According to Porc 411 Brian Travis has been invaded and the bureaucrats have brought 5 trailers to steal his animals. He asks fellow Porcs to come view the spectacle but you will not be able to get close to the house because they have it sealed off. He says the place is crawling with police and bureaucrats and this is clearly a vendetta move.
He said the pigs have a "Veterinarian" there saying that all his animals are sick.
I wonder if Brian will be allowed to bring in his own Vet. for a second opinion? ::)
It's not the horses that are sick.
What an outrageous way to end a great weekend. >:(
The good news is it sounds like they have a video camera on hand.
outrageous. If anybody's going from downtown Manchester, let me know. I'm at the Hilton Garden Inn.
Looks like some people are going, despite the roads blocked off. Hope they have cameras too.
Where does Travis live?
So if they say all the horses are sick... and then a second opinion shows that they aren't all sick.... does that help their case in proving their are being harassed? and hurt the SPCA? Oh wait, they are the same org that you would protest it to in courts.
I do hope they have their own Vet there by now.
Everyone is cold and calm. Brian isn't even allowed into the house. Cops are asking people to leave (me) but we are hanging out till told otherwise. Live and let live are also on site I guess to move the horses. Everyone is lawyered up, and many license plates are covered.
dont you have the right to defend private property with force if need be when someone invades your house, home, and land? Trespassing?
i dont know the history behind this but Brian needs to lawyer up asap and start owning them at their own game!
Address you posted looks good to me. his last message said the road was still blocked but they were gone with many horses, he wasn't sure how many.
The plates being covered on the trucks is pretty fucked up.
And isn't that likely illegal? Oh, right, the pigs can do whatever they want.
Fucking disgusting.
Quote from: leetninja on March 09, 2009, 10:18 AM NHFT
dont you have the right to defend private property with force if need be when someone invades your house, home, and land? Trespassing?
i dont know the history behind this but Brian needs to lawyer up asap and start owning them at their own game!
I'd rather have Samiam on my side than some lawyer, who has sworn an oath of allegiance to the state. Lawyers could be useful in some consulting role, but not as "representation".
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 09, 2009, 10:48 AM NHFT
Quote from: leetninja on March 09, 2009, 10:18 AM NHFT
dont you have the right to defend private property with force if need be when someone invades your house, home, and land? Trespassing?
i dont know the history behind this but Brian needs to lawyer up asap and start owning them at their own game!
I'd rather have Samiam on my side than some lawyer, who has sworn an oath of allegiance to the state. Lawyers could be useful in some consulting role, but not as "representation".
SamIam should start charging (if he doesn't already). His services could be in high demand :) I'd pay for them
I agree with James and Ian. This is fucking disgusting. I'm sorry to speak this way on line but I'm so mad at this kind of crap with the license plates covered and such. These sick bastards want anonymity so they can attempt to not be help responsible. I take this personally and I have yet to meet Brain. If you don't take this attack personally you are just as sick as far as I'm concerned. SamIam sounds likely to be the best defense. These Hitlerish thugs need to be stopped! NOW! Not LATER! NOW!
They sure are making things hard to do peaceably. They sure look like they are trying to provoke war of some kind. Fucking disgusting!
Anyone have names and numbers? I am going to be out of state for a few days but I want o make some calls now. I'm livid!
Number for Candia PD:
603-483-2318
Michael McGillen is the chief.
I called and left a message identifying myself and asking for an explanation as to why he stole Brian's horses this morning. I said we'd be discussing it on my internationally syndicated radio show tonight. We'll see if he calls back.
the thugs consider Brian's land and horses to be their possessions. They will let you use them, if you promise to be a slave. I don't see why the court thug buddies will see it any differently. I hope so.
I wonder what prompted this latest attack.
I bet Brian is going to feel great about that next property tax bill. >:(
Lou Eastman and I are out to the Travis home nearly every sunday, and I can personally attest to the fact those horses are not neglected. And being sick!? Anything that BREATHES gets sick, especially in the winter time. I am full of the most explosive kind of rage right now. These people do not know who they are fucking with. And who wants to bet these spineless assholes are going to charge Brian and Heidi a "storage fee" for impounding their horses?
Spoke with Brian about a half hour ago and he appreciates all the support, but doesn't need anyone coming out to his place right now, because Heidi is so upset. He said he'll call into to FTL tonight with updates.
Steve Sprowl sure is a vindictive shithead, isn't he?
Here's the back story on this for anyone unaware:—
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=15929.0
http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=1741.0
working on prelim report
emailed the chief
----
Hi Chief:
Dave Ridley here from RidleyReport.com in Manchester. Thanks for making your email available...
Did your men block a road today in Candia today to pursue an animal rights investigation? Were uninvolved parties allowed to travel the road? How long was the road blocked and/or restricted? How many horses did you seize? Do you have any sense yet of what the endeavor will cost in tax dollars? Why was the seizure undertaken? Were other law enforcement agencies involved? Did some of the investigative participants hide or remove their license plates as part of the process?
If you're able to respond, I will endeavor to faithfully report your views. However I may be without a phone for the next day or two.
Dave
What's his email?
Here's the info on SPCA bureaucrat Steve Sprowl. Presumably he was behind this along with the chief, but nothing is certain at the moment.
Steven Sprowl, Manager, Field Services Division
Office: 603-772-2921 ext. 111
cell: 603-674-9836
I called his cell, told him I was recording and the line was promptly disconnected.
they like to do their evil deeds in secret
Called back, went to voicemail, left a message asking for "his side of the story" and let him know we'd be discussing it on FTL. I wonder if he'll call back.
Since he doesn't seem to want to talk, perhaps a Manch area videographer would consider ambushing him for an interview when he arrives at the office? Or follow him on his job and video what he does?
Left a polite voice mail for the chief of police identifying myself, giving the reason for my call and giving the call back number. Gotta love the candor of his voicemail. "Hi this is Mike....".
I
Quote from: coffeeseven on March 09, 2009, 02:25 PM NHFT
Left a polite voice mail for the chief of police identifying myself, giving the reason for my call and giving the call back number. Gotta love the candor of his voicemail. "Hi this is Mike....".
It's a small town, not like Manch or Keene.
I'd recommend witnesses write the union leader a news tip quickly
http://www.unionleader.com/email-page/send-story.aspx?articleId=54f821da-e0f9-4391-929d-3537c92fa838&headline=How+to+contact+the+New+Hampshire+Union+Leader
that will make it easier for them to get your side if they're already doing a story.
or you can write them a letter to editor.
And like a small town, the neighbors are nosy and vindictive.
i generally dont do ambush interviews
Ridleyo is posted for those who haven't seen it yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID7FBJKg0YY&feature=channel_page
I'm doing anything and everything suggested on this thread so let the suggestions fly!
ride in on a white horse and save the day
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 09, 2009, 04:56 PM NHFT
ride in on a white horse and save the day
"white horse" is a nasty pun... nasty, but poignant.
normally there are more suggestions than people looking for suggestions but since it's the other way around for lumpy...
maybe calling the place where the horses are and inquiring about their treatment? requesting pictures of the horses taken since they were snatched? and proof of the date when the pictures were taken? letter to editor at the union leader?
all those things are doable from out of state if you live here.
Hey, everyone. Thank you so much for your support. I am humbled and so glad I'm here when this happened.
YouTube has just informed me that the video is up. Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGjrE36PGzg
It's on Cooper's PowerToThePeopleProd channel, which has the other video about this SPCA bureaucrat Steve Sprowl.
Spread the word!
Brian,
That video is shocking. This might as well be an organized mob coming to pick up their loot.
Is that a cop video taping you?
I called the SPCA Number to leave a message for the "cruelty investigator"
:'( >:(
These people sometimes behave in groups of 1-3, but get them in a group like this, or like at the RNC, and they lose that ability. They are now part of the group, and will not be held accountable.
Nobody in that group feels responsible for what happened, as Brian pointed out during his video. I could say more, but it's preaching the the choir. I am disgusted.
Wow. :o
So basically you've been having an ongoing feud with the SPCA guy over some bureaucratic/procedural/code/regulation violations that pertain to your horses? And in your opinion, he arranged this...horse theft to "show you who's boss?" Complicit in the theft were, apparently, police from several towns, a number of local veterinarians, and private citizens (probably associated with the SPCA) who left the scene with 12 healthy horses -- for free!
Did I get that more or less correct? It's a shame The Society in Dedham for Apprehending Horse Theives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_in_Dedham_for_Apprehending_Horse_Thieves) isn't quite what it used to be.
This whole episode is stunning to me. I can only offer you and your family my condolences. I really don't know where one goes from here. A couple of thoughts:
1) Can you find out what Deerfield Veterinary's role was here? Was "Dr. George" a stooge who just showed up and claimed your animals were sick/abused/etc. without cause? Your video mentioned that the same vet had checked out your horses two weeks earlier; do you have records showing that your horses were in good health at that time? If so, perhaps you have enough evidence to demonstrate that the horses were taken without cause. I don't know...just grasping at straws here.
2) It's little consolation, but the farmers who got the loot were probably told a sad (and, I'm assuming, false) story of animal abuse/neglect. More than likely they thought they were doing the right thing by rescuing some horses. It also is possible that they were conspiratorially involved with the SPCA enforcement guy, but honestly that seems rather unlikely.
3) Did any of the police involved say why you could not enter your own home? What was written on the search warrant pertaining to the inside of your home? Everything else about the case suggests they came to take your horses -- period. I don't see how that has anything to do with going into your home, and certainly forcing you to leave your home and stand out in the snow doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.
:(
Were any of these other Deerfield Vet staff members there?
http://www.deerfieldvetclinic.com/veterinary-staff.htm
Contact info:
Deerfield Veterinary Clinic
150 South Rd.
Deerfield, NH 03037
(603) 463-7775
Brian maintains his composure remarkably well... certainly better than I could.
Let us know what will help and we will do it.
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 09, 2009, 09:42 PM NHFT
Were any of these other Deerfield Vet staff members there?
http://www.deerfieldvetclinic.com/veterinary-staff.htm
Yes, I recognize "Dr. George" -- he even identified himself in the video.
This occurs to me: before anyone crucifies a particular individual, it would be a good idea to find out more facts and get that person's side of the story. For example, one possibility is that Dr. George was told by police to show up and not say anything to Brian. He might have examined the horses and said "they look fine". Maybe one of the other vets either was on the take or had a different opinion which led to the theft.
Quote from: margomaps on March 09, 2009, 10:02 PM NHFT
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 09, 2009, 09:42 PM NHFT
Were any of these other Deerfield Vet staff members there?
http://www.deerfieldvetclinic.com/veterinary-staff.htm
Yes, I recognize "Dr. George" -- he even identified himself in the video.
Right, that's why I asked about the other staff members. ;)
You can barely tell who's who in the video. Probably because it was shot on a Blackberry and then reencoded into the shit-ass youtube format.
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 09, 2009, 10:12 PM NHFTRight, that's why I asked about the other staff members. ;)
Sorry. In my haste I missed the word "other" in your question.
Attached is a screenshot of the side of one of the trailers. I looked at ten pages of farms (http://www.equinenow.com/newhampshirefarms.htm) and didn't spot any that looked like they would fit what we can observe of the location and name.
When you google Steven Sprowl, this thread shows up on the first page already...
You gonna be a star Stevie boy.
Here's another list (http://www.polocenter.com/stable/stableusnh.htm)...
And I copied and pasted the "FARM" in the blacked out area. Looks like there is room enough for ten all caps characters prior to the space before "FARM".
Perhaps "Irongate Farm" in Rockingham County?
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 09, 2009, 10:30 PM NHFT
Here's another list (http://www.polocenter.com/stable/stableusnh.htm)...
And I copied and pasted the "FARM" in the blacked out area. Looks like there is room enough for ten all caps characters prior to the space before "FARM".
Perhaps "Irongate Farm" in Rockingham County?
My shot-in-the-dark guess is Magnusson Farm. Rockingham, NH
However, They are "primarily a vegetable and Christmas tree farm" so I'm probably way off.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on March 09, 2009, 10:29 PM NHFT
When you google Steven Sprowl, this thread shows up on the first page already...
You gonna be a star Stevie boy.
Yep.
This song goes out to you stevie boy.
Quote from: Coconut on March 09, 2009, 10:32 PM NHFTMy shot-in-the-dark guess is Magnusson Farm. Rockingham, NH
Here is a list of all towns in NH that end in 'm' or 'n' and have a g in them:
Barrington
Bennington
East Kingston
Effingham
Farmington
Kensington
Kingston
Langdon
Newington
Nottingham
Washington
You could add
Rockingham to the list if you wanted. Though I think it would be less common to see "County, State" than "Town, State" painted on a horse trailer.
Quote from: margomaps on March 09, 2009, 10:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on March 09, 2009, 10:32 PM NHFTMy shot-in-the-dark guess is Magnusson Farm. Rockingham, NH
You could add Rockingham to the list if you wanted. Though I think it would be less common to see "County, State" than "Town, State" painted on a horse trailer.
I agree. I didn't know it was only a county when I googled "farms in Rockingham, NH"
Oh well.
"Mending Wall Farm" "Nottingham, NH"
That's my best guess.
Quote from: margomaps on March 09, 2009, 10:48 PM NHFT
"Mending Wall Farm" "Nottingham, NH"
That's my best guess.
Looks like the city won't reach far enough left. Unless that's just a corner of tape I'm mistaking as part of a letter.
Anyway. here's my best fit for that guess...
Enough puzzles for tonight. Someone post this on 4chan and we'll have our answer in the morning. They have nothing better to do :D
It all depends on the font you use. Attached is my shot at it, with a slightly bolder font, and/or one with greater spacing between the letters. Looks plausible to me. After all...
Nottingham
Nottingham
Nottingham
Nottingham
Nottingham
Quote from: brian.travis on March 09, 2009, 11:10 PM NHFTToday he comes out with the intention to take our most valuable horses. Did we pay him $226 so he could scope out the population and pick out the best ones?
Is that what happened? Did they take the 12 best/most valuable horses you had? Was the previously injured mare one of those 12?
It would be interesting if Ridley or another reporter could get a comment from or interview with Dr. George.
Out of curiosity, what was the paper work alluded to in the video?
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 09, 2009, 10:12 PM NHFT
You can barely tell who's who in the video. Probably because it was shot on a Blackberry and then reencoded into the shit-ass youtube format.
Well, and the fact that they're cowardly horse thieves hiding their faces in shame.
Brian, what did the warrant say? Can you post it? Did it give any of those people other than the police any authority to open your gates and enter your pens?
Poor Heidi :( :'(
How about protests outside the offending SPCA office, police station, vet office?
Would your vet in CO write a statement about how you cared for your horses there?
Quote from: margomaps on March 09, 2009, 10:09 PM NHFT
This occurs to me: before anyone crucifies a particular individual, it would be a good idea to find out more facts and get that person's side of the story. For example, one possibility is that Dr. George was told by police to show up and not say anything to Brian. He might have examined the horses and said "they look fine". Maybe one of the other vets either was on the take or had a different opinion which led to the theft.
It is not acceptable behavior to do what the thugs ask and not say anything.
Dr. George obviously has gone beyond that ... he was not trying to stop bad people from doing bad things.
If you want your side of the story told in our paper Brian, we can run with something short with the details you are willing to share.
It sure sounds like it was initiated by the good doctor.
Here is a list of my preliminary questions:
1. The original attempted invasion from 11/8/08 was because the SPCA wanted to make sure the horses had a 3 sided shelter as required by code?
2. There is a statement from the nhunderground forum 11/10/08 the "the shelter is done" or words to that effect. Looks like there was already a 3 sided shelter in place and the new structure was a barn?
3. The most recent invasion by the SPCA was due to health?
4. What were the findings by the veterinarian?
5. Did the findings require quarantine over the owner being given XX days to correct a health issue?
6. What other cases of this kind can be recounted in Rockingham County in the last 10 years?
7. What is the procedure for returning the horses to the owner?
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 09, 2009, 02:02 PM NHFT
Steven Sprowl, Manager, Field Services Division
Office: 603-772-2921 ext. 111
cell: 603-674-9836
Does his cell receive text messages? If so, one could make use of txtemnow.com as well as their own phone.
Just imagine several hundred texts a day, all saying "THEIF!"
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 10, 2009, 06:51 AM NHFTIt is not acceptable behavior to do what the thugs ask and not say anything.
While I agree with what you're saying in spirit, let me play devil's advocate for a moment. Certain behaviors are not acceptable, but they are 100%
understandable, or even
expected. For example, if someone to whom it has never occurred to question the system decides to do what the man with the gun says, I can understand this. Even if it
had occurred to him to question the system, I could still understand him not choosing to "die on this hill", and just going along with what the main wearing the gun -- you know, the guy who can "legitimately" harm him and throw him in a cage -- told him.
QuoteDr. George obviously has gone beyond that ... he was not trying to stop bad people from doing bad things.
Indeed, now it seems that he might have been a prime instigator in this fiasco. The SPCA guy was looking for an excuse to go after Brian, and one just fell into his lap
* courtesy of Dr. George. I was holding out hope that the vet had a far more passive role in this, but it certainly seems likely that he is a snitch. The question I have now is, what motivated him to snitch? The only answers that make sense to me are:
- He's "on the take". But this seems unlikely. Did he leave the premises with one of these "free" horses.
- SPCA guy spun him a tale about abuse, and he bought into it. This is a guy who (one might reasonably assume) loves animals to the extent that he has shaped his entire life around caring for them. If he was fooled into believing the animals were being harmed, his passion may have overridden even the physical evidence before him that the horses were in good health.
- In his judgment, there really was something wrong with the animals that he believed was a result of abuse/neglect.
*It is also possible that the SPCA guy had called/previously visited with vets all around the area, telling them to keep an eye out for "this guy, Brian Travis, who neglects/abuses his horses". That would have planted the seed of suspicion in Dr. George's mind, and it also explains some of the uncanny coincidence in the timing and sequence of events.
Quote from: shinokamen on March 10, 2009, 08:07 AM NHFTDoes his cell receive text messages? If so, one could make use of txtemnow.com as well as their own phone.
Just imagine several hundred texts a day, all saying "THEIF!"
I doubt his cell receives text messages. However, even if it did, you might want to tread carefully here. Is there anything you know about these people or the system that makes you believe they wouldn't attempt (and quite possibly succeed) to arrest, charge, and throw people in a cage for texting such messages? They'd likely say that the texting amounted to
harassment or
terroristic threats of a
deputized law enforcement officer...or something like that. They'd go after those who did the texting, and probably after you for coming up with the idea (
conspiracy to harass... or maybe
inciting others to commit terroristic threats). >:(
It's BS: you know it, I know it, and they know it. But unless you're looking to die on this hill, you have to remind yourself how these people think and what actions they are willing and likely to take against you, and then proceed accordingly. :-\
I think protests outside the vet's office are going to put the most pressure on to return the horses. The other customers of the vet aren't going to like what was done to the Travises and will be afraid to take their animals to see this criminal again.
Quote from: margomaps on March 10, 2009, 08:17 AM NHFT
They'd go after those who did the texting, and probably after you for coming up with the idea (conspiracy to harass... or maybe inciting others to commit terroristic threats). >:(
You're probably right...
In that case, I claim that my statement was hypothetical. [/covering own ass]
And txtemnow is completely anonymous.
Quote from: shinokamen on March 10, 2009, 08:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 09, 2009, 02:02 PM NHFT
Steven Sprowl, Manager, Field Services Division
Office: 603-772-2921 ext. 111
cell: 603-674-9836
Does his cell receive text messages? If so, one could make use of txtemnow.com as well as their own phone.
Just imagine several hundred texts a day, all saying "THEIF!"
That's a brilliant idea. It will also cost him unless he has a txt package, which at his age isn't likely.
I wouldn't call it a brilliant idea, but if you're going to do it, I hope you at least spell it right.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 10, 2009, 08:19 AM NHFT
I think protests outside the vet's office are going to put the most pressure on to return the horses. The other customers of the vet aren't going to like what was done to the Travises and will be afraid to take their animals to see this criminal again.
Ready for an impromptu sign party any time of the day or night!
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 10, 2009, 08:30 AM NHFT
I wouldn't call it a brilliant idea, but if you're going to do it, I hope you at least spell it right.
We don't want to personally harass them to that degree. I think that will just piss them off. I think more public forms would be better. See if and where they take out ads and purchase anti-ads. Write letters to editors, look for equine forums and see if these people are present or are known, etc. Hurting their reputation and their wallet is better than private text messages and less likely that he will report harassment to authorities.
My e-mail I sent to the Deerfield Veterinary Clinic.
----------------------------------------------------------
Wondering why Dr. George helped steal Heidi and Brian Travis' horses?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGjrE36PGzg
Several hundred views on YouTube overnight.
Steven Sprowl appears to have a personal grudge against the family and has abused his position. The last incident involved having the son, Cooper Travis, arrested for videotaping Steven Sprowl's attempt to bully his way on to the Travis property.
A quick google search already shows websites that reference Steven Sprowl in a negative light.
I think it may be of great concern to your clinics customers to know that if they use Deerfield Veterinary Clinic Dr. George does not have the owner's best interest in mind.
Quote from: bile on March 10, 2009, 08:43 AM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 10, 2009, 08:30 AM NHFT
I wouldn't call it a brilliant idea, but if you're going to do it, I hope you at least spell it right.
We don't want to personally harass them to that degree. I think that will just piss them off. I think more public forms would be better. See if and where they take out ads and purchase anti-ads. Write letters to editors, look for equine forums and see if these people are present or are known, etc. Hurting their reputation and their wallet is better than private text messages and less likely that he will report harassment to authorities.
First of all, the suggestion was toward Steve Sprowl - the instigator of all this, not "them". Also, if you only send one message, that's not harassment. A hundred people sending one message each isn't harassment, it's you expressing yourself.
I can assure you Mr. Sprowl is already pissed off. Too flipping bad. Perhaps he should stop harassing people.
http://digg.com/pets_animals/SPCA_Steals_12_horses_in_New_Hampshire (http://digg.com/pets_animals/SPCA_Steals_12_horses_in_New_Hampshire)
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 10, 2009, 08:46 AM NHFT
First of all, the suggestion was toward Steve Sprowl - the instigator of all this, not "them". Also, if you only send one message, that's not harassment. A hundred people sending one message each isn't harassment, it's you expressing yourself.
I can assure you Mr. Sprowl is already pissed off. Fuck Steve Sprowl.
They will see it as a coordinated effort... especially since they can just look to this thread for evidence. I would rather not see something like what happened to Mikaela. Harassment is a very general and subjective term.
I agree he's pissed off and likely acting on previous events. The best policy is to act in strong, respectful opposition. Texting him to run up his phone bill is petty and amounts to little more than name calling. It doesn't bring us to our goal which is to discredit and shame him.
Like civil disobedience we want to look completely like the victim. Anything which can be considered retaliatory, aggressive or offensive should be avoided.
Sending one text message is offensive and aggressive? Sorry, but no. Perhaps we should also not be calling him or writing emails? After all that could be considered offensive and retaliatory.
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 10, 2009, 09:08 AM NHFT
Sending one text message is offensive and aggressive? Sorry, but no. Perhaps we should also not be calling him or writing emails? After all that could be considered offensive and retaliatory.
Depends on the content of the txt message/email. It helps to be articulate and careful with your words lest you end up sounding like you're foaming at the mouth.
I think a single word txt in all caps is rather foamy-mouthed.
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 10, 2009, 09:08 AM NHFT
Sending one text message is offensive and aggressive? Sorry, but no. Perhaps we should also not be calling him or writing emails? After all that could be considered offensive and retaliatory.
One?
Quote from: shinokamen
Just imagine several hundred texts a day, all saying "THEIF!"
There aren't several hundred people here so this statement implies more than one per person (and it was said to use txtemnow.com and one's phone) and in total "several hundred." You then mention racking up his phone bill. That's retaliatory. Lets also consider if you did that through email or by phone. Call up and just yell "THIEF!" and hang up or just emails with the same. I may as well call up FTL and yell "SHIT!" on the air because I don't like something you say or do. It is unproductive.
The family feeds and cares for these horses. They should not be stolen from them for any reason.
Each of these people made a small decision to side with "the man". I understand why they did it. I do not agree. I do not advocate doing the devil's work.
Quote from: kellie on March 10, 2009, 09:23 AM NHFT
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 10, 2009, 09:08 AM NHFT
Sending one text message is offensive and aggressive? Sorry, but no. Perhaps we should also not be calling him or writing emails? After all that could be considered offensive and retaliatory.
Depends on the content of the txt message/email. It helps to be articulate and careful with your words lest you end up sounding like you're foaming at the mouth.
I think a single word txt in all caps is rather foamy-mouthed.
Agreed. I sent, "You should be ashamed."
Quote from: bile on March 10, 2009, 09:25 AM NHFT
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 10, 2009, 09:08 AM NHFT
Sending one text message is offensive and aggressive? Sorry, but no. Perhaps we should also not be calling him or writing emails? After all that could be considered offensive and retaliatory.
One?
Quote from: shinokamen
Just imagine several hundred texts a day, all saying "THEIF!"
There aren't several hundred people here so this statement implies more than one per person (and it was said to use txtemnow.com and one's phone) and in total "several hundred." You then mention racking up his phone bill. That's retaliatory. Lets also consider if you did that through email or by phone. Call up and just yell "THIEF!" and hang up or just emails with the same. I may as well call up FTL and yell "SHIT!" on the air because I don't like something you say or do. It is unproductive.
I should point out I thought the idea of sending texts was a good one, not the suggested message. Sorry if I wasn't more clear.
With that in mind, should we not call Mr. Sprowl's cel phone because he might go over his monthly minutes because we should be concerned with his phone bill?
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 10, 2009, 09:08 AM NHFT
Sending one text message is offensive and aggressive? Sorry, but no. Perhaps we should also not be calling him or writing emails? After all that could be considered offensive and retaliatory.
Calling your representatives is harrassment!!!11!!1 Their phones might not stop ringing!
Anyway. I sent one. I didn't name call, but if anyone did, I won't say he doesn't deserve it.
The UL has posted a brief story online:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=12+horses+seized+by+police%2c+state+NHSPCA&articleId=738b174f-a152-4044-8f69-9f5efee2faac
Personally I think send anon text messages to his phone may aggravate the man but is it the shortest path to the best possible outcome? If the goal is just to mess with him then yes. I'd rather see us unify to 1. expose him to the public 2. get the horses back as soon as possible.
I just left a message on his business line requesting a callback. I don't anticipate one but worth a shot.
BTW Velma (who's too cheeken to post herself) is a former horse owner. She asks what is the procedure for going over Sprowl's head. Maybe that would be a good tool for us to get behind as a group.
Also, texting is hardly an optimal means to open dialog with him. Can't do much in 160 characters and as you point out many people don't have unlimited txtmsgs as part of their plan. If you want to try to convince him he's wrong use email, phone, letters or approach him at his business and ask for time to talk. If you want to ostracize him use anti-adverts, letters to the editor, talk about his mistakes on FTL, blogs, etc. If you want to back him into a corner call, text, email him yelling "THEIF!"
Russell: We all agree. I'm a former horse owner and empathize with the Travis' immensely. I don't think it's beneficial to the Travis', the free staters or the larger movement to go and "mess with" on a personal level each bureaucrat or State helper who wrongs someone.
Ian: I believe that instead of telling him we need to get him to see that he should be ashamed. Use the Socratic method. Get him to grab the gun. Don't force it into his hand. FTL, FMTV, Gardner, etc. are in great positions to use that technique to your advantage. Invite those who do wrong to provide their side of the story. Be as neutral as possible by being open with your bias and then just ask questions and allow them to show the world they are wrong. Just like the conspiracy guys... allowing statists to explain their positions and reasons does us plenty good without needing to dirty our hands. And if they refuse to participate and you were completely nonthreatening they may not look bad but they surely won't look the victim or good. A case like this, with animals, is highly emotional for people. I grew up in a horse owner community (and owned them myself for many years) and even a rumor of abuse is going to put you on most people's shit list. Ideally our actions would not contribute to that.
As for calling the cell vs sms. You can not answer the phone and receiving calls does not always count toward one's minutes. As far as I'm aware sms is not within one's control.
Coconut: If you called them at home it would be harassment. If you called them at work and yelled "CROOK!" and hung up that would also be harassment. Calling them regarding their "job" is not.
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 10, 2009, 09:41 AM NHFTAgreed. I sent, "You should be ashamed."
I'm certainly not looking to condemn you or your chosen method here just for the sake of picking a fight. I'm honestly just curious to know what you believe your text message will accomplish. By observing Mr. Sprowl's actions up to this point, several of which are documented on film, I estimate there is
no chance whatsoever that he will take your message to heart. It might make him angry or irritated, or possibly amused or self-satisfied. Were any of these the outcomes you hoped for when you sent the message?
You experienced justifiable (IMO) anger and indignation over what happened. I believe the best course of action is to channel that anger into useful activities that further your goals. By this criterion, you have only succeeded if your goal was to
tell someone off or
irritate someone.
Again, please don't take this personally. I love your passion, your willingness to take action against injustice -- even when it might result in discomfort or danger for yourself, and even your radio show. :) I just think the old phrase
discretion is the better part of valor rings particularly true here.
Quote from: bile on March 10, 2009, 10:05 AM NHFT
Russell: We all agree. I'm a former horse owner and empathize with the Travis' immensely. I don't think it's beneficial to the Travis', the free staters or the larger movement to go and "mess with" on a personal level each bureaucrat or State helper who wrongs someone.
That is nice that we agree. What did I post that prompted a response from you?
I have been mostly posting to help bring the thread back to the basic topic.
I think that following Brian's lead in asking the individual thugs questions is a very good path to follow. If he doesn't want certain "help", he will probably let us know.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 10, 2009, 10:35 AM NHFT
That is nice that we agree. What did I post that prompted a response from you?
I have been mostly posting to help bring the thread back to the basic topic.
I think that following Brian's lead in asking the individual thugs questions is a very good path to follow. If he doesn't want certain "help", he will probably let us know.
Just that it came in between all the other posts regarding the texting. I mistook it as a more direct response to the bickering than it was.
EquineSite.com discussion. I wonder how long before this "controversial topic" is wiped.
http://discus.equinesite.net/discus/messages/5/19055.html?1236698927
Strategy meeting this evening at 5:30 in Manchester. Anyone who wants to attend can pm, im, email or call me for the location.
Another purpose of making contact with the offending bureaucrats is to remind them that people are paying attention to their actions. They are used to having the upper hand in such situations. We have seen "officials" change course because the light was spotlighting them.
If you google "NHSPCA abuses" number 1 on the list.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 10, 2009, 08:19 AM NHFT
I think protests outside the vet's office are going to put the most pressure on to return the horses. The other customers of the vet aren't going to like what was done to the Travises and will be afraid to take their animals to see this criminal again.
Definately!
Quote from: Velma on March 10, 2009, 11:54 AM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 10, 2009, 08:19 AM NHFT
I think protests outside the vet's office are going to put the most pressure on to return the horses. The other customers of the vet aren't going to like what was done to the Travises and will be afraid to take their animals to see this criminal again.
Definately!
While the Vet did an awful thing, what power does he now have to return the horses? Even if he gave in to said protests? I'm guessing the SPCA is in charge of that now. I know you probably don't know the answer, but wondering.
Bile,
I already invited him to come tell his side of the story on the show. He never returned my call. (Nor did the chief.) So, I'm finished with trying to open a dialog. I feel it is totally justified to express my discontent with his actions. If everyone who thought he was wrong just kept their thoughts to themselves, how would he know he'd done wrong?
I was curious to see if the SPCA in each state has to answer to "anybody". So much for my idea....this is from the SPCA International FAQ page:
I would like to speak to someone about a bad experience I had at another SPCA.
Each individual SPCA that may be located throughout the United States, or other countries, is a separate organization from SPCA International. We do not have the authority to inspect or govern these individual organizations. If there are concerns about a particular SPCA contact them directly or if you suspect the animals are not being taken care of properly you will need to contact the local Department of Agriculture.
Also, in regards to making phone calls as opposed to sending a text message - even if he doesn't answer the phone calls, he'll probably check the voicemails with his celphone, costing him minutes, so should we no longer leave him messages and only call in the hopes that he'll answer? ::) Heck, since some activists are quite concerned with Mr. Sprowl's cel phone bill getting too high, perhaps we should also just not contact him in any way at all. Time is money, after all. Every moment he spends checking voicemail, reading email, or snail mail is time he could be spending ruining peoples' lives. We need to make sure we're respecting his time.
Oh wait, fuck his time. He's an unrepentant thug who won't even speak to the media about his actions. He deserves everything the activists throw at him. Emails, phone calls, text messages, protests at his home and office, whatever. He needs to know his thuggery will not go unnoticed.
If he doesn't want voicemails and texts from upset parties, he should cancel his service or change his number.
Not to give the wrong impression - I'm totally willing to forgive Sprowl and his accomplices as soon as they make the situation right by making the Travis family whole again and apologize. Until then, ostracize on! >:D
Brian (or anyone) should be able to get a copy of the footage the cop was shooting, per their RSA 91a, from my understanding.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 10, 2009, 06:57 AM NHFT
If you want your side of the story told in our paper Brian, we can run with something short with the details you are willing to share.
It sure sounds like it was initiated by the good doctor.
anyone doing articles i would urge contacting folks on the other side and getting their view if possible
even if they dont respond it makes the story more powerful
if they do respond, it makes us more fair
i'm working on that on my end , have contacted pd, will try to contact vet
What happened to the good old days when horse thieves were hunted down and hung?
Brian, I can only imagine how much anguish the fucking jackbooted gang in blue and the rest of those pussies have caused you. My wife and I had a recent run in this past year with our 'touchy feely' fucktard of a neighbor who didn't approve of the way we were keeping our horses. The ONLY thing that saved us from the fate you're enduring right now was the fact that our vet is well known and has the right friends. That's it; otherwise, we'd have had our property stolen too. Of course, in our great socialist state, the people with the opinion who have the authority granted to them by the all knowing and 'benevolent' state are the ones who profit from stealing our property. It's so fucked up, it's not even funny.
I hope and pray that you and your family are made whole, that your horses are returned, and the cowards responsible are made to pay for your loss.
Quote from: Coconut on March 10, 2009, 12:01 PM NHFT
Quote from: Velma on March 10, 2009, 11:54 AM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 10, 2009, 08:19 AM NHFT
I think protests outside the vet's office are going to put the most pressure on to return the horses. The other customers of the vet aren't going to like what was done to the Travises and will be afraid to take their animals to see this criminal again.
Definately!
While the Vet did an awful thing, what power does he now have to return the horses? Even if he gave in to said protests? I'm guessing the SPCA is in charge of that now. I know you probably don't know the answer, but wondering.
I would think just having the Vet fess up could help. Not that I really know the answer. Also - would it keep other vets from doing the same thing for the SPCA? Possibly.
ok i've emailed the vet now
i like coffee's ideas below
Quote from: coffeeseven on March 10, 2009, 10:04 AM NHFT
Personally I think send anon text messages to his phone may aggravate the man but is it the shortest path to the best possible outcome? If the goal is just to mess with him then yes. I'd rather see us unify to 1. expose him to the public 2. get the horses back as soon as possible.
I just left a message on his business line requesting a callback. I don't anticipate one but worth a shot.
BTW Velma (who's too cheeken to post herself) is a former horse owner. She asks what is the procedure for going over Sprowl's head. Maybe that would be a good tool for us to get behind as a group.
Overview of contact info for the perpetrators:
Candia PD:
Michael McGillen, chief.
603-483-2318
74 High Street
Candia, NH
Steven Sprowl, Manager, Field Services Division
Office: 603-772-2921 ext. 111
cell: 603-674-9836
104 Portsmouth Ave
Stratham, NH
http://www.deerfieldvetclinic.com/veterinary-staff.htm
Dr. George
Deerfield Veterinary Clinic
150 South Rd.
Deerfield, NH 03037
(603) 463-7775
Quote from: Pat McCotter on March 10, 2009, 10:55 AM NHFT
EquineSite.com discussion. I wonder how long before this "controversial topic" is wiped.
http://discus.equinesite.net/discus/messages/5/19055.html?1236698927
They're quick to take up torches and pitchforks. Against the Travis family, that is.
Buncha moralists who would happily participate in such organized horse theft.
Headline: "NHSPCA needs help with horses (http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090130-NEWS-901300427)".
Here's a clue: you'd have more shelter room if you'd stop stealing horses!
Requesting permission to visit the seized Candia horses?
From: Dave Ridley
Sent: Tue 3/10/09 2:12 PM
To: info at ... nhspca.org
Hi guys:
Dave Ridley here from RidleyReport.com - a sort of poor man's TV station based in Manchester. I was wondering if I or one of my other videographers could come videotape images of the horses you confiscated at Candia yesterday. I'd also welcome any comment from your organization regarding the seizure...
Full disclosure...this is a libertarian broadcast so we could disagree on some things, but you will receive a fair airing of any views you may have.
Ian... my point WRT the Sprowl is that he isn't the thug. He's just a jerk. The cops are the thugs. Flooding his cell phone with sms msgs with the explicit intent to run up his phone bill and aggravate him is not constructive. The liberty movement requires that the rest of them understand that freedom is better. We have to convince them not to aggress. At least against us. You can't do that by being vindictive. By going to people's homes and protesting. The public will just recoil and make all our lives and goals harder. Just take a look at the equinesite.net thread. "They" are already against the Travis family as I said they would be. The evidence has not been properly gathered and presented so they will all jump to the conclusion that Brian was abusing the horses and bitching about loosing them.
I never said stay quiet. I said don't make it personal. Don't be doing things that could make you look the aggressor. Be the victim. Sprowl is in much the same role as Mikaela and during your incident I don't recall you ever egging on people personally harass her. Why should this guy be different? He fucked up. Let the world know it. Ostracism is a public matter. Build a case that the guy can't be trusted and let the evidence convince people that the wrong doers are Sprowl and the police and not the Travis family. Trying to jam a gun in his hand so he notices it is almost always going to fail to get you what you want. Acting emotionally to an emotional situation will get us nowhere.
bile...Steve Sprowl wants NH to have SPCA Officers with arrest powers as there are in many states
Here is an example.
http://www.nh.gov/humane/documents/080327min.pdf
.
The guy in the suit and the gray stupid hat is the Prosecutor from Charlie and Jesse's hat trials.
Quote from: Pat McCotter on March 10, 2009, 01:31 PM NHFT
bile...Steve Sprowl wants NH to have SPCA Officers with arrest powers as there are in many states
Here is an example.
http://www.nh.gov/humane/documents/080327min.pdf
.
He's a wannabe thug. More evidence against him.
I never said he wasn't an ass. Just that we shouldn't steep to his level... or appear to.
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on March 10, 2009, 01:32 PM NHFT
The guy in the suit and the gray stupid hat is the Prosecutor from Charlie and Jesse's hat trials.
Lt. Reams?
Quote from: Pat McCotter on March 10, 2009, 01:31 PM NHFT
bile...Steve Sprowl wants NH to have SPCA Officers with arrest powers as there are in many states
Here is an example.
http://www.nh.gov/humane/documents/080327min.pdf
http://www.state.nj.us/sci/pdf/spcapress.pdf
New Jersey
State Commission of Investigation
April 25, 2001
Contact: Lee Seglem, SCI
For immediate release
609-292-6767
SCI ISSUES REPORT ON SPCA
ABUSES
TRENTON – The State Commission of Investigation today released
the report of an investigation into widespread abuse and malfeasance by
elements of the Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA)
in New Jersey.
The Commission found that SPCAs at both the state and county levels
have been subverted to the point where, in many instances, they are
incapable of fulfilling their primary statutory mission – the effective and
reliable enforcement of animal cruelty laws.
Page 2
2
"The issue is no longer whether or how to fix this errant group of self-
appointed, self-directed and uncontrolled entities, but whether to eliminate
the archaic system entirely," the report states. "The Commission concludes
that the time has come to repeal the government authority vested in the
SPCAs and place the function of enforcing the cruelty laws within the
government's stratified hierarchy of law enforcement."
Among the Commission's key findings:
• SPCA officials diverted substantial funds and property meant for
animal welfare for personal use.
• Monetary bequests left by deceased individuals to benefit animals
were used instead to pay for firearms, ammunition, vehicles and
other items unrelated to animal welfare.
• County SPCA organizations, some of which operate in
paramilitary fashion, have become havens for gun-carrying
"wannabe" police officers motivated by personal gain. These
individuals operate without proper training or adequate oversight.
• Conditions at an animal shelter administered by the Hudson
County SPCA were found to be deplorable. While shelter officials
skimmed patron fees and sold dog food for personal profit, animals
languished in overcrowded, poorly ventilated enclosures without
adequate food, water or veterinary care.
Page 3
3
• The state and local system of shelter inspections was found to be
inadequate and replete with weaknesses, including lax
enforcement, lack of follow-up inspections and wide variations in
the manner in which conditions are reported.
The report contains a series of recommendations for reforms related to
the system under which SPCAs and animal shelters currently operate.
The Commission referred the findings of its investigation to the
following government agencies for whatever action they deem appropriate:
the Office of the New Jersey Attorney General, Division of Criminal Justice
and Division of Consumer Affairs; the U.S. Internal Revenue Service; the
New Jersey Division of Taxation; the New Jersey Division of Purchase and
Property; and various state regulatory boards.
one thing we should keep in mind... innocent until proven guilty applies not just to the travis family but to all the govt. workers and private individuals on the scene. Obviously we know some of the people in the video are guilty of being on the property without the approval of the owners, and we know what some of them have done in the past because of video evidence. However there is a lot we dont' know or can't confirm yet.
i've never seen any of the travis horses
i'd like to request if anyone has any pics of the animals taken during the month or so before they were seized...send em my way
it would have helped brian make his case of no animal abuse...had he videotaped the animals close up during the raid and shown off their claimed high level of health... assuming that were practical.
I called the spca; there is an extension, maybe #4 or #5, that is for reporting stolen animals.. perfect! , I thought, and report the theft of horses in Candia by Steve Sprowl.
I also noticed that they don't seem to be answering their phones, a few of the extensions I tried, which means it is either a shoestring operation, or they are not too enthused about the nature of the calls they have been receiving. ;D
Quote from: bile on March 10, 2009, 01:18 PM NHFT
Ian... my point WRT the Sprowl is that he isn't the thug. He's just a jerk. The cops are the thugs. Flooding his cell phone with sms msgs with the explicit intent to run up his phone bill and aggravate him is not constructive. The liberty movement requires that the rest of them understand that freedom is better. We have to convince them not to aggress. At least against us. You can't do that by being vindictive. By going to people's homes and protesting. The public will just recoil and make all our lives and goals harder. Just take a look at the equinesite.net thread. "They" are already against the Travis family as I said they would be. The evidence has not been properly gathered and presented so they will all jump to the conclusion that Brian was abusing the horses and bitching about loosing them.
I never said stay quiet. I said don't make it personal. Don't be doing things that could make you look the aggressor. Be the victim. Sprowl is in much the same role as Mikaela and during your incident I don't recall you ever egging on people personally harass her. Why should this guy be different? He fucked up. Let the world know it. Ostracism is a public matter. Build a case that the guy can't be trusted and let the evidence convince people that the wrong doers are Sprowl and the police and not the Travis family. Trying to jam a gun in his hand so he notices it is almost always going to fail to get you what you want. Acting emotionally to an emotional situation will get us nowhere.
First, you're wrong about Sprowl. On your own blog you have pointed out he's an ex-cop. Besides that he IS a thug, because he's giving the orders in this case, whereas Mikaela was just a busybody neighbor/bureaucrat.
Also, I never said the explicit intent of txt messaging him was to run up his bill, besides, it might just be a company phone. I just suggested it would be a bonus. Anything that wastes this man's time and money is a bonus.
Finally, Sprowl didn't just "fuck up". This was no accident. He fucked up the first time by messing with Brian's family, then he did worse by coming back and stealing their horses. He didn't make any effort to speak to media then, nor is he now. He got some heat from the activists then, as he should have, and must be expecting more and willing to deal with it. I think if anything the heat should be cranked up on this douche.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 10, 2009, 01:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on March 10, 2009, 01:32 PM NHFT
The guy in the suit and the gray stupid hat is the Prosecutor from Charlie and Jesse's hat trials.
Lt. Reams?
He sure didn't want to admit who he was.
I got the distinct feeling that nobody there felt righteous about what they were doing, except for Steve Sprowl and (possibly) Dr. George. Animal lovers who are rescuing abused horses tend to be proud of what they're doing. I think the whole bunch knew they were up to no good.
Quote from: coffeeseven on March 10, 2009, 10:04 AM NHFT
BTW Velma (who's too cheeken to post herself) is a former horse owner. She asks what is the procedure for going over Sprowl's head. Maybe that would be a good tool for us to get behind as a group.
Thanks a lot Coffee......call me cheeken...
::)
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 10, 2009, 03:01 PM NHFT
First, you're wrong about Sprowl. On your own blog you have pointed out he's an ex-cop. Besides that he IS a thug, because he's giving the orders in this case, whereas Mikaela was just a busybody neighbor/bureaucrat.
A thug is a "A person who treats others violently and roughly, especially for hire." If he's giving the orders he's not the thug, the cops are. If he has no arrest power and can not act without the police he's no more a thug than any other bureaucrat who's just "doing their job" and involves the boys in blue. He was a thug. He wants to be a thug now... but he's not allowed to act like those who actually invaded the Travis property and took the horses.
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 10, 2009, 03:01 PM NHFT
Finally, Sprowl didn't just "fuck up". This was no accident. He fucked up the first time by messing with Brian's family, then he did worse by coming back and stealing their horses. He didn't make any effort to speak to media then, nor is he now. He got some heat from the activists then, as he should have, and must be expecting more and willing to deal with it. I think if anything the heat should be cranked up on this douche.
Fucked up as in he probably underestimated the response. He fucked up by not sharing his side and refusing to do so now giving us the ability to shine him in a negative light.
If you really think that sending text messages actually accomplishes anything feel free. I'm just telling you that emotionally charged responses don't get you very far and are likely to set you back. Attack the system, attack the position, attack the professional man, don't attack the personal man when he has not clearly aggressed by the standards of the statist community. You make him look the victim and that's our role. It was just some advice from experience in similar situtations. No reason to be all hyped up.
What do you mean turn up the heat? You've advocated protests at his home which many would consider fairly serious given you'd implicitly be involving his family. And do you advise similar actions against the CPD officers, farmers and vets involved?
just want to point out that the video being passed around does not really explain why the horses were taken...that is, what the excuse was..i think the video would be much more effective if that were explained in a little more detail, and at the beginning of the video rather then the end. otherwise, i think most people will just assume that the spca must have had a good reason for taking the animals.
I think the activists should do what they feel is right. In the case of a protest or news crew outside his home, I think his family has a right to know what a slimeball their father/husband is and what he really does for a living, in case they didn't already know.
I wouldn't suggest a home targeted activist response for the others except perhaps the police chief.
QuoteIf you really think that sending text messages actually accomplishes anything feel free. I'm just telling you that emotionally charged responses don't get you very far and are likely to set you back. Attack the system, attack the position, attack the professional man, don't attack the personal man
Are you saying that text messages are ineffective but a voicemail is? One could suggest that any form of communication from upset individuals will show him that:
1. We're paying attention
2. We're upset
3. We're active
He may eventually decide he doesn't wish to engage in thuggery anymore and retire to Florida. ::)
Finally, I wouldn't consider, "You ought to be ashamed." an emotionally charged response. Seems like a statement of fact, to me. :P
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 10, 2009, 04:43 PM NHFT
I think the activists should do what they feel is right.
I disagree. I think activists should do what's most effective. They can do whatever they like but I'd rather them do things which make steps toward freedom. That's why I commented with my concerns and suggestions.
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 10, 2009, 04:43 PM NHFT
In the case of a protest or news crew outside his home, I think his family has a right to know what a slimeball their father/husband is and what he really does for a living, in case they didn't already know.
I wouldn't suggest a home targeted activist response for the others except perhaps the police chief.
I agree they should know but showing up to a persons private home for something related to the profession is historically seen as a no no. I don't see how it'd be a positive action to take. The business or police department is fine but taking it to one's home is another level which the public is generally not comfortable with.
Quote
Are you saying that text messages are ineffective but a voicemail is? One could suggest that any form of communication from upset individuals will show him that:
1. We're paying attention
2. We're upset
3. We're active
I didn't bring up voicemail but mentioned what means I did think would be more useful. If you are making statements in a unidirectional way such as SMS or straight to voicemail you pushing them away and being offensive rather than inviting and defensive. We always want to be perceived to be responding defensively so as to look the victim. We have to bigger than them and that goes for something as simple as semi aggressive SMSs.
Quote
He may eventually decide he doesn't wish to engage in thuggery anymore and retire to Florida. ::)
One can hope.
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 10, 2009, 04:50 PM NHFT
Finally, I wouldn't consider, "You ought to be ashamed." an emotionally charged response. Seems like a statement of fact, to me. :P
Knowing your voice and arguing style so well from listening to FTL I read "You ought to be ashamed." stated in the same tone you seem to use "Sir." Which is usually when you are a little worked up. Regardless, shame is an emotion and stating someone should do anything... let alone feel a particular way... is a sure way to put someone on the defensive and would seem to me an emotionally fueled comment.
He should feel shame. I just believe it'd be a hell of a lot more effective to attempt to get him to actually feel that way through showing him the flaws in his beliefs rather than trying to instruct him to what is appropriate.
Perhaps you can be the one to build a bridge with Steve Sprowl. Let us know how it works out!
Quote from: Jared on March 10, 2009, 04:34 PM NHFT
just want to point out that the video being passed around does not really explain why the horses were taken...that is, what the excuse was..i think the video would be much more effective if that were explained in a little more detail, and at the beginning of the video rather then the end. otherwise, i think most people will just assume that the spca must have had a good reason for taking the animals.
I agree; after listening to FTL, watching the video, reading the Union Leader article, and reading this thread, I remain confused.
Per the video, it seems that Brian was informed in some way that the reason his horses were taken was because he didn't fill out some sort of paperwork. What does that mean? What did the search warrant say? Were prior notices delivered by mail or in person, or did this incident come completely out of the blue?
Whether the horses were taken for paperwork reasons or alleged abuse reasons, why the hell does that entitle entrance into the family home?? Again, what does the search warrant say?
Has any information been provided as to if/how the Travises can/will get their horses back, or do they really have no idea?
Were any animals other than horses examined by the vet? For example, if the official reason for all this is alleged animal abuse, you'd think the vet would also take a look at the dogs, right?
According to Brian, they didn't even look at the horses that were walking about the property, as that would have apparently been too much work.
As I understood it Brian claimed the warrant said that they were to secure all weapons on the property which would mean the house primarily. Could have been a sly way to get in the house but it doesn't seem like that was a target. They were just covering their ass. I don't believe they could have confiscated or used anything as evidence found in the house.
Cops can always confiscate "contraband", but they can't necessarily use the confiscated items against you. If Miller had a grow op in his closet, they could have taken the plants, but not charged him, cause they weren't on the warrant.
Quote from: KBCraig on March 10, 2009, 03:22 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 10, 2009, 01:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on March 10, 2009, 01:32 PM NHFT
The guy in the suit and the gray stupid hat is the Prosecutor from Charlie and Jesse's hat trials.
Lt. Reams?
He sure didn't want to admit who he was.
I got the distinct feeling that nobody there felt righteous about what they were doing, except for Steve Sprowl and (possibly) Dr. George. Animal lovers who are rescuing abused horses tend to be proud of what they're doing. I think the whole bunch knew they were up to no good.
You're right about that! The whole Bunch did look awfully guilty because they were (!) Up to No Good. >:D
I feel bad for the family and the scarred Horses and I look forward to their Speedy return. I wonder what's next, I"m sure lots.
I"d love to see a visit to the SPCA, a protest in front, (big signs "SPCA are Horse Thieves!")a run at a Steve Interview? The Press asked to cover the story? Letters to the Editor are always good. I also like the idea of visiting the Dirty Doctor's Office and letting his customers know the real deal on the "Good" Doctor; that he's a Snitch for Hire.
Legal wise, I'm not sure if I missed it, but what's next? Is there a hearing scheduled?
Apparently, no one's been charged with anything yet.
is it possible to break the law, but not break the law, but break the law again?
Quote from: cynthia on March 10, 2009, 02:30 PM NHFT
I called the spca; there is an extension, maybe #4 or #5, that is for reporting stolen animals.. perfect! , I thought, and report the theft of horses in Candia by Steve Sprowl.
I also noticed that they don't seem to be answering their phones, a few of the extensions I tried, which means it is either a shoestring operation, or they are not too enthused about the nature of the calls they have been receiving. ;D
If it's the office in Exeter, then I bet they
weren't answering due to "the nature" of the calls because I've always seen plenty of people to answer the phone when I've been there.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 10, 2009, 08:16 PM NHFT
Apparently, no one's been charged with anything yet.
Unbelievable.
Quote from: Jared on March 10, 2009, 04:34 PM NHFT
just want to point out that the video being passed around does not really explain why the horses were taken...that is, what the excuse was..i think the video would be much more effective if that were explained in a little more detail, and at the beginning of the video rather then the end. otherwise, i think most people will just assume that the spca must have had a good reason for taking the animals.
I knew who was behind the camera (and about the earlier incident), so naturally I trusted the story...but good analysis/idea, I think you're right in that a explanation in the beginning would help better tell the story of this Horse Heist.
Quote from: AntonLee on March 10, 2009, 08:19 PM NHFT
is it possible to break the law, but not break the law, but break the law again?
Is this some sort of lateral thinking puzzle?
From seacoastonline.com:
12 horses seized by N.H. SPCA (http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090310-NEWS-90310034)
Largest rescue in recent history
March 10, 2009 5:51 PM
STRATHAM — The New Hampshire SPCA assisted Candia Police in removing 12 Arabian horses from a property in Candia today. The horses were not receiving proper care and shelter and were determined by a veterinarian to be at risk. The horses are being held by the New Hampshire SPCA in protective custody.
Steve Sprowl, Field Services Manager for the N.H.SPCA, was contacted by the Candia police department with regard to horses that were not afforded shelter, despite the state law requiring it. Sprowl called in the services of the N.H.SPCA Disaster Response Team to assist in the rescue. Two veterinarians on scene determined which horses had to be removed from the property.
"The New Hampshire SPCA has cared for more horses this winter than any of us can recall," said Lisa Dennison, Executive Director. "Of the 10 that were recently in our care, six of them have found homes. This rescue has put new demands and additional strain on already tight resources."
The New Hampshire SPCA is asking for the support of the community to assist with the care and rehabilitation of the horses.
"Animals held in protective custody must remain with us until their case is resolved. These 12 horses join four others already in our care, two of whom are also in protective custody. It could be months, or longer. We are hopeful that the case will be expedited."
Those wishing to help with the care, medical treatment, and recuperation of the horses can make a tax deductible contribution to the N.H.SPCA. Donations should be directed to the SOS Fund and can be made via the Web site www.nhspca.org, by phone at 772-2921, ext. 105, or by mail to SOS Fund, P.O. Box 196, Stratham, NH 03885.
The New Hampshire SPCA is a community resource center that provides animal adoption, education, investigation and sheltering services in a professional and compassionate way. The Adoption Center is open from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Monday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday; 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Tuesday and Thursday, and closed on Wednesday. For information about the N.H.SPCA, visit www.nhspca.org.
Quote from: Pat McCotter on March 11, 2009, 12:03 AM NHFT
From seacoastonline.com:
12 horses seized by N.H. SPCA (http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090310-NEWS-90310034)
Largest rescue in recent history
March 10, 2009 5:51 PM
STRATHAM — The New Hampshire SPCA assisted Candia Police in removing 12 Arabian horses from a property in Candia today. The horses were not receiving proper care and shelter and were determined by a veterinarian to be at risk. The horses are being held by the New Hampshire SPCA in protective custody.
Steve Sprowl, Field Services Manager for the N.H.SPCA, was contacted by the Candia police department with regard to horses that were not afforded shelter, despite the state law requiring it. Sprowl called in the services of the N.H.SPCA Disaster Response Team to assist in the rescue. Two veterinarians on scene determined which horses had to be removed from the property.
"The New Hampshire SPCA has cared for more horses this winter than any of us can recall," said Lisa Dennison, Executive Director. "Of the 10 that were recently in our care, six of them have found homes. This rescue has put new demands and additional strain on already tight resources."
The New Hampshire SPCA is asking for the support of the community to assist with the care and rehabilitation of the horses.
"Animals held in protective custody must remain with us until their case is resolved. These 12 horses join four others already in our care, two of whom are also in protective custody. It could be months, or longer. We are hopeful that the case will be expedited."
Those wishing to help with the care, medical treatment, and recuperation of the horses can make a tax deductible contribution to the N.H.SPCA. Donations should be directed to the SOS Fund and can be made via the Web site www.nhspca.org, by phone at 772-2921, ext. 105, or by mail to SOS Fund, P.O. Box 196, Stratham, NH 03885.
The New Hampshire SPCA is a community resource center that provides animal adoption, education, investigation and sheltering services in a professional and compassionate way. The Adoption Center is open from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Monday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday; 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Tuesday and Thursday, and closed on Wednesday. For information about the N.H.SPCA, visit www.nhspca.org.
It's good to know that they have balanced reporting of the incident, trying to get all parties involved perspective.
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 10, 2009, 07:45 PM NHFT
Cops can always confiscate "contraband", but they can't necessarily use the confiscated items against you. If Miller had a grow op in his closet, they could have taken the plants, but not charged him, cause they weren't on the warrant.
I'm certainly no expert on the law, but I'm pretty sure that anything they find under a "legitimate" search is usable, even if it's unrelated to the reason for the search. If they have a warrant and if they find something else while there, I'm pretty sure they can act on it according to the laws they made up. I just want people to know that for future reference. That said, this warrant seems pretty questionable and it sounds like there wasn't anything to find anyway.
Quote from: dalebert on March 11, 2009, 01:37 AM NHFT
this warrant seems pretty questionable
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.
