your showing....she is going through a growth spurt .Oh that is right when a horse is ribbie ,it isn't be fed according to you... That is not what I said. I've had ribby horses. Three weeks of care will cover ribs on a horse. I can show you before and after pictures. Three weeks. JCAC had these horses for six months. They failed to properly rid them of intestinal worms. An ongoing battle, to be sure, but horses were bought from the first auction with heavy infestations. They failed to provide adequate hoof care.
Look again his back upper ribs hips have does have flesh on them ,his bones are not sticking out in those areas.. ,It would seem if he wasn't being fed by that group taht took him , since he was siezed, he certainly would be a walking skelton, period or dead by now. I didn't say he wasn't being fed, only that it was not adequate to support his healthy growth and also a legion of parasites. Get rid of the parasites and you'll see a much healthier horse almost immediately. also his hooves are long ,according to you the hooves weren't trimmed, for several months they should be in a lot worse shape than what they are...
yes they do need a trim, but they aren't not that bad ,i've seen worse from not beign trimmed for two months ,depends on how fast their hooves grow.. , if they haven't been trimmed in many months as you stated ,those hooves would be starting to curl up, be a lot longer than they are...worming yes probably does, .but it may take more than one worming, perhaps they did worm him once ,thought that was enough, what they were probably doing was only getting them ready so they could be sold not any different than horse trader doing the same thing.. I could show you hooves that haven't been trimmed in a year that look better, or hooves that have been trimmed 4 weeks ago that look worse. Yes, hooves grow at different speeds depending on nutrition, environment, etc. and this is individual to each horse. The point is that the hooves on the young horses sold at Napoleon were overdue for care no matter when they were last done.

the point is you don't have any real hard conccrete proof from either you id not wor kat thsoe rescue palces in eprson tosee waht was actually going on.. All your doing is expressing your opinion on news articles, what was said in court, the owner's word..... other wise hearsay... That is exactly what I'm doing. Expressing my opinion, based on the facts that I am aware of, testimony, and individuals that I trust that have seen things firsthand. I can't be everywhere at once, or access the past to see the horses before seizure. I can see extreme ignorance in the media, such as when the paper says (contrary to vet testimony) that 69 horses were starving to death, and respond to that.
If you have the hard concrete proof that JACA / horse rescue places didn't feed these horses/ take care of them under their care ,then take them to court. The courtroom is not my venue. I'd like to help keep other people (such as horse rescue groups who may from time to time have a very thin horse on their property) from losing everything they have due to horse-ignorant judges and power-crazy government officials. That's why I'm here. Not to litigate, to educate.

October 11, 2007 10:09 AM