It's a put on.
One more paste eater identified through forensic evidence.
We really will miss that lucky thirteen.
If it makes you feel better though, we're so happy for you.
Sleep tight my little baby cakes.
Mommy will tuck you in.
::)
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 10, 2009, 07:45 PM NHFT
Cops can always confiscate "contraband", but they can't necessarily use the confiscated items against you. If Miller had a grow op in his closet, they could have taken the plants, but not charged him, cause they weren't on the warrant.
WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING!!
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT!
Sorry, Ian, I'm not yelling at you, but I didn't want to take a chance that anyone might rely on this, because it's completely wrong.
Once their entry into the house is "legitimate" (or even a "good faith mistake", per recent SCOTUS rulings), anything they see there is legitimate fruit of the search.
The current Supremes give huge latitude to police, so that even if they act recklessly and kick down the wrong door without a valid warrant, they can use anything they find.
Quote from: Porcupine The Prickly Polytheist on March 11, 2009, 12:20 AM NHFT
Quote from: Pat McCotter on March 11, 2009, 12:03 AM NHFT
From seacoastonline.com:
12 horses seized by N.H. SPCA (http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090310-NEWS-90310034)
Largest rescue in recent history
March 10, 2009 5:51 PM
STRATHAM — The New Hampshire SPCA assisted Candia Police in removing 12 Arabian horses from a property in Candia today. The horses were not receiving proper care and shelter and were determined by a veterinarian to be at risk. The horses are being held by the New Hampshire SPCA in protective custody.
It's good to know that they have balanced reporting of the incident, trying to get all parties involved perspective.
You forgot your " ::) ". ;)
The UL has a better article today:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=f2af1271-779f-4dd4-b4dc-a7b9cb41066c
At issue: Were seized Candia horses at risk?
By GRETYL MACALASTER
Union Leader Correspondent
CANDIA – Twelve horses were seized Monday over concerns about proper care and shelter.
But the property owner, Brian Travis, said the horses are perfectly healthy and alleged they were taken because of a dispute with Steve Sprowl, an investigator with the New Hampshire Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals.
Police Sgt. Scott Gallagher said the NHSPCA and the police department have been working together on the case for the past few months.
According to a news release from the organization, Candia police had contacted Sprowl regarding horses that were not afforded shelter, despite a state law requiring it.
The NHSPCA Disaster Response Team assisted police in removing 12 Arabian horses that were determined by a veterinarian to be at risk. Two veterinarians on-scene determined which horses had to be removed from the property.
Two veterinarian technicians from the New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets and Food were also on scene.
No charges have been filed in relation to the seizure; Candia Police Chief Mike McGillen said the investigation is ongoing. He would not comment on where the complaint originated or what the probable cause was for executing the
search warrant, which has been sealed.Gallagher said any proof for a warrant would have to be more substantial than just a concern in order to obtain a warrant.
Travis and his wife, Heidi Fredrick, own about
40 acres at 456 Critchett Road. They have about
30 horses, 17 of which remain on the property. The backyard is
dotted with shelters and paddocks, some in the process of being built. Sprawling
bales of hay fill paddock areas and the front lawn.
The couple moved to New Hampshire last summer with the Free State project and brought the horses with them. Travis said Fredrick has had horses her entire life.
The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 people to move to New Hampshire, with a goal of creating a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property.
In November, Sprowl attempted to search the couple's property to determine if there was adequate shelter for the horses, but was denied access because Travis was not home.
Sprowl called police and instructed Fredrick that if he were not allowed on the property, a search warrant could be issued and charges could be filed if adequate shelter was not found.
Fredrick told Sprowl if he wanted to reschedule when Travis was home, she thought that would be a fair arrangement.Travis' son, Cooper, videotaped the exchange and was taken into custody after refusing to stop the recording. No charges were filed and Cooper was released the same day.
Travis said if the situation had been handled differently, he would have worked with Sprowl and shown him the work he was doing to provide the adequate shelter required under state law.
Sheila Ryan, director of development and marketing with the NHSPCA said Sprowl was not immediately available for comment because of the ongoing investigation.
Under state law, horses must be provided a roofed shelter with at least three sides from Nov. 1 to April 15.
Travis said he had no contact with Sprowl after the November incident and was never told that the shelter he provided was inadequate.He acknowledged that some of the horses were thinner than he would like after a stressful move from Colorado and adjusting to the New Hampshire winter. He also said some areas had been temporarily crowded while new shelters were being built, but said none of the animals were in poor health or lacked shelter.
"Steve Sprowl has a vendetta against me because I didn't play by his rules; it is the only thing that makes sense," Travis said. "It seems to me if someone is abusing their animals the government has a right to get involved, but that is not happening here."
Under state law, only the state veterinarian or a licensed veterinarian can make a probable cause determination for seizing horses pursuant to a cruelty investigation, and horses cannot be seized without probable cause.
Teresa Paradis, founder and director of the Live and Let Live Farm, a non-profit rescue shelter for horses in Chichester said she received a call for help from Fredrick about six weeks ago.
Fredrick originally talked about sending nine or 10 horses to the farm because of financial difficulties. Paradis said Fredrick was then able to get money together for hay and only three horses were taken. Since then, the family's financial situation has improved, Travis said.
Paradis said although some of the horses were a little underweight, none were emaciated and she did not see signs of imminent danger to them.She said she gave Fredrick some advice on shelters that needed repair.
"They seemed like very concerned people in a bad situation," Paradis said. "They did not seem set up for 25 horses."
The horses are being held in protective custody by the NHSPCA, but their location is unknown.
Monday's seizure was also caught on tape by Travis; it can be viewed on YouTube.
In the video, a number of trucks and trailers are shown, at least one of which had duct tape over the front license plate and over the name of the farm on the trailer.
McGillen said he did not see the duct tape himself, and that there was no directive from the police department to do so.
Under New Hampshire law, it is illegal according to police sources, to conceal the license plate numbers for any reason.Ryan said the organization had no additional comment related to the seizure at this time because of the ongoing investigation, but hoped to have more information available in the next few days.
Sidebar:
NHSPCA
Role: The nonprofit organization is called in to assist with animal cruelty investigations in addition to being a community resource center providing animal adoption, education and sheltering services.
Authority: The NHSPCA is not an enforcement agency and
has no authority to arrest or search a property, according to state and local officials. Candia Police Sgt. Gallagher said the power to arrest or charge someone with a crime against animals lies with local law enforcement.
I don't know Mr. Travis or anything, but wouldn't the end result of not caring for horses by providing "adequate" shelter be that the horses would die? Doesn't seem to me that a guy who hauls his whole family with all their horses across the country would want them to die. Seems to me that a person like that knows what his horses need better than the SPCA who, I'm sorry to say, can not be doing as good of a job as Mr. Travis.
does anyone think that the Government is taking better care of these poor horses? I think that everyone involved here is guilty of helping to steal horses. . . from the douche from SPCA, to the Police, to the people who lent their horse trailers.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 10, 2009, 12:36 PM NHFT
anyone doing articles i would urge contacting folks on the other side and getting their view if possible
even if they dont respond it makes the story more powerful
the NH Free Press doesn't follow normal journalistic guidelines. We do not cover "both sides" of a story. We tell people what we know and let others tell their story. In this case we have the story from Brian's family and some of their friends. We also have the testimony of the government workers on film. Kat has not received any replies from the government's "side". We have also not contacted those that were blocked from the road, the abducted horses or the ones wondering where their friends went. We will just have to run with the info we now have.
I saw a horse on a property last night on the way home in which I can't say I recall ever seeing a horse or a trailer on it. I wonder if it is one of Heidi's? It's this house for sale on Black Brook Road in Goffstown. Someh what near Manchester.
I also assume that the government has less reason to care for the horses. Since so many of the people involved refused to introduce themselves or talk about what they are doing, I am going to assume (almost) the worst
Bile ... you sure have alot of time to tell the rest of us what not to do. Our forum is not intended as a place to tell anti-thug activists NOT to bother the government workers.
BTW ... the forum nazis here do not condone the idea of shooting horse theives ... but we sometimes let people vent their frustrations at a huge powerful system that hurts millions of people each year.
QuoteMcGillen said he did not see the duct tape himself, and that there was no directive from the police department to do so.
But they did turn a blind eye. It's on tape.
It might be in the best interest of all parties involved for the SPCA to return the horses immediately with an apology before a jury has a chance to get a hold of this.
That UL article has several pieces of info that weren't brought up previously. It doesn't sound to me like this whole thing can necessarily be blamed on a vendetta by Steve Sproul, or a stab in the back by Dr. George.
are these horses being sold/"adopted" out by the SPCA!?
if so how is that even legal?! Have you gotten a REPUTABLE veterinarian to assess the horses before or after?
What the heck is going on this seems like a bad movie!
QuoteTeresa Paradis, founder and director of the Live and Let Live Farm, a non-profit rescue shelter for horses in Chichester said she received a call for help from Fredrick about six weeks ago.
Fredrick originally talked about sending nine or 10 horses to the farm because of financial difficulties. Paradis said Fredrick was then able to get money together for hay and only three horses were taken. Since then, the family's financial situation has improved, Travis said.
Is this accurate?
Regarding the 'care and maintenance' of the horses as well as their ultimate disposition...
In VT (NH may be different, I haven't had the time to research it yet), the officer or agent responsible for STEALING the horses gets to charge the rightful owner for the care & upkeep at a 'reasonable and acceptable' rate. I'm not too sure what that is around Candia, NH, but around the Woodstock, VT area that can be upwards of $700/mo per horse. Yep, you read that right; the person who STOLE YOUR PROPERTY gets to EXTORT MONEY FROM YOU if you want to get your property back.
The owner of the horses MUST PAY the HORSE THIEF, or the HORSE THIEF gets to keep their booty. All very legal of course, and unquestionably in the 'best interest' of the horses... ::)
Brian, I still can't even begin to tell you how pissed off I am for you, even more so now that I know that your stolen horses are Arabs. How can I get a hold of you to help in any way possible?
Quote from: Friday on March 11, 2009, 06:50 AM NHFT
That UL article has several pieces of info that weren't brought up previously. It doesn't sound to me like this whole thing can necessarily be blamed on a vendetta by Steve Sproul, or a stab in the back by Dr. George.
The instigation of the entire thing can be blamed on the neighbor and Sprowl but WRT the vet I would agree and there are questions which I'd like to see answered.
The article (and a commenter) says the hay was in paddock areas. The commenter claims they were left open. Covered in snow and sitting in water. Is this true? There seems to be a large amount of hay sitting near the fence in the UL article photo. How much of the property are the horses utilizing? Horses per acre? What are the horses being fed? Sweet feed, a pelleted complete feed, grazing + hay? How many structures are there? What are the sizes approximately? How injured was the one horse mentioned and was it one of the ones taken? The article says 30 horses, Teresa Paradis says 25 and it is mentioned that 3 were transferred to Live and Let Live Farm. What is the actual total number? What did she mean by "They did not seem set up for 25 horses." In what regard?
It seems that a case could be made that they were a bit unprepared for the new care requirements required by NH's weather but that they were surely making strides to accommodate and the horse theft was completely unjustified. Looks to me that Teresa Paradis is their best witness.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 11, 2009, 06:14 AM NHFT
Bile ... you sure have alot of time to tell the rest of us what not to do.
If you don't want constructive criticism so be it. So many of you criticize others for supposedly wasting their time in other forms of activism. Especially political. I've laid down arguments for why I feel the things mentioned were counterproductive and what may be better means. If you disagree and want to debate them, lets do so. But please don't just sit there and chastise me for offering an opinion on the effectiveness and appropriateness of a particular action.
QuoteOur forum is not intended as a place to tell anti-thug activists NOT to bother the government workers.
Where exactly did I say NOT to address him? Ian said the same thing on the radio last night. I NEVER made such a claim. I said interactions should be kept from appearing offensive and ad hominem. It undermines the appearance of being the victim and therefore jeopardizes possible support from otherwise neutral parties. Neutral wasn't even going to be the starting position due to the Travis family situation involving the SPCA and supposedly abused horses. I've been through similar situations and was only giving my take on appropriate responses.
Quote from: bile on March 11, 2009, 08:29 AM NHFT
If you don't want constructive criticism so be it. .... If you disagree and want to debate them, lets do so. But please don't just sit there and chastise me ....
I don't want to debate you ... that is my point .... actually I will just sit here ;)
Just found this:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rules/agr3700.html
PART Agr 3704 SHELTER AVAILABLE AND EXERCISE
Agr 3704.01 Shelter Requirements.
(a) Barns with stalls shall be:
(1) Structurally sound and maintained in good repair;
(2) Ventilated by natural means and/or mechanical means of exhaust fans or air conditioners;
(3) Structured with natural light;
(4) Adequate in size in box stalls for animals to move freely about;
(5) Structured with standing stalls that are a minimum of 5 feet wide and 8 feet long for equines over 750 pounds and 4 feet wide by 7 feet long for equines under 750 pounds; and
(6) Bedded with dry material to prevent animals from laying in moisture.
(b) The 3 sided shelters shall be:
(1) Structurally sound and maintained in good repair; and
(2) Adequate in size for all animals in the paddock or pasture to enter at once, including a minimum of 100 square feet per equines over 750 pounds and 50 square feet per equines under 750 pounds.
Source. #7989, eff 11-21-03
In the last topic you said this:
[quote author=brian.travis link=topic=15929.msg268597#msg268597 date=1226012211]
Here's an update. Steve Sprowl, the SPCA investigator, finally called me back today and said that all he wanted to do is to check out the sheds as required by law. I assured him that our very expensive racehorses were well taken care of. I explained that the "Animal Cruelty Officer" from the town next door visited a couple months ago and reminded me that there was a "law" that required shelter between November 15th and April 15th. I told the cop then that I was aware of that rule of theirs. Their law actually says November 1st. Of course, I was supposed to be aware of this law by the mere fact that I was born?
For you who might not know about horses, they were around long before humans could give them shelter. The fact that they are with us today is testament to the fact that they don't really need us to survive the cold winters. Horses are amazing at growing hair when they need a sweater, and shedding it when they don't. Believe me, those hairy beasts shed like crazy in the summer!
The only difference between a horse kept in a warm barn and an outside horse is that the outside horse needs more calories to keep warm. They will be warm, they just need to eat more. We "free-feed" our horses, which means there's always a big round bale of hay that they have access to. So they can eat as much as they want, whenever they want.
Put these two facts together and you will see that building shelters for the horses just makes economic sense. The cost of a shelter will be paid for very quickly in the reduced feed requirement. We would normally have shelters finished long ago, but since we just moved here, there were other priorities (like keeping the hairless apes warm for the winter) that pushed back the horse shelter plan.
But we will have the shelters finished by the end of this weekend. Mr. Sprowl asked if he could come over next week. I told him that he is free to visit to see whatever he can see from the street. I could be there to point out where the sheds are, and that the horses are being well cared-for. I asked if there was someone in his office who might be kind enough to give us some pointers on the unique aspects of New Hampshire weather or pests that we might be unaware of. Instead of offering me someone from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, he pointed me to the New Hampshire State Veterinarian's office!
But no one who tries to get their way at the barrel of a gun will set foot on my property without my permission or a search warrant. And the latter will open up a whole new can of whoop-ass!
[/quote]
Most importantly in there to me right now: "But we will have the shelters finished by the end of this weekend."
Were the shelters finished?
Also,
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XL/435/435-16.htm
435:16 Penalty. – Any owner failing to comply with the provisions of this subdivision shall be notified as to the proper care of horses. Upon a second offense, the horse shall be seized and not returned until restitution for the expenses involved in the seizure is made and proof of proper care is given. Upon a third or subsequent offense, the horse shall be permanently seized. Whoever violates the provisions of this subdivision shall be guilty of a violation.
Source. 1985, 72:1, eff. July 1, 1985.
According to that, even if you were somehow in "violation" you would get a three strikes and you're out sort of thing. Warning #1, warning #2, and then the permanent loss of your animals.
Step one was when coop was there etc right? Was this step #2 or step #3? It is seeming like three but i never heard about 2!?
Also I think it would help a lot if you did all of the following:
#1 - got your own vet to speak up for you - if you dont have one GET ONE and get them to check all of your horses INCLUDING the ones seized.
#2 Take pictures NOW of your land, house, and most importantly the SHELTERS and the other horses that you still have. In fact, i would go as far as to take photos of the seized horses if you know the location of them!
Furthermore! I have a new Rebel XSi and photography experience. I will come up with my friend who also has a great HQ camera and we will take the pictures with/for you if you like. This would put an end to the assumptions about the care or lack of, the conditions, and all the other BS that people are coming up with to defend this asshat Sprowl with. Ok!?
#3 Get your hands on a better video camera - youll need it now and in the future. The grainy quality etc makes it very hard to see details in that youtube vid.
#4 GET THE MEDIA INVOLVED HEAVILY!
In regards to #2 - please let me know if you want to have me come up. I am more than willing to help you in any way that I can. I can photograph and print if needed. If you wanted I could even print them on a plotter at very high quality and size (up to 54" wide i believe"
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 11, 2009, 08:54 AM NHFT
I don't want to debate you ... that is my point .... actually I will just sit here ;)
I fail to see the reason for speaking up on a topic you wish not to discuss and chastising me for a statement I never made. You speak of having time. Seems you do too.
I also just found this! Looks like a whole lot more to the story that talked about in any of these topics???
Look at item number IV
What the hell!?
Jones Ranch Conservation Easement - Mr. Sprunk said the owners of Jones
Ranch property are violating their conservation easement by grazing 26 horses on
the property. Animal control officers recently posted the property and threatened
to start removing horses that were malnourished. The owner of the property has
left the state and the house is in foreclosure. Mr. Sprunk said he will try to
3
contact the Animal Welfare Officer next week to see if there was any new
information. The landowner is supposedly trying to find new homes for the
horses.
Mrs. Matthews said steps are being taken so that a title search will reveal the
conservation easement violation and make the property difficult to sell. The
County Attorney's office will be responsible for this process. The asking price
for the property is $650,000.
Mr. Sprunk said the recent rains have at least helped the appearance of the land,
he expects the property will recover if the horses are removed.
Mrs. Matthews said a lender cannot be held liable for the violation of the
conservation easement since they were not a signatory to the easement.
Mr. Sprunk has never actually spoken with or met the owner, Heidi Fredrick. Mr.
Weston asked if we could have the Sheriff's Office serve the letter to the owner.
Mr. Sprunk wondered how this could be accomplished if the owner is out of state.
He expects the realtor may be of some help, he must be concerned about the status
of this property.
Mr. Welle asked what the goal is at this point. Mr. Sprunk said the primary goal
is to get the horses off the property and that is happening, largely because they are
being neglected.
Quote from: leetninja on March 11, 2009, 09:43 AM NHFT
I also just found this! Looks like a whole lot more to the story that talked about in any of these topics???
Look at item number IV
I was just about to post this. Seems they really didn't know what was going on but I would like to hear the family's side.
Quote from: KBCraig on March 11, 2009, 03:16 AM NHFT
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 10, 2009, 07:45 PM NHFT
Cops can always confiscate "contraband", but they can't necessarily use the confiscated items against you. If Miller had a grow op in his closet, they could have taken the plants, but not charged him, cause they weren't on the warrant.
WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING!!
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT!
Sorry, Ian, I'm not yelling at you, but I didn't want to take a chance that anyone might rely on this, because it's completely wrong.
Once their entry into the house is "legitimate" (or even a "good faith mistake", per recent SCOTUS rulings), anything they see there is legitimate fruit of the search.
The current Supremes give huge latitude to police, so that even if they act recklessly and kick down the wrong door without a valid warrant, they can use anything they find.
Sorry for the misinformation. Didn't it used to be the way I specified?
I hate ambiguity.
From NH CHAPTER Agr 3700 TREATMENT OF HORSES,
PART Agr 3706 ENFORCEMENT
Agr 3706.01 Penalty. Failure to comply with these rules or RSA 435:11-15 shall subject the owner of an equine to the penalty provisions of RSA 435:16.
And that says...
Section 435:16
435:16 Penalty. – Any owner failing to comply with the provisions of this subdivision shall be notified as to the proper care of horses. Upon a second offense, the horse shall be seized and not returned until restitution for the expenses involved in the seizure is made and proof of proper care is given. Upon a third or subsequent offense, the horse shall be permanently seized. Whoever violates the provisions of this subdivision shall be guilty of a violation.
Source. 1985, 72:1, eff. July 1, 1985.
OK, the bold underlined part is what I see as being signifigant here, ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS EVEN AN ACTUAL VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE IN THE FIRST PLACE... What constitutes 'notification'? Does an email count? What about a voicemail? How about a text message? Perhaps mr. 'IgotanASSpca badge stuffed in my ___' could mutter something under his breath as he's walking away and that'd count too. There's no legal definition given for 'notification' in the statutes that I'm presuming that the NH gangbangers might try to use. So I suppose you could say, again ASSUMING that there was even a violation of the arbitrary rules in the first place, that Brian was never 'Notified' if Brian believes that 'Notification' for the sake of the statutes possibly involved is "Presentation of the opinion of the accuser in the form of pink frosting text in 14pt. size Times New Roman font on an 11"x"17" single layered Betty Crocker Angel Food Cake prepared from a retail packaged cake mix purchased at the Shaw's Supermarket located in Manchester, NH frosted with Pilsbury Milk Chocolate frosting sold in the 8oz. retail plastic tub purchased at the Sure-Fine Supermarket located in Atlanta, GA"
As far as NHSPCA being a caring organization...sorry - don't believe it. They are supposed to be but in my wanderings yesterday I ended up here:
http://www.nhspca.org/MostRecentRescue.htm
After reading this article and seeing that wonderful Mr. Sprowl *gag* is the one to call if you have any information about this animal...I called them. This happened on their premises. Yes the animal died during business hours. They didn't notice it there!! Do I know this for sure? Yes - the woman I talked to confirmed it.
"Cruelty to Owners" by John Stossel
Part 1
Part 2
has anyone figured out the locations of these horses? Are there any horse clubs that might post farm locations in the NH area? I'm spurred on by this because of the one picture I saw that looked a lot like Kensington, NH.
I bet if we split up the state we might be able to find these vehicles that did the hauling, and take some pictures. If those are confirmed, then we could return and start taking pictures of the horses, hopefully to identify them (and the owners)
Kensington is in my area of the state. . .what I plan on doing this evening is driving around the town looking for known farms, of which there are a few that even I know of. Look for familiar vehicles and take pictures if needed.
(http://photos-e.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-snc1/v2626/21/33/624641163/n624641163_2244684_8031116.jpg)
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 11, 2009, 10:19 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on March 11, 2009, 03:16 AM NHFT
Once their entry into the house is "legitimate" (or even a "good faith mistake", per recent SCOTUS rulings), anything they see there is legitimate fruit of the search.
The current Supremes give huge latitude to police, so that even if they act recklessly and kick down the wrong door without a valid warrant, they can use anything they find.
Sorry for the misinformation. Didn't it used to be the way I specified?
Never, to my knowledge. It's true that they can only look where the person or thing to be seized could be located, which means that if they're looking for a stolen elephant, they can't look in your medicine cabinet. But if they're searching for drugs (which can be almost anywhere), any guns, stolen elephants, etc., that they come across are legitimate fruit of the search.
Quote from: Porcupine The Prickly Polytheist on March 11, 2009, 01:17 PM NHFT
"Cruelty to Owners" by John Stossel
I never saw that video before it was heart wrenching.
If anyone has a account for wikipedia the site does not have anything for the NHSPCA. Maybe someone could start a page about the theft that the NHSPCA does.
Quote from: bile on March 11, 2009, 09:08 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 11, 2009, 08:54 AM NHFT
I don't want to debate you ... that is my point .... actually I will just sit here ;)
I fail to see the reason for speaking up on a topic you wish not to discuss
I just don't want to debate about it. I do want to talk about it. i have time to support my friend and others. :)
Quote from: Porcupine The Prickly Polytheist on March 11, 2009, 01:17 PM NHFT
"Cruelty to Owners" by John Stossel
when questioned ... the guy mentions the law ,,, what the judge decided ... what law enforcement thought
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 11, 2009, 02:57 PM NHFT
Quote from: Porcupine The Prickly Polytheist on March 11, 2009, 01:17 PM NHFT
"Cruelty to Owners" by John Stossel
when questioned ... the guy mentions the law ,,, what the judge decided ... what law enforcement thought
Yep.
call the SPCA field manager Steve Sprowl at 674-9836 and give him and earful/demand an explanation. He is actually answering his phone and claiming I have the wrong number! lol. this is too funny.
Quote from: the_central_scrutinizer on March 11, 2009, 03:42 PM NHFT
call the SPCA field manager Steve Sprowl at 674-9836 and give him and earful/demand an explanation. He is actually answering his phone and claiming I have the wrong number! lol. this is too funny.
When he answered the phone did he identify himself? If anyone calls they should make sure they are talking to the correct person.
Neither Sprowl or the Chief of Police returned my call requesting an interview for print media.
Anyone want to address this?
Quote from: leetninja on March 11, 2009, 08:59 AM NHFT
Just found this:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rules/agr3700.html
PART Agr 3704 SHELTER AVAILABLE AND EXERCISE
Agr 3704.01 Shelter Requirements.
(a) Barns with stalls shall be:
(1) Structurally sound and maintained in good repair;
(2) Ventilated by natural means and/or mechanical means of exhaust fans or air conditioners;
(3) Structured with natural light;
(4) Adequate in size in box stalls for animals to move freely about;
(5) Structured with standing stalls that are a minimum of 5 feet wide and 8 feet long for equines over 750 pounds and 4 feet wide by 7 feet long for equines under 750 pounds; and
(6) Bedded with dry material to prevent animals from laying in moisture.
(b) The 3 sided shelters shall be:
(1) Structurally sound and maintained in good repair; and
(2) Adequate in size for all animals in the paddock or pasture to enter at once, including a minimum of 100 square feet per equines over 750 pounds and 50 square feet per equines under 750 pounds.
Source. #7989, eff 11-21-03
In the last topic you said this:
[quote author=brian.travis link=topic=15929.msg268597#msg268597 date=1226012211]
Here's an update. Steve Sprowl, the SPCA investigator, finally called me back today and said that all he wanted to do is to check out the sheds as required by law. I assured him that our very expensive racehorses were well taken care of. I explained that the "Animal Cruelty Officer" from the town next door visited a couple months ago and reminded me that there was a "law" that required shelter between November 15th and April 15th. I told the cop then that I was aware of that rule of theirs. Their law actually says November 1st. Of course, I was supposed to be aware of this law by the mere fact that I was born?
For you who might not know about horses, they were around long before humans could give them shelter. The fact that they are with us today is testament to the fact that they don't really need us to survive the cold winters. Horses are amazing at growing hair when they need a sweater, and shedding it when they don't. Believe me, those hairy beasts shed like crazy in the summer!
The only difference between a horse kept in a warm barn and an outside horse is that the outside horse needs more calories to keep warm. They will be warm, they just need to eat more. We "free-feed" our horses, which means there's always a big round bale of hay that they have access to. So they can eat as much as they want, whenever they want.
Put these two facts together and you will see that building shelters for the horses just makes economic sense. The cost of a shelter will be paid for very quickly in the reduced feed requirement. We would normally have shelters finished long ago, but since we just moved here, there were other priorities (like keeping the hairless apes warm for the winter) that pushed back the horse shelter plan.
But we will have the shelters finished by the end of this weekend. Mr. Sprowl asked if he could come over next week. I told him that he is free to visit to see whatever he can see from the street. I could be there to point out where the sheds are, and that the horses are being well cared-for. I asked if there was someone in his office who might be kind enough to give us some pointers on the unique aspects of New Hampshire weather or pests that we might be unaware of. Instead of offering me someone from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, he pointed me to the New Hampshire State Veterinarian's office!
But no one who tries to get their way at the barrel of a gun will set foot on my property without my permission or a search warrant. And the latter will open up a whole new can of whoop-ass!
[/quote]
Most importantly in there to me right now: "But we will have the shelters finished by the end of this weekend."
Were the shelters finished?
Also,
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XL/435/435-16.htm
435:16 Penalty. – Any owner failing to comply with the provisions of this subdivision shall be notified as to the proper care of horses. Upon a second offense, the horse shall be seized and not returned until restitution for the expenses involved in the seizure is made and proof of proper care is given. Upon a third or subsequent offense, the horse shall be permanently seized. Whoever violates the provisions of this subdivision shall be guilty of a violation.
Source. 1985, 72:1, eff. July 1, 1985.
According to that, even if you were somehow in "violation" you would get a three strikes and you're out sort of thing. Warning #1, warning #2, and then the permanent loss of your animals.
Step one was when coop was there etc right? Was this step #2 or step #3? It is seeming like three but i never heard about 2!?
Also I think it would help a lot if you did all of the following:
#1 - got your own vet to speak up for you - if you dont have one GET ONE and get them to check all of your horses INCLUDING the ones seized.
#2 Take pictures NOW of your land, house, and most importantly the SHELTERS and the other horses that you still have. In fact, i would go as far as to take photos of the seized horses if you know the location of them!
Furthermore! I have a new Rebel XSi and photography experience. I will come up with my friend who also has a great HQ camera and we will take the pictures with/for you if you like. This would put an end to the assumptions about the care or lack of, the conditions, and all the other BS that people are coming up with to defend this asshat Sprowl with. Ok!?
#3 Get your hands on a better video camera - youll need it now and in the future. The grainy quality etc makes it very hard to see details in that youtube vid.
#4 GET THE MEDIA INVOLVED HEAVILY!
In regards to #2 - please let me know if you want to have me come up. I am more than willing to help you in any way that I can. I can photograph and print if needed. If you wanted I could even print them on a plotter at very high quality and size (up to 54" wide i believe"
Quote from: leetninja on March 11, 2009, 09:43 AM NHFT
I also just found this! Looks like a whole lot more to the story that talked about in any of these topics???
Look at item number IV
What the hell!?
Jones Ranch Conservation Easement - Mr. Sprunk said the owners of Jones
Ranch property are violating their conservation easement by grazing 26 horses on
the property. Animal control officers recently posted the property and threatened
to start removing horses that were malnourished. The owner of the property has
left the state and the house is in foreclosure. Mr. Sprunk said he will try to
3
contact the Animal Welfare Officer next week to see if there was any new
information. The landowner is supposedly trying to find new homes for the
horses.
Mrs. Matthews said steps are being taken so that a title search will reveal the
conservation easement violation and make the property difficult to sell. The
County Attorney's office will be responsible for this process. The asking price
for the property is $650,000.
Mr. Sprunk said the recent rains have at least helped the appearance of the land,
he expects the property will recover if the horses are removed.
Mrs. Matthews said a lender cannot be held liable for the violation of the
conservation easement since they were not a signatory to the easement.
Mr. Sprunk has never actually spoken with or met the owner, Heidi Fredrick. Mr.
Weston asked if we could have the Sheriff's Office serve the letter to the owner.
Mr. Sprunk wondered how this could be accomplished if the owner is out of state.
He expects the realtor may be of some help, he must be concerned about the status
of this property.
Mr. Welle asked what the goal is at this point. Mr. Sprunk said the primary goal
is to get the horses off the property and that is happening, largely because they are
being neglected.
If in the end in lese faire a person's reputation is what makes them act morally. Why not as free staters try to locate the people who were not police that came onto the property. Why not have other free staters check local ranches for new arabian race horses. Once they were located these places could be harassed and shamed so that they will never participate again.
Whatever happened to police being required to tell you the crime before seizing property?
The police especially the chief should be hounded until he makes public on what legal basis the horses were stolen and why he chose the most expensive in the heard and did not take all the horses. I think they took the horses because of the NSA for being "Arabians" You know how stupid some of those security agents, can be now days.
If I was in the area I'd lend a hand, too bad I'm not.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090311-NEWS-90311031 (http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090311-NEWS-90311031)
Sprowl sticking his nose in other peoples business again. From the story it sounds that he is ok as long as they pay homage to him. Another odd thing is that the people are also recent movers to NH.
Steve Sprowl tries to stop a pig scramble at a local fair with charges of animal cruelty.
http://www.myseacoastjob.com/2002news/exeter/07192002/news/14876.htm
Asked what he'd like to see in place, Sprowl said, "I would want kennels, breeders, anyone housing dogs, including pet sitters, be required to have a license, and a mandatory training program."
http://kennebunkrealtors.com/2002news/10022002/news/27466.htm
Is this the same judge they'll be dealing with?
http://portsmouthnhlodging.com/2003news/rock/10102003/news/54685.htm
Here's the outcome of the pig thing.
http://portsmouthnhemployment.com/2002news/exeter/07232002/news/15506.htm
Perhaps someone should assemble all these news links and other info in one place. Oh, lookie here:—
# whois stevesprowl.com
Whois Server Version 2.0
Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
No match for "STEVESPROWL.COM".
>>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:28:23 UTC <<<
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 11, 2009, 08:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: leetninja on March 11, 2009, 04:53 PM NHFT
Anyone want to address this?
why should anyone?
why shouldnt they/brian/heidi
seriously there are some large accusations being thrown around. i.e. that heidi abandoned horses under similar circumstances in colorado!? the shelters were supposedly built way back when brian said the "by the end of the weekend" but were they or not people are saying not, accusations of neglected/malnourished animals. pictures/video would prove these horses were well taken care of. the list of reasons to address the accusations goes on and on.
QuoteAlthough the society argued that emotional stress on the pig being chased by children constituted abusive treatment, Lewis said he didn't think it was any more stressful than "just being in a farmyard and encountering this or that."
Certainly not above adolescent histrionics to try and push their useless agenda are they.
This is NOT a picture of Alex Jones. haha
(http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k116/coffeeseven/0150_investigator.jpg)
Welcome to the ASPCA, New York Style.
(http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb139/horsegal_07/Animal_Precinct-1.jpg)
Quote from: Porcupine The Prickly Polytheist on March 11, 2009, 01:17 PM NHFT
"Cruelty to Owners" by John Stossel
I wonder if 20/20 would be interested once again???
For those that want to contact 20/20
http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346&cat=20/20
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 11, 2009, 08:26 PM NHFT
Perhaps someone should assemble all these news links and other info in one place. Oh, lookie here:—
# whois stevesprowl.com
Whois Server Version 2.0
Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
No match for "STEVESPROWL.COM".
>>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:28:23 UTC <<<
www.domainsearch.com
stevesprowl.com is available
stevesprowl.net is available
stevesprowl.org is available
Thank you for your request to ABC News.
To submit a story idea to one of the ABC News shows listed below, write a single page letter including your name, phone number, and address. Include photocopies of backup information. On the outside of the envelope, write "Story Idea." If a producer is interested in your story, he/she will contact you. Here are the show addresses:
20/20
147 Columbus Avenue
New York, NY 10023
Primetime
147 Columbus Avenue
New York, NY 10023
Nightline/This Week
1717 DeSales Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
World News With Charles Gibson
47 West 66th Street 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10023
Good Morning America
147 Columbus Avenue
New York, NY 10023
If you are submitting a Local news story:
-Go to ABC.com
-Go the very bottom of the screen and click on "LOCAL STATIONS"
-Follow the instructions on the map to find the local station e-mail, website, address and phone number.
There was talk on FTL about some supposedly missing paperwork on the horses, and some suggestion that could have been the excuse for the warrant and horsethievery. But they didn't get into the subject. Does anyone know what particular horse-related paperwork was allegedly not in order?
This should answer some of leetninja's concerns. Note that the police, the vets, and the NHSPCA are telling different and contradictory stories in their eagerness to avoid responsibility.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=91918a7f-671b-43ad-8909-f359a695909d
No health certificates found for seized horses
By GRETYL MACALASTER
Union Leader Correspondent
CANDIA – Twelve horses seized from a Critchett Road property this week and an additional 17 horses remaining on the land are under quarantine because they each lacked health certificates and proof of an equine infectious anemia test as required by state law.
Meanwhile, Colorado authorities confirmed that last fall they investigated concerns regarding malnourished horses at a farm owned by Heidi Fredrick, but no charges were filed and the case was closed.
Brian Travis, Fredrick's husband and owner of the Critchett Road property, said Fredrick boarded horses in Colorado and some owners were not taking care of them.
Lisa Massie, equine investigator for Douglas County in Colorado, said there was an investigation and concern about thin horses but the case has been closed and she did not have further information.
New Hampshire law requires that horses have a health certificate and proof that an EIA test has been done within six months prior to entering the state.
EIA is a contagious disease that can pass quickly between horses and is "reportable" under state law, according to state veterinarian Steve Crawford.
"No one wants sick animals coming into the state," said Lori Towle, data control clerk for the division of animal industries at the New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets and Food. She added that the test is required even if a horse is coming into the state for a fair or a show.
Travis said he was not aware of the law, or that he was in violation of it, until he received a search warrant on Monday.
He said he was informed that all of the horses must remain in quarantine until negative test results are received.
Candia Police Chief Mike McGillen said the 12 horses were taken because of shelter and welfare concerns, not because they lacked health certificates.
Two veterinarians examined the horses on scene, and although they were called in by the New Hampshire Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, they do not work for the organization.
Dr. Simon George, with the Deerfield Veterinary Clinic was one of the veterinarians on scene.
"His role was to make sure that the animals' safety came first and foremost above everything else," Jenni George, co-owner of the Deerfield Veterinary Clinic and George's wife, said. She said she could not make any comments on the condition of the horses because of the ongoing investigation.
George confirmed that her husband had visited the Travis property at their request a couple of weeks ago to examine a horse with an injured foot.
Dr. Sara Hodgdon, a veterinarian with TNT Equine in Dover was also on scene. A call to Hodgdon was not returned yesterday.
McGillen said the search warrant has been sealed and he still cannot comment on who filed the original complaint. He said the investigation is ongoing as police await reports from the veterinarians and others involved.
George said the paperwork takes some time because of the number of horses involved.
Travis said police told him that the complaint was lodged about two weeks ago.
Crawford said he was contacted by the police department last week regarding whether the horses had health certificates or not.
Crawford said there were none on file in New Hampshire or with the Colorado Department of Agriculture.
Towle said the division often does not know if horses lack certificates unless they receive a complaint. At that point, a letter is delivered instructing the owners that the horses need to be quarantined until the test is completed.
"Our goal is to just get the health testing done," Crawford said.
No charges have been filed in the case.
The seized horses are in the protective custody of the NHSPCA, but their location is not being disclosed.
QuoteThe seized horses are in the protective custody of the NHSPCA, but their location is not being disclosed.
then lets disclose it for them.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 11, 2009, 08:26 PM NHFT
Perhaps someone should assemble all these news links and other info in one place. Oh, lookie here:—
# whois stevesprowl.com
Whois Server Version 2.0
Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
No match for "STEVESPROWL.COM".
>>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:28:23 UTC <<<
:D Have you seen Yes Men? ;D
We need an equine sovereignty officer? What do we need to do to get proactive on this? Shelters to start?
WE must have horse vaccinations, licenses etc because everybody knows that's what was done the first several thousand years horses were used by mankind. Oh wait sorry, never mind. ::)
I'll shamelessly use this thread to plug NONAIS. Horse bureaucracy isn't all there is folks. "They" want to
control all the farm critters. Been fighting that battle for a few years now. National Animal I.D. or NAIS...coming soon. Go to NONAIS and check it out for info. Okay we return to our regular programming now, back to bitching about this incident. Thanks.
So the NHSPCA took 12 horses which are, according to the state, since they don't have health certificates, possibly infected with a deadly contagious disease, and transported them to other horse farms. That's worse than stupid.
Quote from: erisian on March 12, 2009, 07:43 AM NHFT
So the NHSPCA took 12 horses which are, according to the state, since they don't have health certificates, possibly infected with a deadly contagious disease, and transported them to other horse farms. That's worse than stupid.
LOL
Quote from: erisian on March 12, 2009, 07:43 AM NHFT
So the NHSPCA took 12 horses which are, according to the state, since they don't have health certificates, possibly infected with a deadly contagious disease, and transported them to other horse farms. That's worse than stupid.
QuoteCandia Police Chief Mike McGillen said the 12 horses were taken because of shelter and welfare concerns, not because they lacked health certificates.
Again what do we need to do to get proactive?
What's their explanation for not taking the rest?
According to Brian it was because they'd actually have to have chased them down. Meaning, it was too much work.
Clearly, they care about the animals. ::)
Quote from: erisian on March 12, 2009, 07:43 AM NHFT
So the NHSPCA took 12 horses which are, according to the state, since they don't have health certificates, possibly infected with a deadly contagious disease, and transported them to other horse farms. That's worse than stupid.
Yea it really is weird. That is like taking someone who has Ebola to the airport, actually it is more like taking people who have Ebola to multiple airports since the horses probably went to multiple horse farms.
The original twelve were not take because of the missing health certificates... they were taken prior to the Department of Agriculture knowing they did not have the documentation.
The remaining seventeen are in quarantine until the tests can be confirmed negative.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 12, 2009, 05:41 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 11, 2009, 08:26 PM NHFT
Perhaps someone should assemble all these news links and other info in one place. Oh, lookie here:—
# whois stevesprowl.com
Whois Server Version 2.0
Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
No match for "STEVESPROWL.COM".
>>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:28:23 UTC <<<
:D Have you seen Yes Men? ;D
Yep. ;D
Quote from: erisian on March 12, 2009, 07:43 AM NHFT
That's worse than stupid.
It's worse than stupid: It's the government.
am i the only one who wonders more about the colorado situation?
isnt it a little odd to anyone that this is the second time that heidi is being accused of neglect?
the horse board linked earlier seems to have gone rather crazy about this stuff - but now i cant seem to find the topic.
both sides seem to have valid points but there are definitely some LARGE blanks to fill in here.
Quote from: coffeeseven on March 12, 2009, 08:34 AM NHFT
Quote from: erisian on March 12, 2009, 07:43 AM NHFT
So the NHSPCA took 12 horses which are, according to the state, since they don't have health certificates, possibly infected with a deadly contagious disease, and transported them to other horse farms. That's worse than stupid.
QuoteCandia Police Chief Mike McGillen said the 12 horses were taken because of shelter and welfare concerns, not because they lacked health certificates.
Again what do we need to do to get proactive?
great question. if you/we/i really wanted to help them and help them get their horses back, i believe they (brian and heidi) need to fill in some of the blanks i previosuly mention. BUT i would guess that adequate shelters are needed, perhaps a vet should be called in to perform the testing needed on the remaining horses as well as the seized ones, adequate food supply for the horses calculated out obviously to what each horse needs + maybe ~10-15% extra on top to be on the safe side? a fund could potentially be set up to pay for these types of expenses and bills
that said - and dont take this the wrong way - but before i would be willing to do any of this - i need some blanks filled in. i.e. are there shelters or not? were the horses actually neglected or not and proof one way or the other. what happened in colorado? and several other issues that seem to not be answered ...
Quote from: erisian on March 12, 2009, 07:43 AM NHFT
So the NHSPCA took 12 horses which are, according to the state, since they don't have health certificates, possibly infected with a deadly contagious disease, and transported them to other horse farms. That's worse than stupid.
Nice point, and if they were worried about infections, then why weren't all the horses taken, or given the vaccines while the doctor was there? So many odd things happened here. Road violations, a lack of proper issuance of notification regarding "paperwork", the closure of the road to even foot traffic.
It looks like the government has been very lax in how it's operated, which really undercuts the argument that this was done for the protection of the horses.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 12, 2009, 09:59 AM NHFT
The original twelve were not take because of the missing health certificates... they were taken prior to the Department of Agriculture knowing they did not have the documentation.
The remaining seventeen are in quarantine until the tests can be confirmed negative.
I don't understand... If the original twelve were taken not because of the health certificates, why were they taken? The impression I got from the UL article was that the vaccine issue was the impetus for the invasion and theft. At least, that was what I saw as the government argument. But with your post, John, I see they were taken prior to the Dept of Agriculture knowing about the lack of vaccine documentation. So, what was the original problem, and why has the story changed slightly from what I thought was the original rationale for the government invasion?
I might be missing something, dunno, but this seems like jerry-rigging...
I'd like to get a horse vet to accompany me to the office of the police chief, and ask some questions. No one answers my calls by phone, of course.
Be Seeing You
Quote from: Gard on March 12, 2009, 12:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 12, 2009, 09:59 AM NHFT
The original twelve were not take because of the missing health certificates... they were taken prior to the Department of Agriculture knowing they did not have the documentation.
The remaining seventeen are in quarantine until the tests can be confirmed negative.
I don't understand... If the original twelve were taken not because of the health certificates, why were they taken?
I think the Union Leader article (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=91918a7f-671b-43ad-8909-f359a695909d) referenced on the previous page was pretty clear about this:
QuoteCandia Police Chief Mike McGillen said the 12 horses were taken because of shelter and welfare concerns, not because they lacked health certificates.
Quote from: GardThe impression I got from the UL article was that the vaccine issue was the impetus for the invasion and theft. At least, that was what I saw as the government argument. But with your post, John, I see they were taken prior to the Dept of Agriculture knowing about the lack of vaccine documentation. So, what was the original problem, and why has the story changed slightly from what I thought was the original rationale for the government invasion?
Either we're reading different articles, or one (or more) of us is misunderstanding the words. From the UL article:
QuoteMcGillen said the search warrant has been sealed and he still cannot comment on who filed the original complaint.
<snip>
Travis said police told him that the complaint was lodged about two weeks ago.
Coincidentally, also according to the article (and verified by Brian):
QuoteGeorge confirmed that her husband had visited the Travis property at their request a couple of weeks ago to examine a horse with an injured foot.
Someone lodged a complaint two weeks ago over concern over the "welfare and shelter" of the horses. This was presumably Dr. George from the Deerfield Veterinary Clinic, since he was at the Travis's residence to treat a mare's leg two weeks ago. He saw something he didn't like (the aforementioned concerns) and called the SPCA. Since Steve Sprowles had already "served notice" to the Travis's last fall regarding the legally required shelters for the horses, this was "strike two" and resulted in confiscation of some horses (as per the law) when inspection of the premises on Monday unveiled sickly looking horses and/or continued inadequate shelter. It sounds like they discovered that the health certificates were absent after the complaint, but before Monday's visit; and that's the stated reason why all the horses -- the 17 remaining and 12 taken -- are now "quarantined".
I think there might be other reasons 12 horses were taken beyond the stated one (concerns over their welfare/shelter): they didn't have trailer space for any more horses; in the judgment of the vet the other 17 horses looked OK; in the judgment of the vet there was sufficient shelter on the property for the remaining 17 horses. This is speculation on my part, but those reasons at least make some sense.
The
basic facts of the case now seem rather clear to me.
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 11:06 AM NHFT
am i the only one who wonders more about the colorado situation?
isnt it a little odd to anyone that this is the second time that heidi is being accused of neglect?
No, it's not. Accusations are common, either because the accuser is petty and vindictive, or because they don't know squat about horses.
I recall that UL columnist John Harrigan was once accused of cruelty by a neighbor, because he drug a
dead horse behind his tractor out to the boneyard.
The Colorado accusation was investigated and dismissed.
so what shelters are on their farm?
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 01:29 PM NHFT
so what shelters are on their farm?
I am not sure what shelters are on the property but if you look on the calendar back in November 23rd there was a barn raising party out at the farm. I also remember there were also Porc 411 calls that the building was pretty much done just a few finishing touches that the family was going to complete themselves. Monday on FTL when Brian was talking about the situation he mentioned that a couple of the shelters had some damage from the ice storm and it sounded like the damage was a few shingles and maybe a minor hole in the roof.
From all that I suspect that there are at least 2 shelters for the horses and probably more.
If the issue was about shelter then the PD would have already charged them with that. If the issue was a possible cotangent then all the horses should have been quarantined in one location to limit the possible exposure but 12 of the horses were whisked away which would increase the probability of spreading any infection.
This whole situation is not sounding right even some of the people commenting on the Union Leader's website are saying things are not adding up. The police and the NHSPCA not talking is odd, from a lot of stories that I see about SPCA's around the country when they go in to take animals they love to have media with them to show the horriable conditions but the only video that has come out is from the owner and no media was brought with the NHSPCA and the cops even blocked people from the road.
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 01:29 PM NHFT
so what shelters are on their farm?
This might be a bit provocative, but I don't really care...
What does it matter if they had ANY shelters on their farm? Are horses 'people' or 'property'? If they're 'property' (which I do believe they are) the Travis' have every RIGHT to do with them as they please.
BTW... do you believe in God and creation? If you do, certainly you realize that God created the horse long before he created the barn or 3 sided shelter, right? Oh wait, what's that? You don't believe in God? Oh, Ok... then you must believe in evolution then, right? Tell me then, how did the 3 sided shelter or barn evolve first so that the horse could evolve? Oh wait, that's pretty stupid too, isn't it?
Gee, I guess horses must have developed some way of coping with cold temperatures...hmm, what could that be? Do they learn to huddle together perhaps? Maybe with their rumps to the wind? Kind of like it's LEGAL in WY or CO? Hmmm, nahh, couldn't be, could it?
Quote from: slim on March 12, 2009, 02:46 PM NHFT
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 01:29 PM NHFT
so what shelters are on their farm?
I am not sure what shelters are on the property but if you look on the calendar back in November 23rd there was a barn raising party out at the farm. I also remember there were also Porc 411 calls that the building was pretty much done just a few finishing touches that the family was going to complete themselves. Monday on FTL when Brian was talking about the situation he mentioned that a couple of the shelters had some damage from the ice storm and it sounded like the damage was a few shingles and maybe a minor hole in the roof.
From all that I suspect that there are at least 2 shelters for the horses and probably more.
If the issue was about shelter then the PD would have already charged them with that. If the issue was a possible cotangent then all the horses should have been quarantined in one location to limit the possible exposure but 12 of the horses were whisked away which would increase the probability of spreading any infection.
This whole situation is not sounding right even some of the people commenting on the Union Leader's website are saying things are not adding up. The police and the NHSPCA not talking is odd, from a lot of stories that I see about SPCA's around the country when they go in to take animals they love to have media with them to show the horriable conditions but the only video that has come out is from the owner and no media was brought with the NHSPCA and the cops even blocked people from the road.
i dont agree with the SPCA at all on this one so far. I just wish the video showed had better quality behind it and showed more horses. I completely agree with everything you say here. Especially "If the issue was about shelter then the PD would have already charged them with that. If the issue was a possible cotangent then all the horses should have been quarantined in one location to limit the possible exposure but 12 of the horses were whisked away which would increase the probability of spreading any infection."
I really hope that we can get them their horses back.
Quote from: slave_3646 on March 12, 2009, 04:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 01:29 PM NHFT
so what shelters are on their farm?
This might be a bit provocative, but I don't really care...
What does it matter if they had ANY shelters on their farm? Are horses 'people' or 'property'? If they're 'property' (which I do believe they are) the Travis' have every RIGHT to do with them as they please.
BTW... do you believe in God and creation? If you do, certainly you realize that God created the horse long before he created the barn or 3 sided shelter, right? Oh wait, what's that? You don't believe in God? Oh, Ok... then you must believe in evolution then, right? Tell me then, how did the 3 sided shelter or barn evolve first so that the horse could evolve? Oh wait, that's pretty stupid too, isn't it?
Gee, I guess horses must have developed some way of coping with cold temperatures...hmm, what could that be? Do they learn to huddle together perhaps? Maybe with their rumps to the wind? Kind of like it's LEGAL in WY or CO? Hmmm, nahh, couldn't be, could it?
provocative - yes
somewhat valid point - yes
but times have changed. the laws that people/residents voted in are in place so anyone who owns horses has to play by the "rules" that have been established since from what i can tell 1985. if someone doesnt like the rules then they will have to gather enough support to change them. the whole situation has nothing to do with my religious beliefs or lack thereof.
also, even before they were imported to here to the US people were sheltering them.
From Wikipedia:
It is one of the oldest horse breeds, with archaeological evidence of horses that resemble modern Arabians dating back 4,500 years. Throughout history, Arabian horses from the Middle East spread around the world by both war and trade, used to improve other breeds by adding speed, refinement, endurance, and good bone. Today, Arabian bloodlines are found in almost every modern breed of riding horse.
The Arabian developed in a desert climate and was prized by the nomadic Bedouin people, often being brought inside the family tent for shelter and protection.
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 04:26 PM NHFT
provocative - yes
somewhat valid point - yes
but times have changed. the laws that people/residents voted in are in place so anyone who owns horses has to play by the "rules" that have been established since from what i can tell 1985. if someone doesnt like the rules then they will have to gather enough support to change them. the whole situation has nothing to do with my religious beliefs or lack thereof.
also, even before they were imported to here to the US people were sheltering them.
From Wikipedia:
It is one of the oldest horse breeds, with archaeological evidence of horses that resemble modern Arabians dating back 4,500 years. Throughout history, Arabian horses from the Middle East spread around the world by both war and trade, used to improve other breeds by adding speed, refinement, endurance, and good bone. Today, Arabian bloodlines are found in almost every modern breed of riding horse.
The Arabian developed in a desert climate and was prized by the nomadic Bedouin people, often being brought inside the family tent for shelter and protection.
I'm not looking to be a jackass, really. My wife and I own a horse and have cared for horses. We like them, we care for them, and we take good care of them. My point is that your horse is a piece of your property, like any other property you might have been led to believe you 'own', and as such you ought to be able to handle and dispose of as you wish. I don't have to agree with how you want to care for and dispose of your property so long as it interferes with my rights. Do you wish to interfere with mine?
Try not to see this in the way that the mainstream does, because they're dead wrong. See this for what it is; a property rights issue.
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 11:06 AM NHFT
am i the only one who wonders more about the colorado situation?
isnt it a little odd to anyone that this is the second time that heidi is being accused of neglect?
maybe .... I dont care if the government has accused them of things many times .... many of us have been accused of disorderly conduct many times ... do we have to prove it false?
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 01:29 PM NHFT
so what shelters are on their farm?
I dont' care and I guess Brian doesn't feel he has to answer you.
There is nothing the spca could say that would make me feel it is right to take their horses. I don't really want to dig into their private lives to decide if the use of force is appropriate.
Even if they were somehow mistreating the animals ... I don't think I have a right to take them away. The horses are the Travis' problem. I support them getting them back from the thugs.
QuoteTry not to see this in the way that the mainstream does, because they're dead wrong. See this for what it is; a property rights issue.
Most people believe it is inhumane to mistreat an animal.
Action item!
We are attempting to collect stories from others who have had negative run ins with the SPCA or Steve. So far we have put up 2 ads in craigslist with approximately the following text.
"Have you been abused?
If you feel that your rights, person or property have been trespassed upon, stolen or damaged by overly zealous animal investigators especially Steve Sprowl, please contact me with your story."
Both ads received almost immediate responses however they were flagged and removed by his supporters within two hours. Please help by replicating this ad on craigslist and forwarding any responses to me or posting if the person replying doesn't mind. I can only assume that the flagger will get their ip banned eventually.
Hey, Stephen Sprowl has a website http://www.stephensprowl.com/
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 12, 2009, 05:36 PM NHFT
Hey, Stephen Sprowl has a website http://www.stephensprowl.com/
From that site: "SPCA: We scope out your most valuable animals for us to take and sell!"
I'd be somewhere around last in line to defend the actions taken against Brian and his family, but is there any evidence supporting the above claim?
From mises.org:
Shenandoah (1965)
This film starring Jimmy Stewart portrays a widower named Anderson at the time of the War between the States who refuses to join either side and just wants to be left alone. His crusty independence and anti-war attitude have made this film a libertarian favourite. As an exercise in nostalgia, Mr. Anderson's rugged individualism is enjoyable. But don't forget how impractical it is... What if Americans all started minding their own business like him? Imagine if all Americans, like Mr. Anderson, focussed primarily on raising virtuous, hard-working children and cultivating their own property instead of "accepting responsibility" as world leaders and getting involved in every two-bit border conflict on the globe and starving Iraqi children out. Here's some favourite quotes from the film:
"Virginia needs all of her sons, Mr. Anderson."
"That might be so, Johnson. But these are my sons. They don't belong to
the state. We never asked anything of the state & never expected anything."
"What's confiscate mean, Pa?" "Steal."
"Like all wars I suppose... The undertakers are winning it."
Have you watched that 20/20 piece?
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 12, 2009, 04:52 PM NHFT
QuoteTry not to see this in the way that the mainstream does, because they're dead wrong. See this for what it is; a property rights issue.
Most people believe it is inhumane to mistreat an animal.
Uh huh. And most people believe that the government is only here to help too. Is an animal property in your mind, or not? And to use a line my mother used to use on me on you... if everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you?
Quote from: margomaps on March 12, 2009, 05:43 PM NHFT
I'd be somewhere around last in line to defend the actions taken against Brian and his family...
You'd be in line?
Quote from: slave_3646 on March 12, 2009, 06:07 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 12, 2009, 04:52 PM NHFT
QuoteTry not to see this in the way that the mainstream does, because they're dead wrong. See this for what it is; a property rights issue.
Most people believe it is inhumane to mistreat an animal.
Is an animal property in your mind, or not?
Would it be right to purposely torture a domestic animal?
i think if anyone abuses an animal it is wrong.
You say you believe that you own your animals and while I am inclined to agree ... if you owned say a dog and used it for dog fighting I would want that dog taken away from you. Do you think Mike Vick should be a free man and that the government overstepped its bounds with him? Do you condone his actions with those dogs?
Google "Dusty the cat" and see what comes up. The short version: kids TORTURED a cat, posted it on youtube, pissed off 4chan and the internet in general and then were arrested and charged for animal abuse. I am glad that those kids were arrested.
If it isnt the governments place to step in and help animals that are ACTUALLY ABUSED then who will or can?
There has to be a line somewhere.
I'm not saying that Heidi and Brian abused their horses in fact I believe they took very good care of them from what little I have seen. I also think that Sprowl is a complete jackass. That said I think Sprowl should have found some horses that perhaps were really neglected or abused in some way rather than playing out this personal vendetta against the Travis' and their animals.
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 12, 2009, 04:52 PM NHFT
QuoteTry not to see this in the way that the mainstream does, because they're dead wrong. See this for what it is; a property rights issue.
Most people believe it is inhumane to mistreat an animal.
I wonder what the etymology of "humane" is. It does have "human" in it. My take was that it originated as meaning "to behave like humans should in a civilized, peaceful society." In which case it would be almost nonsensical to be "inhumane to animals."
Even if I'm wrong about the meaning of "humane" though, if animals are property (and I think they are) then does any other human have the right to aggress against you if you treat your property poorly or "inhumanely?" Or should ostracism or education or compassion or possibly even vigilante-style animal-rescue (i.e., stealing the "abuser's" property/animals to "rescue" them an ddeal with the repercussions) be the recourse?
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 06:41 PM NHFT
There has to be a line somewhere.
There does? There
has to be a line after which it is alright to initiate aggression against another person?
Quote from: Mike Barskey on March 12, 2009, 06:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 12, 2009, 04:52 PM NHFT
QuoteTry not to see this in the way that the mainstream does, because they're dead wrong. See this for what it is; a property rights issue.
Most people believe it is inhumane to mistreat an animal.
Even if I'm wrong about the meaning of "humane" though, if animals are property (and I think they are) then does any other human have the right to aggress against you if you treat your property poorly or "inhumanely?" Or should ostracism or education or compassion or possibly even vigilante-style animal-rescue (i.e., stealing the "abuser's" property/animals to "rescue" them an ddeal with the repercussions) be the recourse?
I'm not willing to take the position that people should be able to do WHATEVER they want with their animals. I'm aware of the implications of this position, and I'm not sure that a traditional libertarian position of property works so well when we're talking about animals. I certainly favor a more vigilante-style response to animal abuse. But I would be happy to see anyone, even the government, steal an animal in extreme cases of torture. However, I'd be a hypocrite to advocate something that I myself would be unwilling to do.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 12, 2009, 04:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 01:29 PM NHFT
so what shelters are on their farm?
I dont' care and I guess Brian doesn't feel he has to answer you.
There is nothing the spca could say that would make me feel it is right to take their horses. I don't really want to dig into their private lives to decide if the use of force is appropriate.
Even if they were somehow mistreating the animals ... I don't think I have a right to take them away. The horses are the Travis' problem. I support them getting them back from the thugs.
Agreed and it's probably high time to stop trying to fix the problem until asked to do so. I can only speak for me. I'm pissed and would do whatever was necessary to help including driving out to help clean or build. I'm hands off until the request comes for hands on.
I hate bullies and Sprowl is the worst kind.
Why does there have to be a line somewhere? Can't you even begin to imagine a non-governmental solution to the problem of someone abusing animals?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 12, 2009, 05:36 PM NHFT
Hey, Stephen Sprowl has a website http://www.stephensprowl.com/
His telephone number is easy to remember, too: (603) SPACY-21.
Aren't mnemonics fun?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 12, 2009, 07:10 PM NHFT
Why does there have to be a line somewhere? Can't you even begin to imagine a non-governmental solution to the problem of someone abusing animals?
Imagine if people took a moral responsibility to do something themselves whenever they saw an injustice, rather than having the safety and anonymity of just calling up the government to do their moral duty for them. Perhaps people would really consider the situation and decide if a so-called injustice was really so bad that it warranted intervention. I suspect many people would then decide that aggressing against their neighbors isn't really necessary.
Quote from: Mike Barskey on March 12, 2009, 06:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 06:41 PM NHFT
There has to be a line somewhere.
There does? There has to be a line after which it is alright to initiate aggression against another person?
Ditto Mike. That was where I wanted to take this, to that imaginary line. I suppose that's part of helping people to realize how they need to grow. I know that not too long ago I wouldn't have had a second thought about 'doing the right thing' by 'protecting the animal'. It wasn't until we had a run in with the local know it all that wanted to impose her values and opinion on us that I realized that any imposition of my values on someone else was wrong, and that to do so would be to violate their rights.
People have rights; animals do not. Animals are property, plain and simple.
I love my animals. Don't you dare try to force me to take care of them the way you think I ought to.
you can take it even further .... even if I see one person kill another ... I am not going to call the government or take away their liberty
it makes it easier to make decisions
Quote from: margomaps on March 12, 2009, 05:43 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 12, 2009, 05:36 PM NHFT
Hey, Stephen Sprowl has a website http://www.stephensprowl.com/
From that site: "SPCA: We scope out your most valuable animals for us to take and sell!"
I'd be somewhere around last in line to defend the actions taken against Brian and his family, but is there any evidence supporting the above claim?
you can ask the spca or some of their victims ... I am not sure what they do
Quote from: slave_3646 on March 12, 2009, 07:20 PM NHFT
Quote from: Mike Barskey on March 12, 2009, 06:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 06:41 PM NHFT
There has to be a line somewhere.
There does? There has to be a line after which it is alright to initiate aggression against another person?
Ditto Mike. That was where I wanted to take this, to that imaginary line. I suppose that's part of helping people to realize how they need to grow. I know that not too long ago I wouldn't have had a second thought about 'doing the right thing' by 'protecting the animal'. It wasn't until we had a run in with the local know it all that wanted to impose her values and opinion on us that I realized that any imposition of my values on someone else was wrong, and that to do so would be to violate their rights.
People have rights; animals do not. Animals are property, plain and simple.
I love my animals. Don't you dare try to force me to take care of them the way you think I ought to.
And why is it that animals do not have rights?
(Remember you wanted to grow)
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 12, 2009, 08:09 PM NHFT
And why is it that animals do not have rights?
The question is, whence do rights derive? Answer that and you can figure out if animals have rights or not.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 12, 2009, 08:09 PM NHFT
And why is it that animals do not have rights?
(Remember you wanted to grow)
Because they're property.
Unless of course you want to go all Zen Buddhist Monk style and recognize that every living thing has 'rights', plants included. Have fun starving to death with nowhere to live because any action you might take to satisfy those needs of yours would undoubtedly end up with you violating the 'rights' of some other living organism...
so an animal owner could last their dog daily for no reason just because they own it?
could they hook a car battery up to an animal just for grins because they own it?
could they burn the animal with a blowtorch because they own it?
the list goes on... really are things like that ok because you own the animal?
Quote from: Mike Barskey on March 12, 2009, 06:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 06:41 PM NHFT
There has to be a line somewhere.
There does? There has to be a line after which it is alright to initiate aggression against another person?
that is more than a bit of twisting one part of what i said. i dont think i should have to say that i didnt mean it that way ... but i didnt mean it that way.
i meant that there has to be a line somewhere in regards to what kind of treatment an animal should receive and there has to be an acceptable/unacceptable way of caring for and treating an animal. possibly consequences for abusing animals.
why am i even explaining this ... do me a favor - dont twist my words. k thanks bye.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 12, 2009, 08:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 12, 2009, 08:09 PM NHFT
And why is it that animals do not have rights?
The question is, whence do rights derive? Answer that and you can figure out if animals have rights or not.
Try this essay by Vicki Hearne - "What's Wrong With Animal Rights?" www.sfponline.org/Uploads/20/Hearne.pdf
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 12, 2009, 05:51 PM NHFT
Have you watched that 20/20 piece?
I have not.
On the other hand, if someone showed a video of anarchists smashing private property or hurting people, with the tagline, "Anarchists: we smash private property and hurt people!" -- I wouldn't put much stock in that either.
Quote from: margomaps on March 12, 2009, 08:42 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 12, 2009, 05:51 PM NHFT
Have you watched that 20/20 piece?
I have not.
On the other hand, if someone showed a video of anarchists smashing private property or hurting people, with the tagline, "Anarchists: we smash private property and hurt people!" -- I wouldn't put much stock in that either.
Why don't you watch the Stossel special that I posted, which Kat is speaking of and see if your comparison holds water.
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 08:30 PM NHFT
so an animal owner could last their dog daily for no reason just because they own it?
could they hook a car battery up to an animal just for grins because they own it?
could they burn the animal with a blowtorch because they own it?
the list goes on... really are things like that ok because you own the animal?
Yes. I think that an owner of property can do whatever he wants with his property. I do not think that taking a brand new car that you own and driving it off a cliff (that you also own, let's say) is a good use of your property, but you have the right to do it. I think it's far worse to torture or harm or kill an animal you own, but it is
your animal - you have the right. If I don't like it, I will possibly resort to voluntaryist methods of dealing with it - not drawing an arbitrary "line" over which I assert you have crossed and therefore it is now "right" for something to happen to you.
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 08:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: Mike Barskey on March 12, 2009, 06:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 06:41 PM NHFT
There has to be a line somewhere.
There does? There has to be a line after which it is alright to initiate aggression against another person?
that is more than a bit of twisting one part of what i said. i dont think i should have to say that i didnt mean it that way ... but i didnt mean it that way.
i meant that there has to be a line somewhere in regards to what kind of treatment an animal should receive and there has to be an acceptable/unacceptable way of caring for and treating an animal. possibly consequences for abusing animals.
why am i even explaining this ... do me a favor - dont twist my words. k thanks bye.
I didn't twist your words. As far as I understand them, the next logical question for me is "if there is an arbitrary line, what happens when it is crossed." So I asked that question.
You have yet to answer: why does there have to be a line? Or maybe a better question is: if
you have a line that you think people should not cross, what will you do if
my line is in a different place or revolves around a different level of torture (or what if I don't
have a line?)?
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 11, 2009, 06:14 AM NHFT
but we sometimes let people vent their frustrations at a huge powerful system that hurts millions of people each year.
and I really appreciate that...
Quote from: Porcupine The Prickly Polytheist on March 12, 2009, 08:56 PM NHFTWhy don't you watch the Stossel special that I posted, which Kat is speaking of and see if your comparison holds water.
Thanks for the suggestion. I just got done watching the segment, and I'm pleased to report that my comparison not only holds water, but is even more apt than I first thought. What exactly in that program was supposed to change my mind? He profiles a few bad-apple type SPCA enforcers who have clearly done harm. Am I supposed to extrapolate this to all local SPCA branches and assume they're all corrupt? Consider the consequences of that way of thinking:
"Anarchists smash private property!"
"Gun owners go on rampages and kill people at schools!"
"Homeschoolers are religious wackos who molest children in scary compounds!"
Wow, a lot of freestaters are gun-owning anarchist homeschoolers -- scum of the Earth!
Stossel himself sums up the program with a critical point that you might have overlooked:
"By the way it's important to understand that all these SPCA's are independent of each other"
Quote from: slave_3646 on March 12, 2009, 07:20 PM NHFT
Quote from: Mike Barskey on March 12, 2009, 06:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 06:41 PM NHFT
There has to be a line somewhere.
There does? There has to be a line after which it is alright to initiate aggression against another person?
People have rights; animals do not. Animals are property, plain and simple.
People have rights because we are sentient. We understand how the consequences of our behavior can cause pain to other humans. Animals can't understand consequences but they can feel pain.
Quote from: margomaps on March 12, 2009, 09:32 PM NHFT
Thanks for the suggestion. I just got done watching the segment, and I'm pleased to report that my comparison not only holds water, but is even more apt than I first thought. What exactly in that program was supposed to change my mind? He profiles a few bad-apple type SPCA enforcers who have clearly done harm. Am I supposed to extrapolate this to all local SPCA branches and assume they're all corrupt? Consider the consequences of that way of thinking:
"Anarchists smash private property!"
"Gun owners go on rampages and kill people at schools!"
"Homeschoolers are religious wackos who molest children in scary compounds!"
Wow, a lot of freestaters are gun-owning anarchist homeschoolers -- scum of the Earth!
Stossel himself sums up the program with a critical point that you might have overlooked:
"By the way it's important to understand that all these SPCA's are independent of each other"
I never overlooked that. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a systemic problem within those groups based on how many complaints that they received from all over the country. I also never said you should assume they're all corrupt. Please point to where I said that.
Also, what is Stossel supposed to do, spend days profiling every enforcer out there?
Quote from: kellie on March 12, 2009, 07:19 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 12, 2009, 07:10 PM NHFT
Why does there have to be a line somewhere? Can't you even begin to imagine a non-governmental solution to the problem of someone abusing animals?
Imagine if people took a moral responsibility to do something themselves whenever they saw an injustice, rather than having the safety and anonymity of just calling up the government to do their moral duty for them. Perhaps people would really consider the situation and decide if a so-called injustice was really so bad that it warranted intervention. I suspect many people would then decide that aggressing against their neighbors isn't really necessary.
I couldn't agree more.
I think People would think about what they don't like - then ask themselves if they want to confront this person (s) about it - then answer
No to that question - then realize there's no victim - then go back to living their life. A live and let live way of life would be adapted by all as the most honest way to deal with others.
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 12, 2009, 09:49 PM NHFT
People have rights because we are sentient. We understand how the consequences of our behavior can cause pain to other humans. Animals can't understand consequences but they can feel pain.
Certainly animals are sentient (self-aware) and can understand consequences! My dog barks outside the door because he knows it will open and as a consequence he can get inside where it's warm. Without awareness of himself and the world around him (sentience) and the ability to learn (experience the consequences of his actions) he'd behave more like a houseplant - just sit out there and freeze to death.
Quote from: Porcupine The Prickly Polytheist on March 12, 2009, 10:06 PM NHFTBut that doesn't mean that there isn't a systemic problem within those groups based on how many complaints that they received from all over the country.
Allow me to paraphrase:
"But that doesn't mean that there isn't a systemic problem with those gun owners based on how many mass shootings that they have committed all over the country."
QuoteI also never said you should assume they're all corrupt. Please point to where I said that.
I don't recall claiming you said that. But this game is fun, so I'll have a go at it too:
QuoteAlso, what is Stossel supposed to do, spend days profiling every enforcer out there?
I never said Stossel should spend days profiling every enforcer out there. Please point to where I said that.
On second thought this game doesn't lead anywhere useful, and it's not very fun.
It's lazy to suspect all gun owners (for example) and all SPCA's (and each person in each SPCA) of being evil/corrupt/dangerous/etc. just because of some bad apples in each group. And it seems irrational to do so only for the SPCA's while giving gun owners a pass. When Chuck Schumer and Eric Holder point to tragic shootings in order to justify attacks on gun owners, do you accept their faulty reasoning?
Everyone has to come to their own conclusions about the treatment of not only other people, but of other people's property.
Pharmaceutical companies, medical schools, and military field-medicine courses regularly USE animals to teach and learn and test things that are valuable for improving and saving human life. They are injected, fed bizarre diets, toxins, killed, and sometimes partially dissected while still alive, or purposefully wounded (sometimes fatally) for the sake of having students treat the wound and prolong the life of the animal to the best of their ability. If these experiments were not performed on animals - they would have to be performed ON HUMANS - or not at all.
Livestock are typically raised . . . to be killed. So that we can eat the muscle and organ tissue off their carcasses, and stretch their skin out into boots, handbags, rifle slings, and kinky BSDM outfits.
Extreme breeding programs have been going on for hundreds of years to produce breeds of animals that have certain characteristics - sometimes only for aesthetics (no matter how weird the subjective aesthetics of Chinese hairless dogs are) and that have serious health consequences as side effects of such planned and carefully controlled selective breeding.
Animals are tattooed and branded to identify them.
There are lots of things that happen to animals - either by humans, or as a result of nature and natural predators.
What should we DO? Shall we initiate force, or do so by proxy because we disagree or do not understand?
If a man renders another man unconscious and slices him open, rearranges his guts, and them sews him back up, shall we unleash an angry mob against him for his evil and satanic actions? Or do we actually like having doctors and surgeons around?
How much consent can/do pediatrician/pediatric surgeon's "clients" give?
NO MOMMY NO! DON'T LET THE BAD MAN STICK ME WITH A NEEDLE! I DON'T WANT HIM TO CUT ME!
There's a difference between cruelty, perceived cruelty, and the cruel reality of life.
It's not the situation that you have to look at - it's your response to the situation and the morality and ethics of that response that you have to seriously consider.
So "cruel" and "life is tough all around" are two totally different things.
How much more cruel is the government to its property (us) or to the property it confiscates (Child Protective Services, NHSPCA)?
And what should you DO about it?
Take a little time to think about it.
Quote from: margomaps on March 12, 2009, 10:49 PM NHFT
It's lazy to suspect all gun owners (for example) and all SPCA's (and each person in each SPCA) of being evil/corrupt/dangerous/etc. just because of some bad apples in each group. And it seems irrational to do so only for the SPCA's while giving gun owners a pass. When Chuck Schumer and Eric Holder point to tragic shootings in order to justify attacks on gun owners, do you accept their faulty reasoning?
Again, I never said that you were expected to assume that all SPCA's are engaged in this kind of behavior but that enough are that it is a problem. Don't you think that there might be a problem with organizations that nationwide act as arms of governments but are private entities?
Also, Stossel did point out that he only chose from a few of the many cases of such abuse.
Here's a possible scenario for what happened:Heidi and Cooper pissed off Sprowl and the cop in November. They couldn't "go get a warrant", because they had no probable cause. So they went to the vet, and said; "If you get a call from them, make sure you go out there and look around for some probable cause, because we want to bust them." So the vet used the opportunity two weeks ago to do just that.
The shelter law (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xl/435/435-14.htm) requires that shelter be "provided". If you turn your horses out in February in a paddock without a shelter in it, even for an hour, you will be violating that law. So if the vet saw the 12 horses in a paddock without a shelter, then he would have found the probable cause that he was looking for. It is immaterial that adequate shelter exists on the property, the law requires shelter in any paddock or pasture which has a horse in it at any time during the winter. This could also explain why the other horses weren't
rescued stolen. They could only steal the horses that had no shelter provided.
Sure, it's stupid, but that's the law. :deadhorse:
Here's the shelter law:
Quote435:14 Shelter Available. – Horses shall be provided either:
I. An adequately ventilated, dry barn with stalls of sufficient size so that the horse is able to lie down, and shall be provided adequate and suitable exercise in arenas, barn yards, paddocks or pastures; or
II. A roofed shelter, with at least 3 sides from November 1 through April 15, shall be provided for horses kept in paddocks or pastures, and said horses shall not be kept tied but shall be able to move around freely.
Quote from: Porcupine The Prickly Polytheist on March 12, 2009, 11:20 PM NHFTAgain, I never said that you were expected to assume that all SPCA's are engaged in this kind of behavior but that enough are that it is a problem. Don't you think that there might be a problem with organizations that nationwide act as arms of governments but are private entities?
Also, Stossel did point out that he only chose from a few of the many cases of such abuse.
Remember how we started this discussion in the first place. You asked me to watch the video, apparently believing or hoping it would change my assertion that it relied on the same appeal to emotion and irrational generalization that is used to demonize anarchists. I watched the video, and I think I made it abundantly clear that I feel more than justified in my original assertion. :)
The rest we probably agree upon. Government intrusion and abuse of property rights? Bad. Said abuse carried out by a combination of government and private interests? Also bad (but no worse).
I think we can move on now. Agreed?
Quote from: erisian on March 12, 2009, 11:43 PM NHFT
Here's a possible scenario for what happened:
Heidi and Cooper pissed off Sprowl and the cop in November. They couldn't "go get a warrant", because they had no probable cause. So they went to the vet, and said; "If you get a call from them, make sure you go out there and look around for some probable cause, because we want to bust them." So the vet used the opportunity two weeks ago to do just that.
Although I proposed a similar scenario much earlier in this thread, upon further examination I'm more than happy to slice it with Occam's Razor.
It's far more likely that the vet really did feel there was a problem with the care of the horses, and called the SPCA as a result of his concerns.
Some folks want freedom, till their pet peeves
come up, then= THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW !
So what happens, a bunch of the same whiny ass
pet peeve folks get together and pass a law.
This is why freedom goes into the shitter.
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 12, 2009, 09:49 PM NHFT
Quote from: slave_3646 on March 12, 2009, 07:20 PM NHFT
Quote from: Mike Barskey on March 12, 2009, 06:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 06:41 PM NHFT
There has to be a line somewhere.
There does? There has to be a line after which it is alright to initiate aggression against another person?
People have rights; animals do not. Animals are property, plain and simple.
People have rights because we are sentient. We understand how the consequences of our behavior can cause pain to other humans. Animals can't understand consequences but they can feel pain.
Behavioral studies are beginning to show otherwise...
I'm quite sure that most slave owners felt they had a reasoned position on their property claims.
Quote from: slave_3646 on March 12, 2009, 08:27 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 12, 2009, 08:09 PM NHFT
And why is it that animals do not have rights?
(Remember you wanted to grow)
Because they're property.
Unless of course you want to go all Zen Buddhist Monk style and recognize that every living thing has 'rights', plants included. Have fun starving to death with nowhere to live because any action you might take to satisfy those needs of yours would undoubtedly end up with you violating the 'rights' of some other living organism...
When a lion eats a antelope did it violate its 'rights'? What about if a lion eats a human?
Its not Zen Buddhist Monk... its the question of where 'rights' originate. Locke expelled rights orginated with a Creator, but failed to prove that such a Creator existed. He did so because if 'rights' originated with nature... then those same 'rights' would exist for all natural things.
And the only natural right we know of is the Right of Might - Survival of the Fittest.
Quote from: Bald Eagle on March 12, 2009, 11:00 PM NHFT
(...huge snip...)
Take a little time to think about it.
Excellent, Bill. Thanks!
Quote from: cyne on March 12, 2009, 10:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 12, 2009, 09:49 PM NHFT
People have rights because we are sentient. We understand how the consequences of our behavior can cause pain to other humans. Animals can't understand consequences but they can feel pain.
Certainly animals are sentient (self-aware) and can understand consequences! My dog barks outside the door because he knows it will open and as a consequence he can get inside where it's warm. Without awareness of himself and the world around him (sentience) and the ability to learn (experience the consequences of his actions) he'd behave more like a houseplant - just sit out there and freeze to death.
Does a dog "know" that if it bites another dog or person that they will cause pain?
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 08:30 PM NHFT
so an animal owner could last their dog daily for no reason just because they own it?
could they hook a car battery up to an animal just for grins because they own it?
could they burn the animal with a blowtorch because they own it?
the list goes on... really are things like that ok because you own the animal?
they could, and they can now as well with this great government control. If the government control went away, would everyone start torturing their animals?
I think if someone sees abuse, real abuse, to an animal they should step in and do something about it. Get a gun, go liberate the animal. I think that if there's real abuse any arbitrator would take that into account if brought to one. You could also, I dunno, take up a collection and pay off the person to not own animals anymore.
QuoteI think if someone sees abuse, real abuse, to an animal they should step in and do something about it. Get a gun, go liberate the animal. I think that if there's real abuse any arbitrator would take that into account if brought to one.
Sounds like you are advocating some sort of private defense agencies.
If so, if in seeing "real abuse" - would you go to your defense agency and ask them to act on your behalf?
Otherwise it is just your judgement of what real abuse is vs. the "property owners" view. Are we not back at law of the jungle?
hey, if I go in there to "liberate" animals and I'm not sure of what type of "abuses" are actually happening, I might have private enforcers going into someone's house who's not doing anything wrong. If the private security goes in and the guy is shearing his sheep or has a dog that won't stop whining, you know, non-abuses. . .
then I'd be up shit creek, so would a private security firm. . . I guess I better be damn sure that he was hurting an animal before I called the security. (modified) And private security would be damn sure to find out too, since it's their reputation on the line as well.
as opposed to calling the cops, having them come out and assume you're doing wrong, arrest you, take your stuff, fine you, and then when it's all over they'll never be held accountable.
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 08:30 PM NHFT
so an animal owner could last their dog daily for no reason just because they own it?
could they hook a car battery up to an animal just for grins because they own it?
could they burn the animal with a blowtorch because they own it?
the list goes on... really are things like that ok because you own the animal?
1. Do you know how the meat you eat is treated before it's killed, because I can assure you, it ain't humane. Don't be so sure you're on some moral high ground.
2. What you describe is awful. Isn't there some way outside the government to stop it? After all, you kill animals daily, torch them, put them in your mouth. Do you want the government to stop you from doing this?
Quote from: Pat K on March 13, 2009, 12:53 AM NHFT
Some folks want freedom, till their pet peeves
come up, then= THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW !
So what happens, a bunch of the same whiny ass
pet peeve folks get together and pass a law.
This is why freedom goes into the shitter.
Yeah, what he said!
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 13, 2009, 06:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 08:30 PM NHFT
so an animal owner could last their dog daily for no reason just because they own it?
could they hook a car battery up to an animal just for grins because they own it?
could they burn the animal with a blowtorch because they own it?
the list goes on... really are things like that ok because you own the animal?
1. Do you know how the meat you eat is treated before it's killed, because I can assure you, it ain't humane. Don't be so sure you're on some moral high ground.
2. What you describe is awful. Isn't there some way outside the government to stop it? After all, you kill animals daily, torch them, put them in your mouth. Do you want the government to stop you from doing this?
im familiar with how the animals bred for human consumption are treated and im not a fan of that either. obviously unless i were a vegetarian i wouldnt want the government or anyone else to take away the food that i eat. i love my bbq too so no. obviously not.
maybe it is what i have been brainwashed into thinking by the gov or whoever, that the cows being killed daily, the pigs, and chickens, etc are all somehow "ok" to do that and that they are bred for that specific purpose? i dont really know. truly i think that in my mind, and many others' that if someone treated their pet the same way it would be frowned upon. livestock versus domestic pet. mans best friend. whatever label belongs here ... personally if i ever see someone beating or torturing an animal - weather it is my "business" or not - weather i should or shouldnt - i will step in and try to end the abuse.
there is a difference between abusing an animal and disciplinary action towards it. if my dog chews a couch cushion and i catch him in the act i will yell at him and give him a whack on the butt - i wont pour gasoline on him and set him aflame just because he is my "property" and i should have some sort of right to do what i want.
this is all kind of off topic though.
the real issue here is that it appears as though Brian and Heidi did not neglact/abuse/whatever their animals and thus the animals should have never been seized and the kops and the govt and the SPCA and especially this dickhead Sprowl are all WAY out of line.
That said - Heidi and Brian have not really been posting here or made any comments or answered any relevant questions so ... really ... what are we to do?
leetninja, since you're so concerned about Heidi and Brian's property, are you going to their house Saturday to help them rebuild the shelters damaged in the recent storms?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 13, 2009, 08:30 AM NHFT
leetninja, since you're so concerned about Heidi and Brian's property, are you going to their house Saturday to help them rebuild the shelters damaged in the recent storms?
if i had known more than 24 hours in advance i wouldnt have minded helping out. ill see if i can cancel my plans that i have tomorrow...
:)
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 13, 2009, 04:44 AM NHFT
Quote from: cyne on March 12, 2009, 10:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 12, 2009, 09:49 PM NHFT
People have rights because we are sentient. We understand how the consequences of our behavior can cause pain to other humans. Animals can't understand consequences but they can feel pain.
Certainly animals are sentient (self-aware) and can understand consequences! My dog barks outside the door because he knows it will open and as a consequence he can get inside where it's warm. Without awareness of himself and the world around him (sentience) and the ability to learn (experience the consequences of his actions) he'd behave more like a houseplant - just sit out there and freeze to death.
Does a dog "know" that if it bites another dog or person that they will cause pain?
Just like human children... not until they're taught. A wolf will bite another in the pack to respond to unacceptable action... they know the bite is inflicting pain.
Quote from: margomaps on March 12, 2009, 11:53 PM NHFT
Although I proposed a similar scenario much earlier in this thread, upon further examination I'm more than happy to slice it with Occam's Razor.
It's far more likely that the vet really did feel there was a problem with the care of the horses, and called the SPCA as a result of his concerns.
That is certainly possible, but
- Sprowl's threat to get a warrant was empty. They needed a vet to assert probable cause in order to obtain a warrant. The easy way to do that would be to prejudice the local vet(s) against the Travises.
- Small town cop politics... The cop said he knew Brian well. Since they were not socially acquainted, it is reasonable to infer that the cops had their eye on Brian et al because of their "radical" tendencies, and he knew Brian "well" because he had run a background check on him.
- Cops and bullies like Sprowl always get their knickers in a twist when their authority is challenged, and usually go into vendetta mode.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 13, 2009, 08:52 AM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 13, 2009, 04:44 AM NHFT
Quote from: cyne on March 12, 2009, 10:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 12, 2009, 09:49 PM NHFT
People have rights because we are sentient. We understand how the consequences of our behavior can cause pain to other humans. Animals can't understand consequences but they can feel pain.
Certainly animals are sentient (self-aware) and can understand consequences! My dog barks outside the door because he knows it will open and as a consequence he can get inside where it's warm. Without awareness of himself and the world around him (sentience) and the ability to learn (experience the consequences of his actions) he'd behave more like a houseplant - just sit out there and freeze to death.
Does a dog "know" that if it bites another dog or person that they will cause pain?
Just like human children... not until they're taught. A wolf will bite another in the pack to respond to unacceptable action... they know the bite is inflicting pain.
How do you know that they know?
A child at a certain age can understand how it feels to hurt another person because they can be hurt themselves by someone else.
But a wolf? I don't think so...
Quote from: leetninja on March 13, 2009, 08:18 AM NHFT
That said - Heidi and Brian have not really been posting here or made any comments or answered any relevant questions so ... really ... what are we to do?
Well, quite honestly, I would imagine that right now they are both pretty busy doing everything they can to defend themselves and recover their horses. I'm sure that instead of hanging out on a forum, they are making phone calls, doing legal research, preparing things on their farm - for tomorrow's work party, as well as to protect the horses that weren't taken, etc.
Their time time is being taken up by neighbors, reporters, lawyers, bureaucrats, police, etc.
You're a _potential_ benefit to them, while they are facing _certain_ detriments.
If you had the choice of giving your attention to someone who might give you a backrub, and someone who was coming at you with a gun, I'd think your attention would be focused by necessity on the gun - a certain threat, not distracted by a potential, comparatively minor benefit.
So since Brian and Heidi are scrambling to do damage control and protect themselves from any future harm, I can't see how assuaging random unknown people on some forum about perceived problems would be high on their list of priorities.
Yes, I agree that there are some interesting questions that have been raised and that people are curious about the answers, but I think that at the present time, treatment and correction of any real or perceived problems is far more important than condemnation for any past problems, oversights, or errors if they indeed ever existed.
I'm going to hang together with Brian and Heidi. If you want to go hang by yourself . . . the bureaucrats might someday fulfill that wish.
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 13, 2009, 09:46 AM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 13, 2009, 08:52 AM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 13, 2009, 04:44 AM NHFT
Quote from: cyne on March 12, 2009, 10:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 12, 2009, 09:49 PM NHFT
People have rights because we are sentient. We understand how the consequences of our behavior can cause pain to other humans. Animals can't understand consequences but they can feel pain.
Certainly animals are sentient (self-aware) and can understand consequences! My dog barks outside the door because he knows it will open and as a consequence he can get inside where it's warm. Without awareness of himself and the world around him (sentience) and the ability to learn (experience the consequences of his actions) he'd behave more like a houseplant - just sit out there and freeze to death.
Does a dog "know" that if it bites another dog or person that they will cause pain?
Just like human children... not until they're taught. A wolf will bite another in the pack to respond to unacceptable action... they know the bite is inflicting pain.
How do you know that they know?
A child at a certain age can understand how it feels to hurt another person because they can be hurt themselves by someone else.
But a wolf? I don't think so...
You don't think at a certain time in their lives that a wolf has been bitten by another and felt pain?
You think after you hit a puppy with a newspaper that it runs the next time you grab the paper because its afraid it might feel good?
Quote from: Pat McCotter on March 10, 2009, 10:55 AM NHFT
EquineSite.com discussion. I wonder how long before this "controversial topic" is wiped.
http://discus.equinesite.net/discus/messages/5/19055.html?1236698927
Not long. And look at this.
http://discus.equinesite.net/discus/messages/5/19139.html?1236877101
They'll probably remove the thread talking about threads which have been removed.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 12, 2009, 08:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 12, 2009, 08:09 PM NHFT
And why is it that animals do not have rights?
The question is, whence do rights derive? Answer that and you can figure out if animals have rights or not.
No, this is not the question. If it were, the issue would be a moral one, that animals would clearly have rights, and that we should not transgress against them unduly. IMO, that might make it OK to do animal slaughter, sacrifice, eating, testing, labor, etc. In someone else's opinion, that might not make it OK to use the animal for anything at all.
But again, not the point.
The point is, our government is not established to protect the animals or their rights. It is founded in consent of the people, instituted for their general good, and the only natural rights which shall be surrendered are those surrendered equivalently by all men in order to ensure the protection of other men. An animal is not a member of our community under Part 1 Article 12, nor does he pay taxes reciprocally for such protections.
Any complaint against an individual for animal cruelty or mistreatment cannot properly be brought through the mechanisms of government.
A complaint against a person for having allowed or caused his animal to interfere with someone else's property or person might be properly brought. If we are to believe that the true basis for the actions at the Travis farm falls within these bounds, then I am a monkey's uncle. However, if the asserted basis is now going to be that the horses were not properly vaccinated so as to protect the equine property of others, then that would IMO be a reasonable cause for the government to act. Clearly, they would properly act in a very different way.
A complaint for breach of contract is also fair. If breach of a perpetual conservation easement were the true issue here, a civil action might reasonably be brought.
Moreover, these issues often are based on hugely subjective judgments which arise not least due to ignorance (as to animals and their behavior and proper treatment) on the part of one or both of the parties.
Quote from: erisian on March 13, 2009, 09:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: margomaps on March 12, 2009, 11:53 PM NHFT
Although I proposed a similar scenario much earlier in this thread, upon further examination I'm more than happy to slice it with Occam's Razor.
It's far more likely that the vet really did feel there was a problem with the care of the horses, and called the SPCA as a result of his concerns.
That is certainly possible, but
- Sprowl's threat to get a warrant was empty. They needed a vet to assert probable cause in order to obtain a warrant. The easy way to do that would be to prejudice the local vet(s) against the Travises.
- Small town cop politics... The cop said he knew Brian well. Since they were not socially acquainted, it is reasonable to infer that the cops had their eye on Brian et al because of their "radical" tendencies, and he knew Brian "well" because he had run a background check on him.
- Cops and bullies like Sprowl always get their knickers in a twist when their authority is challenged, and usually go into vendetta mode.
Great analysis. The Bully, Sprowl, got "Dissed" (then got Pissed) when he showed up the first time and couldn't Tresspass, so he made plans to get even.
I"m hoping for a Back to the Future ending where "Biff" ends up working for the one he bullied! (the Horses Caretaker!...fat chance).
Come to think of it, for convenience sake, can we refer to Sprowl as "BIFF" in the future? He think he's earned the Nickname.
Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on March 12, 2009, 05:50 PM NHFT
Shenandoah (1965)
This film starring Jimmy Stewart portrays a widower named Anderson at the time of the War between the States who refuses to join either side and just wants to be left alone. His crusty independence and anti-war attitude have made this film a libertarian favourite. As an exercise in nostalgia, Mr. Anderson's rugged individualism is enjoyable. But don't forget how impractical it is... What if Americans all started minding their own business like him? Imagine if all Americans, like Mr. Anderson, focussed primarily on raising virtuous, hard-working children and cultivating their own property instead of "accepting responsibility" as world leaders and getting involved in every two-bit border conflict on the globe and starving Iraqi children out. Here's some favourite quotes from the film:
"Virginia needs all of her sons, Mr. Anderson."
"That might be so, Johnson. But these are my sons. They don't belong to
the state. We never asked anything of the state & never expected anything."
"What's confiscate mean, Pa?" "Steal."
"Like all wars I suppose... The undertakers are winning it."
Movie night?
Quote from: Peacemaker on March 13, 2009, 11:11 AM NHFT
Quote from: erisian on March 13, 2009, 09:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: margomaps on March 12, 2009, 11:53 PM NHFT
Although I proposed a similar scenario much earlier in this thread, upon further examination I'm more than happy to slice it with Occam's Razor.
It's far more likely that the vet really did feel there was a problem with the care of the horses, and called the SPCA as a result of his concerns.
That is certainly possible, but
- Sprowl's threat to get a warrant was empty. They needed a vet to assert probable cause in order to obtain a warrant. The easy way to do that would be to prejudice the local vet(s) against the Travises.
- Small town cop politics... The cop said he knew Brian well. Since they were not socially acquainted, it is reasonable to infer that the cops had their eye on Brian et al because of their "radical" tendencies, and he knew Brian "well" because he had run a background check on him.
- Cops and bullies like Sprowl always get their knickers in a twist when their authority is challenged, and usually go into vendetta mode.
Great analysis. The Bully, Sprowl, got "Dissed" (then got Pissed) when he showed up the first time and couldn't Tresspass, so he made plans to get even.
I"m hoping for a Back to the Future ending where "Biff" ends up working for the one he bullied! (the Horses Caretaker!...fat chance).
Come to think of it, for convenience sake, can we refer to Sprowl as "BIFF" in the future? He think he's earned the Nickname.
And in other news, my mailman didn't deliver my mail right after the last snowstorm. I had a verbal disagreement with the post office a few weeks back about a damaged package, and that smarmy mailman has been looking for an excuse to screw me over ever since. It just so happens that the plow came through 10 minutes before the mailman and blocked off my mailbox with a huge mound of snow. Coincidence? No way: the mailman and plow guy obviously met beforehand and conspired to deprive me of my mail.
Everyone knows about mailmen acting this way (they're federal employees after all), but fewer are aware of the plow guys out there who have it out for people with driveways. >:D
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 13, 2009, 10:28 AM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 13, 2009, 09:46 AM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 13, 2009, 08:52 AM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 13, 2009, 04:44 AM NHFT
Quote from: cyne on March 12, 2009, 10:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 12, 2009, 09:49 PM NHFT
People have rights because we are sentient. We understand how the consequences of our behavior can cause pain to other humans. Animals can't understand consequences but they can feel pain.
Certainly animals are sentient (self-aware) and can understand consequences! My dog barks outside the door because he knows it will open and as a consequence he can get inside where it's warm. Without awareness of himself and the world around him (sentience) and the ability to learn (experience the consequences of his actions) he'd behave more like a houseplant - just sit out there and freeze to death.
Does a dog "know" that if it bites another dog or person that they will cause pain?
Just like human children... not until they're taught. A wolf will bite another in the pack to respond to unacceptable action... they know the bite is inflicting pain.
How do you know that they know?
A child at a certain age can understand how it feels to hurt another person because they can be hurt themselves by someone else.
But a wolf? I don't think so...
You don't think at a certain time in their lives that a wolf has been bitten by another and felt pain?
How do you know the difference between observing instinct and learned behavior where the animal can understand/know consequences?
Quote from: dalebert on March 13, 2009, 11:13 AM NHFT
Movie night?
I was thinking the same thing.
There's no copy listed in the Keene library's catalog, though.
Incidentally, mises.org has a long list of favored movies: http://mises.org/content/film.asp
Quote from: margomaps on March 13, 2009, 11:47 AM NHFT
Coincidence? No way: the mailman and plow guy obviously met beforehand and conspired to deprive me of my mail.
Everyone knows about mailmen acting this way (they're federal employees after all), but fewer are aware of the plow guys out there who have it out for people with driveways. >:D
You don't have much experience with small town cops or self-important control freaks, do you?
They are usually petty, vindictive, are known to hold grudges for a long time, and live to use their positions to mess with other people's lives by any means necessary. When you diss one, retribution will surely come.
Here is a link to a BB that has no charity for Brian and Heidi. I do not feel qualified to respond on this horse focus BB. They seem to have vilified the victims here with out much evidence. It seems that the powers in action here do not wish us to see said evidence. Why is that?! There seems to be some incident in Colorado that has these horse people convinced of the guilt of Heidi specifically. Someone of equine interest and aware of Heidi and Brian's true reputation should post a response on this site:
http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=194174 (http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=194174)
Dan
Quote from: cyne on March 12, 2009, 10:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 12, 2009, 09:49 PM NHFT
People have rights because we are sentient. We understand how the consequences of our behavior can cause pain to other humans. Animals can't understand consequences but they can feel pain.
Certainly animals are sentient (self-aware) and can understand consequences! My dog barks outside the door because he knows it will open and as a consequence he can get inside where it's warm. Without awareness of himself and the world around him (sentience) and the ability to learn (experience the consequences of his actions) he'd behave more like a houseplant - just sit out there and freeze to death.
I could program a very simple mechanical device to engage in the stimulus–response mechanism you're describing. As for trainability ("understanding consequences," as you put it), that's pretty simple to program (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neural_network), too. Would such devices now be "self-aware" and deserving of rights?
A dog is not self-aware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness), and it's only sentient (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sentience) by the extremely broad definition of possessing sensory awareness (it can see, smell, &c.), not the more important definition of possessing consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness).
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 13, 2009, 02:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: cyne on March 12, 2009, 10:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 12, 2009, 09:49 PM NHFT
People have rights because we are sentient. We understand how the consequences of our behavior can cause pain to other humans. Animals can't understand consequences but they can feel pain.
Certainly animals are sentient (self-aware) and can understand consequences! My dog barks outside the door because he knows it will open and as a consequence he can get inside where it's warm. Without awareness of himself and the world around him (sentience) and the ability to learn (experience the consequences of his actions) he'd behave more like a houseplant - just sit out there and freeze to death.
I could program a very simple mechanical device to engage in the stimulus–response mechanism you're describing. As for trainability ("understanding consequences," as you put it), that's pretty simple to program (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neural_network), too. Would such devices now be "self-aware" and deserving of rights?
A dog is not self-aware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness), and it's only sentient (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sentience) by the extremely broad definition of possessing sensory awareness (it can see, smell, &c.), not the more important definition of possessing consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness).
Yes. Thanks. Consciousness, as well as, sentience!
Quote from: margomaps on March 12, 2009, 10:49 PM NHFT
It's lazy to suspect all gun owners (for example) and all SPCA's (and each person in each SPCA) of being evil/corrupt/dangerous/etc. just because of some bad apples in each group. And it seems irrational to do so only for the SPCA's while giving gun owners a pass. When Chuck Schumer and Eric Holder point to tragic shootings in order to justify attacks on gun owners, do you accept their faulty reasoning?
This logic is faulty; you're comparing apples and oranges. "Gun owners" isn't a set group of people who joined an organization with a mission statement, bylaws, &c.. The SPCA is.
If people here were vilifying "animal lovers" as evil/corrupt/dangerous/&c., you could compare them to "gun owners."
If people are vilifying the SPCA similarly, the comparison might be a specific organized group of gun owners (
e.g., the NRA). And if that organization engaged in evil/corrupt/dangerous/&c. behavior, is it safe to say its members support? Yup.
Quote from: erisian on March 13, 2009, 01:48 PM NHFTYou don't have much experience with small town cops or self-important control freaks, do you?
They are usually petty, vindictive, are known to hold grudges for a long time, and live to use their positions to mess with other people's lives by any means necessary. When you diss one, retribution will surely come.
I have enough experience to recognize that your statement -- while undoubtedly true for some individuals -- is an absurdly broad and mean-spirited generalization. Furthermore, even if your generalization is true for Steve Sprowls, your conspiracy scenario requires the active cooperation of the vet...and that's the part I'm not going to buy into without corroborating evidence.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 13, 2009, 08:52 AM NHFT
A wolf will bite another in the pack to respond to unacceptable action... they know the bite is inflicting pain.
Do they learn that the bite is inflicting pain, or do they learn that the bite will lead to a negative consequence upon themselves (being bitten in return?) that will lead to
their experiencing pain?
(That is, do such animals experience empathy?)
Dogs experience empathy. They are very aware of peoples unspoken emotions.
Our last dog Kaos was very much connected to Becky, he wouldn't leave her side if she was sad, sick or stressed.
I trusted his judgement of people and their internal, unspoken motives.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on March 13, 2009, 02:37 PM NHFT
Dogs experience empathy. They are very aware of peoples unspoken emotions.
Our last dog Kaos was very much connected to Becky, he wouldn't leave her side if she was sad, sick or stressed.
I trusted his judgement of people and their internal, unspoken motives.
And that is why people are more likely than not to insist (via the law) that they be treated humanely...
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 13, 2009, 02:25 PM NHFTThis logic is faulty; you're comparing apples and oranges. "Gun owners" isn't a set group of people who joined an organization with a mission statement, bylaws, &c.. The SPCA is.
If people here were vilifying "animal lovers" as evil/corrupt/dangerous/&c., you could compare them to "gun owners."
If people are vilifying the SPCA similarly, the comparison might be a specific organized group of gun owners (e.g., the NRA). And if that organization engaged in evil/corrupt/dangerous/&c. behavior, is it safe to say its members support? Yup.
Point taken that "gun owners" isn't quite the same as "SPCA's".
However, your comparison to the NRA isn't really apt either. Each SPCA is its own independent organization that does not answer to some larger umbrella group (as far as I know). The actions of a particular SPCA enforcer in Texas (per Stossel's video) have no bearing on the actions of another group of individuals that are a part of an SPCA elsewhere; and certainly an SPCA enforcer in, say, Montana does not bear responsibility for the actions of the enforcer in Texas.
Maybe a better comparison would be firefighters. There are "fraternities" of firefighters probably in every major town in the country. They are perhaps linked ideologically on some level, but each local fraternity is not beholden to the others (as far as I know). Just because we can point to numerous examples of firefighters who have committed arson and then played hero, it does not mean that all firefighters should be condemned -- or even suspected.
This whole idea of collective condemnation based on the actions of individuals is absurd and anathema to individualist thinking. I'm honestly surprised that I have to run around in circles trying to convince libertarians and anarchists of this. :o
Quote from: Donald McFarlane on March 13, 2009, 11:04 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 12, 2009, 08:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 12, 2009, 08:09 PM NHFT
And why is it that animals do not have rights?
The question is, whence do rights derive? Answer that and you can figure out if animals have rights or not.
No, this is not the question. If it were, the issue would be a moral one, that animals would clearly have rights, and that we should not transgress against them unduly. IMO, that might make it OK to do animal slaughter, sacrifice, eating, testing, labor, etc. In someone else's opinion, that might not make it OK to use the animal for anything at all.
But again, not the point.
The point is, our government is not established to protect the animals or their rights. It is founded in consent of the people, instituted for their general good, and the only natural rights which shall be surrendered are those surrendered equivalently by all men in order to ensure the protection of other men. An animal is not a member of our community under Part 1 Article 12, nor does he pay taxes reciprocally for such protections.
Well, there seem to be many different nuanced arguments at play here.
If one believes that the State exists, or ought to exist, to protect the rights of its subjects, then the question is certainly pertinent. If animals have rights, they deserve the same protections that human beings currently get from the State. If not, then not.
If one doesn't believe in the State, but still believes in a principle that says beings deserving of rights deserve protection of those rights, then the question is still pertinent. In a NAP-based society, whether or not animals have rights determines whether or not one can engage in an act of force against someone hurting an animal. If one doesn't believe animals have rights, then committing force against an animal-abuser is an act of aggression. My own position is that animals (more accurately, beings without consciousness, ability to reason, and so on) do not have rights. Force cannot be used to stop people from abusing them. However, to many, animal abuse is repugnant on an emotional level* and could be met with ostracism or similar.
If one accepts the existence of State, but is going to go more by the letter than the spirit of its claimed purposes, then your argument is correct. Animals may or may not have rights, but since they don't pay taxes under Art. 12, they're not deserving of protection. The implications of this are rather dangerous, though: Exclude someone from the community, exempt them from taxes, and now they fall outside the protection of the law? I don't know if this has ever been done in New Hampshire, but declaring someone
homo sacer—outside the law—has been used against individuals and entire groups throughout history in order to deprive them of protection of their rights. Your "not members of the community" argument is perilouslty close to this.
* And I think this is the key to a lot of these arguments: When it comes to animal rights debates, rarely do I see people getting bent out of shape over swatting flies, electrocuting mosquitos, gassing cockroaches, or committing wholesale slaughter of bacteria every time they wipe down their countertop or toiletbowl. How about if we just be honest and say we react emotionally to the idea of hurting animals that have anthropoid features, characteristics, and behaviors, eh?
Quote from: margomaps on March 13, 2009, 02:46 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 13, 2009, 02:25 PM NHFTThis logic is faulty; you're comparing apples and oranges. "Gun owners" isn't a set group of people who joined an organization with a mission statement, bylaws, &c.. The SPCA is.
If people here were vilifying "animal lovers" as evil/corrupt/dangerous/&c., you could compare them to "gun owners."
If people are vilifying the SPCA similarly, the comparison might be a specific organized group of gun owners (e.g., the NRA). And if that organization engaged in evil/corrupt/dangerous/&c. behavior, is it safe to say its members support? Yup.
Point taken that "gun owners" isn't quite the same as "SPCA's".
However, your comparison to the NRA isn't really apt either. Each SPCA is its own independent organization that does not answer to some larger umbrella group (as far as I know). The actions of a particular SPCA enforcer in Texas (per Stossel's video) have no bearing on the actions of another group of individuals that are a part of an SPCA elsewhere; and certainly an SPCA enforcer in, say, Montana does not bear responsibility for the actions of the enforcer in Texas.
Indeed, the actions of one SPCA shouldn't reflect on others, if they're truly independent groups all using the same name. I didn't really address that situation in my post. But the actions of one SPCA, or its leaders, should certainly reflect on the members of that particular SPCA.
Quote from: margomaps on March 13, 2009, 02:46 PM NHFT
This whole idea of collective condemnation based on the actions of individuals is absurd and anathema to individualist thinking. I'm honestly surprised that I have to run around in circles trying to convince libertarians and anarchists of this. :o
Because collective condemnation is most certainly justified for an
organization that commits evil acts, or has members who commit evil acts under its name, even in a libertarian society. Imposed or imagined collectivism followed by judgement is what's unacceptable. "You're a 'gun owner,' some gun owners committed crimes with their guns, therefore you are evil." Similar judgement of members of some form of voluntary collectivism is not. "You joined the NSDAP, the NSDAP promotes genocide, therefore you're evil."
Gardner interviewing Brian (http://libertyconspiracy.podomatic.com/entry/2009-03-12T14_26_36-07_00). Don't know that there is anything particularly new here as I've yet to get through it.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 13, 2009, 03:17 PM NHFTImposed or imagined collectivism followed by judgement is what's unacceptable.
Ok, so we
are on the same page then. :)
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 12, 2009, 09:49 PM NHFT
I could program a very simple mechanical device to engage in the stimulus–response mechanism you're describing. As for trainability ("understanding consequences," as you put it), that's pretty simple to program (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neural_network), too. Would such devices now be "self-aware" and deserving of rights?
A dog is not self-aware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness), and it's only sentient (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sentience) by the extremely broad definition of possessing sensory awareness (it can see, smell, &c.), not the more important definition of possessing consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness).
How can I be sure that YOU are conscious and self-aware? For all I know, you're just a machine programmed to behave as if you're sentient. I do believe that you are sentient, and that animals are sentient.
But I don't think sentience is the basis for having rights - read the Vicki Hearne essay I posted a link to earlier. I think she explains it well.
I think the basic idea is the ability to respect the rights of others. There's the notion of reciprocity. It's in our rational self-interest to respect the rights of other beings who can then return the favor and allow for a peaceful and mutually beneficial cooperation. If we go down the path of saying animals have rights, we have to start treating a wolf who hunts and eats a rabbit as a murderer. It's not a logically consistent viewpoint.
Quote from: cyne on March 13, 2009, 03:45 PM NHFT
How can I be sure that YOU are conscious and self-aware? For all I know, you're just a machine programmed to behave as if you're sentient.
Exactly! You don't know I am. I may very well be a machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Room). All you know is that you yourself are self-aware. (Maybe—but I'm not going to get
that deep into this kind of stuff in this thread.)
Now, I can reasonably
infer that other human beings are as self-aware as I myself am, based on the fact that they have the same physical construction as myself, they appear to be able to think and reason the same as I can, they communicate in the same way, and so on. The vast majority of animals, on the other hand, share none of these characteristics with me. It should be obvious to everyone that animals have a much reduced ability to think, to reason, to communicate with us, or none at all in the cases of most animals. If it's not obvious, experiments have been done to bear this out, testing animals' ability to use tools, to organize, to plan, to memorize, to count and calculate, to recognize themselves in mirrors (as opposed to thinking they're seeing another animal), &c.. Some animals have rudimentary forms of these abilities, but the vast majority have none at all.
Quote from: cyne on March 13, 2009, 03:45 PM NHFT
I do believe that you are sentient, and that animals are sentient.
Based on?
Quote from: cyne on March 13, 2009, 03:45 PM NHFT
But I don't think sentience is the basis for having rights - read the Vicki Hearne essay I posted a link to earlier. I think she explains it well.
I only skimmed it, so maybe I missed something, but Hearne's entire argument about rights—both human and animal—seems to be based on a rather disturbing form of collectivism:—
QuotePossession of a being by another has come into more and more disrepute, so that the common
understanding of one person possessing another is slavery. But the important detail about the kind of
possessive pronoun that I have in mind is reciprocity: If I have a friend, she has a friend. If I have a
daughter, she has a mother. The possessive does not bind one of us while freeing the other; it cannot do
that. Moreover, should the mother reject the daughter, the word that applies is "disown." The form of
disowning that most often appears in the news is domestic violence. Parents abuse children; husbands
batter wives.
Some cases of reciprocal possessives have built-in limitations, such as "my patient / my doctor" or "my
student / my teacher" or "my agent / my client." Other possessive relations are extremely limited but still
remarkably binding: "my neighbor" and "my country" and "my president."
The responsibilities and the ties signaled by reciprocal possession typically are hard to dissolve. It can be
as difficult to give up an enemy as to give up a friend, and often the one becomes the other, as though
the logic of the possessive pronoun outlasts the forms it chanced to take at a given moment, as though
we were stuck with one another. In these bindings, nearly inextricable, are found the origin of our rights.
They imply a possessiveness but also recognize an acknowledgment by each side of the other's existence.
Right. So a human alone has no rights? Only if he's "possessed" (reciprocally, of course) by others does he have rights? She then goes on to extol the virtues of democratic government and voting, ending with:—
QuoteI obey the government, and, in theory, it obeys me, by counting my
ballot, reading the Miranda warning to me, agreeing to be bound by the Constitution. My friend obeys
me as I obey her; the government "obeys" me to some extent, and, to a different extent, I obey it.
Yikes. Sorry, this person doesn't understand the first thing about "rights."
Quote from: margomaps on March 13, 2009, 02:28 PM NHFT
I have enough experience to recognize that your statement -- while undoubtedly true for some individuals -- is an absurdly broad and mean-spirited generalization. Furthermore, even if your generalization is true for Steve Sprowls, your conspiracy scenario requires the active cooperation of the vet...and that's the part I'm not going to buy into without corroborating evidence.
You're right. I do have a bad and cynical attitude. That probably is the result of having lived in Bartlett for many years back when it was the dominion of one Robert Snow, now a convicted felon for extortion and embezzlement, or possibly my conversations with friends of the late Liko Kenney. Or maybe it was the Carl Drega incident...
It didn't really require the vet's "active participation", don't you see? A little social engineering by the cop or more likely Sprowl, would get the vet to take a good look around when he went out there. Then if there were horses in a paddock with no shelter in it, he would have witnessed a violation of the law. With Sprowl's words in his head, he would have assumed that the horses
never had any shelter, and he would then have had no choice but to report the violation. And yes, that kind of intrigue is the way this type of thing frequently works in small towns.
Damn! I love that avatar!
Quote from: dalebert on March 13, 2009, 04:00 PM NHFT
I think the basic idea is the ability to respect the rights of others. There's the notion of reciprocity. It's in our rational self-interest to respect the rights of other beings who can then return the favor and allow for a peaceful and mutually beneficial cooperation. If we go down the path of saying animals have rights, we have to start treating a wolf who hunts and eats a rabbit as a murderer. It's not a logically consistent viewpoint.
Why a human is only a murderer, if they kill another human... and his not considered a murderer should it be in defense of themselves. And even that is a measure of western society.
Quote from: bile on March 13, 2009, 03:29 PM NHFT
Gardner interviewing Brian (http://libertyconspiracy.podomatic.com/entry/2009-03-12T14_26_36-07_00). Don't know that there is anything particularly new here as I've yet to get through it.
There is.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 13, 2009, 11:19 PM NHFT
Why a human is only a murderer, if they kill another human... and his not considered a murderer should it be in defense of themselves. And even that is a measure of western society.
Something in the grammar of this is making it hard to decipher exactly what your point is.
Quote from: dalebert on March 14, 2009, 09:52 AM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 13, 2009, 11:19 PM NHFT
Why a human is only a murderer, if they kill another human... and his not considered a murderer should it be in defense of themselves. And even that is a measure of western society.
Something in the grammar of this is making it hard to decipher exactly what your point is.
Sorry. Typing quickly at night.
Why? A human is only considered a murderer, if they kill another human... not another species. And is not condsidered a murder if defending themselves. And even this is only a western society more... it would not include cannibalistic cultures where a human could be killed for the purpose of sustenance.
Wolves are endowed by their creator (be it nature or otherwise) with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Quote from: bile on March 13, 2009, 03:29 PM NHFT
Gardner interviewing Brian (http://libertyconspiracy.podomatic.com/entry/2009-03-12T14_26_36-07_00). Don't know that there is anything particularly new here as I've yet to get through it.
I think everyone should take the time to listen to it. It cleared up a many questions I had.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 14, 2009, 10:33 AM NHFT
Why? A human is only considered a murderer, if they kill another human... not another species.
That was exactly my point. I'm arguing against the notion of extending the same rights to other species that we extend to fellow humans. The notion is logically inconsistent. However, I would posit that if another species were intelligent and demonstrated the ability to respect rights, it would be in our rational self-interest to recognize that species' rights as well.
Quote
And is not condsidered a murder if defending themselves.
Exactly. The attacker has violated the defender's rights and therefore has violated a sort of understood contract amongst civilized people, i.e. respect my rights and I'll respect yours.
Quote
And even this is only a western society more... it would not include cannibalistic cultures where a human could be killed for the purpose of sustenance.
Clearly they don't respect rights. If they tried to eat me, I'd have no compunctions about defending myself with deadly force. I don't think such people would last long in a civilized society. I believe civility would provide a significant advantage over them.
as you probably all noticed i asnt able to make it today for the shelter party thing - i am on call all weekend and unable to be of much help today and tomorrow. i work during the week. if there are more shelters to be built or help that is needed or another organized event to help out brian and heidi please let me know sooner rather than later and i will do my best to make sure i am able to make it.
sorry i coudlnt be there :(
Top salaries at MSPCA questioned (http://www.boston.com/jobs/news/articles/2009/02/20/top_salaries_at_mspca_questioned/)
QuoteAs the nonprofit Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals prepares to close three animal shelters in reaction to a 25 percent loss in its endowment, advocates for animals are questioning the pay packages of the society's top administrators.
Four of the top five officials at the MSPCA make more than $200,000 annually, according to the organization's latest tax-exempt filing.
"I think that some of that money would be better spent on caring for the animals," said Joyce Godsey, a volunteer at the nonprofit Animal Rescue of Merrimack Valley.
In 2007, MSPCA's chief executive officer, Carter Luke, received a salary and benefit package worth $340,595. The vice president of human resources received $215,723, the chief medical officer received $246,337, and the vice president of development received $202,880.
...
Lou Whitney, the co-owner of DoggieDay, an animal-care service located in the South End, said his business has helped raise more than $30,000 for the MSPCA in recent years but will not participate in any future fund-raising efforts to benefit the society because the money doesn't directly go to caring for the animals.
"We've severed our ties with the MSPCA for this specific reason," Whitney said. "We found the MSPCA to be a place where people were looking to secure financial positions for themselves, rather than focusing on helping the animals. I think that instead of paying out those ridiculous salaries, they should use the money to make sure they're providing a service to the community."
..more (http://www.boston.com/jobs/news/articles/2009/02/20/top_salaries_at_mspca_questioned/)
After reading this thread (http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=1741.0) on the NHLA forum, I'm much more inclined to believe the theory that this is an act of revenge on Steve Sprowl's part. What a complete dick.
Then again, the Travises apparently, just a few weeks ago, went looking for help, saying they were unemployed and could not afford to care for their horses anymore... which seems to conflict with what Brian has been saying on FTL, LibertyConspiracy and YouTube over the past week about having plenty of money for hay to let his horses feed at will, and having $20K that he was planning on spending to build a barn. So it's also possible that Sprowl didn't instigate this. It could have been the result of a well-meaning person from Live and Let Live farm reporting that there were a number of underfed horses in Candia.
I can't find this article on the Union Leader website, but KB Craig apparently copied it onto the NHLA forum on Feb. 17 (http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=1741.msg14430#msg14430):
Quote
Paradis said she knows of about another 40 horses she can't help because she neither has the room nor the money to feed them.
They include a herd of 25 Arabians brought to New Hampshire when their owner relocated his family here last fall to take a new job. The promised job fell through, along with the sale on his out-of-state house, Paradis said. Overwhelmed, the family turned to Paradis for help.
She rescued three of the horses -- a mare and foal and six-month-old weanling -- while the family scraped together enough hay to get through for another week or so.
"We could take four or five more. But we can't take in 25. And there is nowhere else to go," Paradis said.
I'm not trying to defend the actions of the Candia police and the NHSPCA, *or* to sound like I'm condemning the Travises (see the other thread from a couple months ago where I indicated I went there to help Beth build a stable and petted the clearly-not-emaciated horses), but I do think it's important that all the facts be laid on the table, particularly since numerous calls have gone out to make phone calls, donate money, place public officials' heads on spikes, etc. It seems possible that the reason all those "authorities" showed up at the Travis' farm on Monday to take several of their horses is because, just a few weeks earlier, the Travises told a registered non-profit they couldn't afford to feed their horses. :-\
FYI, there's more info on this thread on the FSP forum (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=17217.0).
Too many freakin' forums. :P
QuoteIt could have been the result of a well-meaning person from Live and Let Live farm reporting that there were a number of underfed horses in Candia.
If so it seems odd she would say in the UL article "although some of the horses were a little underweight, none were emaciated and she did not see signs of imminent danger to them."
The whole Live and Let Live farm situation seems to have the most questions.
Quote from: dalebert on March 14, 2009, 11:19 AM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 14, 2009, 10:33 AM NHFT
Why? A human is only considered a murderer, if they kill another human... not another species.
That was exactly my point. I'm arguing against the notion of extending the same rights to other species that we extend to fellow humans. The notion is logically inconsistent. However, I would posit that if another species were intelligent and demonstrated the ability to respect rights, it would be in our rational self-interest to recognize that species' rights as well.
Quote
And is not condsidered a murder if defending themselves.
Exactly. The attacker has violated the defender's rights and therefore has violated a sort of understood contract amongst civilized people, i.e. respect my rights and I'll respect yours.
Quote
And even this is only a western society more... it would not include cannibalistic cultures where a human could be killed for the purpose of sustenance.
Clearly they don't respect rights. If they tried to eat me, I'd have no compunctions about defending myself with deadly force. I don't think such people would last long in a civilized society. I believe civility would provide a significant advantage over them.
My point being is one can not extend rights that are inalienable... since the rights do not originate from us.
But you did hit upon why I asked the original question... an understood contract. Our society (government) determines our perception to some degree of which rights will be upheld, and for which groups.
Actually many civilized societies were to our present perception, not very civilized.
can anyone give details on the stuff that went on today? more shelters built? shelter repair status? another event happening soon?
Did anyone get pictures or video of the remaining horses, land, shelter etc?
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 12, 2009, 09:49 PM NHFT
Quote from: slave_3646 on March 12, 2009, 07:20 PM NHFT
Quote from: Mike Barskey on March 12, 2009, 06:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: leetninja on March 12, 2009, 06:41 PM NHFT
There has to be a line somewhere.
There does? There has to be a line after which it is alright to initiate aggression against another person?
People have rights; animals do not. Animals are property, plain and simple.
People have rights because we are sentient. We understand how the consequences of our behavior can cause pain to other humans. Animals can't understand consequences but they can feel pain.
I believe some animals understand consequences, at least those with an opposable thumb, maybe others too. I'm sure some of you have heard of primates (non homo sapien) that can talk with people using sign language etc.? I think the gorillas name was Coco ...read about it awhile back, pretty interesting. l
There is a place where orcas have learned to 'beach' themselves as part of a hunting technique.
They seem to way the benefit against the risk... as its not prevalent in all pods, but a learned behavior.
I can't recall the details, but humans have actually engaged in cooperation and "trade" with killer whales and even have had unwritten contracts with them. Eventually it was humans who broke the contract and it left the whales rather perplexed at their behavior. It had something to do with the whales helping whale hunters (different type of whales obviously) and how the humans left the whale for a period of time allowing the orcas to eat the tongue and only the tongue, which the humans didn't care about. Fascinating story.
I'm finally able to sit down and read the thread here. I appreciate everyone's concerns and realize that there are still some mysteries that remain unanswered. One is the question of finances. Without getting into too much detail, Heidi and I keep our money separate. I have my company and she has her farm. She funds her farm with the sales of her horses and supplements it with her income as a programmer.
The market for top-end horses is pretty bad right now, and she has had a hard time selling her stars. However, they continue to eat. Add to that the move and temporary unemployment as she looked for a job here in New Hampshire.
It was a tough few months for her in the late fall until she landed a new job. Things are better now, but she was forced to give up a couple horses that she had rescued so someone else could feed them. That's the connection to Live and Let Live Farm.
So how does a person struggling to feed her horses come up with $20,000 for a legal retainer? My company loaned it to her against the assets of the farm: her star horses.
Once this issue is resolved, she'll have to sell some of her stock to pay back the loan.
Brian,
If money was tight and times were tough, combined with asking an area rescue for help, then WHY did Heidi buy ANOTHER horse between September and December?
Why did she leave this horse on the trailer, parked at your "farm" for TWO DAYS before she unloaded it?
Why did she not feed the horse the prescribed diet that she was sent with since the horse had a condition that REQUIRED a special diet?
Quote from: Me on March 16, 2009, 12:15 AM NHFT
Brian,
If money was tight and times were tough, combined with asking an area rescue for help, then WHY did Heidi buy ANOTHER horse between September and December?
Why did she leave this horse on the trailer, parked at your "farm" for TWO DAYS before she unloaded it?
Why did she not feed the horse the prescribed diet that she was sent with since the horse had a condition that REQUIRED a special diet?
Hey 'Me'
It sounds an awful lot to me like you think you're just the kind of person to force your opinion on somone. Do you believe that people have the right to do with their property what they wish? Or do you think that people ought to do with their property as you'd allow them to do?
Ok Slave,
How about this? Maybe I can put this in a way that you'll understand.
Someone seat belts you into a blacked out school bus.
You have minimal food, probably no water, and you are forced to standing in your own filth because you have no where else to go. You live like this for 2 days.
Your yells get no response. You can't lay down - and seeing as how you are a horse you are REQUIRED to lay down no less than 15min every day in order to get true rest.
Then you get taken off of the school bus and put in with others that don't know you, so, like kids on a school ground, they beat you up for not fitting in.
Top that off, if you are not given the right food, your feet get so hot that they burn and your heel bone starts to RIP through the flesh to the outside of your foot.
And the sick thing is, the people who are taking care of you, KNOW you have to have a certain kind of food so this doesn't happen, but they don't care. So they give you exactly what you shouldn't have.
You can't call anyone to help.
Quote from: Me on March 16, 2009, 09:00 AM NHFT
Ok Slave,
How about this? Maybe I can put this in a way that you'll understand.
Someone seat belts you into a blacked out school bus.
You have minimal food, probably no water, and you are forced to standing in your own filth because you have no where else to go. You live like this for 2 days.
Your yells get no response. You can't lay down - and seeing as how you are a horse you are REQUIRED to lay down no less than 15min every day in order to get true rest.
Then you get taken off of the school bus and put in with others that don't know you, so, like kids on a school ground, they beat you up for not fitting in.
Top that off, if you are not given the right food, your feet get so hot that they burn and your heel bone starts to RIP through the flesh to the outside of your foot.
And the sick thing is, the people who are taking care of you, KNOW you have to have a certain kind of food so this doesn't happen, but they don't care. So they give you exactly what you shouldn't have.
You can't call anyone to help.
You've exemplified the emotionality of the alleged situation quite well, but I think it's one that we already understood. What you're missing, however, is the logic. One significant difference between the real story with the horse and your scenario where Slave is in the bus is that the horse is property and Slave is a human; you're equating the two.
Me, if those claims are true it is on it's face rather unfortunate. However, 1) we don't have the evidence required to prove or disprove your claims, 2) we don't know who you are to verify that you could possibly have such information and 3) you are bringing it up with many people who believe in property rights, that animals are property and disagree fundamentally with the idea of utilizing force to obtain ends in a offensive manner.
There are two debates here. Were the animals harmed or in danger of harm and how? And more importantly whether it is legitimate to use force against the owners of the animals when they had not agressed against anyone or their property.
So if you were aware of the situation, "Me", what did you personally try and do for the horse? Did you go to Heidi and talk to her about it?
If the allegations are true, then why don't the concerned individuals just buy the horses from the owners? Why do they instead choose to use violence to steal the animals?
Quote from: Me on March 16, 2009, 09:00 AM NHFT
Ok Slave,
How about this? Maybe I can put this in a way that you'll understand.
Someone seat belts you into a blacked out school bus.
You have minimal food, probably no water, and you are forced to standing in your own filth because you have no where else to go. You live like this for 2 days.
Your yells get no response. You can't lay down - and seeing as how you are a horse you are REQUIRED to lay down no less than 15min every day in order to get true rest.
Then you get taken off of the school bus and put in with others that don't know you, so, like kids on a school ground, they beat you up for not fitting in.
Top that off, if you are not given the right food, your feet get so hot that they burn and your heel bone starts to RIP through the flesh to the outside of your foot.
And the sick thing is, the people who are taking care of you, KNOW you have to have a certain kind of food so this doesn't happen, but they don't care. So they give you exactly what you shouldn't have.
You can't call anyone to help.
I'm not somone's property to treat and/or dispose of as they wish, 'me', Are you? Are the horses that the Travis' 'own' theirs, or aren't they? Are they property, or not?
If you want your rights, you need to realize that you're going to have to respect all of the rights of others. Humans have rights, animals do not. To argue any other way is a step towards a very slippery slope that inevitably ends up with you justifying the initiation of force against another person to enforce your will upon them. Much like the people who refuse to see the 'gun in the room' that govt. is ALWAYS pointing at you, your emotions and cognitive dissidence do not make your point of view true.
Who am I?
I'm the former owner of the horse.
I was the one lied to about provisions being made on the property. I was the one that was lied to about the $5000 tractor trailer loads of hay that were supposedly bought from NY. And the farrier who was supposedly flown in from CO to do the horses. And the mare was going to VA for boarding and breeding.
When in fact, none of it was the truth.
I was the one who sent the mare with the feed she REQUIRED to stay sound. Have any of you ever seen a horses foot FALL OFF? And was assured that they understood what she needed and that they'd continue to feed it to her so she stayed healthy. And supplied them with area grain stores, offered them phone numbers to area hay suppliers, and farriers. All of which they declined to be provided that information.
And I'm the former owner who didn't even receive a phone call that the mare had been taken by the SPCA. I had to call HEIDI to find out if she was one of the ones taken.
Quote from: Me on March 16, 2009, 11:53 AM NHFT
Who am I?
I'm the former owner of the horse.
I was the one lied to about provisions being made on the property. I was the one that was lied to about the $5000 tractor trailer loads of hay that were supposedly bought from NY. And the farrier who was supposedly flown in from CO to do the horses. And the mare was going to VA for boarding and breeding.
When in fact, none of it was the truth.
I was the one who sent the mare with the feed she REQUIRED to stay sound. Have any of you ever seen a horses foot FALL OFF? And was assured that they understood what she needed and that they'd continue to feed it to her so she stayed healthy. And supplied them with area grain stores, offered them phone numbers to area hay suppliers, and farriers. All of which they declined to be provided that information.
And I'm the former owner who didn't even receive a phone call that the mare had been taken by the SPCA. I had to call HEIDI to find out if she was one of the ones taken.
Well that explains your emotional attachment. Do you still own the horse or did you sell it to Heidi? Did your sales contract include provisions that detailed how the horse had to be cared for that were agreed to by both you and her and any other parties to the sale? Or was the horse her property to do with as she saw fit?
And back to the questions I asked you. Does a horse have 'rights', or is a horse 'property'? And do you feel that you have the 'right' to impose your will on somone else against their will if they're doing something that you don't agree with with their own property now, do you?
Quote from: Me on March 16, 2009, 11:53 AM NHFT
Who am I?
I'm the former owner of the horse.
I was the one lied to about provisions being made on the property. I was the one that was lied to about the $5000 tractor trailer loads of hay that were supposedly bought from NY. And the farrier who was supposedly flown in from CO to do the horses. And the mare was going to VA for boarding and breeding.
When in fact, none of it was the truth.
I was the one who sent the mare with the feed she REQUIRED to stay sound. Have any of you ever seen a horses foot FALL OFF? And was assured that they understood what she needed and that they'd continue to feed it to her so she stayed healthy. And supplied them with area grain stores, offered them phone numbers to area hay suppliers, and farriers. All of which they declined to be provided that information.
And I'm the former owner who didn't even receive a phone call that the mare had been taken by the SPCA. I had to call HEIDI to find out if she was one of the ones taken.
Hello. Saw you posting on the other forums about this horse in particular. I will be able to find and post your exact words later. You are popping up here with a VERY different story.
First of all - you stated that Heidi paid for the horse and that as far as you were told by several other people - she was a VERY good owner with nothing but a GOOD reputation! You also mentioned still being the registered owner of the horse because Heidi didnt transfer some paper work into her name but that you wouldnt lie and say that she never paid for the horse. I hope you still stand by that. Otherwise I just outed you here and now.
Now everything you say about being lied to, tractor loads of hay from NY, a farrier, and breeding/boarding in VA - please, I think it is rather important that you provide some
PROOF to back these accusations up.
I saw your other posts about trying to contact Sprowl to tell him about the diet and not getting any response. How you left several messages and called several locations. At one point it seemed like you were reassured by another person on that other board that they knew where this horse was and that it had previously been taken care of but you were still nervous about that information being accurate or not. So if your horse is NOW not being taken care of properly by the SPCA thugs and that piece of garbage named Steve Sprowl i would advise you to place blame for what is happening to your horse then place it where it belongs - with the jackasses that STOLE these horses!
Sorry but this is getting ridiculous! I am sick of the horse nuts on the other board that are so quick to jump to conclusions about how the people who steal horses, who have a REPUTATION for doing so MUST BE RIGHT and that Heidi is somehow this evil person! Wake the fu*k up!!!
See, Karma has a way of dealing with each and everyone of you. By having you come back as the dog that gets kicked around by the owner because he's "property".
And your little twists are just that, twists. I've posted nothing on here that hasn't been posted anywhere else and in the same format.
And yes, I've been in extensive contact with Steve Sprowl now.
Brian had better hope his wife gets a damn good paying job because she's done in the Arabian industry.
I've tried to stay out of this, but I have to admit to being rather saddened and disgusted by people who will take "property rights" to the extreme and say that because I "own" an animal, it is my "property", that that gives me the right to abuse, mistreat and torture said "property" at will. An animal is not like a car or a stereo. They are thinking, breathing, living beings that deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. This whole argument makes me seriously question the character and morals of people who can justify mistreating animals under the guise of "property rights". >:(
All I can say is karma, what goes around, comes around.
(My comments, BTW, have nothing to do with Brian, Heidi, et al. I don't know them, have never met their animals, and as such am completely unqualified to give an opinion on that subject)
Quote from: Becky Thatcher on March 16, 2009, 12:56 PM NHFT
I've tried to stay out of this, but I have to admit to being rather saddened and disgusted by people who will take "property rights" to the extreme and say that because I "own" an animal, it is my "property", that that gives me the right to abuse, mistreat and torture said "property" at will. An animal is not like a car or a stereo. They are thinking, breathing, living beings that deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. This whole argument makes me seriously question the character and morals of people who can justify mistreating animals under the guise of "property rights". >:(
All I can say is karma, what goes around, comes around.
(My comments, BTW, have nothing to do with Brian, Heidi, et al. I don't know them, have never met their animals, and as such am completely unqualified to give an opinion on that subject)
This is rather silly. No one is justifying 'mistreating' animals under any guise. Either animals have rights or they do not. Either they are property or not. If they are owned, are property, then you have no justification for agressing against owners for what they do with their living property. You may however ostracize them, refuse them business, etc. If you are arguing that animals have rights and therefore can not be owned or be property you must be consistent. All meat eaters, butchers, slaughterhouses, even pet owners are morally and in some cases criminally responsible for their killing and enslavement or imprisonment of animals. If only some animals have rights that needs to be discussed also and some consistent method of determining who/what has rights needs to be created. I have owned everything from fish to horses my entire life. I loved them all dearly. That does not negate my belief that fundamentally they are property unless it can be shown they are deserving of rights as extended to humans.
I would probably argue that higher life forms be treated as young humans in the Rothbardian sense. It is illegitimate to explicitly harm them and you may be morally expected to care for them. If another person felt compelled to "rescue" the child or animal they may do so but at the realization that they will be at some point infringing on the property rights of the care taker and will need to deal with those consequences. (For example trespassing to take the Travis' horses.) I would think you'd also need to show that the child or animal prefers your care over that of the original persons. I believe that would provide the most acceptable social solution and put the incentives and responsibilities on the appropriate people. Regardless, what happened to the Travis family would still be an illegitimate act.
i'm not cool with the idea , that you can just treat animals any way you like.... some people (not the travises) seem to be spouting that idea around here.
mistreatment, when it happens, does not justify the aggression of tax-funded intervention. but I can see it justifying a voluntarily funded intervention.
Amanda, these posts are all YOURS! You DEFEND Heidi AND her reputation MORE THAN ONCE. Now you are lurking here ... what gives ...
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 01:35 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Exclamation Where is BG?
One of the seized horses was purchased from us in December. We have known about this family for several years and they always came with good reviews from other breeders/owners. They have/had a serious show and breeding program with horses that have some good show titles.
Unfortunately, even though I am still the registered owner of the mare....I doubt I will be able to get her back because she is considered "evidence".
And I have no way of contacting the place she is at to let them know that she is Insulin Resistant and in need of a special diet....for all I know, if she's been on grain since Monday, she may well already be in bad trouble with founder. She was on the light side in December after coming off of weaning a very needy colt, it was also just the condition she generally kept herself in due to her body type, and due to past founder we did not allow her to get heavy. But she was not emaciated when she left us....of course, I do not know what condition she is in now. I did not find out about this until yesterday and it was through a chat site that I found out.
She is a 15.1H bay mare with a black mane and tail. She has roaning on the rear pasterns and heels and a roan spot just past her withers on her back. Her front feet toe in just ever so slightly and one hoof has a higher heel than the other. She has very VERY large eyes and her ears V out just a little. She has not registered white markings but this time of year it looks like she has a small white snip between her nostrils. She has a vaginal tear that is old and was left open (meaning that she does not have a caslicks in at this time) since she was not being re-bred in 08. She may, or may not, have had a green blanket with gold trim on as I sent her with that. Her name is BG Backflash. I have extensive photos from the day I bought her to last year. She also had a 2008 Coggins and Rabies certificate.
If ANYONE knows how to get in touch with the people who have her so that I can get them info on what she needs to eat and find out how I can get her back...please let me know!!!!
Cheers,
Amanda
Reply With Quote
mckulley1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mckulley1
Find all posts by mckulley1
#70
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 04:43 AM
<3OTTB <3OTTB is offline
Working Hunter
Join Date: Sep. 23, 2007
Posts: 102
Default
Amanda - do you need help? Please PM me. I have a friend of a friend of a friend........
Reply With Quote
<3OTTB
View Public Profile
Send a private message to <3OTTB
Find all posts by <3OTTB
#71
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 04:55 AM
<3OTTB <3OTTB is offline
Working Hunter
Join Date: Sep. 23, 2007
Posts: 102
Default
Amanda - I am working on it. Another option is you to call Steve Sprowl of the NHSPCA and give them the info.
I wonder why she bought a horse from you, already having so many, when she had just moved from NH to CO having her CO place forclosed on.
Reply With Quote
<3OTTB
View Public Profile
Send a private message to <3OTTB
Find all posts by <3OTTB
#72
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 05:33 AM
MistyBlue MistyBlue is offline
Schoolmaster
Join Date: Feb. 6, 2003
Location: NorthEast
Posts: 13,506
Default
I'd contact the SPCA directly and inform them of the issues. And also contact the owners directly to see if that was one of the mares confiscated. Right now so many people are popping up asking for the location of the horses and the SPCA is the one to ask.
There are quite a few FSers posing as other people trying to find the locations and for the safety of the people fostering the horses it's best to go through the right channels.
There are Free Staters with the same name as mckulley...so to stay safe all around it's probably best to go through the legal channels to get the info out on the IR mare.
__________________
I'm going off the rails on a crazy train.....
Equus Makeus Brokus
Reply With Quote
MistyBlue
View Public Profile
Send a private message to MistyBlue
Find all posts by MistyBlue
#73
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 08:29 AM
gloriginger gloriginger is online now
Working Hunter
Join Date: Nov. 2, 2006
Posts: 754
Default
Amanda- go to Arabian Breeders network - there are some other breeders that have been in contact with Heidi- you could PM them and get her contact info to find out if your horse was one siezed.
Reply With Quote
gloriginger
View Public Profile
Send a private message to gloriginger
Find all posts by gloriginger
#74
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 08:45 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default Info
Mckulley is the name of a long deceased yet very dear dog. It has nothing to do with an FS.... I'm not entirely sure what the org is all about but my guess would be that people should be VERY careful with their segregation tactics based on others personal beliefs.
*****
At any rate, my NUMBER ONE priority is to get info to who ever has BG so she can be fed properly. With in a few days of being on a non-carb safe feed she will start to founder. Hay doesn't seem to be an issue for her...but grain is a big one. And if she's just her typical light condition and they think it's due to lack of feed and use that against these folks, well that's just not fare. And then god forbid if they start shoving the food down her throat... I can't even think about it. But if she is in bad shape, and does need some help, they have to know how to go about doing it.
My NUMBER TWO priority is to find out if there is any way to get her back at some point. I understand that she is no longer "my property" as she was sold. But I am STILL the recorded owner....
My husband is a Police Officer and he is adamant that I do not get involved beyond trying to get information to whoever has her so they know how she can be fed and perhaps if there is some kind of list where I can put my name down to take her if they'll release her.
****
Heidi wanted her because she had always wanted a Backstreet+ daughter. BG is one of his youngest daughters, the line is not a young one. She ALWAYS paid on time and the one time she got behind she caught right back up without any fuss.
Reply With Quote
mckulley1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mckulley1
Find all posts by mckulley1
#75
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 08:49 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default Contact
I should add that I fully well know that BG was one of the group that was taken. I saw the thread at SE.com that Laurie put up. I called Laurie, we talked, Thank God her colt was not in the group. So I called Heidi and she told me that BG was in the group that was taken.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:15 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I PM'd 3OTTB with her exact needs and her quirks....I hope it gets to her foster parents.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:27 AM
trubandloki trubandloki is online now
Advanced
Join Date: Sep. 2, 2005
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 2,294
Default
One would think that if Heidi cared at all about her horses that were being seized she would have told the animal control officers about this mare's special needs requirements. But gee, I guess they are just property, hu?
Reply With Quote
trubandloki
View Public Profile
Send a private message to trubandloki
Find all posts by trubandloki
#80
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:41 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I would guess that by the time they started taking horses, she probably was not in her right mind. There's not a person on this board that wouldn't be going bonkers if someone came to take their horses. Especially if you believe you're not in the wrong.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:52 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I'm sorry, this is where my conversation ends. I mentioned this in my first post.
I NEED the foster owners to know of BG's needs.
And if it comes down to her being placed, well, I want to be the one she is placed with.
BG is my sole and only priority in this matter. But I can only do what I'm legally able to do.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:03 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default BG needs
OTTB said she doesn't know where BG's at so just in case the foster people are here:
BG she needs a Carbohydrate safe feed such as Poulin Grain Carb Safe and PLAIN beet pulp. NO beet pulp with sugar! NO regular grain. NO oil. No sugar treats.
Usually she can have regular hay but if their hay is very rich they'll need to soak it in a barrel of water for one hour, drain water, and feed her the hay. They can't let the hay sit longer than an hour or it will re-absorb the sugar it put into the water. NO ALFALFA!
She can't be straight tied but she can be cross tied. You have to be careful rubbing her neck on the non-mane side because (she came to me this way) she shies terribly.
She's a 1991 mare. I have pictures if they aren't sure they have her.
Amanda
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:11 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Arabhorse2, you have a BAD attitude. It's not needed in this already volatile situation.
And for the record, I'm not defending anyone. But I have full working knowledge of how the human mind and system works under times of extreme duress. So I can see why things may not have been said.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:17 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Is there any legal documents on this CO case? I just don't understand why I wouldn't have heard of it....especially when I know other people with good reputations who sold horses to her who LIVE in CO.
Does anyone have this Steve persons phone number?
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:19 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Well Arabhorse2, FYI I did send her registration over to Heidi but Heidi has not transferred her into her name yet.
[edit] Excuse me for sitting up since Wednesday trying to figure out how I could have let this happen to a horse of mine.
Last edited by Moderator 1 : Mar. 16, 2009 at 11:48 AM. Reason: name calling
Reply With Quote
mckulley1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mckulley1
Find all posts by mckulley1
#93
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:25 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Look, if anyone has this Steve persons phone number, I'd be most appreciative to have it. PM would be great.
The ONLY reason why I posted on this forum was because I know how nosey and violent it can get here and figured it'd be the fastest way, after working hours, to get info out to who ever has this mare.
I don't need any bull crap from any anonymous poster here who thinks they know the answers to everything. YOU try having this situation on your shoulders with little more ability than to pass information around.
If BG needs a home, I'm here for her. If I can't do anything more than get info to the people who have her, then I'll have to live with that.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:36 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
MistyBlue,
I agree for the most part except.
You can't segregated someone due to their personal belief systems. Not to mention that this whole FS thing is entirely foreign to me and I only found out about it on Wed. It's not like they waive flags, have bumper stickers, or their skin color is different.
And as I've already mentioned, in my community, this person has a good reputation. I've known about her for going on four or five years now. Granted, I did not know her personally, but I knew people who did active business with her. And these were not small time people either.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 01:31 PM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I was able to touch base with Steve P. Thank you 3OTTB, I was able to catch him on his cell. He had received an email with the specifics for her feeding and I sent him all of the photos I have of her so they could identify her.
Unfortunately, all I have currently is the fact I'm still her registered owner. But I'm not going to lie and say I own the mare when she was very validly paid for.
However, he knows that if this comes down to needing to find homes, that I will, with out a doubt, be available for BG.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 03:58 PM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Thank you. Maybe if you could just post how she is after you see her? Or PM me privately?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trishiemo View Post
McKulley1- if the fosters do not know, I will ensure they do tomorrow.I have an IR horse so I know the signs well, I will check up on her!
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 14, 2009, 11:39 PM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default ?
Does anyone have any updates?
I have been told so much disturbing information on the care of BG starting from the second she stepped foot off my farm until the raid. It is so terrible....
Reply With Quote
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 16, 2009, 01:38 PM NHFT
i'm not cool with the idea , that you can just treat animals any way you like.... some people (not the travises) seem to be spouting that idea around here.
mistreatment, when it happens, does not justify the aggression of tax-funded intervention. but I can see it justifying a voluntarily funded intervention.
+1 and I have made it pretty clear i do not agree with the argument of "animals are property and therefore people can do whatever they want to them" so i dont think the ideas/beliefs of some members should be a representation of everyone that happens to be a free stater
Quote from: slave_3646 on March 16, 2009, 10:21 AM NHFT
Quote from: Me on March 16, 2009, 09:00 AM NHFT
Ok Slave,
How about this? Maybe I can put this in a way that you'll understand.
Someone seat belts you into a blacked out school bus.
You have minimal food, probably no water, and you are forced to standing in your own filth because you have no where else to go. You live like this for 2 days.
Your yells get no response. You can't lay down - and seeing as how you are a horse you are REQUIRED to lay down no less than 15min every day in order to get true rest.
Then you get taken off of the school bus and put in with others that don't know you, so, like kids on a school ground, they beat you up for not fitting in.
Top that off, if you are not given the right food, your feet get so hot that they burn and your heel bone starts to RIP through the flesh to the outside of your foot.
And the sick thing is, the people who are taking care of you, KNOW you have to have a certain kind of food so this doesn't happen, but they don't care. So they give you exactly what you shouldn't have.
You can't call anyone to help.
I'm not somone's property to treat and/or dispose of as they wish, 'me', Are you? Are the horses that the Travis' 'own' theirs, or aren't they? Are they property, or not?
If you want your rights, you need to realize that you're going to have to respect all of the rights of others. Humans have rights, animals do not. To argue any other way is a step towards a very slippery slope that inevitably ends up with you justifying the initiation of force against another person to enforce your will upon them. Much like the people who refuse to see the 'gun in the room' that govt. is ALWAYS pointing at you, your emotions and cognitive dissidence do not make your point of view true.
You still have to make the reasoned arguement why an animal (other than humans) do not have rights?
Or even the origin of your 'property rights'...
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 13, 2009, 06:46 PM NHFT
Now, I can reasonably infer that other human beings are as self-aware as I myself am, based on the fact that they have the same physical construction as myself, they appear to be able to think and reason the same as I can, they communicate in the same way, and so on. The vast majority of animals, on the other hand, share none of these characteristics with me. It should be obvious to everyone that animals have a much reduced ability to think, to reason, to communicate with us, or none at all in the cases of most animals. If it's not obvious, experiments have been done to bear this out, testing animals' ability to use tools, to organize, to plan, to memorize, to count and calculate, to recognize themselves in mirrors (as opposed to thinking they're seeing another animal), &c.. Some animals have rudimentary forms of these abilities, but the vast majority have none at all.
Just be careful treading in this territory.
The door to justifying the sterilization or 'euthanizing' of a quadriplegic person with severe congenital brain damage or Down's syndrome as part of a eugenics program is very near, and it's not one I'd care to see opened again. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Virginia law allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927.
It also comes close to justifying lack of responsibility - for anything - because you're pathetic, ignorant, or just plain fucking stupid.
"But - - - I DIDN'T KNOW!" is an infamous excuse of the government losers in Atlas Shrugged.
Apparently some people think that the more ignorant or stupid you are, the more you can get away with scot free because there shouldn't be any consequences / negative reinforcements to punish them and prevent them from doing the same or similar in the future. . . because they didn't know.
If a dog bites me or shits in my bed or eats my wine and dinner without my consent, I'll be wary of its future behavior and be ready to stop it or put it down. I'm sure as shit not going to reward it and aid it so that it can continue on its merry way unchecked.
If an ignorant or stupid human similarly transgresses against me, it certainly doesn't have any more excuse than a dog - especially if they claim to be self-aware, reasoning, sentient, or actually intelligent - such a claim gives them far less excuse. And I'll be doubly wary after that since humans are capable of being greedy, self-centered and self-serving, destructively ambitious, duplicitous, having agendas, and deception. Playing the ignorant and stupid card doesn't appear in the rules of my 'game' and trying it just makes you look - ignorant and stupid - for attempting to play it. That speaks volumes about the type of people they are. Especially since some transgressions are "one-way" and can't be undone.
"Whoops, sorry - I was drunk and I
thought I had the right of way, and I blind-sided you." Apologies, money, or imprisonment don't undo the injuries. An act of negligence can be every bit as damaging as one performed out of malice.
Or, "Whoops, sorry - I was fucking stupid and vindictive and
thought I was helping poor defenseless horses, but in actuality they were just fine and I really just fucked over you and your whole family." It will be even worse if the horses wind up actually being starved and abused at some bullshit 'shelter' or put to sleep 'for their own good' Waco-style by the white knights at NHSPCA.
Oftentimes people overestimate themselves:
http://googleads.gdoubleclick.net/pagead/iclk?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apa.org%2Fjournals%2Ffeatures%2Fpsp7761121.pdf&p=0&rf=http%3A%2F%2Fcitichairman.com%2Findex.php
Let the best proceed unhindered - and the worst proceed unaided.
Anything else subsidizes the lowest common denominator at the expense of the best and brightest, and we can see where that's gotten us.
I don't suffer fools gladly.
We have Rights because we're
human, and we're endowed by our creator with those Rights - try as the government may to convince us otherwise.
What then, of creatures that evolve intelligence and sentience, or that we make contact with? What Rights do they have?
You/they don't have any Rights that you can't defend. You/they don't have any Rights that you don't fight for.
All those "unenumerated Rights" in the Constitution? - We have to fight for them and defend them against those who would deny them to us. Rights must be claimed and asserted. Taking the infringement of those rights laying down exposes you as a fool whose basic respect, common courtesy and simple human dignity aren't worth regarding, because you don't have the spine to even try to defend it yourself. You'll be shit on, robbed, and back-stabbed at every turn just like the legislators who voted down HCR6.
Your pride will be flushed down the toilet right alongside your rights and the Constitution.
Then you'll only have what is magnanimously granted to you by your 'betters' - your 'superiors'. Good luck groveling in the dirt next to the dog.
Quote from: Becky Thatcher on March 16, 2009, 12:56 PM NHFT
I've tried to stay out of this, but I have to admit to being rather saddened and disgusted by people who will take "property rights" to the extreme and say that because I "own" an animal, it is my "property", that that gives me the right to abuse, mistreat and torture said "property" at will. An animal is not like a car or a stereo. They are thinking, breathing, living beings that deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. This whole argument makes me seriously question the character and morals of people who can justify mistreating animals under the guise of "property rights". >:(
I'm not cracking on YOU, Becky, I'm just rewriting what you wrote to make an interesting observation about different viewpoints that are expressed by different people and on different forums. I'm STILL trying to understand, but I usually get stonewalled when I ask certain people to simply explain their differing viewpoint and philosophy. Geez. It's just a question.So...
I've tried to stay out of this, but I have to admit to being rather saddened and disgusted by people who will take "pacifism" to the extreme and say that because I am "nonviolent", I will not lift a finger against another human regardless if they abuse, mistreat and torture other humans at will. A human is not like a car or a stereo. They are thinking, breathing, living beings that deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. This whole argument makes me seriously question the character and morals of people who can justify standing by while others mistreat humans under the guise of "government" or "authority". >:(
Sometimes I think certain folk would stand around and eat popcorn while watching Kitty Genovese get it over and over again rather than than "use force" to try and stop them. THAT's disgusting and really makes me wonder about their true moral character and whether or not they truly understand what a sociopath is.
http://www.freecolorado.com/2003/11/animalrights.html
A rather well written article on the topic at hand.
Seems to have gone rather unnoticed - this is rather important now that Amanda is on here screaming bloody murder ...
Quote from: leetninja on March 16, 2009, 01:46 PM NHFT
Amanda, these posts are all YOURS! You DEFEND Heidi AND her reputation MORE THAN ONCE. Now you are lurking here ... what gives ...
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 01:35 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Exclamation Where is BG?
One of the seized horses was purchased from us in December. We have known about this family for several years and they always came with good reviews from other breeders/owners. They have/had a serious show and breeding program with horses that have some good show titles.
Unfortunately, even though I am still the registered owner of the mare....I doubt I will be able to get her back because she is considered "evidence".
And I have no way of contacting the place she is at to let them know that she is Insulin Resistant and in need of a special diet....for all I know, if she's been on grain since Monday, she may well already be in bad trouble with founder. She was on the light side in December after coming off of weaning a very needy colt, it was also just the condition she generally kept herself in due to her body type, and due to past founder we did not allow her to get heavy. But she was not emaciated when she left us....of course, I do not know what condition she is in now. I did not find out about this until yesterday and it was through a chat site that I found out.
She is a 15.1H bay mare with a black mane and tail. She has roaning on the rear pasterns and heels and a roan spot just past her withers on her back. Her front feet toe in just ever so slightly and one hoof has a higher heel than the other. She has very VERY large eyes and her ears V out just a little. She has not registered white markings but this time of year it looks like she has a small white snip between her nostrils. She has a vaginal tear that is old and was left open (meaning that she does not have a caslicks in at this time) since she was not being re-bred in 08. She may, or may not, have had a green blanket with gold trim on as I sent her with that. Her name is BG Backflash. I have extensive photos from the day I bought her to last year. She also had a 2008 Coggins and Rabies certificate.
If ANYONE knows how to get in touch with the people who have her so that I can get them info on what she needs to eat and find out how I can get her back...please let me know!!!!
Cheers,
Amanda
Reply With Quote
mckulley1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mckulley1
Find all posts by mckulley1
#70
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 04:43 AM
<3OTTB <3OTTB is offline
Working Hunter
Join Date: Sep. 23, 2007
Posts: 102
Default
Amanda - do you need help? Please PM me. I have a friend of a friend of a friend........
Reply With Quote
<3OTTB
View Public Profile
Send a private message to <3OTTB
Find all posts by <3OTTB
#71
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 04:55 AM
<3OTTB <3OTTB is offline
Working Hunter
Join Date: Sep. 23, 2007
Posts: 102
Default
Amanda - I am working on it. Another option is you to call Steve Sprowl of the NHSPCA and give them the info.
I wonder why she bought a horse from you, already having so many, when she had just moved from NH to CO having her CO place forclosed on.
Reply With Quote
<3OTTB
View Public Profile
Send a private message to <3OTTB
Find all posts by <3OTTB
#72
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 05:33 AM
MistyBlue MistyBlue is offline
Schoolmaster
Join Date: Feb. 6, 2003
Location: NorthEast
Posts: 13,506
Default
I'd contact the SPCA directly and inform them of the issues. And also contact the owners directly to see if that was one of the mares confiscated. Right now so many people are popping up asking for the location of the horses and the SPCA is the one to ask.
There are quite a few FSers posing as other people trying to find the locations and for the safety of the people fostering the horses it's best to go through the right channels.
There are Free Staters with the same name as mckulley...so to stay safe all around it's probably best to go through the legal channels to get the info out on the IR mare.
__________________
I'm going off the rails on a crazy train.....
Equus Makeus Brokus
Reply With Quote
MistyBlue
View Public Profile
Send a private message to MistyBlue
Find all posts by MistyBlue
#73
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 08:29 AM
gloriginger gloriginger is online now
Working Hunter
Join Date: Nov. 2, 2006
Posts: 754
Default
Amanda- go to Arabian Breeders network - there are some other breeders that have been in contact with Heidi- you could PM them and get her contact info to find out if your horse was one siezed.
Reply With Quote
gloriginger
View Public Profile
Send a private message to gloriginger
Find all posts by gloriginger
#74
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 08:45 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default Info
Mckulley is the name of a long deceased yet very dear dog. It has nothing to do with an FS.... I'm not entirely sure what the org is all about but my guess would be that people should be VERY careful with their segregation tactics based on others personal beliefs.
*****
At any rate, my NUMBER ONE priority is to get info to who ever has BG so she can be fed properly. With in a few days of being on a non-carb safe feed she will start to founder. Hay doesn't seem to be an issue for her...but grain is a big one. And if she's just her typical light condition and they think it's due to lack of feed and use that against these folks, well that's just not fare. And then god forbid if they start shoving the food down her throat... I can't even think about it. But if she is in bad shape, and does need some help, they have to know how to go about doing it.
My NUMBER TWO priority is to find out if there is any way to get her back at some point. I understand that she is no longer "my property" as she was sold. But I am STILL the recorded owner....
My husband is a Police Officer and he is adamant that I do not get involved beyond trying to get information to whoever has her so they know how she can be fed and perhaps if there is some kind of list where I can put my name down to take her if they'll release her.
****
Heidi wanted her because she had always wanted a Backstreet+ daughter. BG is one of his youngest daughters, the line is not a young one. She ALWAYS paid on time and the one time she got behind she caught right back up without any fuss.
Reply With Quote
mckulley1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mckulley1
Find all posts by mckulley1
#75
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 08:49 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default Contact
I should add that I fully well know that BG was one of the group that was taken. I saw the thread at SE.com that Laurie put up. I called Laurie, we talked, Thank God her colt was not in the group. So I called Heidi and she told me that BG was in the group that was taken.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:15 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I PM'd 3OTTB with her exact needs and her quirks....I hope it gets to her foster parents.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:27 AM
trubandloki trubandloki is online now
Advanced
Join Date: Sep. 2, 2005
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 2,294
Default
One would think that if Heidi cared at all about her horses that were being seized she would have told the animal control officers about this mare's special needs requirements. But gee, I guess they are just property, hu?
Reply With Quote
trubandloki
View Public Profile
Send a private message to trubandloki
Find all posts by trubandloki
#80
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:41 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I would guess that by the time they started taking horses, she probably was not in her right mind. There's not a person on this board that wouldn't be going bonkers if someone came to take their horses. Especially if you believe you're not in the wrong.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:52 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I'm sorry, this is where my conversation ends. I mentioned this in my first post.
I NEED the foster owners to know of BG's needs.
And if it comes down to her being placed, well, I want to be the one she is placed with.
BG is my sole and only priority in this matter. But I can only do what I'm legally able to do.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:03 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default BG needs
OTTB said she doesn't know where BG's at so just in case the foster people are here:
BG she needs a Carbohydrate safe feed such as Poulin Grain Carb Safe and PLAIN beet pulp. NO beet pulp with sugar! NO regular grain. NO oil. No sugar treats.
Usually she can have regular hay but if their hay is very rich they'll need to soak it in a barrel of water for one hour, drain water, and feed her the hay. They can't let the hay sit longer than an hour or it will re-absorb the sugar it put into the water. NO ALFALFA!
She can't be straight tied but she can be cross tied. You have to be careful rubbing her neck on the non-mane side because (she came to me this way) she shies terribly.
She's a 1991 mare. I have pictures if they aren't sure they have her.
Amanda
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:11 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Arabhorse2, you have a BAD attitude. It's not needed in this already volatile situation.
And for the record, I'm not defending anyone. But I have full working knowledge of how the human mind and system works under times of extreme duress. So I can see why things may not have been said.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:17 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Is there any legal documents on this CO case? I just don't understand why I wouldn't have heard of it....especially when I know other people with good reputations who sold horses to her who LIVE in CO.
Does anyone have this Steve persons phone number?
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:19 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Well Arabhorse2, FYI I did send her registration over to Heidi but Heidi has not transferred her into her name yet.
[edit] Excuse me for sitting up since Wednesday trying to figure out how I could have let this happen to a horse of mine.
Last edited by Moderator 1 : Mar. 16, 2009 at 11:48 AM. Reason: name calling
Reply With Quote
mckulley1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mckulley1
Find all posts by mckulley1
#93
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:25 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Look, if anyone has this Steve persons phone number, I'd be most appreciative to have it. PM would be great.
The ONLY reason why I posted on this forum was because I know how nosey and violent it can get here and figured it'd be the fastest way, after working hours, to get info out to who ever has this mare.
I don't need any bull crap from any anonymous poster here who thinks they know the answers to everything. YOU try having this situation on your shoulders with little more ability than to pass information around.
If BG needs a home, I'm here for her. If I can't do anything more than get info to the people who have her, then I'll have to live with that.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:36 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
MistyBlue,
I agree for the most part except.
You can't segregated someone due to their personal belief systems. Not to mention that this whole FS thing is entirely foreign to me and I only found out about it on Wed. It's not like they waive flags, have bumper stickers, or their skin color is different.
And as I've already mentioned, in my community, this person has a good reputation. I've known about her for going on four or five years now. Granted, I did not know her personally, but I knew people who did active business with her. And these were not small time people either.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 01:31 PM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I was able to touch base with Steve P. Thank you 3OTTB, I was able to catch him on his cell. He had received an email with the specifics for her feeding and I sent him all of the photos I have of her so they could identify her.
Unfortunately, all I have currently is the fact I'm still her registered owner. But I'm not going to lie and say I own the mare when she was very validly paid for.
However, he knows that if this comes down to needing to find homes, that I will, with out a doubt, be available for BG.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 03:58 PM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Thank you. Maybe if you could just post how she is after you see her? Or PM me privately?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trishiemo View Post
McKulley1- if the fosters do not know, I will ensure they do tomorrow.I have an IR horse so I know the signs well, I will check up on her!
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 14, 2009, 11:39 PM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default ?
Does anyone have any updates?
I have been told so much disturbing information on the care of BG starting from the second she stepped foot off my farm until the raid. It is so terrible....
Reply With Quote
I'm guessing that there are a lot of people who don't eat here. . . because last time I checked animals were very tasty. In order for them to be so tasty, they have to be killed and breaded (I like my chicken breaded)
Just think, that juicy hamburger, so lean and suculent. . . was someone's property, and they killed it. That poor cow, how dare you evil evil property rights' people. How dare you kill an animal to eat it. That animal has feelings, and damn it, it has RIGHTS! Those cows, these horses, lobsters, snails, rats, ants. . .they all have rights. They're living organisms!
How was that hamburger? Was it good enough to violate the rights of that poor cow? I think so.
As a matter of fact, weren't blueberries "living" at one time? Do plants have rights too? I mean, they do live, and how are we to know if they're sentient beings. . . hell they could be having conversations as we speak. Sometimes, I swear I can hear lettuce crying when I have a side salad with my hamburger.
Unfortunately, the Travis' weren't herding cattle. . .because no one would give a crap, except maybe Steve Sprowl who seems to be a cow that can stand on two legs.
don't you know? Four legs good, two legs bad.
Animals are property, and those who feel so strongly about animal abuse can put their reputations up on the line, hire a rescue team, swoop in and steal the horses. After all, if you care so much about the animals being tortured then you wouldn't mind spending time in a cell or working off the value of those horses you stole. You'd save a life!
In my humble opinion, I'm a loving and caring owner of two pets, and I would say that they have many more rights than I do. They have the right to sleep in the middle of the bed, and to lick my face at 4:30 in the morning to be fed. They have the right to live a comfortable life and have new toys every month or so. They have these rights and many more because I allow it to happen in my home. Someone else might have already skinned them and eaten them, tortured them, or put them down.
oh but Anton, these were horses not cows. Cows are for eating, horses are for riding and looking at.
What a sick and twisted set of definitions we have. One type of animal everyone can agree doesn't get tortured or killed off, yet some other ones are just fine and dandy to torture, kill, butcher, bread, eat, digest, and shit out. Isn't that where it started, food? If I'm hungry enough, I won't care how much I love old Bessie, she's going to provide me milk and flesh. As a matter of fact, if I were hungry enough anything is fair game besides human and my pets. . . I'd rather not eat things that I don't want to, that includes horses, cats, and lobsters (hate it)
sure, it's just my opinion and that could change if it were down to my survival. I wouldn't swoop in to save horses unless I was saving them from theft. In reply to Bald Eagle, you should be ashamed to say that someone here might eat popcorn. Don't you know those kernels were tortured. ;D ;D
Quote from: Me on March 16, 2009, 12:54 PM NHFT
See, Karma has a way of dealing with each and everyone of you. By having you come back as the dog that gets kicked around by the owner because he's "property".
And your little twists are just that, twists. I've posted nothing on here that hasn't been posted anywhere else and in the same format.
And yes, I've been in extensive contact with Steve Sprowl now.
Brian had better hope his wife gets a damn good paying job because she's done in the Arabian industry.
This is an outright threat. I bet you and Sprowl are in contact
bullies flock together.
Quote from: bile on March 16, 2009, 02:38 PM NHFT
http://www.freecolorado.com/2003/11/animalrights.html
A rather well written article on the topic at hand.
agreed, a good read +1 thanks for that.
Quote from: leetninja on March 16, 2009, 02:40 PM NHFT
Seems to have gone rather unnoticed - this is rather important now that Amanda is on here screaming bloody murder ...
Not unnoticed but the very end appears to be a comment saying that they just found out what had transcribed between the selling of the horse and the raid. I'm not claiming one way or the other but it is very possible that IF the animal was treated that way it was not known until after the fact and so explaining the change in language and behavior.
Quote from: AntonLee on March 16, 2009, 02:42 PM NHFT
In reply to Bald Eagle, you should be ashamed to say that someone here might eat popcorn. Don't you know those kernels were tortured?
I stand chastised.
I guess I'll just stick with a tasty veal parm sandwich. On a lightly toasted hoagie roll. With an aspartame laden cola. And fries. Fried in . . . real lard. Mmmmmm. Lard.
Utz Kettle Classic Potato Chips ROCK.
you're my kind of animal rights violator Bald Eagle. . . now I'm starving!
I still want to know if 'me' believes it's ok to go around forcing their beliefs on people at the end of the barrel of a gun, a question which has gone unanswered.
as long as "me" has freedom, that's all that matters. That and that all horses should be taken care of to HER richest desires.
Good thing it's not up to me. I'd like to see horses taken out of barns and put into homes. Perhaps "me" would like to do the 'humane' thing and build an extra room in her house for the horse. Of course, the horse would need it's own rest room as it's neither a human man nor human woman. The horse most likely would need it's own kitchenette complete with a hay blender for making delicious Haytini's and of course it would need a horse sized washer and drier for it's blankets. I wouldn't settle for anything less than a 32" flatscreen plasma with DVR and cable so that the horse has something to watch (like Mr. Ed!)
It's only humane.
Quote from: AntonLee on March 16, 2009, 03:39 PM NHFT
as long as "me" has freedom, that's all that matters. That and that all horses should be taken care of to HER richest desires.
I can hear it now.... 'But it's for the
CHILDREN horses!!!
Quote from: leetninja on March 16, 2009, 01:58 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 16, 2009, 01:38 PM NHFT
i'm not cool with the idea , that you can just treat animals any way you like.... some people (not the travises) seem to be spouting that idea around here.
mistreatment, when it happens, does not justify the aggression of tax-funded intervention. but I can see it justifying a voluntarily funded intervention.
+1 and I have made it pretty clear i do not agree with the argument of "animals are property and therefore people can do whatever they want to them" so i dont think the ideas/beliefs of some members should be a representation of everyone that happens to be a free stater
I have to say that the definition of property is a problem for me. In the past women and children were thought of as property, as such the man could mistreat them.
I also think that there are many ways to deal with the problem of someone abusing the creatures in their care, besides putting into motion the blunt instrument of the government.
I'm posting this for the benefit of the non-regulars who have been following this thread:
I think there's an important point to be made that some of the people discussing libertarian philosophy here haven't made clear. Just because you would allow another person the freedom to do something does NOT mean you approve of it, or think it's a decent/smart/rational thing to do. It's one of the stickiest points to get across to non-libertarians. Letting people be free means letting them be complete morons and assholes sometimes... *and letting them bear the consequences of their actions*. If even half of the things that are currently being said about Heidi's horse-rearing tactics are true, word will get around. Her business will fail. She'll be forced to give away or sell her horses. She'll be shunned by her fellow horse-lovers. The cops and the NHSPCA weren't/aren't necessary for this to occur. I *think* that's the point that my fellow libertarians are trying to make (at least, I hope it is :-\ ).
For what it's worth, I think cruelty to animals is reprehensible, I don't condone it, I don't wish to socialize or do business with anyone who thinks it's fun, funny or acceptable. No, I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't consider raising and butchering animals, or hunting them for food, cruel. Maybe that's imperfect logic; so sue me. :P
Me, I sincerely hope that you have been misinformed about how your former horse was treated. But if, by chance, what you have been told turns out to be true, please come back and let us know. Or pass it along to the Free Stater who is apparently fostering one or more of Heidi's horses now (per what I read on a horse forum). It's a small state; word will get around.
Sandy saved me from having to explain my position,
thanks.
(Well she did much better than I would have and
used no cursing. )
I guess Roger did too but I ain't saying any thing nice about him.
Quote from: Friday on March 16, 2009, 05:57 PM NHFT
No, I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't consider raising and butchering animals, or hunting them for food, cruel. Maybe that's imperfect logic; so sue me. :P
I see the difference in raising animals to be eaten is that it's not right to torture or create suffering for the animal. A quick and painless as possible death is different than prolonged suffering.
I think the desire to reduce things to the simplest form can lead astray.
what I question lately is what people consider to be a farm animal/food source and pet. . . suppose someone in Brian's neighborhood decided he would raise horses for slaughter and butchering. . . perhaps he really liked the taste of horse.
I know, sick to me too. . . but would this man be jailed because he decided that animal was his livestock? What would be unacceptable livestock?
Quote
I am not a vegetarian and I am not going to argue against the use of animals in science and in teaching. But if it must be done, dear God if there is One anywhere, don't let it be done to animals who have been brought up to think they are people!
-- Robert Heinlein, "Friday"
Quote from: Bald Eagle on March 16, 2009, 02:10 PM NHFT
Let the best proceed unhindered - and the worst proceed unaided.
This is beautiful. Is it from Rand?
Quote from: AntonLee on March 16, 2009, 08:36 PM NHFT
what I question lately is what people consider to be a farm animal/food source and pet. . . suppose someone in Brian's neighborhood decided he would raise horses for slaughter and butchering. . . perhaps he really liked the taste of horse.
I know, sick to me too. . . but would this man be jailed because he decided that animal was his livestock? What would be unacceptable livestock?
Fifteen or 20 years ago you could still buy horse steaks at the IGA in Conway - in the freezer section, right next to the Pel-Freeze rabbits. I remember thinking about trying it and then deciding I just didn't want to eat horse. Not for any logical reason, but for the same reason I wouldn't want to eat dog meat. I've had some good friends who were dogs and horses, and wouldn't want to eat them. On the other hand, I've never had any emotional attachment to the poultry, cattle, and swine in my life, I can take care of them, treat them humanely, and have no problem with eating them when the time comes.
When I was growing up most canned pet foods were made from horse meat. Now none of them seem to be. All the horse meat apparently is sent overseas where people don't object to using it.
Quote from: cyne on March 16, 2009, 09:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: AntonLee on March 16, 2009, 08:36 PM NHFT
what I question lately is what people consider to be a farm animal/food source and pet. . . suppose someone in Brian's neighborhood decided he would raise horses for slaughter and butchering. . . perhaps he really liked the taste of horse.
I know, sick to me too. . . but would this man be jailed because he decided that animal was his livestock? What would be unacceptable livestock?
Fifteen or 20 years ago you could still buy horse steaks at the IGA in Conway - in the freezer section, right next to the Pel-Freeze rabbits. I remember thinking about trying it and then deciding I just didn't want to eat horse. Not for any logical reason, but for the same reason I wouldn't want to eat dog meat. I've had some good friends who were dogs and horses, and wouldn't want to eat them. On the other hand, I've never had any emotional attachment to the poultry, cattle, and swine in my life, I can take care of them, treat them humanely, and have no problem with eating them when the time comes.
When I was growing up most canned pet foods were made from horse meat. Now none of them seem to be. All the horse meat apparently is sent overseas where people don't object to using it.
that was easily the most interesting thing I read all day ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: AntonLee on March 16, 2009, 09:49 PM NHFT
Quote from: cyne on March 16, 2009, 09:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: AntonLee on March 16, 2009, 08:36 PM NHFT
what I question lately is what people consider to be a farm animal/food source and pet. . . suppose someone in Brian's neighborhood decided he would raise horses for slaughter and butchering. . . perhaps he really liked the taste of horse.
I know, sick to me too. . . but would this man be jailed because he decided that animal was his livestock? What would be unacceptable livestock?
Fifteen or 20 years ago you could still buy horse steaks at the IGA in Conway - in the freezer section, right next to the Pel-Freeze rabbits. I remember thinking about trying it and then deciding I just didn't want to eat horse. Not for any logical reason, but for the same reason I wouldn't want to eat dog meat. I've had some good friends who were dogs and horses, and wouldn't want to eat them. On the other hand, I've never had any emotional attachment to the poultry, cattle, and swine in my life, I can take care of them, treat them humanely, and have no problem with eating them when the time comes.
When I was growing up most canned pet foods were made from horse meat. Now none of them seem to be. All the horse meat apparently is sent overseas where people don't object to using it.
that was easily the most interesting thing I read all day ;D ;D ;D
Yeah you can learn stuff here every day. ;D
I posted a short video shot during the work day at Castlewood Farm on Saturday.
Quote from: AntonLee on March 16, 2009, 08:36 PM NHFT
what I question lately is what people consider to be a farm animal/food source and pet. . . suppose someone in Brian's neighborhood decided he would raise horses for slaughter and butchering. . . perhaps he really liked the taste of horse.
I know, sick to me too. . . but would this man be jailed because he decided that animal was his livestock? What would be unacceptable livestock?
The American Horse Council along with its affiliated State associations lobbied for an got federal legislation to make it illegal to grow horses in the US for human consumption.
Quote from: Mike Barskey on March 16, 2009, 10:44 PM NHFT
I posted a short video shot during the work day at Castlewood Farm on Saturday.
Nice video, Mike. +1
I'm sure the horse forums are already burning up with complaints that you didn't have enough video of the horses, didn't film all the horses, and didn't show the shelters already in place before the new construction.
leetninja beat me to it about Amanda/"Me" and her posts on other forums. It was obvious who she was, and that she wanted her insulin resistant mare back so she could manage the special diet. What's not explained is her allegation that the horse was kept in a trailer (or was it a school bus?) for two days, and just how she came by this information. But what the heck, when you're spreading rumors, the most vicious ones seem most likely to have the desired effect, eh?
It's odd how no one can get any information out of NHSPCA or establish contact with Steve Sprowl, but the horse community insiders seem to know where these horses are and how they're being treated.
Quote from: MengerFan on March 16, 2009, 09:44 AM NHFT
If the allegations are true, then why don't the concerned individuals just buy the horses from the owners? Why do they instead choose to use violence to steal the animals?
:clap:
Quote from: AntonLee on March 16, 2009, 08:36 PM NHFT
what I question lately is what people consider to be a farm animal/food source and pet. . . suppose someone in Brian's neighborhood decided he would raise horses for slaughter and butchering. . . perhaps he really liked the taste of horse.
I know, sick to me too. . . but would this man be jailed because he decided that animal was his livestock? What would be unacceptable livestock?
Rabbit is good food and many folks think of rabbits as pets.
Not having grown up around the slaughtering of animals for food I found it very difficult to do the first time. There's a big difference between cutting the chunks of meat from a dead, skinned rabbit and having to kill and skin that rabbit first.
Quote from: Pat McCotter on March 17, 2009, 08:00 AM NHFT
Not having grown up around the slaughtering of animals for food I found it very difficult to do the first time.
Yeah, I wasn't too sure how I'd feel about eating our two beefers when the time came. I mean, I fed them, watered them, and cared for them, you know? But, once I ate that first grass fed steak (mmmm, nothing like home raised), I felt OK about it. Not to mention that the quality of the life our animals lived before they went to slaughter/butcher/freezer was far beyond what they would have had if they had been raised at a commercial farm.
Quote from: Friday on March 16, 2009, 05:57 PM NHFT
For what it's worth, I think cruelty to animals is reprehensible, I don't condone it, I don't wish to socialize or do business with anyone who thinks it's fun, funny or acceptable. No, I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't consider raising and butchering animals, or hunting them for food, cruel. Maybe that's imperfect logic; so sue me. :P
The raising, butchering doesn't have to be cruel, but the way it's done in this country is cruel. Here's an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhlhSQ5z4V4
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 17, 2009, 08:12 AM NHFT
Quote from: Friday on March 16, 2009, 05:57 PM NHFT
For what it's worth, I think cruelty to animals is reprehensible, I don't condone it, I don't wish to socialize or do business with anyone who thinks it's fun, funny or acceptable. No, I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't consider raising and butchering animals, or hunting them for food, cruel. Maybe that's imperfect logic; so sue me. :P
The raising, butchering doesn't have to be cruel, but the way it's done in this country is cruel. Here's an example:
Yes, this is a cruel way to treat "downed" cows. They should be killed before moving them. The only way to know my beef was from someplace that didn't do this would be to buy locally and have it slaughtered/cut locally.
And a note, yesterday the COOL law (http://www.countryoforiginlabel.org/) went into effect. (Country of Origin Labeling)
Are you what you eat?
There is a philosophical theory that says when we put things which have been abused,traumatized,and otherwise treated horrifically into our bodies that we are welcoming those things into ourselves.
Anyway, I came to this thread with the thought that at one time horse-thieves were hanged.
I'm not about to advocate hanging these horse-thieves, but wanted to make to point that "the law" now stands on its head. These horse-thieves are "the law."
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 17, 2009, 08:12 AM NHFT
Quote from: Friday on March 16, 2009, 05:57 PM NHFT
For what it's worth, I think cruelty to animals is reprehensible, I don't condone it, I don't wish to socialize or do business with anyone who thinks it's fun, funny or acceptable. No, I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't consider raising and butchering animals, or hunting them for food, cruel. Maybe that's imperfect logic; so sue me. :P
The raising, butchering doesn't have to be cruel, but the way it's done in this country is cruel. Here's an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhlhSQ5z4V4
That is not how my family treated the cows. I clearly remember when I was 7 my father butchered my cow Bossy. We lead the cow to the upper portion of the barn, Dad shot bossy in the head and then we used the chain hoist to lift the caucus in the air to disassemble it. Bossy kept our family fed in some of the hardest times for the farm, if it was not for bossy we most likely would have lost or home to the bank.
Quote from: Becky Thatcher on March 16, 2009, 12:56 PM NHFT
I've tried to stay out of this, but I have to admit to being rather saddened and disgusted by people who will take "property rights" to the extreme and say that because I "own" an animal, it is my "property", that that gives me the right to abuse, mistreat and torture said "property" at will. An animal is not like a car or a stereo. They are thinking, breathing, living beings that deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. This whole argument makes me seriously question the character and morals of people who can justify mistreating animals under the guise of "property rights". >:(
All I can say is karma, what goes around, comes around.
(My comments, BTW, have nothing to do with Brian, Heidi, et al. I don't know them, have never met their animals, and as such am completely unqualified to give an opinion on that subject)
what she said..
BaldEagle called into P411 - there seems to be more construction going on for shelters - if anyone can donate time to finish them off that would be great!
I can't make it because of my job i dont get home until 6 or 7 during the week usually ...
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 16, 2009, 11:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: AntonLee on March 16, 2009, 08:36 PM NHFT
what I question lately is what people consider to be a farm animal/food source and pet. . . suppose someone in Brian's neighborhood decided he would raise horses for slaughter and butchering. . . perhaps he really liked the taste of horse.
I know, sick to me too. . . but would this man be jailed because he decided that animal was his livestock? What would be unacceptable livestock?
The American Horse Council along with its affiliated State associations lobbied for an got federal legislation to make it illegal to grow horses in the US for human consumption.
Are you sure this has been passed? They've been trying for years but I hadn't heard that it had actually been passed. It isn't really a "consumption" bill, it's a transportation bill. It will make it illegal to transport horses for slaughter for human consumption. Presumably they could still be transported for slaughter to be used in pet food. And if you have a horse in your backyard and want to kill and eat it without transporting it anywhere, that would be legal too.
At one point they tried to stop horse slaughter by taking away funding for the (required) USDA inspectors at the horse slaughterhouses. So the slaughterhouses stayed in business by paying for the inspectors. Now there's the transportation bill in the works - unless it actually passed and I didn't hear about it - and it still won't make horse slaughter illegal even if it passes. At this point I don't think there are any horse slaughter plants operating in the US anyway; horses for meat are being taken to Canada and Mexico now.
Quote from: cyne on March 17, 2009, 11:16 AM NHFT
At one point they tried to stop horse slaughter by taking away funding for the (required) USDA inspectors at the horse slaughterhouses. So the slaughterhouses stayed in business by paying for the inspectors. Now there's the transportation bill in the works - unless it actually passed and I didn't hear about it - and it still won't make horse slaughter illegal even if it passes. At this point I don't think there are any horse slaughter plants operating in the US anyway; horses for meat are being taken to Canada and Mexico now.
In 2007 or 2008 I remember a news report saying that because of a new law the plant(s) in Texas where horses were turned into human food would be closed. It saddened my to think of all those hard working people losing their jobs. I think the law was passed because of PETA type folks. I am sure it would be easy to research this.
Quote from: Radical and Stuff on March 17, 2009, 12:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: cyne on March 17, 2009, 11:16 AM NHFT
At one point they tried to stop horse slaughter by taking away funding for the (required) USDA inspectors at the horse slaughterhouses. So the slaughterhouses stayed in business by paying for the inspectors. Now there's the transportation bill in the works - unless it actually passed and I didn't hear about it - and it still won't make horse slaughter illegal even if it passes. At this point I don't think there are any horse slaughter plants operating in the US anyway; horses for meat are being taken to Canada and Mexico now.
In 2007 or 2008 I remember a news report saying that because of a new law the plant(s) in Texas where horses were turned into human food would be closed. It saddened my to think of all those hard working people losing their jobs. I think the law was passed because of PETA type folks. I am sure it would be easy to research this.
That was a Texas state law that had been on the books for many years but unenforced. Another plant in Illinois was closed for environmental violations.
I just find it ridiculous that a government entity could tell me what type of animal it is that I like to eat. I hope my view hasn't been skewed. . . I eat cow, and a lot of it. I eat chicken because they're delicious. I eat turkey because it's good on a sandwich.
I don't eat horse, but I most definitely wouldn't send armed goons in to arrest people who do. Same goes for cats, same goes for rabbits, same goes for turtles.
I do find it hypocritical, that I do not believe that torturing animals is right. I don't believe that killing animals for sport (ie- kill a deer and move on to the next kill without using the body for something) is right either. I wouldn't support arresting those people unless they were doing so without permission ON MY PROPERTY. As a matter of fact, no arrest would be necessary because any hunter with a brain would leave my property after a warning.
Quote from: cyne on March 17, 2009, 11:16 AM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on March 16, 2009, 11:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: AntonLee on March 16, 2009, 08:36 PM NHFT
what I question lately is what people consider to be a farm animal/food source and pet. . . suppose someone in Brian's neighborhood decided he would raise horses for slaughter and butchering. . . perhaps he really liked the taste of horse.
I know, sick to me too. . . but would this man be jailed because he decided that animal was his livestock? What would be unacceptable livestock?
The American Horse Council along with its affiliated State associations lobbied for an got federal legislation to make it illegal to grow horses in the US for human consumption.
Are you sure this has been passed? They've been trying for years but I hadn't heard that it had actually been passed. It isn't really a "consumption" bill, it's a transportation bill. It will make it illegal to transport horses for slaughter for human consumption. Presumably they could still be transported for slaughter to be used in pet food. And if you have a horse in your backyard and want to kill and eat it without transporting it anywhere, that would be legal too.
At one point they tried to stop horse slaughter by taking away funding for the (required) USDA inspectors at the horse slaughterhouses. So the slaughterhouses stayed in business by paying for the inspectors. Now there's the transportation bill in the works - unless it actually passed and I didn't hear about it - and it still won't make horse slaughter illegal even if it passes. At this point I don't think there are any horse slaughter plants operating in the US anyway; horses for meat are being taken to Canada and Mexico now.
The AHC site only has a change to a neutral position because of various member positions...
But I found another site that says you are correct. The bill passed the House, but was retained in the Senate (most likely due to not enough support). Not sure how long the Senate has to act on it.
is it still legal to say , " I'm so hungry I could eat a horse ? "
Uh Oh! I think I hear a siren!
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/From-Race-Horse-To-Main-Course.html
Quote from: Free libertarian on March 18, 2009, 08:28 AM NHFT
is it still legal to say , " I'm so hungry I could eat a horse ? "
OMG! How could you say such a thing! We must keep quiet, else....Uhh-Ohh......I hear Sirens! Sh.t dude, here's comes the Fuzz!
We gotta Scram Man!!
:Bolt:
Brian and Heidi, I really think you should consult with your attorney before posting any more videos on YouTube. You've got all kinds of admission of lawbreaking and probable cause in there. Or at least, that's how it looks to me. If you choose to fight this thing in court, maximize your chances of success.
I am not an attorney, but I've seen many people pretend to be them on TV.
Brian and Heidi, when the vet won't give you penicillin, just go to your local feed/farm store, they usually sell it there.
Candia horse owner faces 17 charges (http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Candia+horse+owner+faces+17+charges&articleId=9a37e83f-1e7d-4bc4-b456-79a67a3c620e)
could use some more comments on that article there. i've posted a provisional vid and linked to it.
I'm not seeing the submit button for the comment form there. Weird. I hit return so hopefully it will get posted. It seemed to...
Here's my comment btw:
QuoteWhy are they going to return the horses to Ms Fredrick if they think she is guilty of mass cruelty to animals? Either they shouldn't return the horses or they don't really believe she is guilty of the charges. Right?
btw pardon me butting in from out of state but I'm moving to NH in a few weeks because I think it's the best place for me to raise my son. I just really like New Hampshire!
Quote from: George Donnelly on March 26, 2009, 11:32 AM NHFT
I'm not seeing the submit button for the comment form there. Weird. I hit return so hopefully it will get posted. It seemed to...
Here's my comment btw:
QuoteWhy are they going to return the horses to Ms Fredrick if they think she is guilty of mass cruelty to animals? Either they shouldn't return the horses or they don't really believe she is guilty of the charges. Right?
btw pardon me butting in from out of state but I'm moving to NH in a few weeks because I think it's the best place for me to raise my son. I just really like New Hampshire!
Try using a different browser. The UL comment button doesn't work in all browsers.
Ah you're right. Works in Safari, but not FF. Thanks. Do comments show up immediately, or do they moderate them?
Quote from: George Donnelly on March 26, 2009, 12:03 PM NHFT
Ah you're right. Works in Safari, but not FF. Thanks. Do comments show up immediately, or do they moderate them?
Moderated
Thanks.
Hmm, there was a comment about the commenters having already convicted Frederick - it's gone now...
one alleged freestater's comments:
"Facts are facts. There were inadequate shelters for the number of horses. Whoever said there were 21 shelters for 29 horses is just plain wrong. There were more horses before they gave some up to a horse rescue.
I am a freestater and I have been to the property and I know this for fact. It is too bad that a small number of freestaters get the attention while the rest of us are just enjoying living her in a wonderful state. Not all of us are protestors or civil disobedience kinds. We moved here because NH offers more liberties than other states.
- Rocky, Concord"
I have split off GENERAL's promotion of a scam artist website into its own thread:
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=17570.0
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 26, 2009, 02:33 PM NHFT
Are you going to claim you've gotten AFV to work? Post your evidence, please.
No, I have not.... Nor will they allow it to happen,.... because everyone would be doing it!
What I'm saying is they are all operating in FRAUD, and they need to be stopped.
I have never paid for HJR stuff from this website nor will I because I know its fraud, and they know it as well.
But the assembly is true and they realize it, that is why they are doing it...
They understand that it is FRAUD... but they have been playing that game. And they have saved peoples homes, for the moment.
But again, this is just an administrative process of fraud... have I said that word enough?
It is all FRAUD... your democratic system... FRAUD
Your money.... FRAUD
Your banks... The biggest FRAUD!
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 26, 2009, 02:36 PM NHFT
I have split off GENERAL's promotion of a scam artist website into its own thread:
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=17570.0
I will never promote anyone buying anything on HJR bonds... I just gave a link to audio!
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 26, 2009, 01:40 PM NHFT
one alleged freestater's comments:
"Facts are facts. There were inadequate shelters for the number of horses. Whoever said there were 21 shelters for 29 horses is just plain wrong. There were more horses before they gave some up to a horse rescue.
I am a freestater and I have been to the property and I know this for fact. It is too bad that a small number of freestaters get the attention while the rest of us are just enjoying living her in a wonderful state. Not all of us are protestors or civil disobedience kinds. We moved here because NH offers more liberties than other states.
- Rocky, Concord"
So may I ask, are they in the wrong here?
The travis' were just on News 9.
Basic recap:
"Well the video we have of the horses now is with 30 pounds of weight added but when they were first seized animal experts say you could easily wedge the side of your hand in between the horses ribs"
then they cut to Raymond NH and a guy showing the ribs etc "ribs visible and bite marks on his fur Buddy along with Angel and Star are just three of a dozen horses police seized from a home in Candia."
Joe LeBlanc:
"It makes me sick"
This is Rockin' Horse Ranch
Heidi turned herself in on counts of animal cruelty and lack of shelter charges.
Kop Sgt. Scott Gallegar
"Feces embedded in them ..."
Complaints from residents about horses on or near the road. Poor shelter.
Leblanc says the horses were "riddled with worms" and "slowly starving"
They say at the end of this that the SPCA is trying to work with the Heidi and Brian to get the horses back home. Apparently News 9 tried to contact them by phone and at their home and no one would talk. Then they make mention of the COlorado Animal Cruelty investigation.
I have this recorded on my Comcast DVR but I do not know how to or if I can get it off the DVR and onto youtube somehow?
I don't get it though. If all these accusations of neglect are true, why are they trying to return the horses to Ms Frederick?
Are these accusations true? or not?
Apparently the video is on their website.
http://www.wmur.com/video/19023226/ (http://www.wmur.com/video/19023226/)
I don't buy that the two horses shown (who are quite small) have gained 30 pounds in two weeks. They're skinny, but far from emaciated. If that's the worst they had to show, I'm not impressed with their evidence.
People who don't know anything about horses assume that if you can see ribs, it's about to starve to death, but that's not true. Wild horses are always that skinny, or worse.
But it also makes for a good way to poison public opinion about this case.
The horses looked tiny. They certainly didn't look like race horses.
But what about this business about the worms? I was under the impression that deworming agents should be a regular part of feeding? Is that true, or is it typically something given in response to an observed problem, and if so how would one observe it / how long does it take to manifest?
Which of these conditions require theft? Worms, feces, malnutrition or bite marks? Are all of these not treatable on the owner's farm? Is there no time given for remediation? Guess not.
Quote from: coffeeseven on March 26, 2009, 08:39 PM NHFT
Which of these conditions require theft? Worms, feces, malnutrition or bite marks? Are all of these not treatable on the owner's farm? Is there no time given for remediation? Guess not.
Well, I guess that's one way of avoiding my question.
I don't remember saying I supported government action. I am curious about what would constitute reasonable care of the horses.
Quote from: Donald McFarlane on March 26, 2009, 08:53 PM NHFT
Quote from: coffeeseven on March 26, 2009, 08:39 PM NHFT
Which of these conditions require theft? Worms, feces, malnutrition or bite marks? Are all of these not treatable on the owner's farm? Is there no time given for remediation? Guess not.
Well, I guess that's one way of avoiding my question.
I don't remember saying I supported government action. I am curious about what would constitute reasonable care of the horses.
I wasn't avoiding answering your question. I was asking questions of my own.
this will probably start the animals = property debate again lol
it is pretty endless ...
i dont think that those horses gained 30 pounds in such a short time. i would also like to see proof of the worms. maybe Mr. LeBlanc can provide that for everyone ...
Quote from: Donald McFarlane on March 26, 2009, 07:33 PM NHFT
The horses looked tiny. They certainly didn't look like race horses.
But what about this business about the worms? I was under the impression that deworming agents should be a regular part of feeding? Is that true, or is it typically something given in response to an observed problem, and if so how would one observe it / how long does it take to manifest?
if the government wanted to say I had worms, I'm sure they could pull that off too. Bottom line is that this isn't a welfare of the horses problem, it's a sad sack of shit SPCA bureaucrat with a vendetta problem.
What is everyone in here a fucking horse expert? As if the daily routines of taking care of a horse are anyone's concern. Busy body people doing busy body things looking in people's yards and finding out how they can get one up on the 'weird new people' who moved in.
Quote from: AntonLee on March 26, 2009, 09:11 PM NHFT
Busy body people doing busy body things looking in people's yards and finding out how they can get one up on the 'weird new people' who moved in.
Nail. Head. THUNK.
+eleventymillionandtwo
All well and good, but I want to know the truth about this before I promote the case. I wouldn't take their horses and collaborate or pay for the taking of the horses and I would defend their right to keep the horses but before I go out and say, "hey, look at this case of tyranny here" I want to know the truth of the matter so I don't lose credibility.
If you're going to leverage an injustice into justice, you have to make sure the victim is very nearly pearly white clean in the matter, otherwise attempts to leverage it will backfire.
Quote from: George Donnelly on March 26, 2009, 10:04 PM NHFT
If you're going to leverage an injustice into justice, you have to make sure the victim is very nearly pearly white clean in the matter, otherwise attempts to leverage it will backfire.
I'm living in a country founded by people that didn't pass the sniff test according to their masters. Are you sure you meant to word it that way?
This is probably nothing usable as these people do what they want, but the other night, while listening to Brian on Free Talk Live, Brian mentioned that SPCA used the Front Page newspaper story as a Mailer for Fund Raising/Donations for Travis Family Horses' care.
It made me wish there was a way to track or get the SPCA to Account (take it off the Travis bill) for those specific Travis Horse donations they recieved.
Wow. I just visited the nhspca.org page to take a look at this, and there was a link ( http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/state_legislation/state-legislation-list.html?state=new_hampshire ) to an organization that they support which in turn appears to have been behind a bunch of recent legislation....
INCLUDING THE GODDAMN horse license and neutering / PETA-ing of the fish and game commission.
I wonder how many contributors would be appalled to know to what ends their monies are going.
I don't know anything about horses and how they normally look as far as thin and fat goes, but I found this:
http://equineprotectionnetwork.com/cruelty/henneke.htm
"...based on both visual appraisal and palpable fat cover of the six major points of the horse that are most responsive to changes in body fat. "
well, by that standard the pictures on WMUR even "30 pound" later (if I believe that) are no more than a 3 on the Henneke.
Anyway, the reason for my post is to update my post re. the NHSPCA. As detailed more fully here http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=2105.0 there are definite connections between the NHSPCA, animal liberation activists active in New Hampshire and state Rep Carla Skinder. Scary stuff. I am now of the firm and unshakable opinion that the NHSPCA is indeed pure evil, and that Sprowl is not simply an aberration. To folks who are closely involved in the Travis case, please be careful out there and watch your back: I've come across some of these animal liberation terrorists before, both in New Jersey and in (Old) Hampshire, and they can be very violent and very dangerous, and employ guerrilla tactics. As I say on the NHLA forum, we can but hope that these NH folks are more civilized than that.
Quote from: coffeeseven on March 26, 2009, 09:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: Donald McFarlane on March 26, 2009, 08:53 PM NHFT
Quote from: coffeeseven on March 26, 2009, 08:39 PM NHFT
Which of these conditions require theft? Worms, feces, malnutrition or bite marks? Are all of these not treatable on the owner's farm? Is there no time given for remediation? Guess not.
Well, I guess that's one way of avoiding my question.
I don't remember saying I supported government action. I am curious about what would constitute reasonable care of the horses.
I wasn't avoiding answering your question. I was asking questions of my own.
Being careful with my wording here....don't want to get beheaded in the process... ;)
De-Worming - if my memory is correct - a yearly thing. Not to expensive. In my state you can do it yourself at a rather low cost. I had one horse leave my parents property looking much thinner than expected. He wasn't wormy. He just wasn't fat. He had arthritis and it was best to keep him fit and trim.
Feces? Hmm...ground frozen...well dang - with the years I had horses the one and only time I wasn't told to go out and shovel crap was during the winter. Why? Because it was frozen to the dang ground. DUH!
Malnutrition.... I find it hard to believe that only SOME of the horses were malnourished.
Bite marks...oh good grief! More than one horse in a pasture...one's tougher than the other. It happens.
If it were MY horses... I think I would appreciate someone telling me what I was doing wrong before they took off with my horses. Simple right? If you can't access my property - send me a letter. Something to give me a chance to fix the problem if that's the case.
As far as the horses looking tiny...aren't they Arabians? Not exactly the huge thoroughbreds that many see on the track.
As usual - all passers by feel they must judge the care of the horses. God help me if they ever judge the cleanliness of my house...or the fact that I haven't cleaned up the dog poop in my yard for a few days....I'd be screwed.
Quote from: leetninja on March 26, 2009, 04:52 PM NHFT
"Well the video we have of the horses now is with 30 pounds of weight added but when they were first seized animal experts say you could easily wedge the side of your hand in between the horses ribs"
Can horses gain 30 pounds in less that 3 weeks? This seems a little farfetched.
Re worms: I'd be willing to bet money that 90% of the people in this discussion have worms too. ::) No insult to the people here, just that most everyone has worms.
Quote from: D Stewart on March 27, 2009, 01:47 AM NHFT
I've come across some of these animal liberation terrorists before, both in New Jersey and in (Old) Hampshire, and they can be very violent and very dangerous, and employ guerrilla tactics. As I say on the NHLA forum, we can but hope that these NH folks are more civilized than that.
You do realize that animal rights activists are being targeted by the same government you abhor has "economic terrorists"?
As "economic terrorism" has been defined under counter-terrorism legislation (essentially any destruction of property aimed at eliciting a change in policy), virtually any form of traditional civil disobedience which involved property damage would qualify today as terrorism, if the feds decided to apply the statutes.
Quote from: George Donnelly on March 26, 2009, 05:22 PM NHFT
I don't get it though. If all these accusations of neglect are true, why are they trying to return the horses to Ms Frederick?
they just say it is true .... then ask for your money and compliance
they take people's kids too :'(
Quote from: George Donnelly on March 26, 2009, 10:04 PM NHFT
All well and good, but I want to know the truth about this before I promote the case. I wouldn't take their horses and collaborate or pay for the taking of the horses and I would defend their right to keep the horses but before I go out and say, "hey, look at this case of tyranny here" I want to know the truth of the matter so I don't lose credibility.
If you're going to leverage an injustice into justice, you have to make sure the victim is very nearly pearly white clean in the matter, otherwise attempts to leverage it will backfire.
for many of us ... it is hard to know what is going on ... if you don't feel comfortable defending them, since you live far away ... then maybe move onto a different issue
for me it is pretty easy .... I don't think it is right for me to tell other people how to care for their horses. I also do not have the energy to constantly harass the spca guy, but I can get the word out a little, so people know how the government works
Quote from: Peacemaker on March 26, 2009, 11:23 PM NHFT
This is probably nothing usable as these people do what they want, but the other night, while listening to Brian on Free Talk Live, Brian mentioned that SPCA used the Front Page newspaper story as a Mailer for Fund Raising/Donations for Travis Family Horses' care.
It made me wish there was a way to track or get the SPCA to Account (take it off the Travis bill) for those specific Travis Horse donations they recieved.
When the Michael Vick case was in the news (fighting dogs) HSUS ran an ad campaign for donations "to help care for the Vick dogs." HSUS never had custody of the Vick dogs and had nothing to do with their care. In fact, care for the Vick dogs was paid for by Michael Vick.
Humane societies love newsworthy cruelty cases because those cases inspire people to send money. One animal shelter owner in Coos county has been quoted in the newspaper more than once saying that she didn't want to take in animals whose owners can't keep them anymore. She just wants the abused, the starved, beaten, abandoned. What she doesn't say is "because those are the most profitable!"
QuoteDe-Worming - if my memory is correct - a yearly thing. Not to expensive.
More than yearly - more like every 2 or 3 months.
QuoteFeces? Hmm...ground frozen...well dang - with the years I had horses the one and only time I wasn't told to go out and shovel crap was during the winter. Why? Because it was frozen to the dang ground. DUH!
Yes. And then there is mud season when it all starts to thaw and melt... still too cold to wash the horses but not cold enough to keep everything frozen.
QuoteAs far as the horses looking tiny...aren't they Arabians? Not exactly the huge thoroughbreds that many see on the track.
I was a little confused at first because the stories said they were Arabians but Brian kept calling them "race horses."
The obvious answer is that Arabians are the primary breed used in endurance racing - that is, cross-country races over 50 miles or more.
Quote from: coffeeseven on March 26, 2009, 10:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: George Donnelly on March 26, 2009, 10:04 PM NHFT
If you're going to leverage an injustice into justice, you have to make sure the victim is very nearly pearly white clean in the matter, otherwise attempts to leverage it will backfire.
I'm living in a country founded by people that didn't pass the sniff test according to their masters. Are you sure you meant to word it that way?
Yes. Nothing against Brian. I like him and I support him. The SPCA / Candia police are entirely in the wrong. I just want to know what the truth is.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 27, 2009, 07:38 AM NHFT
Quote from: George Donnelly on March 26, 2009, 10:04 PM NHFT
All well and good, but I want to know the truth about this before I promote the case. I wouldn't take their horses and collaborate or pay for the taking of the horses and I would defend their right to keep the horses but before I go out and say, "hey, look at this case of tyranny here" I want to know the truth of the matter so I don't lose credibility.
If you're going to leverage an injustice into justice, you have to make sure the victim is very nearly pearly white clean in the matter, otherwise attempts to leverage it will backfire.
for many of us ... it is hard to know what is going on ... if you don't feel comfortable defending them, since you live far away ... then maybe move onto a different issue
for me it is pretty easy .... I don't think it is right for me to tell other people how to care for their horses. I also do not have the energy to constantly harass the spca guy, but I can get the word out a little, so people know how the government works
I don't think it's my business to tell others how to care for their horses either. For me it's not a question of defending them or not (I'm doing it), it's a matter of which tack do I take or how loud I get.
A case where the facts aren't in dispute is a lot more effective for liberty hay-making. Where you have people closely connected with the case claiming that the victim was in the wrong, it muddles the moral righteousness.
I think there are many potential force multipliers for FSPers who have moved, but one of them is sympathetic folk that haven't moved. In order to get them on the team as effective spokesmen, they need to be well-informed and motivated. It's a basic communication task really.
what's happening right now, the coverage turning sour, is because the travises aren't talking to the media (if that's true).
Just as it was sour for the government when they wouldn't talk.
Yes there are legal dangers talking to the press but I'd say don't let silence happen to you...
again, here's my guide on dealing with the press
http://www.freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/mediarelations.php
It's possible the travises were threatened with some sort of retaliation from authorities if they spoke with the press or told anyone they were forbidden from doing so.
Hey, everyone. I'd like to clarify a few things.
Most of the horses are Arabians. Heidi used to breed show horses, but is getting out of that game because of internal politics. Heidi's breeding program of the past few years have been for racing. The babies you saw in the WMUR video were part of the racing program. These are not quarter horses or thoroughbreds that you usually see at the racetrack. Arabian racing is a much smaller sport, but the horses routinely run a mile or more. We had a track in Colorado where some of Heidi's horses were part of the competitive program. The closest track that races Arabians here is in Delaware. Heidi was about to start getting some of the horses ready for the track when this raid happened.
Worms are common, especially in babies. There were five yearlings together, all of which had worms when we moved here. Heidi has been de-worming on a regular basis and three of the horses are worm-free. The two they took were on a special diet with extra de-wormers, and it looks like they were just about done. Again, worms are a common issue everywhere there are horses and just need to be managed. No horses were in imminent danger.
Bites are common, too. The mares (that's older female horses for you city folk) are in charge of the herd. Like in most species, the older ladies tend to come down hard on the young males. That's exactly what we had here. In the horse business, it's called "food competition", where the mares will decide who gets to eat. Heidi was in the process of moving the two colts from pen to pen to see which groups of mares would allow them some peace. She found a pen with a couple older geldings (for you city folks, that's a male horse that has been...well, you can figure that one out). It is in that pen where they found the colts during the raid, recovering from the bites inflicted earlier by the mares and getting enough food. Again, this is what happens in nature. A breeder's job is to manage the relationships, and that's exactly what Heidi was doing. Is this cruelty?
Ribs. I'm sure we've all been to friends' houses (and perhaps your own) where the dogs and cats are fat fat fat. We all love our animals and pamper them. Well, the same thing happens to the bigger pets, horses. Most people who keep a single or couple horses way overfeed them, which is as unhealthy as overfeeding your dog or yourself. The problem is, this plumpness starts to look normal, and even the vets start to think it's normal. Ribs should not be prominent, but seeing the outlines of ribs on a horse, especially after a hard winter or in the case of worms, requires special action, but is not a cause for alarm. Heidi was taking steps to solve all of these issues in her role as breeder.
Frozen horse poop. Need I say more? The horses had plenty of room to walk around the paddocks, but tend to stay where the food is. We drop the hay bales in different places when we can to spread things out. But when it gets frozen or under snow, it's more difficult to manage. My job this weekend is to take the front-end loader and clean up the paddocks once they finally thaw. It makes great fertilizer.
As far as WMUR, they left me a message on the day of the raid. I called back and said I'd be happy to talk to them. Nothing. I gave them several phone numbers. Nothing. And then I see this piece on the news. They did not try to contact us. They just took the government's line, interviewed the cops and one of the barn owners that is harboring Heidi's property, and didn't even try to get our side. Gretyl, the reporter from the Union Leader, has been fair, talking to us and trying to get the government reps to say something. It's interesting that the affidavit is still sealed, and that the cops aren't telling Heidi where they've taken her horses, but they're glad to show the media, as long as the media doesn't try to contact us.
It's a good thing there's YouTube and NH Underground! I can't imagine what owners went through before the alternative media was able to expose the mainstream press bias.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 27, 2009, 11:09 AM NHFT
what's happening right now, the coverage turning sour, is because the travises aren't talking to the media (if that's true).
Just as it was sour for the government when they wouldn't talk.
Yes there are legal dangers talking to the press but I'd say don't let silence happen to you...
again, here's my guide on dealing with the press
http://www.freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/mediarelations.php
It's possible the travises were threatened with some sort of retaliation from authorities if they spoke with the press or told anyone they were forbidden from doing so.
No threats, just phone tag. Gretyl from the Union Leader called the night before her last story, and I just didn't check voice mail until the next morning. It was a tough night for us, this being the first time Heidi was arrested. The article said we were "unavailable for comment", but really it was just her article deadline and I hadn't gotten back to her.
WMUR was clearly not interested in getting our side of the story, as they had all of our contact information and didn't even check. They came by the house for their b-roll footage and didn't even knock.
Quote from: brian.travis on March 27, 2009, 11:12 AM NHFT
Hey, everyone. I'd like to clarify a few things.
Most of the horses are Arabians. Heidi used to breed show horses, but is getting out of that game because of internal politics. Heidi's breeding program of the past few years have been for racing. The babies you saw in the WMUR video were part of the racing program. These are not quarter horses or thoroughbreds that you usually see at the racetrack. Arabian racing is a much smaller sport, but the horses routinely run a mile or more. We had a track in Colorado where some of Heidi's horses were part of the competitive program. The closest track that races Arabians here is in Delaware. Heidi was about to start getting some of the horses ready for the track when this raid happened.
Worms are common, especially in babies. There were five yearlings together, all of which had worms when we moved here. Heidi has been de-worming on a regular basis and three of the horses are worm-free. The two they took were on a special diet with extra de-wormers, and it looks like they were just about done. Again, worms are a common issue everywhere there are horses and just need to be managed. No horses were in imminent danger.
Bites are common, too. The mares (that's older female horses for you city folk) are in charge of the herd. Like in most species, the older ladies tend to come down hard on the young males. That's exactly what we had here. In the horse business, it's called "food competition", where the mares will decide who gets to eat. Heidi was in the process of moving the two colts from pen to pen to see which groups of mares would allow them some peace. She found a pen with a couple older geldings (for you city folks, that's a male horse that has been...well, you can figure that one out). It is in that pen where they found the colts during the raid, recovering from the bites inflicted earlier by the mares and getting enough food. Again, this is what happens in nature. A breeder's job is to manage the relationships, and that's exactly what Heidi was doing. Is this cruelty?
Ribs. I'm sure we've all been to friends' houses (and perhaps your own) where the dogs and cats are fat fat fat. We all love our animals and pamper them. Well, the same thing happens to the bigger pets, horses. Most people who keep a single or couple horses way overfeed them, which is as unhealthy as overfeeding your dog or yourself. The problem is, this plumpness starts to look normal, and even the vets start to think it's normal. Ribs should not be prominent, but seeing the outlines of ribs on a horse, especially after a hard winter or in the case of worms, requires special action, but is not a cause for alarm. Heidi was taking steps to solve all of these issues in her role as breeder.
Frozen horse poop. Need I say more? The horses had plenty of room to walk around the paddocks, but tend to stay where the food is. We drop the hay bales in different places when we can to spread things out. But when it gets frozen or under snow, it's more difficult to manage. My job this weekend is to take the front-end loader and clean up the paddocks once they finally thaw. It makes great fertilizer.
As far as WMUR, they left me a message on the day of the raid. I called back and said I'd be happy to talk to them. Nothing. I gave them several phone numbers. Nothing. And then I see this piece on the news. They did not try to contact us. They just took the government's line, interviewed the cops and one of the barn owners that is harboring Heidi's property, and didn't even try to get our side. Gretyl, the reporter from the Union Leader, has been fair, talking to us and trying to get the government reps to say something. It's interesting that the affidavit is still sealed, and that the cops aren't telling Heidi where they've taken her horses, but they're glad to show the media, as long as the media doesn't try to contact us.
It's a good thing there's YouTube and NH Underground! I can't imagine what owners went through before the alternative media was able to expose the mainstream press bias.
Now this sounds more like the truth and we get it from the horses mouth... so to speak.
Brian, you need to put a chattel deed on your horses asap. They have only taken your horses because of "right title and intrest" they can not take your sweat equity you have in the care for those horses.
Ask your lawyer about it, hopefully he will understand.
Thanks for the update Brian. Re/ the ribs I know exactly what you mean. A vet taught me a few years back that if the ribs are slightly visible, the dog is at a good weight - IOW, exactly what you said.
Do you think the claim of 30 lbs of weight gain in 2 weeks is credible?
compared to the spca guy .... brian is seriously underweight ... we might have to look into this ... details at 11
Quote from: George Donnelly on March 27, 2009, 11:29 AM NHFT
Thanks for the update Brian. Re/ the ribs I know exactly what you mean. A vet taught me a few years back that if the ribs are slightly visible, the dog is at a good weight - IOW, exactly what you said.
Do you think the claim of 30 lbs of weight gain in 2 weeks is credible?
The only way to have them gain 30 pounds in two weeks would be to overfeed them. They would have to confine them to a stall and give them a lot of fatty grains and who knows what else. It's about the same thing that they do to fatten up cattle before slaughter.
Keeping baby animals confined and fattening them up quickly. In the cattle business, I think they call that "veal". I wonder what their plans are for Heidi's horses?
The WMUR video did show the horses in stalls ....
From the WMUR video 3 of the horses (Buddy, Angel, and Star) are at the Rockin Horse Ranch
Rockin' Horse Ranch
130 Harriman Hill Rd. Raymond, NH
603.895.5450 - 603.770.9211
603.770.3590 - 603-479-2433
info@rockinhorseranchnh.com
lkbkmk@comcast.net
http://www.rockinhorseranchnh.com (http://www.rockinhorseranchnh.com)
Also if you look at http://www.rockinhorseranchnh.com/horses/horses.html (http://www.rockinhorseranchnh.com/horses/horses.html) Horse named Nikki if you look at the photo of the horse walking you can see the hoses ribs :o
Quote from: brian.travis on March 27, 2009, 11:12 AM NHFT
Ribs. I'm sure we've all been to friends' houses (and perhaps your own) where the dogs and cats are fat fat fat. We all love our animals and pamper them. Well, the same thing happens to the bigger pets, horses. Most people who keep a single or couple horses way overfeed them, which is as unhealthy as overfeeding your dog or yourself. The problem is, this plumpness starts to look normal, and even the vets start to think it's normal. Ribs should not be prominent, but seeing the outlines of ribs on a horse, especially after a hard winter or in the case of worms, requires special action, but is not a cause for alarm.
If I were to take off my shirt, you could see my ribs. I'm 34 years old, literally sit with my feet up for 12 hours or more a day, and eat meat & other greasy foods until I feel full. Am I malnourished? According to the horse thieves I must be.
Quote from: brian.travis on March 27, 2009, 11:12 AM NHFT
Frozen horse poop. Need I say more? The horses had plenty of room to walk around the paddocks, but tend to stay where the food is.
I grew up on a farm. Animals do not have the distaste for feces that we have programmed into us when we are children. They're quite happy to wallow in manure. Sometimes this is detrimental to them; but it's a constant struggle to keep them out of it. Cats & dogs are much more trainable than most animals in this regard (because they've been bred to be companions for tens of thousands of years), and that's what most people think of when they think of 'animals'.
One of the serious troubles in our society today, is that most people do not know how the real world works, because they only see it on TV. Once you see a spider eat a butterfly, or you have to shoot your cat because the neighbor's dog chewed the cat's leg off and it's best to put the poor animal out of its misery, your worldview changes. 'Nature' is not pleasant, it is not kind, and it does not care about anyone's definition of 'fair'. We should keep that in mind when we evaluate the treatment of animals.
I am staunchly in favor of the ethical treatment of animals; but one should be careful about making judgements based on limited knowlege. (Just like politics and economics).
WMUR is amazing. I'm thinking of heading over to the Rockin' Ranch. . .my girl said she's been by there before seeing as it's only two towns away. Maybe I'll see if there are any ribs or feces anywhere.
Quote from: brian.travis on March 27, 2009, 11:12 AM NHFT
Most of the horses are Arabians. Heidi used to breed show horses, but is getting out of that game because of internal politics. Heidi's breeding program of the past few years have been for racing. The babies you saw in the WMUR video were part of the racing program. These are not quarter horses or thoroughbreds that you usually see at the racetrack. Arabian racing is a much smaller sport, but the horses routinely run a mile or more. We had a track in Colorado where some of Heidi's horses were part of the competitive program. The closest track that races Arabians here is in Delaware. Heidi was about to start getting some of the horses ready for the track when this raid happened.
Interesting - I had no idea that Arabians were used for racing. I've learned something new. :) It's been a long time since the days when I had a horse and all I knew about Arabians was that they are beautiful animals.
Quote
The problem is, this plumpness starts to look normal, and even the vets start to think it's normal.
Sad but true.
Quote from: Redchrome on March 27, 2009, 01:59 PM NHFT
I grew up on a farm. Animals do not have the distaste for feces that we have programmed into us when we are children. They're quite happy to wallow in manure. Sometimes this is detrimental to them; but it's a constant struggle to keep them out of it. Cats & dogs are much more trainable than most animals in this regard (because they've been bred to be companions for tens of thousands of years), and that's what most people think of when they think of 'animals'.
One of the serious troubles in our society today, is that most people do not know how the real world works, because they only see it on TV. Once you see a spider eat a butterfly, or you have to shoot your cat because the neighbor's dog chewed the cat's leg off and it's best to put the poor animal out of its misery, your worldview changes. 'Nature' is not pleasant, it is not kind, and it does not care about anyone's definition of 'fair'. We should keep that in mind when we evaluate the treatment of animals.
I am staunchly in favor of the ethical treatment of animals; but one should be careful about making judgements based on limited knowlege. (Just like politics and economics).
Even tho dogs and cats have been domesticated they can quickly return to the habits that they had originally. When I was growing up we had a dog called wolfy (appeared to be a husky mut) she showed up one day at the farm and was very skinny. After we got her to trust us and were able to get her back to good health she was the best small animal hunter we had. I clearly remember one summer she killed and brought home at least 1 woodchuck a day. She would tear the caucus apart eating the parts she wanted and leaving the rest all over the yard (some days it looked like a woodchuck Normandy). She would open the intestine and roll in the feces before she went out hunting to cover up her smell. That dog I can say saved my fathers farm and the neighbors farms thousands of dollars because the woodchuck holes would break axles on the machinery.
I would agree lots of people do not know how the real world works. Growing up on the farm I was introduced to the hard reality of death when I was young. We had some cats that would live in our barn, the cats were wild and killed the mice and rats that would try and take up residence in the barn. When I was about 7 my father found a litter of kittens that were born from one of the wild cats. The kittens had disease and would die a horrible painful death as one of my chores I was to dispose of the kittens before they succumbed to the disease. After having to kill a whole litter of kittens you realize a new perspective on life and death.
well i think it would be important not to single out for anger, those people who have been most forthcoming about holding the animals. the concern should be more toward those animals that are in unknown locations, the folks (especially govt workers on your dime) who are being secretive.
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 27, 2009, 05:57 AM NHFT
You do realize that animal rights activists are being targeted by the same government you abhor has "economic terrorists"?
That's an apt description of them. Just because they're enemies of the government, doesn't mean they're my allies. I don't support the government attacking them, either, but in this case they're using the power of the government to steal other people's property.
Sounds like "economic terrorism" to me.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 27, 2009, 05:42 PM NHFT
well i think it would be important not to single out for anger, those people who have been most forthcoming about holding the animals. the concern should be more toward those animals that are in unknown locations, the folks (especially govt workers on your dime) who are being secretive.
I don't really see anyone coming out and saying "please come check on your horses here"
I wouldn't give them the time of day except to film and take pictures.
Their the same kinda people who at another
time would have brought their trailers around
to round up the Jews.
For the entire article - WITH PHOTOS (for those people who who have problems with words) - go to http://www.habitatforhorses.org/rescues/bodyscoring.html
Then once you've educated yourself, go back and take a look at those three foals and body score them for yourself.
*****
Don Henneke, PhD, developed the Henneke Body Condition Scoring System during his graduate study at Texas A & M University . It is based on both visual appraisal and palpable fat cover of the six major points of the horse that are most responsive to changes in body fat. The Henneke Chart is a standardized scoring system, whereas the terms, "skinny", "thin", "emaciated" or "fat" are all subjective terms that have different meanings to different people.
The Henneke Scoring System is a scientific method of evaluating a horse's body condition regardless of breed, body type, sex or age. It is now widely used by law enforcement agencies as an objective method of scoring a horse's body condition in horse cruelty cases. The Chart is accepted in a court of law.
Six parts of a horse are checked in this system—the neck, withers (where the neck ends and the back begins), shoulder, ribs, loin, and tailhead. When using the Henneke system, you should always make physical contact with these parts, and the kind of touch you use is important. Simply stroking the animal lightly won't provide an accurate idea of the horse's condition; you have to apply pressure to each part in turn.
The pressure you apply should be much like that of a massage; if you press a horse's side with your hand, you'll be able to feel the fat covering his ribs, and get an idea of how much fat is present. Likewise, when checking the withers, feel all around the area, as if you were squeezing firm clay. It is possible to be firm and gentle at the same time, and both traits are necessary to properly score a horse.
After pressing each part of the horse with your hands to feel for body fat. You then assign each area of the body the numerical score that corresponds with the horse's condition. When a horse has a long haircoat it is imperative that you use your hands to feel the horse. The horse's long haircoat will hide the protrusion of bones, all except in the most extreme cases. The scores from each area are then totaled and divided by 6. The resulting number is the horse's rating on the Henneke Body Scoring Condition Chart.
Conformational differences between horses may make certain criteria within each score difficult to apply to every animal. In these instances, those areas influenced by conformation should be discounted, but not ignored when determining the condition score.
Conformation also changes in pregnant mares as they approach parturition (birth). Since the weight of the conceptus tends to pull the skin and musculature tighter over the back and ribs, emphasis is placed upon fat deposition behind the shoulder, around the tailhead and along the neck and withers in these cases.
The Chart rates the horses on a scale of 1 to 9. A score of 1 is considered poor or emaciated with no body fat. A 9 is extremely fat or obese. Horse veterinarians consider a body score of between 4 and 7 as acceptable. A 5 is considered ideal.
Condition Neck Withers Shoulder Ribs Loin Tailhead
1 Poor Bone structure easily noticeable Bone structure easily noticeable Bone structure easily noticeable Ribs protruding prominently Spinous processes projecting prominently Tailhead, pinbones, and hook bones projecting prominently
2 Very Thin Bone structure faintly discernible Bone structure faintly discernible Bone structure faintly discernible Ribs prominent Slight fat covering over base of spinous processes. Transverse processes of lumbar vertebrae feel rounded. Spinous processes are prominent Tailhead prominent
3 Thin Neck accentuated Withers accentuated Shoulder accentuated Slight fat over ribs. Ribs easily discernible Fat buildup halfway on spinous processes, but easily discernible. Traverse processes cannot be felt Tailhead prominent but individual vertebrae cannot be visually identified. Hook bones appear rounded, but are still easily discernible. Pin bones not distinguishable
4 Moderately Thin Neck not obviously thin Withers not obviously thin Shoulder not obviously thin Faint outline of ribs discernible Negative crease (peaked appearance) along back Prominence depends on conformation. Fat can be felt. Hook bones not discernible
5 Moderate (Ideal Weight) Neck blends smoothly into body Withers rounded over spinous processes Shoulder blends smoothly into body Ribs cannot be visually distinguished, but can be easily felt Back is level Fat around tailhead beginning to feel soft
6 Moderately Fleshy Fat beginning to be deposited Fat beginning to be deposited Fat beginning to be deposited Fat over ribs feels spongy May have a slight positive crease (a groove) down back Fat around tailhead feels soft
7 Fleshy Fat deposited along neck Fat deposited along withers Fat deposited behind shoulder Individual ribs can be felt with pressure, but noticeable fat filling between ribs May have a positive crease down the back Fat around tailhead is soft
8 Fat Noticeable thickening of neck Area along withers filled with fat Area behind shoulder filled in flush with body Difficult to feel ribs Positive crease down the back Fat around tailhead very soft
9 Extremely Fat Bulging fat Bulging fat Bulging fat Patchy fat appearing over ribs Obvious crease down the back Bulging fat around tailhead
This is a score of 1 (DEATHS DOOR)
(http://www.rodeocityequine.com/images/score%201%20yrlg.jpg)
This is a score of 2
(http://www.rodeocityequine.com/images/score%202%20grandpa.jpg)
This is a score of 3
(http://www.rodeocityequine.com/images/rocket%20score3.jpg)
This is a score of 4
(http://www.rodeocityequine.com/images/score%204%20indian.jpg)
This is a score of 5 (AVERAGE WEIGHT)
(http://www.rodeocityequine.com/images/score%205%20sunny.jpg)
This is a score of 6
(http://www.rodeocityequine.com/images/score%206%20sporty.jpg)
This is a score of 7
(http://www.rodeocityequine.com/images/score%208%20scamper.jpg)
This is a score of 8
(http://www.rodeocityequine.com/images/score%208%20breeze.jpg)
This is a score of 9 (OBESE)
(http://www.rodeocityequine.com/images/score%209%20moonlight.jpg)
from the video I saw, 4. Far from death's door.
This thread is one of the saddest things I've read in all my years with the FSP. I'm embarrassed and ashamed. :(
I've never raised horses; but I know what horseshit smells like.
The contradictions... the easily verifiable facts... the absolutely ludicrous claims that it's a conspiracy by the government, AND the NHSPCA, AND the vets, AND the volunteers donating their time and money to provide short-term (so far) care for other people's horses...
The apparent opinion that, if someone is "one of us", they can do no wrong; and if someone works for the government, or just used to work for the government, or works side by side with the government on a short-term basis, they can do no right (and at least one of the people participating in the discussion works for the government, and at least one IS the government ::) )
The blind refusal to ask relevant questions... well, that's not true, one or two people on this thread have, and have been smited for it.
The thunderous silence of those in a position to not be able to help but know the truth.....
Then, even when presented with video evidence of what some of the removed horses look like, just making up more excuses to explain it away....
The inevitable, and laughably inappropriate, comparisons to Nazis...
:(
Quote from: Friday on March 16, 2009, 05:57 PM NHFT
For what it's worth, I think cruelty to animals is reprehensible, I don't condone it, I don't wish to socialize or do business with anyone who thinks it's fun, funny or acceptable.
I am Joe LeBlanc and for those of you that think that a horse can't gain 30 plus pounds in 18 days , don't know what you are talking about..So lets point out the real facts shall we..FACT.. the two fillies recieve 12 to 15 pounds of hay and 7 pounds of good grain aday each .FACT.. they were at a level 1 when they were pick up and have gained over 30 pounds since..FACT..thier gut were filled with worms to the point that they did not recieve enough of the nutrients and they shit out worms for 4 days after a proper worming many over 8 inches long.FACT..thier coat were matted with shit and the only way to clean them was to shave them down which revealed rain rot..FACT.. Steve from the spca could give a shit about the free staters and has no personal axe to grind with Travis or his wife FACT...niether could I...FACT.. the horses have day turnout and were in for the interview . they are also in large stalls..FACT..My horse nikki is 25 yrs old and has medical issues and has never got anyway near as bad as Travis wifes horses that we have.FACT..Deerfield vet has no political agender , they only care about the animals.FACT..a free stater works for us 4 days a week and will not pick sides accept for the horses.So stop trying to play the politic game with this case.The few free staters that I have meet I like and i agree with most of the ideas they have ,BUT some of your party is always looking for shit to bitch about..This matter should not be one of them.....I do believe that if Travis and his wife had fixed the shelters back in dec of 08 and had been more diligent with the horses care no one would have bothered them ..Live and learn. but please shut up Also, I see my phone number was put up.. the only number that works for me is the 895 number..Don't waste my time with bullshit calls Know, what your talking about Our property is posted so dont come to see the horse unless you have permission from candia police and you make an appointment with me first.Trust me I will press charges and I will protect my property Also to Travis and his wife, do a better jod with your horse and you won't be bothered ........... Good luck
Quote from: J Leblanc on March 28, 2009, 08:51 AM NHFT
I am Joe LeBlanc and for those of you that think that a horse can't gain 30 plus pounds in 18 days , don't know what you are talking about..So lets point out the real facts shall we..FACT.. the two fillies recieve 12 to 15 pounds of hay and 7 pounds of good grain aday each .FACT.. they were at a level 1 when they were pick up and have gained over 30 pounds since..FACT..thier gut were filled with worms to the point that they did not recieve enough of the nutrients and they shit out worms for 4 days after a proper worming many over 8 inches long.FACT..thier coat were matted with shit and the only way to clean them was to shave them down which revealed rain rot..FACT.. Steve from the spca could give a shit about the free staters and has no personal axe to grind with Travis or his wife FACT...niether could I...FACT.. the horses have day turnout and were in for the interview . they are also in large stalls..FACT..My horse nikki is 25 yrs old and has medical issues and has never got anyway near as bad as Travis wifes horses that we have.FACT..Deerfield vet has no political agender , they only care about the animals.FACT..a free stater works for us 4 days a week and will not pick sides accept for the horses.So stop trying to play the politic game with this case.The few free staters that I have meet I like and i agree with most of the ideas they have ,BUT some of your party is always looking for shit to bitch about..This matter should not be one of them.....I do believe that if Travis and his wife had fixed the shelters back in dec of 08 and had been more diligent with the horses care no one would have bothered them ..Live and learn. but please shut up Also, I see my phone number was put up.. the only number that works for me is the 895 number..Don't waste my time with bullshit calls Know, what your talking about Our property is posted so dont come to see the horse unless you have permission from candia police and you make an appointment with me first.Trust me I will press charges and I will protect my property Also to Travis and his wife, do a better jod with your horse and you won't be bothered ........... Good luck
So, may I ask... (dare I ask), would those horses have died in the care of Travis and his wife?
How much did it cost you to bring a horse back from that condition... Level 1?
I don't think the real issue is so much the horses, in this whole topic, than it is a persons rights being violated. As much as it pains me to say, taking the horses... even though they might have been sick, is against their rights.
Now you can argue that horses have rights and if you did that then none of us would really be allowed to own them... right? I mean they should be able to run free and wild...
Just my 2 cents.... and I know how so few enjoy that but I didn't have change for a dollar.
Sandy I'd feel the same whether I know Brian or not. The government and its willing allies are taking people's stuph. I don't know all the facts and do not think I have a right to get them. This is not the darkest day for the FSP clan. I do tend to agree with those that don't use force against others and disagree with the thugs who are known for it. When the pressure comes from government, I am not going to hand over my friends.
QuoteI don't think the real issue is so much the horses, in this whole topic, than it is a persons rights being violated. As much as it pains me to say, taking the horses... even though they might have been sick, is against their rights.
Now you can argue that horses have rights and if you did that then none of us would really be allowed to own them... right? I mean they should be able to run free and wild...
Horses do not have legal rights but there are laws relating to their care. Owners, not animals, have rights under the law but along with those rights there are certain responsibilities, and in NH those responsibilities are specified by statute.
Still, people are usually given warnings and some chance to correct any problems before animals are actually taken. It looks as if that didn't happen in this case. I wonder why.
Quote from: Friday on March 28, 2009, 07:56 AM NHFT
This thread is one of the saddest things I've read in all my years with the FSP. I'm embarrassed and ashamed. :(
I've never raised horses; but I know what horseshit smells like.
The contradictions... the easily verifiable facts... the absolutely ludicrous claims that it's a conspiracy by the government, AND the NHSPCA, AND the vets, AND the volunteers donating their time and money to provide short-term (so far) care for other people's horses...
The apparent opinion that, if someone is "one of us", they can do no wrong; and if someone works for the government, or just used to work for the government, or works side by side with the government on a short-term basis, they can do no right (and at least one of the people participating in the discussion works for the government, and at least one IS the government ::) )
The blind refusal to ask relevant questions... well, that's not true, one or two people on this thread have, and have been smited for it.
The thunderous silence of those in a position to not be able to help but know the truth.....
Then, even when presented with video evidence of what some of the removed horses look like, just making up more excuses to explain it away....
The inevitable, and laughably inappropriate, comparisons to Nazis...
:(
Thanks for posting. I've been thinking the same things.
I think this is a situation that makes many of us uncomfortable and we don't know quite how to respond. So, kudos to those who have opted to keep their mouth's shut rather than make brash accusations and biased assumptions.
Quote from: J Leblanc on March 28, 2009, 08:51 AM NHFT
FACT.. they were at a level 1 when they were pick up [sic]...
(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/5513/score1yrlgl.jpg)
Really? If I understand correctly, this is what level 1 looks like. I haven't seen anything like this in the news accounts. I've been to the Travis' place and not seen anything like this. Why haven't those of us following the story been blasted by such disturbing images? I think Joe Leblanc's FACTS are sometimes lies.
Jonathan Ray
I don't see any pictures that show this either. I don't have all the facts so I'll side with those who are innocent until proven guilty as opposed to siding with the known criminals.
Actually, they WERE given a warning. By NH law the first visit by the SPCA, the one where they were refused the ability to see the condition of the animals, was their warning. Visit number two, with certain perimeters such as lack of shelter, food, and body condition, results in seizure with the animals being able to be returned.
If they had nothing to hide, then why didn't they just let the guy come on the property and see the animals. It's a well known fact that if he had been able to see the animals back in NOV and they had issues that they would have been given time to rectify the issue, get educated on the NH laws, etc BEFORE they had to seize the horses. All they needed to do was let him see the animals!
You all believe that they were not in the wrong but you all drove down there to help build shelters. If they weren't in the wrong, why did you help build shelters? I mean, who gives a rats ass right? They're property, they don't need shelter. So why go through the expense and effort?
And for those of you who need glasses, take another look at those foals. A body score of 4 does not mean that scapula, tail head, hips, and full ribs are showing.
Take another look. Those foals sit at a 1-2.
1 Poor Bone structure easily noticeable Bone structure easily noticeable Bone structure easily noticeable Ribs protruding prominently Spinous processes projecting prominently Tailhead, pinbones, and hook bones projecting prominently
2 Very Thin Bone structure faintly discernible Bone structure faintly discernible Bone structure faintly discernible Ribs prominent Slight fat covering over base of spinous processes. Transverse processes of lumbar vertebrae feel rounded. Spinous processes are prominent Tailhead prominent
The horse use as an example of 1 is VERY much a 1...could even be a no score if that was remotely possible.
Quote from: Me on March 28, 2009, 01:38 PM NHFT
Actually, they WERE given a warning. By NH law the first visit by the SPCA, the one where they were refused the ability to see the condition of the animals, was their warning. Visit number two, with certain perimeters such as lack of shelter, food, and body condition, results in seizure with the animals being able to be returned.
If they had nothing to hide, then why didn't they just let the guy come on the property and see the animals. It's a well known fact that if he had been able to see the animals back in NOV and they had issues that they would have been given time to rectify the issue, get educated on the NH laws, etc BEFORE they had to seize the horses. All they needed to do was let him see the animals!
What you are calling a "first visit" was no visit, because he didn't get to inspect anything and there was nothing to warn them about. He was INVITED to come back when the property owner was present, that is in the first video. The owner was well within his rights to refuse access, and it was reasonable of him to want to be present during any inspection. Why didn't Sprowl take him up on that offer? Why did he wait all winter and then get a warrant, instead of accepting that invitation? The actual visit number one, according to reports, was the one with the warrant. Or DID he make a visit that hasn't been reported here?
Quote from: J Leblanc on March 28, 2009, 08:51 AM NHFT
Our property is posted so dont come to see the horse unless you have permission from candia police and you make an appointment with me first.Trust me I will press charges and I will protect my property
Don't you believe the Travis family has the same property rights?
You can twist this any way you want to....because I know you will.
The first visit was the visit he tried to get on the property for, by NH law.
I'm sorry, but if I got a call from my farm manager that the SPCA was here to see the horses, I would tell my trusted, hired help to let them see them then. He couldn't take anything at that time - legally, I had no risk of loosing any "property" at that time. OR I would have said "give me xyz minutes and I'll be there to personally walk you around".
Not the way it was handled, which was the property owner not even bothering to return to his home to talk to the guy in person. Not even after the police were called to come out.
I mean how many red flags needed to be waived. First the SPCA asked to see the animals. They say no, and don't even bother to come home. Then the cops show up, still, no one comes home and yet no one gives the farm manager the OK to see the horses.
The way I see it, they either didn't trust their farm manager to escort law enforcement around the property OR they had something to hide. Maybe both....
And from experience, they likely had numerous phone calls from Animal Control telling them they needed to fix their situation.
Contrary to your belief, law enforcement can't just come onto your property and start taking things. As you can see, it takes a warrant. And a warrant takes A LOT of time AND requires a LOT of proof to get. This isn't Law and Order folks, this is real life.
Yes, they do.
But unlike the Travis' I'd bet you anything if the SPCA showed up he'd let them see his property and horses with out a fight. Because he has nothing to hide.
Get it yet?
Quote from: KBCraig on March 28, 2009, 02:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: J Leblanc on March 28, 2009, 08:51 AM NHFT
Our property is posted so dont come to see the horse unless you have permission from candia police and you make an appointment with me first.Trust me I will press charges and I will protect my property
Don't you believe the Travis family has the same property rights?
Quote from: cyne on March 28, 2009, 11:11 AM NHFT
and in NH those responsibilities are specified by statute.
oh goodie
Quote from: cyne on March 28, 2009, 02:17 PM NHFT
What you are calling a "first visit" was no visit, because he didn't get to inspect anything and there was nothing to warn them about. He was INVITED to come back when the property owner was present, that is in the first video. The owner was well within his rights to refuse access, and it was reasonable of him to want to be present during any inspection. Why didn't Sprowl take him up on that offer? Why did he wait all winter and then get a warrant, instead of accepting that invitation? The actual visit number one, according to reports, was the one with the warrant. Or DID he make a visit that hasn't been reported here?
amen brother ... I mean sister ... I don't know what I mean :)
nothing to hide? ... from people who do not seek to help you ... but only harm you?
I don't expect people to open up their homes to the enemy. That is very unusual behavior.
Please remove the tinfoil hat.
I heard that there was video available, if someone could point me to that i would appreciate it.
I have been offered hay, grain, and shavings but haven't asked yet .At most I may receive some money for boarding but nothing for sure, with all the work these horse need I get nothing for it..The horse market is so bad that no one could make anything from a rescued horse and if these horse are awarded to the SPCA I believe the adoption fees for a horse is 150.00...now theres a money maker. As far as if these horse had stayed where they were, if they did not get the proper care right away ,yes they could have died.As far as the lie comment.I can be the biggest prick , but anyone who knows me ,knows I won't lie for anyone.If you don't like what I have to say tuff shit...I have had Steve from the SPCA come here after hearing a complaint , to chech things out and I let him see for him self .He made suggestions to improve conditions and I did what he asked .To refuse would have ment I was looking for trouble or had something to hide..So ive been on both sides and I try to do the right thing..I also believe in the first video Steve was told he could not come on the property with out a warrant...Now wasn't that a smart thing to say.You asked for it and you got it ..I guess you should be careful what you ask for.This is not politics,, this is stupid. Also my spelling sucks,So tuff shit
For what it's worth...
A reminder...
People just coming on to this forum for the first time in many cases have not had years of exposure to the non aggression principle...
Give them a little slack and they'll stay engaged until one of your ideas sticks. Snipe at them and they'll just wander off thinking we are all a bunch of angry blowhards.
Quote from: J Leblanc on March 28, 2009, 04:26 PM NHFT
I have had Steve from the SPCA come here after hearing a complaint , to chech things out and I let him see for him self .He made suggestions to improve conditions and I did what he asked .To refuse would have ment I was looking for trouble or had something to hide..So ive been on both sides and I try to do the right thing..I also believe in the first video Steve was told he could not come on the property with out a warrant...Now wasn't that a smart thing to say.You asked for it and you got it ..I guess you should be careful what you ask for.This is not politics,, this is stupid. Also my spelling sucks,So tuff shit
I realize you will reject this, but I don't think SPCA Steve was "making suggestions" nor "asking" you. He has men with guns who will destroy your life if you don't do as he demands. When a man with a gun makes demands of you are you "asking for it" if you refuse to follow his commands?
Sorry if some of the comments I made were harsh .but some of the comments on here are bullshit,My intension was to state some facts and give the free staters info and also address comments made about me and my farm.. I do believe most of you have good intensions BUT.. when I see comments about us hanging our heads in shame during the raid or that we are keeping the horses in like veal or accussing me of lies .One, that was an invitation that your bloggers set out there and two,,sick of the bull .Ihave nothing to gain but to reach the people that want the truth.so sorry to most of you and screw the rest.
Hi again Amanda or as you post here: "Me"
Please let us all know why you defended Heidi and then turned on her suddenly?
Also, Joe, were there any pictures take of these horses when they were received? Something that could prove that they were in fact "Level 1" horses?
I'm not being a jerk, if you read the posts I have posted in this thread you will see that I am not out to get anyone or take sides etc. I am asking because I just want to know.
Thanks.
Quote from: leetninja on March 16, 2009, 01:46 PM NHFT
Amanda, these posts are all YOURS! You DEFEND Heidi AND her reputation MORE THAN ONCE. Now you are lurking here ... what gives ...
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 01:35 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Exclamation Where is BG?
One of the seized horses was purchased from us in December. We have known about this family for several years and they always came with good reviews from other breeders/owners. They have/had a serious show and breeding program with horses that have some good show titles.
Unfortunately, even though I am still the registered owner of the mare....I doubt I will be able to get her back because she is considered "evidence".
And I have no way of contacting the place she is at to let them know that she is Insulin Resistant and in need of a special diet....for all I know, if she's been on grain since Monday, she may well already be in bad trouble with founder. She was on the light side in December after coming off of weaning a very needy colt, it was also just the condition she generally kept herself in due to her body type, and due to past founder we did not allow her to get heavy. But she was not emaciated when she left us....of course, I do not know what condition she is in now. I did not find out about this until yesterday and it was through a chat site that I found out.
She is a 15.1H bay mare with a black mane and tail. She has roaning on the rear pasterns and heels and a roan spot just past her withers on her back. Her front feet toe in just ever so slightly and one hoof has a higher heel than the other. She has very VERY large eyes and her ears V out just a little. She has not registered white markings but this time of year it looks like she has a small white snip between her nostrils. She has a vaginal tear that is old and was left open (meaning that she does not have a caslicks in at this time) since she was not being re-bred in 08. She may, or may not, have had a green blanket with gold trim on as I sent her with that. Her name is BG Backflash. I have extensive photos from the day I bought her to last year. She also had a 2008 Coggins and Rabies certificate.
If ANYONE knows how to get in touch with the people who have her so that I can get them info on what she needs to eat and find out how I can get her back...please let me know!!!!
Cheers,
Amanda
Reply With Quote
mckulley1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mckulley1
Find all posts by mckulley1
#70
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 04:43 AM
<3OTTB <3OTTB is offline
Working Hunter
Join Date: Sep. 23, 2007
Posts: 102
Default
Amanda - do you need help? Please PM me. I have a friend of a friend of a friend........
Reply With Quote
<3OTTB
View Public Profile
Send a private message to <3OTTB
Find all posts by <3OTTB
#71
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 04:55 AM
<3OTTB <3OTTB is offline
Working Hunter
Join Date: Sep. 23, 2007
Posts: 102
Default
Amanda - I am working on it. Another option is you to call Steve Sprowl of the NHSPCA and give them the info.
I wonder why she bought a horse from you, already having so many, when she had just moved from NH to CO having her CO place forclosed on.
Reply With Quote
<3OTTB
View Public Profile
Send a private message to <3OTTB
Find all posts by <3OTTB
#72
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 05:33 AM
MistyBlue MistyBlue is offline
Schoolmaster
Join Date: Feb. 6, 2003
Location: NorthEast
Posts: 13,506
Default
I'd contact the SPCA directly and inform them of the issues. And also contact the owners directly to see if that was one of the mares confiscated. Right now so many people are popping up asking for the location of the horses and the SPCA is the one to ask.
There are quite a few FSers posing as other people trying to find the locations and for the safety of the people fostering the horses it's best to go through the right channels.
There are Free Staters with the same name as mckulley...so to stay safe all around it's probably best to go through the legal channels to get the info out on the IR mare.
__________________
I'm going off the rails on a crazy train.....
Equus Makeus Brokus
Reply With Quote
MistyBlue
View Public Profile
Send a private message to MistyBlue
Find all posts by MistyBlue
#73
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 08:29 AM
gloriginger gloriginger is online now
Working Hunter
Join Date: Nov. 2, 2006
Posts: 754
Default
Amanda- go to Arabian Breeders network - there are some other breeders that have been in contact with Heidi- you could PM them and get her contact info to find out if your horse was one siezed.
Reply With Quote
gloriginger
View Public Profile
Send a private message to gloriginger
Find all posts by gloriginger
#74
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 08:45 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default Info
Mckulley is the name of a long deceased yet very dear dog. It has nothing to do with an FS.... I'm not entirely sure what the org is all about but my guess would be that people should be VERY careful with their segregation tactics based on others personal beliefs.
*****
At any rate, my NUMBER ONE priority is to get info to who ever has BG so she can be fed properly. With in a few days of being on a non-carb safe feed she will start to founder. Hay doesn't seem to be an issue for her...but grain is a big one. And if she's just her typical light condition and they think it's due to lack of feed and use that against these folks, well that's just not fare. And then god forbid if they start shoving the food down her throat... I can't even think about it. But if she is in bad shape, and does need some help, they have to know how to go about doing it.
My NUMBER TWO priority is to find out if there is any way to get her back at some point. I understand that she is no longer "my property" as she was sold. But I am STILL the recorded owner....
My husband is a Police Officer and he is adamant that I do not get involved beyond trying to get information to whoever has her so they know how she can be fed and perhaps if there is some kind of list where I can put my name down to take her if they'll release her.
****
Heidi wanted her because she had always wanted a Backstreet+ daughter. BG is one of his youngest daughters, the line is not a young one. She ALWAYS paid on time and the one time she got behind she caught right back up without any fuss.
Reply With Quote
mckulley1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mckulley1
Find all posts by mckulley1
#75
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 08:49 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default Contact
I should add that I fully well know that BG was one of the group that was taken. I saw the thread at SE.com that Laurie put up. I called Laurie, we talked, Thank God her colt was not in the group. So I called Heidi and she told me that BG was in the group that was taken.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:15 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I PM'd 3OTTB with her exact needs and her quirks....I hope it gets to her foster parents.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:27 AM
trubandloki trubandloki is online now
Advanced
Join Date: Sep. 2, 2005
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 2,294
Default
One would think that if Heidi cared at all about her horses that were being seized she would have told the animal control officers about this mare's special needs requirements. But gee, I guess they are just property, hu?
Reply With Quote
trubandloki
View Public Profile
Send a private message to trubandloki
Find all posts by trubandloki
#80
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:41 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I would guess that by the time they started taking horses, she probably was not in her right mind. There's not a person on this board that wouldn't be going bonkers if someone came to take their horses. Especially if you believe you're not in the wrong.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:52 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I'm sorry, this is where my conversation ends. I mentioned this in my first post.
I NEED the foster owners to know of BG's needs.
And if it comes down to her being placed, well, I want to be the one she is placed with.
BG is my sole and only priority in this matter. But I can only do what I'm legally able to do.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:03 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default BG needs
OTTB said she doesn't know where BG's at so just in case the foster people are here:
BG she needs a Carbohydrate safe feed such as Poulin Grain Carb Safe and PLAIN beet pulp. NO beet pulp with sugar! NO regular grain. NO oil. No sugar treats.
Usually she can have regular hay but if their hay is very rich they'll need to soak it in a barrel of water for one hour, drain water, and feed her the hay. They can't let the hay sit longer than an hour or it will re-absorb the sugar it put into the water. NO ALFALFA!
She can't be straight tied but she can be cross tied. You have to be careful rubbing her neck on the non-mane side because (she came to me this way) she shies terribly.
She's a 1991 mare. I have pictures if they aren't sure they have her.
Amanda
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:11 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Arabhorse2, you have a BAD attitude. It's not needed in this already volatile situation.
And for the record, I'm not defending anyone. But I have full working knowledge of how the human mind and system works under times of extreme duress. So I can see why things may not have been said.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:17 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Is there any legal documents on this CO case? I just don't understand why I wouldn't have heard of it....especially when I know other people with good reputations who sold horses to her who LIVE in CO.
Does anyone have this Steve persons phone number?
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:19 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Well Arabhorse2, FYI I did send her registration over to Heidi but Heidi has not transferred her into her name yet.
[edit] Excuse me for sitting up since Wednesday trying to figure out how I could have let this happen to a horse of mine.
Last edited by Moderator 1 : Mar. 16, 2009 at 11:48 AM. Reason: name calling
Reply With Quote
mckulley1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mckulley1
Find all posts by mckulley1
#93
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:25 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Look, if anyone has this Steve persons phone number, I'd be most appreciative to have it. PM would be great.
The ONLY reason why I posted on this forum was because I know how nosey and violent it can get here and figured it'd be the fastest way, after working hours, to get info out to who ever has this mare.
I don't need any bull crap from any anonymous poster here who thinks they know the answers to everything. YOU try having this situation on your shoulders with little more ability than to pass information around.
If BG needs a home, I'm here for her. If I can't do anything more than get info to the people who have her, then I'll have to live with that.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:36 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
MistyBlue,
I agree for the most part except.
You can't segregated someone due to their personal belief systems. Not to mention that this whole FS thing is entirely foreign to me and I only found out about it on Wed. It's not like they waive flags, have bumper stickers, or their skin color is different.
And as I've already mentioned, in my community, this person has a good reputation. I've known about her for going on four or five years now. Granted, I did not know her personally, but I knew people who did active business with her. And these were not small time people either.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 01:31 PM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I was able to touch base with Steve P. Thank you 3OTTB, I was able to catch him on his cell. He had received an email with the specifics for her feeding and I sent him all of the photos I have of her so they could identify her.
Unfortunately, all I have currently is the fact I'm still her registered owner. But I'm not going to lie and say I own the mare when she was very validly paid for.
However, he knows that if this comes down to needing to find homes, that I will, with out a doubt, be available for BG.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 03:58 PM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Thank you. Maybe if you could just post how she is after you see her? Or PM me privately?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trishiemo View Post
McKulley1- if the fosters do not know, I will ensure they do tomorrow.I have an IR horse so I know the signs well, I will check up on her!
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 14, 2009, 11:39 PM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default ?
Does anyone have any updates?
I have been told so much disturbing information on the care of BG starting from the second she stepped foot off my farm until the raid. It is so terrible....
Reply With Quote
Please remove your tinfoil helmet.
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 28, 2009, 05:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: J Leblanc on March 28, 2009, 04:26 PM NHFT
I have had Steve from the SPCA come here after hearing a complaint , to chech things out and I let him see for him self .He made suggestions to improve conditions and I did what he asked .To refuse would have ment I was looking for trouble or had something to hide..So ive been on both sides and I try to do the right thing..I also believe in the first video Steve was told he could not come on the property with out a warrant...Now wasn't that a smart thing to say.You asked for it and you got it ..I guess you should be careful what you ask for.This is not politics,, this is stupid. Also my spelling sucks,So tuff shit
I realize you will reject this, but I don't think SPCA Steve was "making suggestions" nor "asking" you. He has men with guns who will destroy your life if you don't do as he demands. When a man with a gun makes demands of you are you "asking for it" if you refuse to follow his commands?
If this thread is evidence of the NH school system, I'll be sending my daughter out of state.
If you had any form of comprehension skills you would see that there was no "defending" in my posts. The post was directed at getting information out on the mare who is IR. Information that Heidi apparently did not choose to take heed while BG was in her care. Information that Heidi apparently did not choose to inform the authorities of when they took her.
Proof is in the pudding. And the pudding in this case are the photos of the horses - PERIOD. If any of you doubt the fact that these horses rate below a 5 body score, then you need your eyes checked.
Quote from: leetninja on March 28, 2009, 07:16 PM NHFT
Hi again Amanda or as you post here: "Me"
Please let us all know why you defended Heidi and then turned on her suddenly?
Also, Joe, were there any pictures take of these horses when they were received? Something that could prove that they were in fact "Level 1" horses?
I'm not being a jerk, if you read the posts I have posted in this thread you will see that I am not out to get anyone or take sides etc. I am asking because I just want to know.
Thanks.
Quote from: leetninja on March 16, 2009, 01:46 PM NHFT
Amanda, these posts are all YOURS! You DEFEND Heidi AND her reputation MORE THAN ONCE. Now you are lurking here ... what gives ...
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 01:35 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Exclamation Where is BG?
One of the seized horses was purchased from us in December. We have known about this family for several years and they always came with good reviews from other breeders/owners. They have/had a serious show and breeding program with horses that have some good show titles.
Unfortunately, even though I am still the registered owner of the mare....I doubt I will be able to get her back because she is considered "evidence".
And I have no way of contacting the place she is at to let them know that she is Insulin Resistant and in need of a special diet....for all I know, if she's been on grain since Monday, she may well already be in bad trouble with founder. She was on the light side in December after coming off of weaning a very needy colt, it was also just the condition she generally kept herself in due to her body type, and due to past founder we did not allow her to get heavy. But she was not emaciated when she left us....of course, I do not know what condition she is in now. I did not find out about this until yesterday and it was through a chat site that I found out.
She is a 15.1H bay mare with a black mane and tail. She has roaning on the rear pasterns and heels and a roan spot just past her withers on her back. Her front feet toe in just ever so slightly and one hoof has a higher heel than the other. She has very VERY large eyes and her ears V out just a little. She has not registered white markings but this time of year it looks like she has a small white snip between her nostrils. She has a vaginal tear that is old and was left open (meaning that she does not have a caslicks in at this time) since she was not being re-bred in 08. She may, or may not, have had a green blanket with gold trim on as I sent her with that. Her name is BG Backflash. I have extensive photos from the day I bought her to last year. She also had a 2008 Coggins and Rabies certificate.
If ANYONE knows how to get in touch with the people who have her so that I can get them info on what she needs to eat and find out how I can get her back...please let me know!!!!
Cheers,
Amanda
Reply With Quote
mckulley1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mckulley1
Find all posts by mckulley1
#70
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 04:43 AM
<3OTTB <3OTTB is offline
Working Hunter
Join Date: Sep. 23, 2007
Posts: 102
Default
Amanda - do you need help? Please PM me. I have a friend of a friend of a friend........
Reply With Quote
<3OTTB
View Public Profile
Send a private message to <3OTTB
Find all posts by <3OTTB
#71
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 04:55 AM
<3OTTB <3OTTB is offline
Working Hunter
Join Date: Sep. 23, 2007
Posts: 102
Default
Amanda - I am working on it. Another option is you to call Steve Sprowl of the NHSPCA and give them the info.
I wonder why she bought a horse from you, already having so many, when she had just moved from NH to CO having her CO place forclosed on.
Reply With Quote
<3OTTB
View Public Profile
Send a private message to <3OTTB
Find all posts by <3OTTB
#72
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 05:33 AM
MistyBlue MistyBlue is offline
Schoolmaster
Join Date: Feb. 6, 2003
Location: NorthEast
Posts: 13,506
Default
I'd contact the SPCA directly and inform them of the issues. And also contact the owners directly to see if that was one of the mares confiscated. Right now so many people are popping up asking for the location of the horses and the SPCA is the one to ask.
There are quite a few FSers posing as other people trying to find the locations and for the safety of the people fostering the horses it's best to go through the right channels.
There are Free Staters with the same name as mckulley...so to stay safe all around it's probably best to go through the legal channels to get the info out on the IR mare.
__________________
I'm going off the rails on a crazy train.....
Equus Makeus Brokus
Reply With Quote
MistyBlue
View Public Profile
Send a private message to MistyBlue
Find all posts by MistyBlue
#73
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 08:29 AM
gloriginger gloriginger is online now
Working Hunter
Join Date: Nov. 2, 2006
Posts: 754
Default
Amanda- go to Arabian Breeders network - there are some other breeders that have been in contact with Heidi- you could PM them and get her contact info to find out if your horse was one siezed.
Reply With Quote
gloriginger
View Public Profile
Send a private message to gloriginger
Find all posts by gloriginger
#74
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 08:45 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default Info
Mckulley is the name of a long deceased yet very dear dog. It has nothing to do with an FS.... I'm not entirely sure what the org is all about but my guess would be that people should be VERY careful with their segregation tactics based on others personal beliefs.
*****
At any rate, my NUMBER ONE priority is to get info to who ever has BG so she can be fed properly. With in a few days of being on a non-carb safe feed she will start to founder. Hay doesn't seem to be an issue for her...but grain is a big one. And if she's just her typical light condition and they think it's due to lack of feed and use that against these folks, well that's just not fare. And then god forbid if they start shoving the food down her throat... I can't even think about it. But if she is in bad shape, and does need some help, they have to know how to go about doing it.
My NUMBER TWO priority is to find out if there is any way to get her back at some point. I understand that she is no longer "my property" as she was sold. But I am STILL the recorded owner....
My husband is a Police Officer and he is adamant that I do not get involved beyond trying to get information to whoever has her so they know how she can be fed and perhaps if there is some kind of list where I can put my name down to take her if they'll release her.
****
Heidi wanted her because she had always wanted a Backstreet+ daughter. BG is one of his youngest daughters, the line is not a young one. She ALWAYS paid on time and the one time she got behind she caught right back up without any fuss.
Reply With Quote
mckulley1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mckulley1
Find all posts by mckulley1
#75
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 08:49 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default Contact
I should add that I fully well know that BG was one of the group that was taken. I saw the thread at SE.com that Laurie put up. I called Laurie, we talked, Thank God her colt was not in the group. So I called Heidi and she told me that BG was in the group that was taken.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:15 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I PM'd 3OTTB with her exact needs and her quirks....I hope it gets to her foster parents.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:27 AM
trubandloki trubandloki is online now
Advanced
Join Date: Sep. 2, 2005
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 2,294
Default
One would think that if Heidi cared at all about her horses that were being seized she would have told the animal control officers about this mare's special needs requirements. But gee, I guess they are just property, hu?
Reply With Quote
trubandloki
View Public Profile
Send a private message to trubandloki
Find all posts by trubandloki
#80
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:41 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I would guess that by the time they started taking horses, she probably was not in her right mind. There's not a person on this board that wouldn't be going bonkers if someone came to take their horses. Especially if you believe you're not in the wrong.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:52 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I'm sorry, this is where my conversation ends. I mentioned this in my first post.
I NEED the foster owners to know of BG's needs.
And if it comes down to her being placed, well, I want to be the one she is placed with.
BG is my sole and only priority in this matter. But I can only do what I'm legally able to do.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:03 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default BG needs
OTTB said she doesn't know where BG's at so just in case the foster people are here:
BG she needs a Carbohydrate safe feed such as Poulin Grain Carb Safe and PLAIN beet pulp. NO beet pulp with sugar! NO regular grain. NO oil. No sugar treats.
Usually she can have regular hay but if their hay is very rich they'll need to soak it in a barrel of water for one hour, drain water, and feed her the hay. They can't let the hay sit longer than an hour or it will re-absorb the sugar it put into the water. NO ALFALFA!
She can't be straight tied but she can be cross tied. You have to be careful rubbing her neck on the non-mane side because (she came to me this way) she shies terribly.
She's a 1991 mare. I have pictures if they aren't sure they have her.
Amanda
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:11 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Arabhorse2, you have a BAD attitude. It's not needed in this already volatile situation.
And for the record, I'm not defending anyone. But I have full working knowledge of how the human mind and system works under times of extreme duress. So I can see why things may not have been said.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:17 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Is there any legal documents on this CO case? I just don't understand why I wouldn't have heard of it....especially when I know other people with good reputations who sold horses to her who LIVE in CO.
Does anyone have this Steve persons phone number?
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:19 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Well Arabhorse2, FYI I did send her registration over to Heidi but Heidi has not transferred her into her name yet.
[edit] Excuse me for sitting up since Wednesday trying to figure out how I could have let this happen to a horse of mine.
Last edited by Moderator 1 : Mar. 16, 2009 at 11:48 AM. Reason: name calling
Reply With Quote
mckulley1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mckulley1
Find all posts by mckulley1
#93
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:25 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Look, if anyone has this Steve persons phone number, I'd be most appreciative to have it. PM would be great.
The ONLY reason why I posted on this forum was because I know how nosey and violent it can get here and figured it'd be the fastest way, after working hours, to get info out to who ever has this mare.
I don't need any bull crap from any anonymous poster here who thinks they know the answers to everything. YOU try having this situation on your shoulders with little more ability than to pass information around.
If BG needs a home, I'm here for her. If I can't do anything more than get info to the people who have her, then I'll have to live with that.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:36 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
MistyBlue,
I agree for the most part except.
You can't segregated someone due to their personal belief systems. Not to mention that this whole FS thing is entirely foreign to me and I only found out about it on Wed. It's not like they waive flags, have bumper stickers, or their skin color is different.
And as I've already mentioned, in my community, this person has a good reputation. I've known about her for going on four or five years now. Granted, I did not know her personally, but I knew people who did active business with her. And these were not small time people either.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 01:31 PM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I was able to touch base with Steve P. Thank you 3OTTB, I was able to catch him on his cell. He had received an email with the specifics for her feeding and I sent him all of the photos I have of her so they could identify her.
Unfortunately, all I have currently is the fact I'm still her registered owner. But I'm not going to lie and say I own the mare when she was very validly paid for.
However, he knows that if this comes down to needing to find homes, that I will, with out a doubt, be available for BG.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 03:58 PM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Thank you. Maybe if you could just post how she is after you see her? Or PM me privately?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trishiemo View Post
McKulley1- if the fosters do not know, I will ensure they do tomorrow.I have an IR horse so I know the signs well, I will check up on her!
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 14, 2009, 11:39 PM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default ?
Does anyone have any updates?
I have been told so much disturbing information on the care of BG starting from the second she stepped foot off my farm until the raid. It is so terrible....
Reply With Quote
Quote from: Me on March 28, 2009, 01:38 PM NHFT
If they had nothing to hide, then why didn't they just let the guy come on the property and see the animals.
And you are asking others to remove their tinfoil hats? This statement of yours is nuts, crazy, whacko, off the wall. No warrant, and the owner isn't even home, and you think Sprowl should have been given free reign to inspect? You're nuts. I think perhaps we should have the cops schedule a friendly inspection visit to your house every other day between the hours of 8 am and 7 pm. After all, you have nothing to hide. I'm sure you'd be happy to show them through your every possession.
Quote from: Me on March 28, 2009, 08:05 PM NHFT
Please remove your tinfoil helmet.
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 28, 2009, 05:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: J Leblanc on March 28, 2009, 04:26 PM NHFT
I have had Steve from the SPCA come here after hearing a complaint , to chech things out and I let him see for him self .He made suggestions to improve conditions and I did what he asked .To refuse would have ment I was looking for trouble or had something to hide..So ive been on both sides and I try to do the right thing..I also believe in the first video Steve was told he could not come on the property with out a warrant...Now wasn't that a smart thing to say.You asked for it and you got it ..I guess you should be careful what you ask for.This is not politics,, this is stupid. Also my spelling sucks,So tuff shit
I realize you will reject this, but I don't think SPCA Steve was "making suggestions" nor "asking" you. He has men with guns who will destroy your life if you don't do as he demands. When a man with a gun makes demands of you are you "asking for it" if you refuse to follow his commands?
Please explain the justification for your accusation against me. What is tinfoil about pointing out the threat of force that surrounds all acts of people calling themselves government? If you have no explanation, you're just using ad-hominems.
Quote from: Me on March 28, 2009, 08:10 PM NHFT
If this thread is evidence of the NH school system, I'll be sending my daughter out of state.
If you had any form of comprehension skills you would see that there was no "defending" in my posts. The post was directed at getting information out on the mare who is IR. Information that Heidi apparently did not choose to take heed while BG was in her care. Information that Heidi apparently did not choose to inform the authorities of when they took her.
Proof is in the pudding. And the pudding in this case are the photos of the horses - PERIOD. If any of you doubt the fact that these horses rate below a 5 body score, then you need your eyes checked.
Quote from: leetninja on March 28, 2009, 07:16 PM NHFT
Hi again Amanda or as you post here: "Me"
Please let us all know why you defended Heidi and then turned on her suddenly?
Also, Joe, were there any pictures take of these horses when they were received? Something that could prove that they were in fact "Level 1" horses?
I'm not being a jerk, if you read the posts I have posted in this thread you will see that I am not out to get anyone or take sides etc. I am asking because I just want to know.
Thanks.
Quote from: leetninja on March 16, 2009, 01:46 PM NHFT
Amanda, these posts are all YOURS! You DEFEND Heidi AND her reputation MORE THAN ONCE. Now you are lurking here ... what gives ...
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 01:35 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Exclamation Where is BG?
One of the seized horses was purchased from us in December. We have known about this family for several years and they always came with good reviews from other breeders/owners. They have/had a serious show and breeding program with horses that have some good show titles.
Unfortunately, even though I am still the registered owner of the mare....I doubt I will be able to get her back because she is considered "evidence".
And I have no way of contacting the place she is at to let them know that she is Insulin Resistant and in need of a special diet....for all I know, if she's been on grain since Monday, she may well already be in bad trouble with founder. She was on the light side in December after coming off of weaning a very needy colt, it was also just the condition she generally kept herself in due to her body type, and due to past founder we did not allow her to get heavy. But she was not emaciated when she left us....of course, I do not know what condition she is in now. I did not find out about this until yesterday and it was through a chat site that I found out.
She is a 15.1H bay mare with a black mane and tail. She has roaning on the rear pasterns and heels and a roan spot just past her withers on her back. Her front feet toe in just ever so slightly and one hoof has a higher heel than the other. She has very VERY large eyes and her ears V out just a little. She has not registered white markings but this time of year it looks like she has a small white snip between her nostrils. She has a vaginal tear that is old and was left open (meaning that she does not have a caslicks in at this time) since she was not being re-bred in 08. She may, or may not, have had a green blanket with gold trim on as I sent her with that. Her name is BG Backflash. I have extensive photos from the day I bought her to last year. She also had a 2008 Coggins and Rabies certificate.
If ANYONE knows how to get in touch with the people who have her so that I can get them info on what she needs to eat and find out how I can get her back...please let me know!!!!
Cheers,
Amanda
Reply With Quote
mckulley1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mckulley1
Find all posts by mckulley1
#70
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 04:43 AM
<3OTTB <3OTTB is offline
Working Hunter
Join Date: Sep. 23, 2007
Posts: 102
Default
Amanda - do you need help? Please PM me. I have a friend of a friend of a friend........
Reply With Quote
<3OTTB
View Public Profile
Send a private message to <3OTTB
Find all posts by <3OTTB
#71
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 04:55 AM
<3OTTB <3OTTB is offline
Working Hunter
Join Date: Sep. 23, 2007
Posts: 102
Default
Amanda - I am working on it. Another option is you to call Steve Sprowl of the NHSPCA and give them the info.
I wonder why she bought a horse from you, already having so many, when she had just moved from NH to CO having her CO place forclosed on.
Reply With Quote
<3OTTB
View Public Profile
Send a private message to <3OTTB
Find all posts by <3OTTB
#72
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 05:33 AM
MistyBlue MistyBlue is offline
Schoolmaster
Join Date: Feb. 6, 2003
Location: NorthEast
Posts: 13,506
Default
I'd contact the SPCA directly and inform them of the issues. And also contact the owners directly to see if that was one of the mares confiscated. Right now so many people are popping up asking for the location of the horses and the SPCA is the one to ask.
There are quite a few FSers posing as other people trying to find the locations and for the safety of the people fostering the horses it's best to go through the right channels.
There are Free Staters with the same name as mckulley...so to stay safe all around it's probably best to go through the legal channels to get the info out on the IR mare.
__________________
I'm going off the rails on a crazy train.....
Equus Makeus Brokus
Reply With Quote
MistyBlue
View Public Profile
Send a private message to MistyBlue
Find all posts by MistyBlue
#73
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 08:29 AM
gloriginger gloriginger is online now
Working Hunter
Join Date: Nov. 2, 2006
Posts: 754
Default
Amanda- go to Arabian Breeders network - there are some other breeders that have been in contact with Heidi- you could PM them and get her contact info to find out if your horse was one siezed.
Reply With Quote
gloriginger
View Public Profile
Send a private message to gloriginger
Find all posts by gloriginger
#74
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 08:45 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default Info
Mckulley is the name of a long deceased yet very dear dog. It has nothing to do with an FS.... I'm not entirely sure what the org is all about but my guess would be that people should be VERY careful with their segregation tactics based on others personal beliefs.
*****
At any rate, my NUMBER ONE priority is to get info to who ever has BG so she can be fed properly. With in a few days of being on a non-carb safe feed she will start to founder. Hay doesn't seem to be an issue for her...but grain is a big one. And if she's just her typical light condition and they think it's due to lack of feed and use that against these folks, well that's just not fare. And then god forbid if they start shoving the food down her throat... I can't even think about it. But if she is in bad shape, and does need some help, they have to know how to go about doing it.
My NUMBER TWO priority is to find out if there is any way to get her back at some point. I understand that she is no longer "my property" as she was sold. But I am STILL the recorded owner....
My husband is a Police Officer and he is adamant that I do not get involved beyond trying to get information to whoever has her so they know how she can be fed and perhaps if there is some kind of list where I can put my name down to take her if they'll release her.
****
Heidi wanted her because she had always wanted a Backstreet+ daughter. BG is one of his youngest daughters, the line is not a young one. She ALWAYS paid on time and the one time she got behind she caught right back up without any fuss.
Reply With Quote
mckulley1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mckulley1
Find all posts by mckulley1
#75
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 08:49 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default Contact
I should add that I fully well know that BG was one of the group that was taken. I saw the thread at SE.com that Laurie put up. I called Laurie, we talked, Thank God her colt was not in the group. So I called Heidi and she told me that BG was in the group that was taken.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:15 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I PM'd 3OTTB with her exact needs and her quirks....I hope it gets to her foster parents.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:27 AM
trubandloki trubandloki is online now
Advanced
Join Date: Sep. 2, 2005
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 2,294
Default
One would think that if Heidi cared at all about her horses that were being seized she would have told the animal control officers about this mare's special needs requirements. But gee, I guess they are just property, hu?
Reply With Quote
trubandloki
View Public Profile
Send a private message to trubandloki
Find all posts by trubandloki
#80
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:41 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I would guess that by the time they started taking horses, she probably was not in her right mind. There's not a person on this board that wouldn't be going bonkers if someone came to take their horses. Especially if you believe you're not in the wrong.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 09:52 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I'm sorry, this is where my conversation ends. I mentioned this in my first post.
I NEED the foster owners to know of BG's needs.
And if it comes down to her being placed, well, I want to be the one she is placed with.
BG is my sole and only priority in this matter. But I can only do what I'm legally able to do.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:03 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default BG needs
OTTB said she doesn't know where BG's at so just in case the foster people are here:
BG she needs a Carbohydrate safe feed such as Poulin Grain Carb Safe and PLAIN beet pulp. NO beet pulp with sugar! NO regular grain. NO oil. No sugar treats.
Usually she can have regular hay but if their hay is very rich they'll need to soak it in a barrel of water for one hour, drain water, and feed her the hay. They can't let the hay sit longer than an hour or it will re-absorb the sugar it put into the water. NO ALFALFA!
She can't be straight tied but she can be cross tied. You have to be careful rubbing her neck on the non-mane side because (she came to me this way) she shies terribly.
She's a 1991 mare. I have pictures if they aren't sure they have her.
Amanda
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:11 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Arabhorse2, you have a BAD attitude. It's not needed in this already volatile situation.
And for the record, I'm not defending anyone. But I have full working knowledge of how the human mind and system works under times of extreme duress. So I can see why things may not have been said.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:17 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Is there any legal documents on this CO case? I just don't understand why I wouldn't have heard of it....especially when I know other people with good reputations who sold horses to her who LIVE in CO.
Does anyone have this Steve persons phone number?
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:19 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Well Arabhorse2, FYI I did send her registration over to Heidi but Heidi has not transferred her into her name yet.
[edit] Excuse me for sitting up since Wednesday trying to figure out how I could have let this happen to a horse of mine.
Last edited by Moderator 1 : Mar. 16, 2009 at 11:48 AM. Reason: name calling
Reply With Quote
mckulley1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mckulley1
Find all posts by mckulley1
#93
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:25 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Look, if anyone has this Steve persons phone number, I'd be most appreciative to have it. PM would be great.
The ONLY reason why I posted on this forum was because I know how nosey and violent it can get here and figured it'd be the fastest way, after working hours, to get info out to who ever has this mare.
I don't need any bull crap from any anonymous poster here who thinks they know the answers to everything. YOU try having this situation on your shoulders with little more ability than to pass information around.
If BG needs a home, I'm here for her. If I can't do anything more than get info to the people who have her, then I'll have to live with that.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 10:36 AM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
MistyBlue,
I agree for the most part except.
You can't segregated someone due to their personal belief systems. Not to mention that this whole FS thing is entirely foreign to me and I only found out about it on Wed. It's not like they waive flags, have bumper stickers, or their skin color is different.
And as I've already mentioned, in my community, this person has a good reputation. I've known about her for going on four or five years now. Granted, I did not know her personally, but I knew people who did active business with her. And these were not small time people either.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 01:31 PM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
I was able to touch base with Steve P. Thank you 3OTTB, I was able to catch him on his cell. He had received an email with the specifics for her feeding and I sent him all of the photos I have of her so they could identify her.
Unfortunately, all I have currently is the fact I'm still her registered owner. But I'm not going to lie and say I own the mare when she was very validly paid for.
However, he knows that if this comes down to needing to find homes, that I will, with out a doubt, be available for BG.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 13, 2009, 03:58 PM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default
Thank you. Maybe if you could just post how she is after you see her? Or PM me privately?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trishiemo View Post
McKulley1- if the fosters do not know, I will ensure they do tomorrow.I have an IR horse so I know the signs well, I will check up on her!
Reply With Quote
Old Mar. 14, 2009, 11:39 PM
mckulley1 mckulley1 is offline
Training Level
Join Date: Mar. 13, 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 17
Default ?
Does anyone have any updates?
I have been told so much disturbing information on the care of BG starting from the second she stepped foot off my farm until the raid. It is so terrible....
Reply With Quote
Amanda, amongst other things that I managed to grab before you edited your posts on another message board, you say gems like these:
"One of the seized horses was purchased from us in December. We have known about this family for several years and they always came with good reviews from other breeders/owners. They have/had a serious show and breeding program with horses that have some good show titles."
You also said that the SPCA was not easy to contact to relay important information about the horses special needs/diet ... how do you know that Heidi did or did not feed her a proper diet. I would think that given the amount of time that Heidi owned her if the horse were not fed properly it probably would be incredibly ill or worse - dead. I would like to know if Sprowl and his gang have been feeding the proper diet to the horse ... you know if they arent, then i guess they are mistreating her huh?
You also said "I would guess that by the time they started taking horses, she probably was not in her right mind. There's not a person on this board that wouldn't be going bonkers if someone came to take their horses. Especially if you believe you're not in the wrong."
And then you said "And for the record, I'm not defending anyone. But I have full working knowledge of how the human mind and system works under times of extreme duress. So I can see why things may not have been said."
and NOW you flame Heidi by saying: "Information that Heidi apparently did not choose to inform the authorities of when they took her." you say this as if she did that purposely when previously you sympathize with her.
If you cant see that you are completely contradicting yourself all over the place then ... maybe you should look up bi-polar disorder perhaps schizophrenia and seek some help.
So maybe you should re-read your OWN WORDS. Maybe.
I apologize if you dont like being called out on your own hypocrisy but I dont put up with BS from people like you. So as far as your comment about the NH school system, first of all I didn't go to school here but I did go to a great college, maybe you have heard of it, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Secondly, please feel absolutely 100% free to send your daughter out of state for her education, and while your at it maybe you should accompany her out of state. Permanently.
For the record: I agree that the proof one way or another would be pictures of the horses. No one seems to have those. Funny how that worked out ... I would think that if the horses were "Level 1" that surely the media, the SPCA, people like you and Joe LeBlanc would ALL have pictures of these "horribly mistreated Level 1, neglected, malnourished, worm filled and sickly" horses - but NONE OF YOU DO. Nor would anyone grant access to them to take video or pictures! So please do us all a favor and PROVE THAT THE HORSES WERE LEVEL 1 OR MISTREATED!!!
Dan whether "Me" is nuts or not she is a registered guest on NHFree and thus is engaged with your ideas. Why try so hard to disengage her?
Also Leet is it possible that she changed her tune because she saw photographs or received info or misinfo that changed her mind?
I know how it feels to go on a forum a lot where my opinion is in the minority, like seacoastconnects.com - so maybe that is why I wish we would not treat dissenters the same way some "mainstream" forums treat us.
WOW...someone needs to look up the big words because they really shouldn't be using words they don't know the meanings for.
Yes, I've known about Heidi. But I did not meet her or her horses until she picked BG up. And since this has happened, there has been people popping up out of the wood work with stories to tell of their dealings with her. In particular, one is a long time acquaintance of mine and the other is a client. And now a former coworker has come forward. Starting to see a pattern?
The SPCA does not need to answer to me. Or any one of your gaggle, quite frankly. They have to answer to the Travis' and the courts. But how I know what I know I am not at liberty to share here, or any where, for that matter. Needless to say, I've been kept in the loop because my interest is in the welfare of BG.
My post clearly shows that I sympathize with her screaming fit...no matter if I was "right" or "wrong" I'd be a sobbing mess as well. Just because she was screeching doesn't mean she was "right". And just because I can understand her tears doesn't mean I agree with what she did to those horses.
Oh, and BTW, I lived in both Southern and Northern ID....as a matter of fact I've lived all over the World and under the belts of people you could only dream of knowing....so you're little small minded, hick shtick of "go somewhere else, you don't fit in" skit is OLD NEWS.
Do yourself a favor. Put the hunting magazine down, get off the crapper, and go get a REAL education.
Quote from: Me on March 29, 2009, 12:55 AM NHFT
Oh, and BTW, I lived in both Southern and Northern ID....as a matter of fact I've lived all over the World and under the belts of people you could only dream of knowing....so you're little small minded, hick shtick of "go somewhere else, you don't fit in" skit is OLD NEWS.
Do yourself a favor. Put the hunting magazine down, get off the crapper, and go get a REAL education.
Ad hominem is never a valid substitute for debate. I recognize your frustration, but this isn't about "teams" or "sides" or "cliques". It's not about who went to the better school. As someone who has
also lived around the world, but without attending a school nearly as prestigious as MIT (like leetninja), I find your retort rather insulting.
Especially since I came from a "small minded, hick shtick
(sic)" tiny rural Southern town, but wasn't limited by such humble origins.
I bet if this discussion had been held in a room, face to face, there wouldn't have been such the name calling/cussing/personal attacks.
One drawback of Forums is people are safe from any face to face criticism and so when people get upset, they say things that they normally wouldn't say (and I'm not saying that what some people have said, they wouldn't have said it in person).
My point is it's TOO easy for things to get carried away (uncivil, namecalling and thus it makes the whole thing Stink).
Anyway, you would Not Believe how much More Educated Everyone sounds when they don't cuss, name call or hurl personal attacks.
(OK You Bastards?! Just kidding! :))
-------------------------------
Like the everyone (?) else, I don't know the facts but I do have one question about why the Government still has the "Papers" Sealed(secret). It makes me wonder what they are up too, what exactly they are hiding.
Quote from: Me on March 28, 2009, 04:02 PM NHFT
Please remove the tinfoil hat.
which ones of us have tinfoil hats on today?
Quote from: Me on March 28, 2009, 08:10 PM NHFT
If this thread is evidence of the NH school system, I'll be sending my daughter out of state.
If you are referring to the thread on this forum ... I think that a very small percentage went to NH public schools. I am a product of public and private schools out west ... that is where I learned you sometimes need tinfoil hat protection. :)
I wouldn't recommend you send your daughter to a NH public school their goals are dubious.
the good thing about this forum is many of will face each other on a weekly basis, so at least some of us can interact more normally :)
I sometimes need my tinfoil hats for attacks from long distance bouncing off satellites.
I prefer aluminum foil hats. They're more shiny and stylish. . not to mention you can get aluminum foil from mom in her kitchen.
whoops, perhaps I should have spoken as 'ME' sees us:
uh huh uh huh I likem dem alumnum foyl hatz. Dere wicked shiny and look gud to. . . ah reckon you can get dem dere almuminum foyl from mauh in her kitchun.
ahm gon go read me some more GUNS N AMMO and get off the pot like Mizz 'Me' said to. Fank god I belief in propty writes. I don fink 'Me' does so maybe 'Me' might like eff I cum over and change the chanel on her teeeeeveeee. Ahm gon put on that there Country Music Television. Ah no the onlee resun I spelt Country Music Television rite was cuz ahm a stupid red neck livin' in MasserChewSets with no gun, no dog, and no pickup truck. Ahm in need my friends. Ahm in need.
Your punctuation is too good Anton; needs more exclamation points.
I use a titanium helmet. No death-mind rays getting into my gourd! Hu-yuck!
Quote from: Me on March 29, 2009, 12:55 AM NHFT
WOW...someone needs to look up the big words because they really shouldn't be using words they don't know the meanings for.
Yes, I've known about Heidi. But I did not meet her or her horses until she picked BG up. And since this has happened, there has been people popping up out of the wood work with stories to tell of their dealings with her. In particular, one is a long time acquaintance of mine and the other is a client. And now a former coworker has come forward. Starting to see a pattern?
The SPCA does not need to answer to me. Or any one of your gaggle, quite frankly. They have to answer to the Travis' and the courts. But how I know what I know I am not at liberty to share here, or any where, for that matter. Needless to say, I've been kept in the loop because my interest is in the welfare of BG.
My post clearly shows that I sympathize with her screaming fit...no matter if I was "right" or "wrong" I'd be a sobbing mess as well. Just because she was screeching doesn't mean she was "right". And just because I can understand her tears doesn't mean I agree with what she did to those horses.
Oh, and BTW, I lived in both Southern and Northern ID....as a matter of fact I've lived all over the World and under the belts of people you could only dream of knowing....so you're little small minded, hick shtick of "go somewhere else, you don't fit in" skit is OLD NEWS.
Do yourself a favor. Put the hunting magazine down, get off the crapper, and go get a REAL education.
So you change the story and try to edit your words and/or the "way you meant them" (again) and just hope no one will notice? Did i ruin your plans and grab all of your posts before you had a chance to go back and edit them? Sorry about that. Just thought it was relevant. Suddenly you decide to answer questions that were asked of you weeks ago and you ignored with what basically amounts to "oh yea i defended her reputation but that was until i decided that a bunch of other people say that she has a bad rep." Also, yes, I am starting to see a pattern - of you lying and changing your story to fit your own agenda. Sorry that won't fly. At least not with me.
You are so concerned about diet and on the attack (at least now you are) when it comes to Heidi - but then you proclaim that the SPCA doesnt have to answer to you blah blah blah. Guess you really dont care about that horse or its diet then. Thanks for clearing that up.
Maybe you should take some of your own advice. Put the Better Housekeeping magazine down, get off your high horse, and go get a REAL education like I did. If MIT doesnt meet your standards maybe you should bring it up with them? You know nothing about me lady. Would you like me to list off my "friends" or people that I have known in life and then we can assign some sort of point system to each name and debate who is more important than the other? Seriously that is your defense here? That is pretty pathetic ...
So basically, you dont answer any of the questions such as the picture and video, you dont address any of the issues that I point out, and you just sort of dance around the whole thing and have nothing to offer other than attempts to insult education etc. Wow, that is productive huh?
Re: pretty much everything you say - sorry not buying it.
MIT eh...well now I can understand the attitude....not smart enough to go big time so you have a permanent chip on your shoulder. And a convenient knack for nipple twisting anything anyone has to say.
And the word is "meet", not meat. Your MIT education should have taken care of your vocabulary.....I see not....
So lets see, in keeping with your train of thought. These horses are considered property, so they are also considered evidence. So you tell me when the last time someone went haphazardly posting evidence photos on the net, prior to a court date?
As for video, not only did Wonder Boy Brian post video, but some of his "buds" showing the shelters being built. Because building the shelters wasn't an admission to not having ENOUGH shelters, yes? And then the newspaper posted video of three young horses - and the guy who has them has the balls to let everyone know that he does. If it was me, they wouldn't have a clue where those horses were at until they (unfortunately) got sent back to the Travis'.
So, smart ass, there is your video. Pictures, I'm sure, will be provided at court. If you're so worried about it, show up.
I never defended Heidi - again, because apparently you have comprehension problems, when someone said that she was being melodramatic and screaming, I said I could see how any HUMAN would respond that way, during a time of stress.
And I DID address every single one of your twisted, mindless questions. But since I'm fighting with someone who has a sub par social intelligence level, I could see how you'd have problems comprehending the written word. Book smarts do not equal social smarts - which is why at least 3/4 of you are members here.
Actually they do, if you read the right books and remain open-minded to the possibilities...
if I could only be as smart as 'Me' . . . maybe then I could tell everyone in the world what to do.
Quote from: J Leblanc on March 28, 2009, 04:26 PM NHFT
.I also believe in the first video Steve was told he could not come on the property with out a warrant...
He was invited to come back for a visit when the property owner was there. Apparently he didn't like that option.
Quote from: AntonLee on March 29, 2009, 11:40 AM NHFT
if I could only be as smart as 'Me' . . . maybe then I could tell everyone in the world what to do.
And Me's social smarts are outstanding too. ::)
I have been asked to post this. I also have the legal document to AHA to go along with this post.
***
Ask Brian... about the four horses he dumped out in Colorado at the foreclosed house owned by his wife. They were near death's door before "Pete" came in and started feeding them. Pete apparently lives in the basement of the house. One is a gelding that is still in very poor shape that has a huge gash down his leg that was never properly cared for and has filled in with vast amounts of proud flesh. Another is a pregnant mare that Heidi claims she never knew was even bred.... or to whom.
Ask about the various horses that actually DIED in Colorado. I know of at least FOUR!!! One was a grey stallion she let become emaciated and die (her room mate at the time actually moved out because of this) along with several others that died .... unfortunately, they moved out of state and charges where dropped.
Heidi also stole a horse while litigation was pending... and had an order put into AHA that she does not try to falsely register said horse. He was not supposed to be removed from the property he was originally at...but is now supposedly in VA.
*****
I have also come into knowledge that Heidi tried to get the brand inspector to give an inspection to the horses involved in this litigation - for which he refused.
Quote from: KBCraig on March 27, 2009, 05:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on March 27, 2009, 05:57 AM NHFT
You do realize that animal rights activists are being targeted by the same government you abhor has "economic terrorists"?
That's an apt description of them. Just because they're enemies of the government, doesn't mean they're my allies. I don't support the government attacking them, either, but in this case they're using the power of the government to steal other people's property.
Sounds like "economic terrorism" to me.
Who is the "they" you are referring to in "this case"?
Quote from: Me on March 29, 2009, 10:57 AM NHFT
MIT eh...well now I can understand the attitude....not smart enough to go big time so you have a permanent chip on your shoulder. And a convenient knack for nipple twisting anything anyone has to say.
And the word is "meet", not meat. Your MIT education should have taken care of your vocabulary.....I see not....
So lets see, in keeping with your train of thought. These horses are considered property, so they are also considered evidence. So you tell me when the last time someone went haphazardly posting evidence photos on the net, prior to a court date?
As for video, not only did Wonder Boy Brian post video, but some of his "buds" showing the shelters being built. Because building the shelters wasn't an admission to not having ENOUGH shelters, yes? And then the newspaper posted video of three young horses - and the guy who has them has the balls to let everyone know that he does. If it was me, they wouldn't have a clue where those horses were at until they (unfortunately) got sent back to the Travis'.
So, smart ass, there is your video. Pictures, I'm sure, will be provided at court. If you're so worried about it, show up.
I never defended Heidi - again, because apparently you have comprehension problems, when someone said that she was being melodramatic and screaming, I said I could see how any HUMAN would respond that way, during a time of stress.
And I DID address every single one of your twisted, mindless questions. But since I'm fighting with someone who has a sub par social intelligence level, I could see how you'd have problems comprehending the written word. Book smarts do not equal social smarts - which is why at least 3/4 of you are members here.
Gee, I'm so sorry I made an error with a word. It does happen every once in a while. I did your favorite thing in the world to do, and used the EDIT button to fix it. Really though ... that is all you have? So basically the answer that you come up with is to try and assault me and insult me in any way you see fit ... again? Evidently you really hate being called out on your own hypocrisy.
Since you seem to be so focused on education, what exactly do you mean by "not smart enough to go big time" are you trying to say that MIT is not a good school? If you are insulting MIT I guess it shows just how pathetic and miserable you are. Should we start a thread now about who has a better education, makes more money, and who knows bigger/better people based on that point system previously mentioned!? You know nothing about me but you continue to attempt to insult me. I take solace knowing that you wouldnt say any of this to me in daily life but you have a big mouth on the forums. You are a perfect example of ignorance.
Oh I like that you admit that the horses are property - so you must agree that they were STOLEN from the owners yes?
And the video that was taken during the stealing doesnt really count for much other than showing thugs breaking the law in order to uphold/serve the "law." I and everyone else have been asking for proof of these "Level 1" horses. The horses on the news were NOT anywhere near "Level 1."
As for haphazardly posting things, you seem have no problem with the three horses being shown on TV aren't those evidence? You seem to say a lot of things that could be considered evidence in part of an "ongoing investigation" but you still say whatever comes to your pea brain and then fall on that crutch when you are called out on what you say. Funny that you have yet to PROVE any of what you say is true. You just spew a bunch more of your verbal diarrhea and insult whoever you can. You post for someone else and mention that horses were dead yet you again have NO PROOF of what you claim. Please Amanda - provide some so we can all see how wrong we are. Seriously. Post proof.
Until then, and pardon my "french"; Kindly have a nice tall glass of SHUT THE FUCK UP. Thanks!
on a personal note. I cant stand people like you. I wont engage you by insulting you or giving you what you want for a reaction. I'm sure you will fall back on spewing lies, twisting truth, being angry that i captured your words before you edited them away, and attempting to insult everyone and their education.
Perhaps Brian or Heidi could address these?
Information sent to me yesterday. Author wants to remain anonymous.
*****
* She continually took short cuts to save time money. The grain got less and less and the hay quality went down. The round bales she bought were moldy. Pens and fencing were never adequate fixed, just tied up with bale twine.
* Junk and farm equipment laying around everywhere, in places where horses were turned out, fencing laying on the ground, horses constantly getting hurt.
* The horses were over crowded, and fighting because there were too many and since she started free feeding them round bales there was constant fighting over food, more injuries. With horses, there is a pecking order...the ones at the bottom of that order were underweight because they couldn't get enough to eat.
* Heidi knowingly sold her friend a violent mare and lied about her origin stating she bought her off some farmer and tried to rehabilitate her. All along this mare was a horse Heidi bred and this horse severely injured the girl that bought her.
* Heidi constantly changed feed regimens. One mare that came in for breading was a colic prone mare that needed very specific care and Heidi was aware of that. But she chose to ignore what the owner asked of her stating that it was nonsense and the mare was getting way too much food, so she did what she felt was best in here mind. Unfortunately that mare severely colic and died.
* Heidi then acquired a gray stallion, he was very high maintenance as most stallions are. I watched this stallion go from a healthy robust weight when he arrived at the farm, to severely underweight within a very short amount of time.
Heidi still has 4 horses in Colorado, one of which is a pregnant mare that she didn't know was pregnant and doesn't know who the sire is. She apparently left these 4 horses at her farm in Colorado, under the care of someone living in her house. One young gelding has a horrendous leg injury that doesn't look properly cared for. I do question whether these 4 horses or any of the horses she took to New Hampshire have the proper paperwork.
Heidi is fully aware of the laws regarding health certificates and Coggins tests. In Colorado there are also branding laws, which state all horses must be brand inspected as proof of ownership. The law also states that you are not allowed to transport a horse over 75 miles without a travel card. I'm told that she is planning to transport these 4 horses to NH at some point. I would be very surprised if she could produce coggins, health certificates and brand inspections for these or any of her horses that she did already move.
One filly was under litigation and Heidi was legally denied a brand inspection on her or her dam, so she knowingly transported them against the court order.
I hear an axe being ground.
Quote from: Me on March 28, 2009, 01:38 PM NHFT
If they had nothing to hide, then why didn't they just let the guy come on the property
Seriously?? I'll be right over to search your personal belongings. You've got nothing to hide right?
Quote from: Me on March 30, 2009, 03:25 PM NHFT
Perhaps Brian or Heidi could address these?
Information sent to me yesterday. Author wants to remain anonymous.
*****
* She continually took short cuts to save time money. The grain got less and less and the hay quality went down. The round bales she bought were moldy. Pens and fencing were never adequate fixed, just tied up with bale twine.
* Junk and farm equipment laying around everywhere, in places where horses were turned out, fencing laying on the ground, horses constantly getting hurt.
* The horses were over crowded, and fighting because there were too many and since she started free feeding them round bales there was constant fighting over food, more injuries. With horses, there is a pecking order...the ones at the bottom of that order were underweight because they couldn't get enough to eat.
* Heidi knowingly sold her friend a violent mare and lied about her origin stating she bought her off some farmer and tried to rehabilitate her. All along this mare was a horse Heidi bred and this horse severely injured the girl that bought her.
* Heidi constantly changed feed regimens. One mare that came in for breading was a colic prone mare that needed very specific care and Heidi was aware of that. But she chose to ignore what the owner asked of her stating that it was nonsense and the mare was getting way too much food, so she did what she felt was best in here mind. Unfortunately that mare severely colic and died.
* Heidi then acquired a gray stallion, he was very high maintenance as most stallions are. I watched this stallion go from a healthy robust weight when he arrived at the farm, to severely underweight within a very short amount of time.
Heidi still has 4 horses in Colorado, one of which is a pregnant mare that she didn't know was pregnant and doesn't know who the sire is. She apparently left these 4 horses at her farm in Colorado, under the care of someone living in her house. One young gelding has a horrendous leg injury that doesn't look properly cared for. I do question whether these 4 horses or any of the horses she took to New Hampshire have the proper paperwork.
Heidi is fully aware of the laws regarding health certificates and Coggins tests. In Colorado there are also branding laws, which state all horses must be brand inspected as proof of ownership. The law also states that you are not allowed to transport a horse over 75 miles without a travel card. I'm told that she is planning to transport these 4 horses to NH at some point. I would be very surprised if she could produce coggins, health certificates and brand inspections for these or any of her horses that she did already move.
One filly was under litigation and Heidi was legally denied a brand inspection on her or her dam, so she knowingly transported them against the court order.
perhaps you missed my entire post Amanda ...
to recap:
You seem to say a lot of things that could be considered evidence in part of an "ongoing investigation" but you still say whatever comes to your pea brain and then fall on that crutch when you are called out on what you say.
Funny that you have yet to PROVE any of what you say is true. You just spew a bunch more of your verbal diarrhea and insult whoever you can. You post for someone else and mention that horses were dead yet you again have NO PROOF of what you claim. Please Amanda - provide some so we can all see how wrong we are. Seriously. Post proof.Until then, and pardon my "french"; Kindly have a nice tall glass of SHUT THE FUCK UP. Thanks!
Where is your proof? Where is your proof? Where is your proof? Where is your proof? Where is your proof? Where is your proof? Where is your proof? Where is your proof? Where is your proof? Where is your proof? Where is your proof? Where is your proof? Where is your proof? Where is your proof? Where is your proof?
Quote from: Me on March 30, 2009, 03:25 PM NHFT
Information sent to me yesterday. Author wants to remain anonymous.
Without a reliable source, it doesn't matter how scurrilous the charges: it's as meaningless as the rest of the horse forum gossip.
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/ (http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/)
Photo and video proof will be provided in court.
If you doubt the authenticity of it, ask Brian and Heidi about the points in the information provided.
Quote from: Me on March 30, 2009, 03:25 PM NHFT
The law also states that you are not allowed to transport a horse over 75 miles without a travel card.
And there I was thinking that horses were designed to transport you over 75 miles.
Silly me.
Thank goodness there's a law to explain to me that the purposes of horses does not include transportation.
Quote from: Zero on March 28, 2009, 12:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: J Leblanc on March 28, 2009, 08:51 AM NHFT
FACT.. they were at a level 1 when they were pick up [sic]...
(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/5513/score1yrlgl.jpg)
Really? If I understand correctly, this is what level 1 looks like. I haven't seen anything like this in the news accounts. I've been to the Travis' place and not seen anything like this. Why haven't those of us following the story been blasted by such disturbing images? I think Joe Leblanc's FACTS are sometimes lies.
Jonathan Ray
+1
The horses which are currently at their property look fine. I guess they accidentally forgot to feed half the livestock while feeding the other half twice?
Way Out West, we have *lots* of horses. Generally, if someone reports a horse owner to the local Animal Control, the owner gets a visit and treatment is discussed, if warranted. Then the owner is allowed a certain period to correct any problems. If the problems persist, then the animals are taken, but it usually takes quite a bit of time, and fairly blatant neglect. Isn't there some form of due process in these cases in NH? From what I've read and seen in the pictures/video of this incident, no escalation occurred, it's as if the Travises were declared guilty beforehand on the word of a single vet. As I understand it, the very vet that Heidi(?) hired to treat an injury. Is this normal practice for all NH vets? The (very competent) vets that I know and work with would, if they saw and recognized a problem at a client's location, address the problem with the owner(s) before bringing in any gov't agencies, and then only if there were no other means of redress...
Horses, much like people, go through periods of thick and thin (generally level 3-7 on that nifty Hencke scale). Smells kinda hinky to me. And I knows my hinky. I'm covered in hinky every working day.
Stop using the same picture to score horses.After researching several scoring sites, the horse I see here is a score of 0 .. After reading these sites I am even more convinced the vet score of a 1 is accurate..Still some people wil only believe what they want to believe Take the dame blinders off
Quote from: J Leblanc on March 31, 2009, 06:13 AM NHFT
Stop using the same picture to score horses.After researching several scoring sites, the horse I see here is a score of 0 .. After reading these sites I am even more convinced the vet score of a 1 is accurate..Still some people wil only believe what they want to believe Take the dame blinders off
wasnt it you and amanda that told us all to use the scale and gave the links out? Now you are complaining that we did? really?! REALLY!?!?!?!
Come on!!! Get real! I'm sorry but you can not attempt to tell me that the horses you have, that were taken from the Travis' are and/or were "level one" or anywhere near it...
I did not direct anyone to any links. must have been some one else .. search for your self and see what you find
Quote from: J Leblanc on March 31, 2009, 06:13 AM NHFT
After reading these sites I am even more convinced the vet score of a 1 is accurate..
How do you judge the accuracy of scoring based on what you
read? How about you judge it based on, oh, I don't know,
seeing the damn horses?Oh, that's right, you haven't, and can't. Therefore you'll take horse forum speculation as if it's the gospel.
those of us who would take Brian's side without seeing the horses in question are wrong, but those who take the government's side on the same are also wrong. The difference is that Brian did not steal horses from the government, but the government stole horses from them.
I read the same article, and I did not automatically take the opinion of the vet to conclude that it's okay for someone to steal another person's property. I, somehow, don't think the word of one person can negate the non-aggression principle. Should we start doing this, then it's a slippery slope. If you care about animals, then you will be better served continuing the arduous task of applying the principles to things that you formerly would have been very statist on.
If they can take your horses, they can take your cats, your dogs, your cows, your pet iguana, your children, your home, your spouse, your life.
Quote from: AntonLee on March 31, 2009, 04:58 PM NHFT
those of us who would take Brian's side without seeing the horses in question are wrong, but those who take the government's side on the same are also wrong. The difference is that Brian did not steal horses from the government, but the government stole horses from them.
I read the same article, and I did not automatically take the opinion of the vet to conclude that it's okay for someone to steal another person's property. I, somehow, don't think the word of one person can negate the non-aggression principle. Should we start doing this, then it's a slippery slope. If you care about animals, then you will be better served continuing the arduous task of applying the principles to things that you formerly would have been very statist on.
If they can take your horses, they can take your cats, your dogs, your cows, your pet iguana, your children, your home, your spouse, your life.
:clap:
Quote from: AntonLee on March 31, 2009, 04:58 PM NHFT
those of us who would take Brian's side without seeing the horses in question are wrong, but those who take the government's side on the same are also wrong. The difference is that Brian did not steal horses from the government, but the government stole horses from them.
I read the same article, and I did not automatically take the opinion of the vet to conclude that it's okay for someone to steal another person's property. I, somehow, don't think the word of one person can negate the non-aggression principle. Should we start doing this, then it's a slippery slope. If you care about animals, then you will be better served continuing the arduous task of applying the principles to things that you formerly would have been very statist on.
If they can take your horses, they can take your cats, your dogs, your cows, your pet iguana, your children, your home, your spouse, your life.
Indeed. The comments in this thread debating the health of the horses miss the point entirely: Even if the horses are unhealthy, this doesn't give the State, or anyone else, the (moral) authority to take the horses away from Brian and Heidi.
By debating this point, people are tacitly accepting what Steve Sprowl and his ilk do—the debate becomes whether or not he was factually right in this particular situation, not whether or not he was
morally right to begin with.
And back to the Libertarian chestnut.....who is the boss of you?
I put together a 93days.com-style website for this at http://12horses.us
Let me know if you have any suggestions for it. Thanks.
Once again - no one has any PROOF
Hey Joe Leblanc a few questions maybe you will answer here?
- Were you one of the people that took the horses from the farm that day? More specifically did you take horses at the direction of Sprowl and his gang of thieves, load them into your trailer, and drive off with them?
- Were you one of the people who illegally covered your license plates on your vehicles?
- Did you take pictures or video of the horses when you came into possession of them?
- You mentioned worms. so, A) Do you have the medical documentation to back that up? B) Do you have any evidence at all of that accusation?
- Would you allow some neutral members of the forum to come and take a look at the horses and maybe take some pictures?
I'm sure i could come up with some more questions but I am really tired at the moment.
For one , my name is Joe ,not John. As far as the gang of thieves comment I will chalk that up to be an asshole way to put it. Yes ,I was there that morning to legally remove the horses that I was directed to by the Candia police per the three vets direction..When I was approached with the camera I looked right at it .I was not ashamed nor do I believe anyone else was.If people were hanging there head it was from the snow and cold.I for one put animals above people, people have choices, animals have none. My plates were not covered and I also had my Rockin Horse Ranch jacket on.From what I understand, Brain Knew who I was. And yes , the two fillies were put on my trailer..Actually we had to lift them because they were to weak to get on by walking up the ramp.....Any pictures that I have would require the permission of candia pd for me to release....AS far as the worms, that easy, several people saw them in the piles of crap ,including one of your own..Like I said before ,a free stater takes care of these horse 4 to 5 days a week....As far as allowing your members to see these horses,if candia pd gives you permission,I would love to show these horses..But don't call me before candia does, you will not like what I say to you ..And I will make the appointment to fit my day, not yours.I want everyone to understand one thing,I offered to take these horses because I am set up for babies I have two of my own that are a little older than these two,.I have the proper feed and exp. to get these horse back to good health I am here for tha animals and do what I can.The laws are what they are right now..I know the free staters are for less gov. which some things I agree , but when it comes to animal rights, I will always take their side.And I hope the laws get stricter and the penalties get harsher.These people that some of you are trying to protect need to realise that they screwed up.They also will have there day in court..My suggestion is to make a deal if they can and move on..They may get some of their points out there,but I don't think they will win...............The entire truth will come out soon Part three is next As far as these horses future,If the courts or the police tell me to give them back to Brain and his wife, I will do what I am told,But understand one thing , the NH horse community is pretty tight and like it or not you will be watched,trust is earned with us and hard to repair when damaged it. maybe you don't care but we come in handy when you need us
Joe, You seem like a nice enough Guy, just trying to do what's right and I thank you for any and all the care you've given the Horses. I'm a big time Animal Lover and I can't stand the thought of any Animal Abuse by Anyone.
You mentioned that Steve Sprowl came on your land, made some "suggestions" (backed by the point of the gun) and you obliged. No Big Deal to you. But for those who truly understand Aggression at it's Root, it's absolutely unacceptable to have anyone, Uninvited, tell us what we can and can't do with our Lives/Property (if you don't own 100% of life, then who does? The Government?)
The Super Majority of Americans are "educated" (indoctrinated/brainwashed) by the State (The Government). It's Appalling. And I think in the rare cases where there is animal abuse (and I'm not saying there is one way or the other), that Everyone would be much better off if the Government had nothing to do with it.
And if we had a truly Free Society, I think there would be a lot more resources available for those who did need some type of help, aid, in any area, because everyone would have a lot more money (what would we do without the Dishonest Ones who inflate our money supply, rob us and give it all away)? I'll tell you, we'd all have Happier Richer Freeer Lives. It would be a whole new world.
Remember Joe, The Government (the Thugs with the Guns) do an Excellent job in only a few areas: destroying wealth, destroying minds, creating Irresponsibility and destroying lives, to benefit themselves. You are free Obey the Thugs, but I want nothing to do with them.
Quotethe NH horse community is pretty tight and like it or not you will be watched,trust is earned with us and hard to repair when damaged it. maybe you don't care but we come in handy when you need us
ah yes, if you defy the rules of the NH horse community, you will be punished. . . you will be jailed. . . you will be stolen from. . . .and you will die. . . all hail the NH horse community.
what a crock, get over yourself. You think you're high and mighty but all you really are is a thief.
Quote from: AntonLee on April 01, 2009, 04:43 AM NHFT
Quotethe NH horse community is pretty tight and like it or not you will be watched,trust is earned with us and hard to repair when damaged it. maybe you don't care but we come in handy when you need us
ah yes, if you defy the rules of the NH horse community, you will be punished. . . you will be jailed. . . you will be stolen from. . . .and you will die. . . all hail the NH horse community.
what a crock, get over yourself. You think you're high and mighty but all you really are is a thief.
Amen
Hey Joe, when you take someone's property without their permission it's called theft. Your intent for the property after you steal it, your potential profit from theft of the property once you've stolen it, and the fact that a couple of hundred assholes decided that you could 'legally' steal it don't make it any less a theft.
Quote from: J Leblanc on March 31, 2009, 11:26 PM NHFT
I am here for tha animals and do what I can.The laws are what they are right now..I know the free staters are for less gov. which some things I agree , but when it comes to animal rights, I will always take their side.And I hope the laws get stricter and the penalties get harsher.
Be careful what you wish for. The goal of the "Animal Rights" movement is NO use of animals by people. They believe that animals are not put on this earth for us to use or enjoy, and that domestication is an abomination. If they get their way you won't have any horses and neither will anyone else.
Quote from a leader in the AR movement, PETA founder and president Ingrid Newkirk:
"There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about — what's this with all these reforms — you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation."
- Ingrid Newkirk, "Animal Rights 2002? convention (June 30, 2002)
But maybe when you said "animal rights" what you really meant was "animal welfare?" There is a difference, and it's important to recognize it.
I can't take a side in this issue, I haven't seen the horses, I've never met the Travises, all I know is what I've read and what I've seen in the videos. I can't see anything about the horses' care or condition in those videos, but there's no shortage of evidence of Candia law enforcement's abuse of power, abuse of the law they're hired to uphold.
Quote from: J Leblanc on March 31, 2009, 11:26 PM NHFT
And yes , the two fillies were put on my trailer..Actually we had to lift them because they were to weak to get on by walking up the ramp.....
At their age, _ should_ they have been able to walk up a ramp with that angle of inclination? How old are they?
Quote from: J Leblanc on March 31, 2009, 11:26 PM NHFTAS far as the worms, that easy, several people saw them in the piles of crap ,including one of your own..
And was it one worm, a thousand, a million? What was the concentration?
It sounds like you had concerns about the horses even before the SPCA/police raid. Did you say anything to Brian or Heidi?
Quote from: AntonLee on March 31, 2009, 04:58 PM NHFT
those of us who would take Brian's side without seeing the horses in question are wrong....
why wouldn't I trust the word of my friend over the thugs?
Quote from: AntonLee on March 31, 2009, 04:58 PM NHFT
those of us who would take Brian's side without seeing the horses in question are wrong,
I don't think so. First off, he (or actually Heidi) is innocent until proven guilty. Second, since the government _is_ force, they're always wrong, until proven right. Third, there are inconsistencies in the stories of the government people or things that just don't make sense. For example, why are they simultaneously claiming Heidi has committed mass cruelty to animals AND are trying to return the horses to her? That strikes me as contradictory. Can anyone reconcile those two facts?
QuoteThe goal of the "Animal Rights" movement is NO use of animals by people.
The "Animal Rights" movement like the "Liberty" movement is very diverse and very broad.
Isn't that a bit of a generalization?
Quote from: BillKauffman on April 01, 2009, 09:50 AM NHFT
QuoteThe goal of the "Animal Rights" movement is NO use of animals by people.
The "Animal Rights" movement like the "Liberty" movement is very diverse and very broad.
Isn't that a bit of a generalization?
Not if you read what the founders of the movement say. Begin with Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation." I don't see the AR movement as being diverse and broad, but I often see some confusion about the difference between "animal rights" and "animal welfare."
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 01, 2009, 08:51 AM NHFT
Quote from: AntonLee on March 31, 2009, 04:58 PM NHFT
those of us who would take Brian's side without seeing the horses in question are wrong....
why wouldn't I trust the word of my friend over the thugs?
frankly, I was trying to put aside the fact that many of us on here have not seen the horses, so the inevitable "you've not seen them. . .well YOU haven't seen them. . . but YOU haven't seen them either" argument could be used over and over and over and over.
I was hoping someone would see that the point of what I wrote wasn't that the horses were or were not abused, but the simple fact that stealing someone's property, no matter what condition it is AND what condition you think it should be in, is wrong.
I've never met Brian or any of his family, but I'm not at all ashamed to say that the theft of his property and the fact he was searched without permission is downright dastardly and shameful.
I think this point is Important to Keep in Mind:
The Government Papers on this are Still "Sealed" as far as I know. One would think if someone was operating 100% Honestly and in the Light of Day, in the Right, that they would have Nothing to Hide and everything to Show/Share what they have found. Not the Case at all here, what we Get is SECRECY from the Government (for Our protection? No rather for The Thugs Protection).
The Government was "supposed to" Serve & Protect the People (yeah right!). Obviously, it's the other way around in Reality. So why the Secrecy? What are they hiding? Very SHADY way to Act if you ask me.
How can Anyone trust those who are not 100% Upfront, Open & Honest? (except for those who are so Brainwashed/Indoctrinated by their Government Education that they will let the Thugs with Guns do anything they want because they don't know their rights and they are scared). Obey, Obey and Obey and this is what many consider Freedom? Not me.
There's a better way and it doesn't Involve Thugs sticking Guns in your face, for "Your" protection.
Quote from: J Leblanc on March 31, 2009, 11:26 PM NHFT
Any pictures that I have would require the permission of candia pd for me to release....
Why do you need
permission from the police to post a picture?
Quote from: J Leblanc on March 31, 2009, 11:26 PM NHFT
As far as allowing your members to see these horses,if candia pd gives you permission,I would love to show these horses..But don't call me before candia does, you will not like what I say to you ..And I will make the appointment to fit my day, not yours.
Why do you need
permission from the police to have people over to your house? I don't need permission from the Candia police department to do anything. In case that was unclear I'll restate it. There is no action in this world that I could take which would require permission from Candia PD nor do I recognize their authority to issue permission to me (or you for that matter).
Quote from: J Leblanc on March 31, 2009, 11:26 PM NHFT
the NH horse community is pretty tight and like it or not you will be watched,trust is earned with us and hard to repair when damaged it. maybe you don't care but we come in handy when you need us
The NH
freedom community is pretty tight and like it or not you will be watched, trust is earned with us and hard to repair when damaged. Maybe you don't care but we come in handy when you need us.
Well said.
Quote from: BillKauffman on April 01, 2009, 09:50 AM NHFT
The "Animal Rights" movement like the "Liberty" movement is very diverse and very broad.
The "Animal Rights" movement is broad only in the sense that there are a lot of animal lovers who have been duped into believing that they are in favor of "Animal Rights" by fraudulent organizations like the HSUS (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/index.cfm) and PETA (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/), who get most of their funding from donations scammed from these duped people by misleading and false advertising.
As
cyne said, there is a big difference between "Animal Rights" and "Animal Welfare" (http://animalscam.com/rights_vs_welfare.cfm).
I'm still waiting for Amanda to post her PROOF. Though it seems as though she took the alternate option which was shutting the fuck up so maybe i shouldnt gripe ;D
Also, sorry for getting the name wrong Joe. I dont see why you would need permission for the PD to let me or anyone else come visit on your farm.
I dont know who the "one of your own" person is nor have they come forward here unless i missed it?
You know what though ... I'd like to come and take a look at the horses personally just to satisfy my own curiousness about this whole thing. I think it is pretty clear that different people have different stands on this issue but I have been saying from the beginning that pictures/video of the horses would put almost everything if not all to rest.
Did you or anyone you know of take pictures of the horses the same day that they were seized? I ask for a few reasons but mainly because I seem to see an emerging pattern of "cant post pictures because ___________________________" and the blank is usually filled in with permission from PD, ongoing investigation, confidential, or some other blah blah blah BS excuse which I don't really buy. Personally I dont see why you would need permission to post pictures on the internet. Especially given that they were on the news and broadcast to the world. I can also honestly say that if the horses really were abused in a horrible way that i would be in favor of the animals being taken from their abusive owner(s) but it would have to be ABUSE - beating, fighting, torturing, or something along those lines. I rescued my dog from a neglectful family who didnt feed him or take care of him at all, he was skin and bones and scared of everything and now he is the best dog i have ever owned. I think the people who i got him from are rather horrible people and i hope they never own another animal again. I think Michael Vick belongs in prison for what he did. I don't know the Travis' and i wont jump on their side 100% on every topic at hand, but they just dont seem like people who abuse or neglect their animals maybe im wrong but whatever. I guess that is one of many reasons why I personally just have an urge to know what the real story is etc.
Sealed envelopes dont help and neither does that fact that Sprowl is a dickhead. Sorry if he is like your buddy or something. I dont think he is because you mentioned he has given you "suggestions" as well. I personally dont see them as suggestions do you? If you hadnt followed them would he have seized your horses?
You seem like a decent guy and much like me someone who doesnt put up with bullshit to be blunt. Either way - I have a pretty busy schedule but if you were willing maybe myself and another person could come and visit. I could give you my personal guarantee (if that means anything to you) that we wont be there to harass you or give you a ridiculous amount of flak for having the horses on your property, or anything like that.
Quote from: AntonLee on April 01, 2009, 04:43 AM NHFT
Quotethe NH horse community is pretty tight and like it or not you will be watched,trust is earned with us and hard to repair when damaged it. maybe you don't care but we come in handy when you need us
ah yes, if you defy the rules of the NH horse community, you will be punished. . . you will be jailed. . . you will be stolen from. . . .and you will die. . . all hail the NH horse community.
what a crock, get over yourself. You think you're high and mighty but all you really are is a thief.
amen brotha!
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 01, 2009, 09:56 PM NHFT
As far as the police go,its a job. .They don't make the laws ,the NH house does...They work with the laws that they are given and at the top of this heap is the state reps..Who were elected by majority in there district..But I am sure all of you know this So if you want to bitch ,, then start with them..
There is a law which requires people to get permission from the police department to visit your house? Any chance you could tell us which one that is? I'll give you head start.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/indexes/
Quote from: BillKauffman on April 01, 2009, 09:50 AM NHFT
QuoteThe goal of the "Animal Rights" movement is NO use of animals by people.
The "Animal Rights" movement like the "Liberty" movement is very diverse and very broad.
Isn't that a bit of a generalization?
I was just going to write the same thing. I consider myself an animal lover and look forward to the day where we honor and respect life, even if we take an animals life, while they are here, I wish they were treated with love and compassion. I do so admire the way the native americans respected and treated life.
I know a woman who is a vegan and works with animal rescue, she despises PETA. I have friends who are involved in the animal rights movement, they are considered terrorists by the gov, and harassed for their beliefs.
What has gone on here is sickening at the very least. Why I was just sitting at the table across from Brian at the Liberty Forum's Saturday night dinner and joking about how stupid this situation was, I said they should fine the horses for not staying in their shelter, and we all chuckled, and 48 hours later he is being attacked and stolen from. Shame on those who participated! As good neighbors, lend a hand, show some support, donate time and money to help. Why stealing and creating severe financial damage to a family is the way to go I will never understand.
Sometimes I get so irritated I just think, people you get what you deserve, thats the only "good" part of the horrible future that may be upon the horizon, a big fat I TOLD YOU SO!!! You didn't like freedom anyway did you? Of course I don't want that but sometimes it helps dealing with the Nanny State lovers.
This post is directed to Leeninja.I will send you my cell phone number to discuss the option of a visit through the email of this site..I will bounce this off the chief to see what he thinks .but if I think for one second that you are one of these assholes that is just trying to start shit for there own ego kick, then the discussion will be over.I ,unlike allot of you , have respect for the chief [Mike].Believe it or not , he has been very good about this case . He has taken allot of shit and still he has been professional about it. I would have told many to kiss my ass.I make no garrantee's to the out come .You can call my cell between 8am and 5 pm tomorrow.We will see what happens..
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 01, 2009, 10:32 PM NHFT
This post is directed to Leeninja.I will send you my cell phone number to discuss the option of a visit through the email of this site..I will bounce this off the chief to see what he thinks .but if I think for one second that you are one of these assholes that is just trying to start shit for there own ego kick, then the discussion will be over.I ,unlike allot of you , have respect for the chief [Mike].Believe it or not , he has been very good about this case . He has taken allot of shit and still he has been professional about it. I would have told many to kiss my ass.I make no garrantee's to the out come .You can call my cell between 8am and 5 pm tomorrow.We will see what happens..
What goes around comes around. May justice come to you.
QuoteI consider myself an animal lover and look forward to the day where we honor and respect life, even if we take an animals life, while they are here, I wish they were treated with love and compassion.
This reflects a concern for animal welfare, nothing to do with the animal rights agenda.
QuoteI know a woman who is a vegan and works with animal rescue, she despises PETA.
PETA kills most of the animals they get their hands on. Some statistics in this blog post by Nathan Winograd:
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?page_id=166 (http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?page_id=166)
QuoteI have friends who are involved in the animal rights movement, they are considered terrorists by the gov, and harassed for their beliefs.
There's good reason to consider AR activists terrorists. They're proud of the damage they do. These are not "kind" people. http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/animalrightsquote.htm#Crimin (http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/animalrightsquote.htm#Crimin)
My friends in the "animal rights" movement have caused no damage. Unless you consider discussions, creating art, building websites, and writing books damage, I personally don't. Real damage has a real victim.
Quote from: lastlady on April 01, 2009, 10:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on April 01, 2009, 09:50 AM NHFT
QuoteThe goal of the "Animal Rights" movement is NO use of animals by people.
The "Animal Rights" movement like the "Liberty" movement is very diverse and very broad.
Isn't that a bit of a generalization?
I was just going to write the same thing. I consider myself an animal lover and look forward to the day where we honor and respect life, even if we take an animals life, while they are here, I wish they were treated with love and compassion. I do so admire the way the native americans respected and treated life.
I know a woman who is a vegan and works with animal rescue, she despises PETA. I have friends who are involved in the animal rights movement, they are considered terrorists by the gov, and harassed for their beliefs.
Thanks!
I think we all need to lighten up a little bit and listen to some music.
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 01, 2009, 09:56 PM NHFT
I see an earlier post I put up is now missing..So much for an open forum.
What did this earlier post say?
I've been on this forum since shortly after it was founded several years ago, and I can assure you that none of the administrators are prone to deleting posts. Even horribly personally insulting posts are allowed to stand.
Perhaps you wrote something but didn't correctly hit the "Post" button, or perhaps the Innernetz Gremlinz ate it.
Here is a complete list of your posts (8 of them, at the moment):
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2815;sa=showPosts
Post upon request of Anonymous:
***************
(Brian states) -
Hoo, boy! Another round. I was trying to stay out, but they keep pulling me back IN! Long post. Sorry.Much of the info from this "anonymous" poster is, like much of the testimony on this thread: part hearsay with bias, part observation without context, part ignorance, and some truth.Heidi put her farm up for sale last year and moved all of her horses to New Hampshire. They are all here, except for the 12 that were stolen by the government. In Colorado, she was involved in a horse shelter near her farm, helping them with their rescue horses. Heidi and the rescue moved horses back and forth between their two farms as conditions and training regimen required. Late last year, after Heidi moved her horses from Colorado, the person who ran the rescue died suddenly and unexpectedly from a heart attack at age 45. The horse rescue is in the process of shutting down, and Heidi has offered her barn to temporarily house some rescued horses. She even offset part of the rent of one of her tenants, Pete, as long as he helped the rescue however they needed him. Pete is essentially working for the rescue, with Heidi paying the bill by lowering his rent.
Because of market conditions, the unique nature of Heidi's farm, and the fact that the tenants trashed the place, the house has not sold and the bank foreclosed on it. Any people or horses still on the farm are squatting on the bank's property; it's out of Heidi's control.
[Response]
So, those 4 horses (not sure of proper name spellings), Minerva (who looks a lot like the grey mare from Heidi's wedding photos to Brian 4 years ago), Prince (a chestnut gelding with a bad foot deformation), Kiki (a bay mare in foal to the unknown sire, according to Pete, Heidi thought a paint stallion got him with her some how. She had tried to breed her before but didn't think she took. So Heidi tried to breed a mare that wasn't hers?), and Storm (a young bay gelding with a horrendous leg injury. Heidi told Pete to just leave it alone.) Pete tells a very different version of Brian's story, go out and ask him, I did...oh, and I I took pictures too. If those are not Heidi's horses, then why did she ask Pete to find a trailer and bring them out to NH? If those are not Heidi's horses, just "squatting", then we should call the authorities and get them removed and adopted out. That mare is due in about a month and I highly doubt she's had proper nutrition, wormings or vaccinations. The gelding's leg needs serious attention, and they all need their feet trimmed badly. By the way, per Officer Massey of Douglas County Sheriffs office, Colorado, Pete gave a statement that the horses belong to Heidi Fredrick and under her direction. Officer Massey said she has been called to investigate Heidi's farm in Colorado 34 times!
I'll let Pete know he's squatting on bank owned property that he's paying Heidi to live on.
(Brian's statement) -
My guess is that the rescue is using the barn to house the worst cases so they can place the better horses. They can't easily get rid of horses that are suffering because of the recent ban on slaughterhouses in this country. Thanks again to the "animal lovers" for that one. The only way I have found to put down a horse is to have a guy, whom you have to pay in cash, take your horse to feed to his mountain lions. If you have unwanted horses that are healthy, you can sell them to the "Trippers" in Mexico that take the horses and train their cowboys who use ropes to trip the horses. They use unwanted horses for training because the cattle are too valuable.It's sick and disgusting because the horses live their last days in horrible torture, after which they are sent to the Mexican slaughterhouses for a profit. But guess what? It's perfectly legal. Heidi would never do that, but is now being targeted because her horses fall short of someone else's image.Heidi is not a traditional horse breeder. While most breeders hire trainers and barn managers, Heidi does most of the work, only hiring people to help her with the cleaning and sometimes grooming of the horses. She'd rather put her money into quality food and breeding stock.
[Response]
Has anyone seen what well cared for, well groomed, well fed, well conditioned Arabian show/race horses look like? Here is a link to Arabian farms all over the United States, http://www.arabhorse.com/arabian-horse-farms/continent/usa (http://www.arabhorse.com/arabian-horse-farms/continent/usa) pick one, then look at Heidi's horses. Cut the BS Brian, you know perfectly well the condition of her place in Colorado was atrocious and the horses were far from clean, groomed or well fed. She took short cuts because she's unorganized and couldn't handle it all. She would work a horse one day and not touch it again for a month. She never finishes ANYTHING she starts. She collected so much junk and just left it all laying around. There was so much crap in the barn you could barely walk down the aisle.
(Brian's statement) -
This kind of do-it-yourself attitude is foreign in the horse showing and racing industries, where the people pride themselves on who they can get as a trainer or who they had cocktails with at the last show. Heidi refuses to play that game and is seen as a pariah because of it. This continued at the race track last year, where she hired kids looking for work to help with cleaning and feeding while she spent nights in the tack room so she could feed early and work her horses on the race track before going to work in the morning. How many people ride their own race horses? The track is a political place and run by the old guard. Doing it yourself is not the way it has traditionally been done so they separate you out as a short timer and risk. These people want only tried and known trainers on their grounds. In other words, there is a game to be played or you will be targeted.In spite of this, she has sold some champion horses, and has some great prospects still in her program.
[Response]
How many of those prospects have been injured to the point of not being able to show or race?
(Brian's statement) -
"Anonymous", if it is who I think she is, sued Heidi last year because she says Heidi promised her one of her champion prospects. The judge disagreed, but "anonymous" had no money to pay Heidi back her legal fees or boarding costs so we just left it alone. Just before she sued Heidi, "anonymous" was going through foreclosure and begged Heidi to take her horses off the property so they bank wouldn't get them. She also asked Heidi to help her move her belongings, which she did. Before that, "anonymous" needed hay and feed for the horses at her farm and Heidi brought them to her whenever needed without asking for repayment. Heidi even brought a basket of food to "anonymous"'s house 70 miles up in the mountains, because her fridge was empty. So now "anonymous" is upset that she lost a horse she never owned, and Heidi is, again, being attacked for being unconventional. Sounds like some of the horse people posting on this board. Heidi tries to help, and is thanked by being threatened with the guns of the state.
[Response]
The lawsuit...ah yes, which Heidi brought upon herself. You were not there Brian, and Heidi LIED to you...as she has done many times. Heidi lied in court and as a matter of FACT, the judge did NOT award Heidi victory. There is a court order in place with AHA that will not allow Heidi to register that filly, as it is NOT hers. Anonymous paid for that horse in full; but Heidi decided to keep it after it was born because it was a nice filly. Heidi LIED about the entire agreement, and even though there was proof of an agreement (along with witnesses testifying to the agreement) the judge couldn't determine what was going on since Heidi lied repeatedly in court, so it was left up in the air. Brian, you claim in one statement that the horse never belonged to "anonymous" then in your next statement say that Heidi sued her for board on that horse. Make up your mind... you can't sue someone for board if they don't own the horse. By the way, Anonymous did not ask for Heidi's help in moving... Heidi STOLE property off Anonymous' farm,in her absence. If you recall; even the police showed up as you were stealing the property.
Heidi seems to forget about the many horses Anonymous cared for, for Heidi...without asking for payment. One was an orphaned filly whose dam "died" while under the care of Heidi. Heidi knew the filly would have no chance of surviving at her barn; so she asked "anonymous' to help her out and care for this orphan filly. By the way, the filly thrived wonderfully once she was off Heidi's property! Heidi knows she lied, and that is all that matters at this point. That champion prospect, that is owed to Anonymous, is now likely a stunted, worm infested 2 year old that is not Sweepstakes, registered or trained...basically, worthless. By the way, have you found all those health certificates and coggins papers for all 29 horses you moved? What about their registration papers that you claim to have for all of them?
(Brian's statement) -
The "cruelty investigation" that was mentioned in the paper and on TV was closed to the satisfaction of the investigator with no charges filed and no horses seized. Over a period of months, the animal control officer carefully took a look at the conditions of all of Heidi's horses, talked to witnesses and Heidi's vet, and determined that there was no negligence going on. To use this as evidence that there was a pattern of abuse is correct, except it is not a pattern of Heidi abusing her horses. It is a pattern of abuse against Heidi from the government, using spurned busybodies as their justification.The horses would be much better served if the people who have an ax to grind with Heidi would not use the power of the government to achieve their goals. Now she must spend money defending herself when that money could go into care of the horses.
[Response]
Really Brian...that money would have gone to the horses? If you had the money to use for the horses, why didn't you USE IT FOR THE HORSES in the first place? $20K would have gone a long way in fencing, shelters and feed. You are spinning your wheels with all this government conspiracy talk, hiding behind your views and not addressing the fact that Heidi takes on more than she can handle, the farm is a shithole mess, the horses do not have adequate living conditions, care or feed. What the hell was she even thinking moving 29 horses to NH to a property not properly set up to handle them in the first place? Cramming them into a converted school bus? Poor planning and doing things bass-ackwards, typical Heidi. Having that many horses is a full time job, and needs a full time staff with proper management.
YOU Brian, with all your videos and antics and your "I'm not going to do what you tell me to do" mind set, has only helped put your wife in a terrible legal situation, one that could have easily been settled quietly, without her dirty laundry spilling all over the internet. Easier to comply with state law than having your reputation ruined forever, and in the horse business it is forever. You've made this into a fiasco without any thought or consideration to the damage it would do to your wife. Do you even care? Okay, so you don't agree with the law, that's fine, but when it's all said and done, the out come will be the same. Does Heidi realize if there is a ruling against her AHA will probably ban her for life? This is not about property rights Brian, this is about poor animal husbandry, plain and simple.
***************
Quote from: KBCraig on April 02, 2009, 12:41 AM NHFT
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 01, 2009, 09:56 PM NHFT
I see an earlier post I put up is now missing..So much for an open forum.
What did this earlier post say?
I've been on this forum since shortly after it was founded several years ago, and I can assure you that none of the administrators are prone to deleting posts. Even horribly personally insulting posts are allowed to stand.
Perhaps you wrote something but didn't correctly hit the "Post" button, or perhaps the Innernetz Gremlinz ate it.
Here is a complete list of your posts (8 of them, at the moment):
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2815;sa=showPosts
Perhaps he uses the word: "Asshole' too often.
anonymous telling stories again. Maybe anonymous should come out and show themselves, as most of the people here are out front with their identities.
Move along! No Heroes to see here!
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on April 02, 2009, 05:43 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on April 02, 2009, 12:41 AM NHFT
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 01, 2009, 09:56 PM NHFT
I see an earlier post I put up is now missing..So much for an open forum.
I've been on this forum since shortly after it was founded several years ago, and I can assure you that none of the administrators are prone to deleting posts. Even horribly personally insulting posts are allowed to stand.
Perhaps he uses the word: "Asshole' too often.
We never said this was an open forum.
I sometimes delete posts are posters.
I have some people in this thread on ignore.
I haven't deleted any posts in this thread, but someone else might have.
This isn't the best place to argue about how to raise horses. Sometimes we get sidetracked and call them other people's property. :)
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on April 02, 2009, 05:52 AM NHFT
Move along! No Heroes to see here!
Lloyd "I am no Hero" Danforth
Do you hang out with Sir Charles?
Quote from: George Donnelly on April 01, 2009, 08:59 AM NHFTFor example, why are they simultaneously claiming Heidi has committed mass cruelty to animals AND are trying to return the horses to her? That strikes me as contradictory. Can anyone reconcile those two facts?
they want control and /or money
Quote from: lastlady on April 01, 2009, 11:14 PM NHFT
My friends in the "animal rights" movement have caused no damage. Unless you consider discussions, creating art, building websites, and writing books damage, I personally don't. Real damage has a real victim.
Not all AR activists are terrorists, of course - but the movement does tend to celebrate and encourage such behavior. Yes, real damage has a real victim, but the damage can be done without violence. Even when the AR people do their work through the legislature, the damage and the victims are real. At least when they work at passing bad laws we have a chance to fight them.
If your friends believe it's wrong for humans to own animals, and if they don't want to use animal products, that's their business, their choice. But the AR movement is about trying to get everyone else to conform to their ideas, by whatever means necessary. I'd think that the Free Staters or anyone interested in protecting personal freedoms might object to that kind of thing.
Quote from: cyne on April 02, 2009, 08:47 AM NHFT
Quote from: lastlady on April 01, 2009, 11:14 PM NHFT
My friends in the "animal rights" movement have caused no damage. Unless you consider discussions, creating art, building websites, and writing books damage, I personally don't. Real damage has a real victim.
Not all AR activists are terrorists, of course - but the movement does tend to celebrate and encourage such behavior. Yes, real damage has a real victim, but the damage can be done without violence. Even when the AR people do their work through the legislature, the damage and the victims are real. At least when they work at passing bad laws we have a chance to fight them.
If your friends believe it's wrong for humans to own animals, and if they don't want to use animal products, that's their business, their choice. But the AR movement is about trying to get everyone else to conform to their ideas, by whatever means necessary. I'd think that the Free Staters or anyone interested in protecting personal freedoms might object to that kind of thing.
Although there is truth to some of what you say. In my personal experience I think you are over generalizing. I don't have many friends, the few I have who are really into animals are some of the nicest, most NON JUDGMENTAL people I know.
They own animals, they love animals and they wish to change the current paradigm through voluntary means. Not everyone chooses the path of force.
It's important to remember there are a lot of different types of people not all of them will fit in your box.
Or I have a friend at the NSA that can send over a Sat. to see the horsies. ;D 8)
I hope this all turns out to be a mistake on all sides.
Sometimes peole with "good intentions" can cause a lot of damage. I know this wil work out.
Ed
QuoteAlthough there is truth to some of what you say. In my personal experience I think you are over generalizing. I don't have many friends, the few I have who are really into animals are some of the nicest, most NON JUDGMENTAL people I know.
They own animals, they love animals and they wish to change the current paradigm through voluntary means. Not everyone chooses the path of force.
It's important to remember there are a lot of different types of people not all of them will fit in your box.
It's not my box. First, being "really into animals" has nothing to do with it. Yes, people who are "into animals" are my favorite people. I am so "into animals" that I've earned my living by taking care of them and training them, all my adult life. Animals are both my work and my hobby. I know animals, and I know the politics.
Rod and Patti Strand wrote a book about this issue, _The Hijacking of the Humane Movement_. A review here: http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/hijack.htm (http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/hijack.htm) describes it in a nutshell. The book is out of print but used copies can be found, if you're interested.
If the changes your friends seek are about the welfare of the animals rather than the rights of animals, and if they aren't in agreement with the goals of the AR movement, then by what logic can they be described as being for animal rights? If something doesn't look like a duck, walk like a duck, or quack like a duck, then it probably is not a duck.
Quote from: cyne on April 02, 2009, 01:31 PM NHFT
QuoteAlthough there is truth to some of what you say. In my personal experience I think you are over generalizing. I don't have many friends, the few I have who are really into animals are some of the nicest, most NON JUDGMENTAL people I know.
They own animals, they love animals and they wish to change the current paradigm through voluntary means. Not everyone chooses the path of force.
It's important to remember there are a lot of different types of people not all of them will fit in your box.
It's not my box. First, being "really into animals" has nothing to do with it. Yes, people who are "into animals" are my favorite people. I am so "into animals" that I've earned my living by taking care of them and training them, all my adult life. Animals are both my work and my hobby. I know animals, and I know the politics.
Rod and Patti Strand wrote a book about this issue, _The Hijacking of the Humane Movement_. A review here: http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/hijack.htm (http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/hijack.htm) describes it in a nutshell. The book is out of print but used copies can be found, if you're interested.
If the changes your friends seek are about the welfare of the animals rather than the rights of animals, and if they aren't in agreement with the goals of the AR movement, then by what logic can they be described as being for animal rights? If something doesn't look like a duck, walk like a duck, or quack like a duck, then it probably is not a duck.
You need to re-read my posts.
Quote from: lastlady on April 02, 2009, 04:36 PM NHFT
You need to re-read my posts.
You need to reread the posts about the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. The animal rights movement is not interested in your freedom or your rights. If your friends think that they are in favor of the animal rights agenda, then they are in favor of
no human use of animals for any purpose. There's nothing voluntary about it. They are anti-freedom. They want to impose their own twisted version of morality on everyone else, through legislation or any other means including terrorism.
If your friends are not in favor of the use of legislation (state-imposed violence) nor direct violence against animal ownership and use, then they are
not in favor of the animal rights agenda, they are merely confused.
The ultimate goal of the animal rights movement is to end all animal ownership and use, period. If you can't understand that, then go ahead and identify yourself as an animal rights supporter, but don't be surprised when armed thugs drop by your house to steal or liberate-by-killing all your animals, including your goldfish.
Quotethrough legislation or any other means including terrorism.
Could you define terrorism as you use it in this context?
I see another post of mine has disapeered , at least it was up over night,I also did not here from the member about looking at the horses...If your members want any more info I will be post else where.I have told a few of your members that sensorship is alive and well on this forum ..they are pissed.I guess free speech is only for free staters ..good luck to all ,now we won't listen to you at all..good by J leblanc
Bye!
Quote from: BillKauffman on April 02, 2009, 07:18 PM NHFT
Could you define terrorism as you use it in this context?
The use of targeted violence against persons or property for a political purpose.
Here are lots of specific examples. (http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/arterror.htm)
Quote from: LA TimesThe firebombings of the car and home of two UC Santa Cruz researchers earlier this month reveal an unwelcome reality: Animal rights extremism is getting worse... (Full Story) (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-trull18-2008aug18,0,1625747.story)
Leblanc's posts typify the reasons I don't want to send my child to government school.
Hi, haven't posted anything until NOW, but I did read the horse corner blog or whatever forum some of the horse folks came from. It's like there's one universe where horses have no rights, and another where people don't. There is just no way they can comprehend your opinions without calling you wackos (and, had I posted, MY opinions too!) and believe me, there's heaps o' loathsome statists aplenty out yonder!
Incidentally, you have no rights. Once you understand this, things will become clearer. Now, I expect someone to get all excited and go on about the constitution, and how a Wise God entrusted it to Mankind and the blessed Founders, O Praise Them. But She was just kidding. And I don't think anybody got to J'raxis's point about where you might think those rights came from, if it were not "The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in sheerest samite, delivered Excalibur from the bosom of the waters...etc."
At the heart of the entire dispute, lies philosophy. They will not be argued out of a position they were not argued into. Sometimes we are, though.
Natural Rights are grown in Montana, next to the Dental Floss. This has been my semi-annual rights rant. Thank you for entertaining the thought, if any.
Quote from: mongo on April 02, 2009, 09:36 PM NHFT
Incidentally, you have no rights.
Sure you do! You have the
animal rights that all animals are born with:
- You have the right to eat anything you can catch
- You have the right to try to get away from anything that is trying to eat you
;D
Quote from: mongo on April 02, 2009, 09:36 PM NHFT
Natural Rights are grown in Montana, next to the Dental Floss.
You exploiter of Pygmy Ponies!
The animal rights question is about legal rights, not natural rights. No animals, be they horses, pygmy ponies, toads, raccoons, or mosquitos have any legal rights. This is because animals can't read, and they can't understand the laws of man. There is no sense in arresting a duck for jaywalking. Animals are simply beyond the law. Giving animals legal rights makes no more sense than outlawing floods.
It could be argued that in NH, horses, by law, have the right to adequate food, water, and shelter. The intent of the law is certainly that they be provided with those things. But the law confers no rights to horses. It places responsibilities on the owners, who are subject to the laws of man. The law is about animal welfare, not animal rights.
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 02, 2009, 07:23 PM NHFT
I see another post of mine has disapeered , at least it was up over night,I also did not here from the member about looking at the horses...If your members want any more info I will be post else where.I have told a few of your members that sensorship is alive and well on this forum ..they are pissed.I guess free speech is only for free staters ..good luck to all ,now we won't listen to you at all..good by J leblanc
there must be a reason your posts are disappearing ... I trust my fellow forumnazi admins :)
"members" of this forum? of some horse group?
if anyone on this forum is mad that we sensor some posts and people ... they can find another place to post and read
Sometimes we do not give '"free speech" to Free Staters on this forum.
Who will you not be listening to? Where you before?
Are you "Joe" who emailed me about post deletions? I didn't know who Joe was.
ok bye ... maybe we will see you again, maybe we won't.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 03, 2009, 10:15 AM NHFT
ok bye ... maybe we will see you again, maybe we won't.
But just to be on the safe side, I think I'd watch my horses . . .
Raise me a crop of--dental floss,
Waxing it up, waxing it down, tieing to the whipping post in the center of town..
I love old Frank, God bless his sole.
Ed
Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on April 03, 2009, 11:07 AM NHFT
But just to be on the safe side, I think I'd watch my horses . . .
To be on the safe side you would watch your horses? Who are you directing this at?? Is that a threat??
I dont like the sounds of that..at ALL.
Yes, I am sure you are all wondering why I havent been posting my 2 cents on this whole topic either here, or on COTH (or other horsey sites) there is a reason, and I am sure the party involved is happy that I have been keeping my mouth shut.
Its that type of comments that make the non-free state ppl a little wacky about us free staters, I have been putting much effort into getting the horse community (which outnumbers the FSPers greatly!) interested in the free state project, and the NHLA (as there are many agriculture bills that need reading) and these comments are not helping one bit, I can totally see why ppl call us the FREAK STATERS.
Please correct me if I am wrong about the gist of your comment Sam.
Ok, im going to go back to keeping my mouth shut now.
Former caretaker/employee of Castle Wood Farm,
Current caretaker/employee of Rockin' Horse Ranch
Beth
Quote from: beth on April 03, 2009, 04:25 PM NHFT
Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on April 03, 2009, 11:07 AM NHFT
But just to be on the safe side, I think I'd watch my horses . . .
To be on the safe side you would watch your horses? Who are you directing this at?? Is that a threat??
I dont like the sounds of that..at ALL.
Yes, I am sure you are all wondering why I havent been posting my 2 cents on this whole topic either here, or on COTH (or other horsey sites) there is a reason, and I am sure the party involved is happy that I have been keeping my mouth shut.
Its that type of comments that make the non-free state ppl a little wacky about us free staters, I have been putting much effort into getting the horse community (which outnumbers the FSPers greatly!) interested in the free state project, and the NHLA (as there are many agriculture bills that need reading) and these comments are not helping one bit, I can totally see why ppl call us the FREAK STATERS.
Please correct me if I am wrong about the gist of your comment Sam.
Ok, im going to go back to keeping my mouth shut now.
Former caretaker/employee of Castle Wood Farm,
Current caretaker/employee of Rockin' Horse Ranch
Beth
I don't know you, so I'll try to keep this down to Vitriol Lite. I'm fully cognizant of the tactic of pretending to believe a comment is a threat, so as to justify your own offensive actions, and I imagine that's what you're up to here. That explanation makes a lot more sense than any other I could devise for your "misunderstanding" such an obvious remark.
So, in words even a public school student could understand: "J Leblanc" left angry. His reputation for cooperating with known horse thieves (their badges don't change the nature of their actions) has been established. An angry person with just such a reputation could be predicted to behave in a certain way. So, if I had any horses (which I don't), I'd want to watch them pretty carefully against the likelihood of the prediction.
Hearing that the "horse community" wants nothing to do with Free Staters is every bit as heartbreaking as learning that your mother-in-law can't accompany you on your honeymoon . . . From all I've observed, they behave like members of some second-string high-school clique who've grown older, but not
up. Considering the nature of the source, an insult from them qualifies as a compliment.
I wanted to make this reply a personal message to you alone, as you should have done. The entire forum shouldn't have to be brought in on it. But having been (deliberately?) mischaracterized in public as having made a threat, particularly where people of such demonstrable vituperation would see it, you left me no choice but to respond as visibly. If you have any further responses (and I hope you don't), please have the courtesy and sense to make them private.
Quote from: AntonLee on April 02, 2009, 08:39 PM NHFT
Leblanc's posts typify the reasons I don't want to send my child to government school.
Not a fan of the "Nigerian bank scam" style of punctuation, are you?
Quote from: mackler on April 03, 2009, 06:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: AntonLee on April 02, 2009, 08:39 PM NHFT
Leblanc's posts typify the reasons I don't want to send my child to government school.
Not a fan of the "Nigerian bank scam" style of punctuation, are you?
glad someone got it =O)
shame on us, we band of freakstaters. . . . for putting personal property above broad brush government guidelines.
Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on April 03, 2009, 11:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 03, 2009, 10:15 AM NHFT
ok bye ... maybe we will see you again, maybe we won't.
But just to be on the safe side, I think I'd watch my horses . . .
was he one of the horse stealers?
Quote from: J Leblanc on March 31, 2009, 11:26 PM NHFT
Yes ,I was there that morning to legally remove the horses that I was directed to by the Candia police per the three vets direction..When I was approached with the camera I looked right at it .I was not ashamed nor do I believe anyone else was.If people were hanging there head it was from the snow and cold.I for one put animals above people, people have choices, animals have none. My plates were not covered and I also had my Rockin Horse Ranch jacket on.From what I understand, Brain Knew who I was.
Quote from: beth on April 03, 2009, 04:25 PM NHFT
To be on the safe side you would watch your horses? Who are you directing this at?? Is that a threat??
Its that type of comments that make the non-free state ppl a little wacky about us free staters,
I don't know how that would be a threat.
I also think that horse people are crazier than us crazy freestaters. ;)
Us poor folk in Wyoming never did like those rich horse owners moving in from California. ;)
I've been thinking about this whole situation...
Every morning that I drive down our road, I see my neighbor's horses. They have been outside all winter, they have no shelter other than a tarp as a windbreak.
You see the neighbors who have the horses, don't have a lot of money and early in the winter as they were building a shelter for them the frame they were constructing got damaged, blown down and broken. At least two veterinarians that I am aware of drive by and can see the conditions the horses live in. An wonder of wonders, no one has called in the police and caused these people to suffer the loss of their animals or the cost of defending themselves against abuse charges.
I have been thinking about the family that made the journey across the country and arrived in the fall to NH. The farm that they moved to wasn't a turn key situation, didn't have big fancy barns and things that someone who has been established for a longer period of time has. Not soon after arriving in NH, some "concerned citizen" instead of welcoming them to NH secretly called the authorities on the new people.
Apparently a certain xenophobic, not very neighborly attitude exists among many in the horse community. "I mean they drove their horses here in a school bus for godsake, not like us established horse people with our 50 grand truck and trailer... our 100 grand barn and all the other impressive accessories that us "real" horse breeders have, well we don't think they belong in our exclusive club.'
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 03, 2009, 07:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on April 03, 2009, 11:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 03, 2009, 10:15 AM NHFT
ok bye ... maybe we will see you again, maybe we won't.
But just to be on the safe side, I think I'd watch my horses . . .
was he one of the horse stealers?
His post where he admits he
volunteered his farm is gone. The next sentence after that as I recall was that the police were just doing "a job".
i just got an email from someone saying they are joe leblanc ... and a number to call ... i dont know if i should ...
does anyone have interest in going to his farm with me if this really is him? i would want someone with me but im not going to argue, engage, harass, etc if it happens i would like a eaceful visit maybe even some discussion with him ...
is this even a good idea?
Quote from: leetninja on April 03, 2009, 08:51 PM NHFT
i just got an email from someone saying they are joe leblanc ... and a number to call ... i dont know if i should ...
does anyone have interest in going to his farm with me if this really is him? i would want someone with me but im not going to argue, engage, harass, etc if it happens i would like a eaceful visit maybe even some discussion with him ...
is this even a good idea?
Yes LeetNinja, that really is Joe, I am not sure the offer even stands, as you didnt get back to him as promptly as he wanted, but if you want to do it, i suggest calling him, and setting up an appointment.
The horses are thriving in our care, gaining weight nicely, they are playing, and find great joy in playing in the fresh wood shaving that I put in their stall every day, so cute to see them covered in fluffy shavings, rather than SHIT. I volunteer many hours after my work is done, spending time with them giving them treats, playing with them, picking up their feet, getting them use to being handled, scratching them all over, and they really enjoy the attention. Funny how we keep "veal" these days (shame on you brian, these baby horses have more room in the veal pen than they did in your back yard..shame, shame, you even said it yourself the Ritz Carlton of horse barns compared to your place.)
I am about fed up with reading ALL the forums on this horse mess. Everyone pointing fingers as to who is right, and who is wrong, we will never agree, so lets just leave it at that. I seem to have gotten hell for not speaking on the matter, and I am sure i will get hell for speaking on the matter.
As for Joe, He is doing what he thinks is right, and he puts the animals first, thats more than most people do. This is his cause, you may not like it, and that is ok, just like we all have our own cause to stand up for, and fight, may it be liberty, may it be the care of horses..I sent him here to see the other side of things, I encouraged him to watch daves videos, he really does like the FSP, he agrees with lots of things that we have talked about, and he even lets me carry on his property, which is pretty cool. I am just ashamed as to how he was greeted here, yeah, some of his posts were "strong" and yes he used the word asshole a bunch of time, but some of us are assholes, lol! I think i scored points somewhere for getting a non computer person to sit down at a computer, and attempt to type! (haha sorry joe!)
If you would like to see the horses, I can ask Joe to arrange a tour, (with joes permission,) send me a PM, and lets work something out, since some of you need proof of skinny horses, heck, maybe you can volunteer some time, and help me feed the horses, or help me groom them, as its spring, and they are finally starting to show signs of shedding. If you show up without an appointment, that wont go over well, as I have time at certain parts of the day, and it is private property. I promise it will be peaceful, I will be there, and never show up to a horse barn without carrots, or apples!
As for where I stand on this whole thing, I am on the side of the horses, I care for horses, I have been around horses my whole life, I come from generations of horse breeders, and owners, horses are in my blood, yes I was that brat as a kid who got a pony for a gift, but my parents sacrificed soo much for me to have my horses. I finally have my OWN horse now, and trust me, lots of sweat and tears go into the ownership of a horse (or any pet for that matter), now I dont have a big fancy truck and trailer, my truck is a 1988 F150, I pay to have my horse transported places, my tack and equipment is well used, but cared for, I barter with my horse training and lesson teaching to tack, or sell things on ebay, or consign my old riding clothes that I have outgrown, etc. Basically, if you own a horse, it doesnt mean you are rich, as I type this from the trailer I live in, lol!!!
It seems to be a lost cause, turning into one anyways, on my idea of getting the NH Horse folk interested in local politics, I only helped to get about 400 horse ppl at the statehouse a few months ago...I do thank the ppl who were posting on the horse sites, who have now stopped, I think they understood how they were being received, compared to me, as we are all free staters, I was winning them over, and it still is a battle. It was embarrassing to me, to get all the emails all basically saying that if the fspers aka freak staters had anything to do with the nhla, that they didnt want to support it anymore..I was heart broken, and emailed all of them begging them to stay, and get involved, I think just a few are still interested, and maybe a select few are doing stuff with the colation of nh taxpayers (cnht).
Just a few of my 2 cents.
Beth
(of the clan Beth & Dan, also founding member of the C GANG, for those of you who dont know me, and hello to those who do! ;))
I'm FOR the welfare of the horses. HOWEVER when government steps in and kills a mosquito with a Mack truck we all feel it. This could have been and should have been handled in house. Instead it's the no bend two-strike rule. Now neighbor is against neighbor and everyone's panties are in a bunch. We don't seem to be getting any smarter about working together but we sure are getting used to government handling all of our "problems" for us again and again and again. There's no end to it if we keep letting the tether out.
Beth, I can see that you are interested in horses. That's what attracted me to you. I hired you last summer to care for Heidi's horses. You are the caretaker, as you mentioned in the video where Cooper was arrested for not allowing the government on the property. You built the fences and organized a work crew to build shelter for the horses. While Heidi was working full-time your job was to care for the horses on the farm.
At some point between then and now, the horses in your care were deemed by that government to have improper care, and they were seized by that government. The affidavit is still sealed, so I don't know who told the government that the horses were not properly cared for by their standards. As you know, the property is easily viewable from the street, and many people had an opportunity to evaluate the care of the horses according to whatever standards they held.
Now you are living rent-free in a trailer on my land and working for one of the people who are harboring Heidi's stolen property. What happened? Are you another horse person who thinks that it is acceptable for the government to take an animal when it doesn't meet their standard of care? Or are you, as a person who is dedicated to liberty, also incensed that the government has no right taking private property? You mention that you are glad to be caring for the babies at LeBlanc's farm. Those same babies have been here for you to care for since last summer. Did you have the same pleasure caring for them while they were here, in your care, before the government seized them?
I understand that things on the farm have been rather chaotic this winter with the heavy snows and the ice storm. That's why we hired a caretaker to live on the property and take care of these animals. A week after the seizure you quit and are now working for Joe LeBlanc, caring for the same horses that were here since last summer. Except now, Heidi has been charged with the crime of neglecting horses that were under your care.
VERRRRRRRY interesting. VERRRRY interesting.
and. . .why would I volunteer to help someone who stole horses? I'm not really sure why someone who believes in liberty would want to work for such a person. Lots of people do things because they think they are right. Sometimes, they aren't doing the right thing.
I hope someday humans have just as much rights as horses.
I think it's a bit funny how a caretaker would complain about their horses not being taken care of well. I also think it's funny when people put the welfare of an animal before the welfare of their fellow human being.
I'm off to the pig pen, I heard there's shit on the ground so I have to call the popo in to bust some heads and steal some swine! (sarcasm)
I'm back and I'm pissed.If Brian thinks for one sec. ,that I was going to let him try to turn the blame on Beth.Well buddy ,you've got another thing comming...Beth only could work with the tools she was given ..She use to buy real horses grain until your wife cheaped out and started giving her that brewers grain crap..For those of you that don't know, brewers grain is grain used for beer..It is boiled to a point that all the nutrients is sucked out of it.Ive got to stop here .I think it is time for this whole mess to be exposed but I'm not sure how I want to do it.There is about to be a very loud thud across the free state group and the horse community ..In Arnold's words ...I'll be back!!!...hey look what I found !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The half of dozen Freestaters involved may experience some thud but the hundreds of others won't be effected.
Hey! Horse Community! Its the Fucking 21st Century!
FWIW, I was planning to keep the relationship between Beth and the farm to ourselves. That is, until she started maligning Heidi, and now me. We have a saying, "what goes on the farm stays on the farm". Apparently, Beth didn't believe in that rule.
But now that you brought up brewers grains... As part of the brewing process, grains are boiled to release their carbohydrates. The water containing these carbohydrates is used in the fermentation process to make alcohol. I'm fortunate to be an invester in Manchester Brewing, which gives us these grains after they are processed. Breweries around the world sell these "spent grains" to farmers and food processors, which use them in many products. Although there are not much carbs left, there are a ton of beneficial minerals and other goodies, like protein, present.
There are a lot of articles on the use of brewers grains. Here's one I found quickly:
http://www.engormix.com/use_of_by_product_e_articles_1082_CAB.htm
Brewer's grains
Dried brewer's grain is a by-product of the brewing industry that results from drying mash solids. Brewer's grains have been used as part of horse rations for many years. The expected protein content is around 22%, which is intermediate between crude protein concentration in grains and protein supplements such as soybean meal. It is relatively high in crude fat (9%) as compared with grains, and although moderately variable, is similar in energy content to high-quality oats.
Many grain products use pellitized feed product starts with brewers grains. Here's one:
http://www.immuneone.com/feed.html
A NATURAL FOR HORSES. The protein from brewers' dried grains and malt sprouts is more readily digestible through the entire digestive system than is protein from single vegetable protein sources. Previous tests have shown that malt sprouts give the same accelerated growth as seen with antibiotic supplementation. The results: Improved efficiency and performance in all phases of breed production, training, race or show.
Plus, unless you are a very large farm, you are probably buying grains off the shelf, which may have been sitting around for a while, during which the nutritional value decreases. Manchester Brewing gets the best grains available from all over the world in order to make our delicious beer. We pick up the grains directly from the brewery and feed it to the horses fresh.
So I get to do a little schoolin' on brewers grains, and plug the best beer in New Hampshire, all at the same time. So if you want to help our horses, buy more beer from Manchester Brewing!
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 04, 2009, 06:16 AM NHFT
There is about to be a very loud thud across the free state group and the horse community
And
I get accused of making threats . . . !
so even when I'm being most skeptical of Brian and the family's side (when I'm deciding to try and think like a statist, to step into another's shoes). . . even the best arguments for abuse have been answered to my satisfaction.
And, that's me. . . a non-horse person. A layman. A person who knows dick about horses. Where is the abuse? Where is the proof?
This loud 'thud' is sounding more and more like a 'thud' of bureaucrats and statist types coming down on someone for being different or using different methods. I hope someday, that some rich types don't get together with people in government and decide to regulate things I like to do. Heaven forbid I treat my property differently than the blue blood busy body types.
Rockin? Not hardly. . . more like Rolling, as in on the tracks to the camp.
Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on April 04, 2009, 10:43 AM NHFT
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 04, 2009, 06:16 AM NHFT
There is about to be a very loud thud across the free state group and the horse community
And I get accused of making threats . . . !
I guess he came back ... even though we are forum nazis.
I wonder what will cause the thud .... where will it occur? ... how far away will it be heard?
I am getting excited.
I just heard the thud. It was really loud like a bomb went off. Oh no wait that was Steve Sprowl sitting down.
Very interesting....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_hoarding#Characteristics_of_a_hoarder
uh...the horse community in new hampshire did an inspiring job beating back a potential tax on them. They were even more impressive than the gun lobby from what I heard. So were their results.
I wonder if the idea of an alliance between horse owners and general-liberty activists may have been perceived as a political threat to some in power.
I beg to differ. Our entire system of property forfeiture and seizure laws is based upon medieval practices, which include trying pigs, carts, horses, etc. for crimes. Sometimes, the animals were killed; others, they were given as property to the victor in the contest. Sense is right out. Do children have rights? Perhaps a few, like the right not to be killed, but not the right of free speech, at least in this country. The charge of vagrancy is directly descended from the law against going about a masterless man. Do you have a right to travel? Then why have a drivers license? A license is the King's permission to do that which is otherwise forbidden.
My point is not that there are no laws, or no rights written down on scraps of paper, or not that Heavenly Father will not give you your own planet outside Utah if you've been particularly polite. Rather, I am making the claim that something so nebulous as a concept incapable of defending itself is no more than mere whimsy; and infinitely changeable to suit the powers that be---mere privilege, i.e. private law, enforced by hired guns. I know that most of us believe that we SHOULD be able to appeal to our rights---but I declare thee an Enemy Combatant, a Terrorist, a Witch! And so you have nothing but a fistful of dust after all.
Quote from: erisian on April 03, 2009, 09:47 AM NHFT
The animal rights question is about legal rights, not natural rights. No animals, be they horses, pygmy ponies, toads, raccoons, or mosquitos have any legal rights. This is because animals can't read, and they can't understand the laws of man. There is no sense in arresting a duck for jaywalking. Animals are simply beyond the law. Giving animals legal rights makes no more sense than outlawing floods.
It could be argued that in NH, horses, by law, have the right to adequate food, water, and shelter. The intent of the law is certainly that they be provided with those things. But the law confers no rights to horses. It places responsibilities on the owners, who are subject to the laws of man. The law is about animal welfare, not animal rights.
hello all, new here. Not here to cause waves, but would like to point out inconsistencies.
QuoteBeth, I can see that you are interested in horses. That's what attracted me to you. I hired you last summer to care for Heidi's horses. You are the caretaker, as you mentioned in the video where Cooper was arrested for not allowing the government on the property. You built the fences and organized a work crew to build shelter for the horses. While Heidi was working full-time your job was to care for the horses on the farm.
First, poor form taking Beth to task over this. Second...
*She was hired last *summer* and yet during the summer there wasn't any time to properly install fencing knowing up to 30 horses were coming? You had stated in videos and print that there wasn't time to build fences since the move and horses arrived in November. yet you were there and a caretaker was there in summer. Why no fencing and more than a few small run ins?
*Beth built the fences? Or you did? Or professionals did? Because so far you have personally stated three possible theories for how the fences ended up on the property. In video you stated you personally built the fences and they fell down. Then Heidi staes in same video that professionals were hired to build fences. (if pros built the fencing seen in the video I hope they weren't paid) Now you're saying the poor fencing is entirely Beth's fault. Which is it?
*You personally stated in video and more than once online that you brought two businesses to NH and Heidi didn't have a job and couldn't find one. Heidi didn't have funds to care for the horses for some time due to lack of a job and that's why she asked a local rescue to take up to 10, they took 3. So how is it Beth was hired last *summer* to care for the horses while Heidi was working full time?
QuoteAt some point between then and now, the horses in your care were deemed by that government to have improper care, and they were seized by that government.
*When you hire a caretaker/farm manager they do not use their own funds to support *your* animals. Beth could only work with whatever funds you or Heidi gave her. If neither of you provided enough funds to properly feed or support these animals it's hardly Beth's fault.
QuoteYou mention that you are glad to be caring for the babies at LeBlanc's farm. Those same babies have been here for you to care for since last summer. Did you have the same pleasure caring for them while they were here, in your care, before the government seized them?
She cared for them to the best of her ability given the seriously substandard living conditions the horses' owners provided and the funds they also provided. She's happier caring for them now most likely because it's a pleasure to care for animals and rehab them back to health when they're in a decent environment with decent food and decent funds to provide both.
QuoteExcept now, Heidi has been charged with the crime of neglecting horses that were under your care.
As you've stated ad nauseum and is definitely correct, Heidi is the owner of the horses. It's the owner's responsibility of care when it gets down to legal definition. Is this an admission that the horses seized were indeed in very poor shape and it's now Beth's fault they were this way? or are you still standing by your oft repeated "they were healthy: statements as here in newspaper, direct quote from you:
QuoteHe said the horses are perfectly healthy and alleged they were taken because of a dispute with Steve Sprowl of the NHSPCA.
Then there's the blatant flip flops on the shelter statements:
Quote from you from newspaper this March:
QuoteTravis said he was not aware of the law, or that he was in violation of it, until he received a search warrant on Monday
And yet you stated this yourself on this BB back in November 08:
QuoteNov 6 08:Here's an update. Steve Sprowl, the SPCA investigator, finally called me back today and said that all he wanted to do is to check out the sheds as required by law. I assured him that our very expensive racehorses were well taken care of. I explained that the "Animal Cruelty Officer" from the town next door visited a couple months ago and reminded me that there was a "law" that required shelter between November 15th and April 15th. I told the cop then that I was aware of that rule of theirs. Their law actually says November 1st. Of course, I was supposed to be aware of this law by the mere fact that I was born?
So you weren't aware at all? And November wasn't even your first time being told of the shelter law...a few months before November you were also told. Why? No horses there yet supposedly. So you state you weren't aware of the rule, but you also state you were aware of the rule and were told a couple months before November, again in November. And neither of those times did you think to do a 30 second Google search to get the exact wording on the NH shelter law that states in full each horses must have a 10x10 3 sided covered area? Took me 30 seconds to find that info since I'm not in NH. After two warnings it never occured to you to check that since you've also stated you would have been happy to comply had you only been told/known.
Even Ms Paradis told you or Heidi at the time you were asking for their help that you needed more/better shelter:
QuoteTeresa Paradis, founder and director of the Live and Let Live Farm, a non-profit rescue shelter for horses in Chichester said she received a call for help from Fredrick about six weeks ago.
Fredrick originally talked about sending nine or 10 horses to the farm because of financial difficulties.
She said she gave Fredrick some advice on shelters that needed repair.
"They seemed like very concerned people in a bad situation," Paradis said. "They did not seem set up for 25 horses."
So now that's THREE different people telling you that better shelters were needed for the health of the horses, for the type of winter NH gets and to comply with the welfare laws. yet you still claimed you had NO idea...
Even you admitted the shelters were inadequate in a newspaper quote:
QuoteHe also said some areas had been temporarily crowded while new shelters were being built,
The videos show even more flip flops on what the actual truth might be.
In the video by Mefeedia you stated in an interview at approximately 19:55 into the video that the horses "always had feed, always had grain, always had dewormer." Yet in the RipleyReport video Part One Heidi states at 2:06 minutes that they had grain a few days per week when you could afford it. You also stated somewhere else that all young horses have worms and Heidi had just started taking care of that. So apparently it wasn't "always." Not to mention Ms Paradis said 6 weeks prior to March 11th that Heidi contacted her about not having enough money to feed her horses or enough feed for them, yet you state they always had hay and feed and you spent $10k-$15k on hay. If Heidi had no money for hay in late January or so...wasn't she working full time as you stated? Or why wasn't the excess funds that can be found for attorneys used to buy feed instead of pawning horses off onto rescues who are *always* lacking funds and who do good work...obviously so since you were contacting them. Is this the personal responsibility that goes with personal rights?
Heidi also states in that video that her horses are all trained and not unhealthy...yet heavy worm loads, the video evidence of their weight and the fact that they are now learning how to be halter trained and have their feet handled states that that wasn't exactly true either. And please do not point out the comment at 5:40 minutes where you indicate that the SPCA may very well be neglecting and not feeding yoour horses to later prove starvation/emaciation. You may not realize this...or you may be hoping the folks on this BB don't know this...but it takes extreme lengths of time being poorly fed or unfed before horses even look like the clipped babies in the video already released. There is no possible way they could have lost that much weight in the couple weeks they were there. Mother Nature designed grazing animals to lose weight slowly and gain it quickly...otherwise most would be extinct every time there was a drought in history. BTW...rescue horses near emaciation can easily gain upwards of 100 lbs per month when fed an adequate amount of quality food and have had the worms removed from them. They're genetically designed to do so.
As for the claims that neither of you had any idea that Coggins was necessary to cross state lines...that would be akin to stating that a lifetime horse owner didn't know what a saddle was. There is no legal way Heidi could have raced those horses, had them even on racetrack grounds, shown those horses or sold any out of state without a current Coggins test done. Coggins is excessively important to the equine world...it's a test for EIA and that disease spreads like wildfire over enormous distances and is deadly. Not "many may die" but deadly in the most serious way. There isn't a vaccine for it and it's spread by insects. To bring 29 horses into a new state...if even one was carrying that (a few horses carry but never get it, but they can pass it on) you could have decimated the bulk of equines in that ENTIRE state. That is NOT a private property issue. So there isn't any way on God's green earth Heidi did not know that.
As less interesting speaking mistakes...describing the horses as very expensive race horses is not going to help when an enormous portion of horses owners can look that up online in about 3 minutes with their race and breed associations. Race horses who are expensive are only the ones who have actually ever raced or won. I'll leave it at that.
Please leave Beth out of this...she;s done more for the FSP than this fiasco ever will. The blatant contradictions everyone is seeing via your love of media/online is making the entire FSP look like a bunch of conspiracy theorists who happen to lie an awful lot. I "know" Beth from another BB...not personally but she's always been respected on there. She's mentioned rights more than once and gotten quite a few horse owner interested in learning more.
And D.Orwell on here makes an excellent point...the equine industry and community is enormous and can be quite powerful when influencing local and national governments. I lobby for it myself quite heavily. We've gone against the uninformed sheep of the majority countless times and have a heavy win record. We're just quiet about it. Because frankly...quiet and humble is what works. Not loud and obnoxious. If you want to beat the government at it's own game (and who doesn't in most cases?) then learn how to play the game so you can win more than you lose.
And those on here mentioning the ridiculous fiasco that is Animal Rights...they couldn't be more right. It's a mess...a big media-whore mess. But a word to the wise...you will *never* get the majority of anyone to listen to you if you rant or even mention that it's okay to neglect, starve or torture living property. Animal Rights may be a bunch of ignorant asshats but animal welfare is a MAJOR concern even for people who don't own animals. Animals are property 100%...yet they are considered "the same but separate" if you ever want any support of any kind.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on April 04, 2009, 02:52 PM NHFT
uh...the horse community in new hampshire did an inspiring job beating back a potential tax on them.
A bill sponsored by one of their own, who assumed the "horse community" would "want to help out".
Quote from: xyz on April 04, 2009, 02:32 PM NHFT
Very interesting....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_hoarding#Characteristics_of_a_hoarder
Effing troll. Making a new anonymous account so you can drop one little comment from the peanut gallery.
Boy, someone's been doing their research! How many times did you have to read every post I've written, watch every video I've been in, listen to every radio interview and, apparently been privy to every thought I've had. Impressive! I wish I had that kind of free time! [edit: I just found out that MistyBlue is an alias used by Beths' sister, Gail]
Just a couple of points. I've learned things since this whole fiasco started. You are reading/watching/listening to/channeling information that I've written/taped/recorded/thought as some facts were known and others weren't yet known. To say there are inconsistencies across time is certainly accurate. That's the nature of breaking news. Do you expect a newspaper to go back and correct last week's article when new information comes to light today? It would be nice if I had all facts on every facet of this case that were known and yet to be known in the future. That way, I'd be able to be more consistent. But if I had that information, I'd probably just play the lottery.
Second, it's not my job to be fair and unbiased. All parties will spin the facts to fit their needs. The internet has given the little guy more power than ever before to compete with the one-sided media that we've had for the past couple hundred years. We all use words to put the best light on the stories we tell. Who hasn't worn perfume or cologne to cover up or enhance certain odiferous facts?
Third, I do like talking in front of a camera, but I would much prefer to do it on my own schedule. They brought this fight to us. We just want to be left alone. The symbol of the Free State Project is the porcupine. A friendly, reclusive little critter that minds its own business. Until you mess with it. The Culpeper Minutemen used a rattlesnake for the same effect.
Finally, I totally agree with your closing remark. "Animals are property 100%". If people actually believed that, we would never have gotten into this mess. Heidi would be able to deal with her property as she saw fit, and the busybodies wouldn't be able to invoke the violence of the government to force others to do what they think is right.
So can we start with that common ground and see if there are other things we can agree on?
(Beth, I think it was good you had your say and got this monkey off your back. I wish we weren't waiting for the Courts and could get it all out and over with so everyone could move on, once again the "speed" of Gov. does not impress).
As an animal lover, I don't think it gets any more difficult for me in cases where there may be animal neglect/abuse. In a totally Free Market, I think the few cases of Real Animal Neglect that actually would happen (please don't post the total #'s because I don't trust Humane Society numbers and I used to Volunteer for them) would be far outweighed by the abundance of aid & resources that would be availale in a True Free Market System for animals from "all walks."
To Initiate the Use of Physical Force, against Any Peaceful Individual's Life &/or their Property (also = their life) when they have not Aggressed against anyone, is a Crime in an Honest and truly Free Society (if the neighbors saw a baby being beaten, don't worry, they'd storm the place!)
Protection of Private Property is Paramount (there can be no compromise). And in a Free Society, the most fantastic thing exists:
Individuals actually get to Own their Own Lives. Imagine that.
QuoteBoy, someone's been doing their research! How many times did you have to read every post I've written, watch every video I've been in, listen to every radio interview and, apparently been privy to every thought I've had. Impressive! I wish I had that kind of free time! [edit: I just found out that MistyBlue is an alias used by Beths' sister, Gail]
Oddly enough I am really not that enamored of you to have done any of those things repeatedly. I mentioned that I lobby...which means scads of research constantly. I also have a somewhat photographic memory for inconsistencies in facts since that's pretty much what I do all day. You've been extremely inconsistent and contradict yourself often.
I am not related to Beth...if you searched at all you'd see that I am some of the same equine related BBs that she is. I am in another state though and not related at all. If you had researched at all online you'd see that's very evident that we're not related. I use the same screen name online everywhere.
QuoteJust a couple of points. I've learned things since this whole fiasco started. You are reading/watching/listening to/channeling information that I've written/taped/recorded/thought as some facts were known and others weren't yet known. To say there are inconsistencies across time is certainly accurate. That's the nature of breaking news. Do you expect a newspaper to go back and correct last week's article when new information comes to light today? It would be nice if I had all facts on every facet of this case that were known and yet to be known in the future. That way, I'd be able to be more consistent.
Unfortunately this is inane. As facts were known to YOU? You did not know any of your own inconsistencies. You had no idea who actually built the fence until someone else told you? When you stated you built the fences you had no idea you didn't? When you claim you spent $____ on hay you had no idea you didn't do that? When you stated the horses got hay and grain always all the time you had no idea they didn't when you were standing next to Heidi as she said different on camera? When 3 different people told you between summer and November in 2008 that your shelters were inadequate and not legal you had no idea that they had done so when you claimed nobody told you anything about shelters until March? Even though it's been your own words stating these facts? I could go on listing the lies....or you could inform people that you have an extremely shoddy memory. Or that you've been skewing facts in order to get the most false support possible or the most fawning over you possible. Or maybe just the most free labor possible?
QuoteSecond, it's not my job to be fair and unbiased. All parties will spin the facts to fit their needs. The internet has given the little guy more power than ever before to compete with the one-sided media that we've had for the past couple hundred years. We all use words to put the best light on the stories we tell.
Nobody asked you to be fair or biased. Telling the truth would be a refreshing change though. The internet has given the narcistic among us the spotlight they crave...and many take that spotlight and blatantly lie in order to garner more attention for oneself. Spin isn't the same as lying...take that from someone who lobbies.
QuoteFinally, I totally agree with your closing remark. "Animals are property 100%". If people actually believed that, we would never have gotten into this mess. Heidi would be able to deal with her property as she saw fit, and the busybodies wouldn't be able to invoke the violence of the government to force others to do what they think is right.
People do agree with that in the majority. Just in degrees since animals are living property and all living things feel pain and can be abused or neglected. Heidi has been dealing with her property as she sees fit. It's gotten her in trouble more than once. Civil disobedience can be a wonderful tool...for inanimate causes. There isn't a state in this country that will tolerate neglect on Heidi's and your level. As for invoking the violence of the government...can you be more dramatic? Nobody drew a pentagram on the ground, lit candles and pleaded for the SPCA to come care for the animals she's been starving. I did not see any violence in the videos...and it wasn't done at the point of a gun. I happen to be extremely pro-firearms and the drivel I read on here from a few members is the type of dramatics that makes the saner of us look bad to the community.
Please feel free to do a search on my username...you'll see me quite a few places equine related online. You'll also see I am in no way related to Beth, nor have I ever met her. I'd appreciate not being called a liar when I stated that I didn't know her personally I meant that. I, unlike you, do not lie. You'll see I'm pro-firearms and a firearms instructor and competitor, a wildlife rehabber, and lobby for the equine industry. Not hard to find at all.
Is this the way folks are treated here? If you don't run with the mob being completely uninformed or if you come on here and point out the lies told so as to inform the rest of the people on here then you are accused of lying yourself? Way to spin it.
Quote from: KBCraig on April 04, 2009, 10:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on April 04, 2009, 02:52 PM NHFT
uh...the horse community in new hampshire did an inspiring job beating back a potential tax on them.
A bill sponsored by one of their own, who assumed the "horse community" would "want to help out".
SPONSORS: Rep. Skinder, Sull 1; Rep. Spaulding, Hills 18; Rep. Parkhurst, Ches 4; Sen. Roberge, Dist 9; Sen. Cilley, Dist 6
Which is "one of their own?" Skinder and Roberge usually have their names on everything that comes along to restrict animal ownership. I don't know about the others. Are any of these part of the "horse community?"
Quote from: cyne on April 05, 2009, 08:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on April 04, 2009, 10:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on April 04, 2009, 02:52 PM NHFT
uh...the horse community in new hampshire did an inspiring job beating back a potential tax on them.
A bill sponsored by one of their own, who assumed the "horse community" would "want to help out".
SPONSORS: Rep. Skinder, Sull 1; Rep. Spaulding, Hills 18; Rep. Parkhurst, Ches 4; Sen. Roberge, Dist 9; Sen. Cilley, Dist 6
Which is "one of their own?" Skinder and Roberge usually have their names on everything that comes along to restrict animal ownership. I don't know about the others. Are any of these part of the "horse community?"
I don't know what Dada's point was--lots of people will organize to fight taxes that directly penalize
them; what counts is how they react to programs that affect
others. We've seen ample evidence to that latter, and that's why I'm still watching my horses--figuratively speaking--and caution all liberty-lovers to do likewise!
Quote from: cyne on April 05, 2009, 08:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on April 04, 2009, 10:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on April 04, 2009, 02:52 PM NHFT
uh...the horse community in new hampshire did an inspiring job beating back a potential tax on them.
A bill sponsored by one of their own, who assumed the "horse community" would "want to help out".
SPONSORS: Rep. Skinder, Sull 1; Rep. Spaulding, Hills 18; Rep. Parkhurst, Ches 4; Sen. Roberge, Dist 9; Sen. Cilley, Dist 6
Which is "one of their own?" Skinder and Roberge usually have their names on everything that comes along to restrict animal ownership. I don't know about the others. Are any of these part of the "horse community?"
Rep. Skinder and Sen. Jacalyn Cilley are.
Quote from: cyne on April 05, 2009, 08:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on April 04, 2009, 10:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on April 04, 2009, 02:52 PM NHFT
uh...the horse community in new hampshire did an inspiring job beating back a potential tax on them.
A bill sponsored by one of their own, who assumed the "horse community" would "want to help out".
SPONSORS: Rep. Skinder, Sull 1; Rep. Spaulding, Hills 18; Rep. Parkhurst, Ches 4; Sen. Roberge, Dist 9; Sen. Cilley, Dist 6
Which is "one of their own?" Skinder and Roberge usually have their names on everything that comes along to restrict animal ownership. I don't know about the others. Are any of these part of the "horse community?"
I believe it was Skinder who made the statement that she "thought the horse community would want to help the state's revenue problem." (http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=1706.msg12896#msg12896) It could have been Cilley; both are bad. You can ask in that thread for clarification, if you'd like.
[Stuff deleted. MistyBlue is a lobbiest and calls me a liar. That kind of stuff.]
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 05, 2009, 08:48 AM NHFT
As for invoking the violence of the government...can you be more dramatic? Nobody drew a pentagram on the ground, lit candles and pleaded for the SPCA to come care for the animals she's been starving. I did not see any violence in the videos...and it wasn't done at the point of a gun.
Here's the problem, my fellow freedom fighters. MistyBlue is obviously a pretty smart person, but can't see the violence inherent in the system. She doesn't see any violence in those videos.
Does violence have to be fists flying and guns going off in order for you to see it? What if a robber came up to you, told you he has a gun in his pocket and said he would kill you if you didn't give him your money? Would you see the violence then? I'll tell you that the government will call that "armed robbery" even if he didn't have any gun. The threat of violence is enough to convict a man. But when the government threatens you with violence you wouldn't call that violence? Try not paying property tax and see how long it takes them to kick you out of your home. That's violence, even though you might not see any guns unless you actively resist.
These men came to my house, disarmed me, and took my wife's property. What would have happened if I resisted instead of videotaping? Don't think for a moment that they wouldn't shackle me, drive me to their jail, and lock me up in a cold cage.
Please please please tell me that you see the violence in that situation.
So, instead, I stood by, disarmed, and did the only thing I could to resist. I videotaped their actions to show others just what a violent gang this is.
If an obviously smart person like MistyBlue can't see the violence here, we've got a much harder fight to see freedom in our lifetimes.
so if Brian stood in front of the police stopping them from stealing his property (which is exactly what happened) do you think the guns wouldn't have come out.
one doesn't need to point a gun when you're a cop. They are a weapon, a weapon of the state. Their presence to me is a threat to my bodily functions. Every person living in this country should be more on guard when one of these thugs is in your presence.
Quote from: KBCraig on April 05, 2009, 05:20 PM NHFT
Quote from: cyne on April 05, 2009, 08:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on April 04, 2009, 10:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on April 04, 2009, 02:52 PM NHFT
uh...the horse community in new hampshire did an inspiring job beating back a potential tax on them.
A bill sponsored by one of their own, who assumed the "horse community" would "want to help out".
SPONSORS: Rep. Skinder, Sull 1; Rep. Spaulding, Hills 18; Rep. Parkhurst, Ches 4; Sen. Roberge, Dist 9; Sen. Cilley, Dist 6
Which is "one of their own?" Skinder and Roberge usually have their names on everything that comes along to restrict animal ownership. I don't know about the others. Are any of these part of the "horse community?"
I believe it was Skinder who made the statement that she "thought the horse community would want to help the state's revenue problem." (http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=1706.msg12896#msg12896) It could have been Cilley; both are bad. You can ask in that thread for clarification, if you'd like.
Correct.
Though I really didn't follow Skinder's reasoning.
Quote from: AntonLee on April 05, 2009, 06:10 PM NHFT
so if Brian stood in front of the police stopping them from stealing his property (which is exactly what happened) do you think the guns wouldn't have come out.
Right! And how many cops were there? A dozen or more. An organized group of armed men prepared to use deadly force. If anyone else did it, it would be called terrorism.
Skinder was indeed the one who stated that she thought the licensing fees would boost state revenues. And I agree...few were able to follow her reasoning.
For the record...in most states when the equine community fights taxes on horses or licensing of horses or anything like that...it's not about the money we'd have to pay. Which is normally minimal. In my area the towns try from time to time to send out property tax bills on horses...hoping enough owners will not realize they don't have to pay that and send in the few paltry dollars. The towns' reasoning has zero to do with revenues, although that's what they tell the public. It has everything to do with hoping a large enough percentage of horse owner pay it without complaint to set precedent. Once they can prove that...they can change the status of horses from livestock to either pets or luxury property. That change alone can and most likely would be a close to fatal blow to the equine industry and a huge bite out of this state's Right To Farm and Agriculture properties. Property taxes on ag land or farm land is lower than normal. Because horses are livestock...like cows, sheep, swine. Those animals are NOT taxed due to being livestock and under Farm rights. Most horse farms and private backyard barns have only horses. They require more everyday work than other livestock to remain healthy and worth money so it doesn't make financial sense to also be shearing sheep, milking cows, etc. Pay taxes on the horses...changes their livestock designation if enough do that because we don't pay taxes on livestock. No livestock, no property tax breaks. Property is then rezoned...from ag/farm to either residential, rural residential or worse...commercial if you're running an equine business there. Property taxes will at best double for rural res...they triple and add a bit for res only and they can more than quadruple for commercial. So a boarding barn's taxes can go from the lower farm tax of $3000 per year to upwards of $12k per year. More than $1000 per month just on taxes alone. Clients can't afford the rate hikes for board to cover that and since there's nowhere else cheap to board anymore dump their horses. Boarding barns close due to lack of clients and can't afford taxes. Same with backyard owners...my taxes alone could go from $5k to $11,500. Horses glut the market...nobody will buy since nowhere to keep them, horse values crash. Less horses means less vets, hay suppliers, farriers, feed stores, etc...so even the wealthier have issues keeping horses since fewer of those brings in supply and demand and rates hike more. Buh Bye horse industry...hello to new development and higher property taxes for the towns. And some bleeding heart wackadoos agree with this on some levels because they hope changing status from livestock to pet or luxury item will stop slaughter for good. Little do they realize the issues. *sigh* Yeah, this thing annoys me. Zoning and Right To Farm are pet projects of mine.
Now that I've bored everyone to tears...my apologies. But at least it's about how the smaller local governments piss off the regular folks by trying to be sneaky. They send out tax bills as low as $5 - $8 per horse hoping to screw with people's heads. Who's gonna argue about $5 per year? And if ONE state does it...every other state uses that as precendence and follows suit. So us horsie folks do fight and fight HARD against changes like this. And not because it only affects us personally...because it changes zoning and freedom for everyone else although most might not follow the convoluted path of how that's being planned.
Brian...I regret feeling the need to call you a liar...but you can certainly see the drastic contradictions on your many different statements everywhere. I've been following the story all along because considering what I do...these things in other states do very much affect every other state. The "personal property" issue is one I follow closely because I fight to keep things that way. However I also realize the pros and cons of fighting it and how to do it in a way that gets the most public support possible. Because in the end...it's the results that matter more than the reasoning some people may have behind fighting for those results. If all of us get more freedom the end of an issue...isn't that more important than how it was actually achieved? It's easier to lead a horse than try shoving it forward from behind. You still get where you're going without pissing off the horse and/or getting kicked in the head. Some of the comments in this thread are easily found via a google search...and are what the general public will find reprehensible. And the gp is likely to vote with their feelings and not their heads...so try not pissing them off too much. There's a lot more of them and to make LEGAL changes one does require the majority. Wouldn;t it be better to have legal rights to freedom instead of constantly ranting and fighting ineffectually for it?
As for the violence comments...it's a case of semantics then I guess. I tend to be a pretty literal, low emotion person. Drives my husband nuts sometimes that I'm about as feminine in the emotion department as a rock. Except for the fun use of sarcasm from time to time...I don't use flowery speach unnecessary to making my point. To ME...violence in violence. Force is force. They could have been violent...they weren't. Just the fact that they were wearing sidearms doesn;t make them violent...if so then wouldn't all of you be violent people also? I know that would make me a violent person because I do carry if I feel a need to. It's not often...I know I have a right and a license to but honestly I don't come across a lot of reasons to use a pistol at a feed store, the coffee shop, etc. Even as a 5'2" small built middle aged female. Firearms make many people not used to them uncomfortable, so I prefer to keep the general populace comfie around me so when I'm working with them to make legal changes that benefit all of us they listen to me without thinking, "oh, it's that nutter with a scary gun!" Just because I have a right to do something doesn't mean I need to 24/7 and making other people who don't share my firearm hobby uncomfortable. I also have a legal right to walk around town wearing a live duck on my head as a hat...but that would probably also freak other people out and then I'm thought of as a nut and can't find any support for the IMPORTANT stuff now, can I? (although it would be hilarious to see their reactions...however since I'm known enough around here by everyone else they'd probably just accept it as another one of my weird pranks, LOL)
As for hating the LEOs just because they're LEOs...I don't get it. It's their job...they're not making the laws, they only uphold them. You don't hate a soldier for following duty. You don't hate a coworker for doing what the boss says. Having a badge is not inherently evil, I've volunteered with the local PDs long enough to know very few LEOs have the type of personalities some people attribute to them. Hate the laws? Change them...work on your own public image and work the system the way that gets results and AFTER you get the results you want you can then crow to the world how great everything you did is.
many of the comments on this thread and others in this BB are making some of the FSPers look like drama queens and kings. many come across as mature, rational adults but a few constantly making comments about everything being similar to the Holocaust (seriously? Could you pick a less likely comparison? And anyone who has relatives that actually went through that will be insulted BEYOND belief that comparing a few civil liberties or horses being moved to a new location and rehabbed to the death and carnage of the Holocaust. It's the same as hearing my 16 year old daughter tell me she will die if she doesn't get to go to a dance...ridiculous and immature and completely ignorant) or that everything that the PD does is at the end of a gun. And you're all gun supporters...yet you make it sound as if all firearms are the epitome of violence even when just worn at the side like all of you probably do. Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot. It makes zero sense to claim all PD activity is "Violent! They have a gun!" and then pontificate ad nauseum about the rights of everyone to wear a gun everywhere and that doesn't make you violent. You aren't doing any of us other gun supporters any good at all.
And to end my wordy ridiculousness...(I think I just invented that new word)...I have noticed the change in subject since there isn't any argument against your own words of contradiction. I was staying out of this personally and just monitoring it for horse owner rights but then dragging Beth's name into the mud and using a tale of fibs to do so apparently harshed my mellow. And I truly hate having my mellow harshed. ;)
Don't kid yourself they see the violence.
They approve of it.
As long as it's not pointed at them.
*Yells* Hey Maineshark! There's some cognitive dissonance here waiting for your input :icon_pirat:
[Stuff deleted that I mostly agree with...]
MistyBlue, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to agree on some animal welfare vs. private property issues, but I think we have a shot at finding some common ground in other places. This thread has gone on waaaaay too long, and there's just a few people left following it, so this could be kinda fun.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 05, 2009, 07:08 PM NHFT
As for the violence comments...To ME...violence is violence. Force is force. They could have been violent...they weren't. Just the fact that they were wearing sidearms doesn;t make them violent...if so then wouldn't all of you be violent people also?
I don't think I mentioned anything about the officer's actual firearms. The police officer himself is the weapon that the state uses to enforce compliance of the citizens. You would know better than most that a gun is just a machine. No gun has ever harmed anyone except in some freak accident. It usually takes a human to kill another human. A gun is just an efficient way to do it, but it requires motivation and action.
Make no mistake that taking property with the threat of force is violent, whether the assailant wears a mask or a badge.
Your assertion that me wearing a gun is violent, but in truth it's actually just the opposite. There are two ways to deal with people: reason and force. If I have ten dollars and you want it, you can explain to me why you need it more than I do. If I decide to give you the money, we both get what we want. Or, you can get my money by threatening me with violence. In this case, you have gained but I have lost. Either way, you get the money.
But if I had a gun on my hip, I have just removed from you one of the two ways to deal with me. I wear a gun because I am a peaceful person. I just want to remove the threat of violence from any interaction I might have with you or any other person.
The guns that are owned by the state are a different matter. The people calling themselves government can initiate force on anyone they please with no retribution. Sending you a property tax bill is just one of these initiations of force. If you don't think you are dealing with a violent organization, try to ignore your next tax bill.
There is an excellent essay titled, "The Gun in the Room". You might want to give it a read if you still don't think everything that the government does is based on violence. http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2006/11/gun-in-room.html
I'd be really interested in your evaluation.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 05, 2009, 07:08 PM NHFT
As for hating the LEOs just because they're LEOs...I don't get it. It's their job...they're not making the laws, they only uphold them. You don't hate a soldier for following duty.
Anyone who performs immoral actions is wrong, regardless of where they get their paycheck. Please excuse me for using the old Nazi standby, but the comment you made above is exactly the one the soldiers were trying to use in their defense at Nuremberg. "Just doing my job" does not remove the responsibility for acting in an immoral manner.
OK, how about a non-Nazi example? In 1942, FDR declared that all Americans of Japanese descent were to be rounded up and placed in internment camps. The U.S. Supreme Court even backed him up. If you knew where an American of Japanese descent was hiding, it was your legal duty to report them. Failure to report was grounds for arrest. "Just doing my job" meant sending innocent people to prison. Good people disobey bad laws. It's the only moral thing to do.
Those are extreme examples, created in a time of national crisis. But there are still unconstitutional laws that are enforced every day by LEOs "just doing their job". A friend of mine was arrested in a public square last month because he was peacefully holding a flower in his hand. A flower. He was handcuffed, escorted to a police car, fingerprinted, and put in a cold cell. The officers who did this were "just doing their job". Unbelievable? Yes. Incomprehensible? Yes. Outrageous? Yes.
Oh, the only fact that I left out is that the flower was cannabis. Does that change any of the outrageousness of this act? You have to decide. There were no guns drawn, no fists raised, but I hope you'll agree that if someone forced you, against your will, into a cage when you hadn't harmed anyone, that you would think you were a victim of violence.
I could go on, but I've already gone on long enough. If you want to know what makes some of the more outspoken activists tick, you'll have to go through the process that most of us have gone through concerning the true nature of government and the initiation of force.
Until you see what we see, you'll just view us as a bunch of drama queens. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm not a nut job. I'm just a guy who wants to live without violence. But I'm prepared to fight that violence wherever I can in order to create a better world for my children and grandchildren. By the way, my boys are also working to achieve the same goals. The nut doesn't fall far from the tree!
If you want to understand more, I'll be happy to be your guide. Just let me know. And I'll try not to harsh your mellow!
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 05, 2009, 07:08 PM NHFT
Skinder was indeed the one who stated that she thought the licensing fees would boost state revenues. And I agree...few were able to follow her reasoning.
For the record...in most states when the equine community fights taxes on horses or licensing of horses or anything like that...it's not about the money we'd have to pay. Which is normally minimal. In my area the towns try from time to time to send out property tax bills on horses...hoping enough owners will not realize they don't have to pay that and send in the few paltry dollars. The towns' reasoning has zero to do with revenues, although that's what they tell the public. It has everything to do with hoping a large enough percentage of horse owner pay it without complaint to set precedent. Once they can prove that...they can change the status of horses from livestock to either pets or luxury property. That change alone can and most likely would be a close to fatal blow to the equine industry and a huge bite out of this state's Right To Farm and Agriculture properties. Property taxes on ag land or farm land is lower than normal. Because horses are livestock...like cows, sheep, swine. Those animals are NOT taxed due to being livestock and under Farm rights. Most horse farms and private backyard barns have only horses. They require more everyday work than other livestock to remain healthy and worth money so it doesn't make financial sense to also be shearing sheep, milking cows, etc. Pay taxes on the horses...changes their livestock designation if enough do that because we don't pay taxes on livestock. No livestock, no property tax breaks. Property is then rezoned...from ag/farm to either residential, rural residential or worse...commercial if you're running an equine business there. Property taxes will at best double for rural res...they triple and add a bit for res only and they can more than quadruple for commercial. So a boarding barn's taxes can go from the lower farm tax of $3000 per year to upwards of $12k per year. More than $1000 per month just on taxes alone. Clients can't afford the rate hikes for board to cover that and since there's nowhere else cheap to board anymore dump their horses. Boarding barns close due to lack of clients and can't afford taxes. Same with backyard owners...my taxes alone could go from $5k to $11,500. Horses glut the market...nobody will buy since nowhere to keep them, horse values crash. Less horses means less vets, hay suppliers, farriers, feed stores, etc...so even the wealthier have issues keeping horses since fewer of those brings in supply and demand and rates hike more. Buh Bye horse industry...hello to new development and higher property taxes for the towns. And some bleeding heart wackadoos agree with this on some levels because they hope changing status from livestock to pet or luxury item will stop slaughter for good. Little do they realize the issues. *sigh* Yeah, this thing annoys me. Zoning and Right To Farm are pet projects of mine.
Now that I've bored everyone to tears...my apologies. But at least it's about how the smaller local governments piss off the regular folks by trying to be sneaky. They send out tax bills as low as $5 - $8 per horse hoping to screw with people's heads. Who's gonna argue about $5 per year? And if ONE state does it...every other state uses that as precendence and follows suit. So us horsie folks do fight and fight HARD against changes like this. And not because it only affects us personally...because it changes zoning and freedom for everyone else although most might not follow the convoluted path of how that's being planned.
I hate to quote such a long post... but this doesn't hold reason either.
In NH, Ag designation is simply a matter of zoning... not taxation. Current Use is taxation... but unmaintained forest land is the lowest rate with quality soil Ag land being the highest. Also NH has a property tax on autos at the municipal level... they could easily expand it to encompass other forms of property (even used to have bicycle registration when I was a kid).
But Skinder's reasoning really wasn't in support of the municipal property tax system.
Brian already gave a wonderfully articulated answer, but I would like to address the "violence" issue in a slightly more succinct way.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 05, 2009, 07:08 PM NHFT
As for the violence comments...it's a case of semantics then I guess. I tend to be a pretty literal, low emotion person. Drives my husband nuts sometimes that I'm about as feminine in the emotion department as a rock. Except for the fun use of sarcasm from time to time...I don't use flowery speach unnecessary to making my point. To ME...violence in violence. Force is force. They could have been violent...they weren't. Just the fact that they were wearing sidearms doesn;t make them violent...if so then wouldn't all of you be violent people also? I know that would make me a violent person because I do carry if I feel a need to. It's not often...I know I have a right and a license to but honestly I don't come across a lot of reasons to use a pistol at a feed store, the coffee shop, etc. Even as a 5'2" small built middle aged female.
Here is the major difference: when you're carrying a gun, even openly, and you engage someone and would like them to do something, but they don't do what you want, then you aren't going to pull your gun and make them do it anyway.
That is the major difference between your conversation with the clerk at the feed store, and your interaction with the police during a traffic stop: you will do whatever the officer says, not because you agree that he's right, not because he's wearing a gun, not because he can summon help and take you to jail by force, but because
even if he does all those things, the prosecutors and courts will agree with him and take his side.
As others said, it's not that the policeman
wears a weapon; he
is the weapon.
If your voluntary exchange at the feed store turns nasty for some reason, you can leave freely. If your
involuntary exchange during a traffic stop turns nasty and you attempt to leave, you will be tackled and/or tazered and/or shot, then taken to jail and/or the hospital (if not the morgue).
MistyBlue, I thank you for sticking around for some open-minded debate about the underlying philosophy. I think you really "get" the property issues involved. Many of us here are also animal lovers; my wife and I are personally involved in dog and cat rescue (although we prefer voluntary social networking solutions over quasi-governmental agencies like SPCA).
The liberty lovers here can be your strongest allies when it comes to protecting you and your horses from government abuses. That's all Brian and Heidi are asking in return.
Kevin
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 05, 2009, 08:48 AM NHFT
.... you'd see that's very evident that we're not related. I use the same screen name online everywhere.
Why not just tell Brian who you are? You are posting a lot. Why not introduce yourself.
Thanks Kevin for the explanation. :)
QuoteThe liberty lovers here can be your strongest allies when it comes to protecting you and your horses from government abuses. That's all Brian and Heidi are asking in return.
In this case I don't see it as a case of government abuse. There are clear, well researched, *easily found, well written and extremely easy livestock welfare laws to follow in the state of NH. And any livestock owner worth having livestock should easily be able to follow even these simple, low expense livestock keeping laws. Covered 3 sided shelters enough to house every animal on the property in case that's necessary, decent quality food in the correct amounts to keep them from starving, access to palatable water at all times. Hardly seems difficult. They weren't willing or able to provide those 3 simple things.
Brian and Heidi weren't being held to take by their own FSP community...which is the solution I keep reading on this and other liberty forums. More freedoms would equal more moral responsibility within communities and these things would be handled by the people instead of the law. Well, that wasn't working. These two people are only proving in the most obvious way that the proposed change to animal welfare laws no longer being upheld by the SPCA or government wouldn't work. Either nobody else cared, nobody else noticed or nobody else knew enough about equine condition and care to know any better. So the proposed solution doesn't work for either ignorance, ignoring or lack of knowledge. A professional was not needed to see those horses were well below anything close to a healthy weight or condition in the latest released video. Yet many on here are coming up with all sorts of reasons they were like that...or that those body conditions were perfectly acceptable...or that the body conditions didn't matter anyways. So if any of these folks had visited Brian and Heidi's farm at any point and saw those horses in that condition...according to comments made on here they wouldn't have done anything anyways. Prolonging suffering of other living things. Property or not. So the proposed plan obviously doesn't/wouldn't work anyways and proves *so far* that the SPCA is needed with back up from the law. Because at this point, the community hasn't policed itself well at all that I have seen.
Even the law isn't in the least like the Natzi regime...1) they get a warning and told the laws. 2) Temproary seizure with return if they improve things. 3) Seizure without return. 3 chances to get things right. They ignored the first as evidenced by Brian's own words online all over the place. And due to both their claims that Heidi has had a lifetime in horses, in showing, is now into racing and has done sales and does training and does all her own work with her horses...it's been said repeatedly that there wasn't any way on this earth that Heidi didn't know about about proper care, proper condition and most especially...needing Coggins. Since nobody else within their community has the authority to demand proof of Coggins or probably even knew what Coggins tests were or what they were for...if there isn't a law and the SPCA to uphold it they could very well have killed hundreds, even thousands, of horses. For those not grasping the need to protect against EIA by having proof of negative Coggins tests: think what an airborn e bola strain could do if someone came into your area with that. Yes, it's that deadly and that hard to contain. And what's worse than e bola...there's no possible cure for it. How is that protecting anyone else's freedom of remaining disease free?
It's a sad condition all around...the loss of freedoms is tough enough without freedom fighters proving in no uncertain terms in a very public way that their own cause is extremely faulty in this area and that their own community's answer for it is to ignore that anyways.
As for involuntary traffic stops...if I'm speeding well over the limit and get pulled over, it's not so much involuntary as it's "taking my chances and then whining about them not going the way I wanted." The LEO has no right to be overbearing about it, and usually aren't. As a regular Joe...what are *my* rights of driving safely without people driving at reckless speeds? Where is my freedom to drive safely? As a regular Joe I can't pull someone over and demand that they drive a safe speed. And in rural areas...it's much harder to control a car at 60 on winding narrow roads with visibility obscured by trees and curves than it is in other places. So nobody has the right to pull that driver over and demand they drive a safe speed, and they fly around a curve...deer in the road or car broke down and swerve and take out someone else driving a safe speed. Someone who would have had time to avoid a crash had they driven a safe speed.
As for avoiding being mugged for $10 by carrying openly...I would think more people would leave you alone if you had a live duck on your head. ;D ;) Thugs included.
Russell...I have never hidden who I am. I can tell you outright but really should allow everyone who feels a need to know to do a 5 minute google search since it seems researching issues before jumping on bandwagons is something that might be lacking here considering how obvious untruths weren't noticed so far until pointed out. (and then ignored)
I am easily found. My name is Rebecca. Pleased to meet many in here. :wave: (not Gail, haven't met her either. I'm not in NH)
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 06, 2009, 10:19 AM NHFT
In this case I don't see it as a case of government abuse. There are clear, well researched, *easily found, well written and extremely easy livestock welfare laws to follow in the state of NH.
Just a friendly question for you... did Brian and Heidi sign an agreement that stated they'd follow those laws? Or did some group of people decide that Brian and Heidi (and everyone else for that matter) better follow those laws,
or else?
Depends.
You can't support the force of government to property rights, then not support that government has a such an authority.
<<I don't know what Dada's point was--lots of people will organize to fight taxes that directly penalize them>>
I think if everyone just fought for their own rights that would be a big improvement over what we have now.
A lot do.
The same groups that fight for their rights, many times are the aggressors in another's fight for freedom.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 06, 2009, 10:19 AM NHFT
Brian and Heidi weren't being held to take by their own FSP community...which is the solution I keep reading on this and other liberty forums. More freedoms would equal more moral responsibility within communities and these things would be handled by the people instead of the law. Well, that wasn't working. These two people are only proving in the most obvious way that the proposed change to animal welfare laws no longer being upheld by the SPCA or government wouldn't work. Either nobody else cared, nobody else noticed or nobody else knew enough about equine condition and care to know any better. So the proposed solution doesn't work for either ignorance, ignoring or lack of knowledge.
I don't see it that way, Rebecca. In the current world, people have been indoctrinated to think the government will take care of these things, and they sometimes do, with the grace of a Mack truck on a go-cart track. They only have one arrow in their quiver: force. People are complacent, thinking the government is using the money they collect in taxes to make the world a better place, when in fact the people who call themselves government are only using their force to achieve some goal.
Suppose these laws were changed to disempower the SPCA from being a quasi-government arm. In order to survive, they would have to think of other ways to help protect the animals. Perhaps they would have arrived with grain and de-wormers and offers of temporary barn space instead of armed men with search warrants.
We can't even begin to conceive of the wonderful things that would happen in a world where the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. Of course, there would probably be less need for lobbyists. ;)
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 06, 2009, 11:02 AM NHFT
Depends.
You can't support the force of government to property rights, then not support that government has a such an authority.
If you're trying to answer any of the questions I asked, you failed to do so. Depends isn't an answer to any of them.
It means you can take both sides of the equation.
If your property rights are derived and protected from the force of government... then the government plays a role in them.
For instance, I have title (right) to my land. This is derived by deed (from the State of NH). The authority of which was granted upon independence and derived from the British Crown under King George III.
So in the case of my real property (land), its exclusivity accrues from societal contract (government).
While those things upon it that are not natural and derived from human labor are personal property.
NH has some of this written in its constitution, though few of the legislators fully comprehend the reasoning behind it.
This is just a continuation of the thread on the FSP forum that questions whether or not property rights are absolute or not. Animals seem to have special "rights/moral" status with many people because they can feel pain which would make them call into question whether or not people have absolute property rights to animals.
QuotePerhaps they would have arrived with grain and de-wormers and offers of temporary barn space instead of armed men with search warrants.
Hmmm...does this mean in your opinion the horses were in need of these things?
Quote from: BillKauffman on April 06, 2009, 02:51 PM NHFT
QuotePerhaps they would have arrived with grain and de-wormers and offers of temporary barn space instead of armed men with search warrants.
Hmmm...does this mean in your opinion the horses were in need of these things?
Some people apparently thought so. Wouldn't it be nice if those people who were concerned asked us before bringing in the guns of the state?
Of course, we don't know what probable cause the government had because they still (four weeks later) refuse to unseal the affidavit listing the reasons for the raid. The way I understand it, their rules say they need to release the information as soon as charges are filed, unless releasing the information would compromise further investigations. So are they planning more arrests? Perhaps the farrier? Perhaps the caretaker? Perhaps the guy who delayed delivering hay because it was raining on the day it was scheduled? How much more investigating do they have to do before they live up to their fourth amendment duty? To wit:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
They have the horses in their possession. I would assume that they are being taken care of, but we have not been allowed to even know where they are. They allowed WMUR to know where some of them are, but we have been warned not to come anywhere near them without permission. Apparently now we need permission to enjoy our own property. The government's active silence on this matter is very disturbing.
They'll have to prove in court why they took so long to unseal the affidavit.
It all comes down to a very smelly situation that has little to do with the horses. Perhaps they were expecting that Heidi would be a push-over like most people are in this situation. Thank you very much to the liberty community for helping with the fight, both monetarily and with moral support.
Not so much to the horse community, which has already convicted Heidi based on nothing but hearsay and gossip.
QuoteJust a friendly question for you... did Brian and Heidi sign an agreement that stated they'd follow those laws? Or did some group of people decide that Brian and Heidi (and everyone else for that matter) better follow those laws, or else?
Hi Slave. Of course Brian and Heidi didn't sign an agreement to follow these laws. Just like they didn't sign an agreement when they purchased/bred their horses to provide adequate care, food, water and shelter when they acquired them. It's *usually* one of those things people would call "a given." Nobody forced them to move to this state, they chose to. By doing so, they passively agree to follow the laws of that state until such time as they can change those laws to better suit their own ideas and ideals. And yes, some group decided that whomever should move to NH should follow their laws. You have the right to vote on those laws just as everyone else does. Deciding to ignore the outcome when the vote doesn't go your own way is akin to pouting. I could honestly see your point...IF the law was unreasonable. It isn't unreasonable. It isn't excessive and the state of NH has a pretty low level of minimum animal care welfare law according to most other states. As a matter of fact, where they come from in CO they have a much more lax welfare law and had a tough time following that one too. And stating "well I could do that there, why not here?" is like going over someone else's house and pooping on their carpet and then being indignant when they find that unacceptable and saying, "Well I can do that in my house!" (of course you probably won't get any visitors or any other social invitations if that actually happened LOL)
Mr Mercier does make an excellent point IMO...it's the government that gives us the right to own property. And few areas impose that many constrictions on the quiet enjoyment of your property. You could walk around naked wearing a duck on your head and crapping on your own carpets at home...but I wouldn't suggest doing that while blowing an air horn non stop at 3 am if you have nearby neighbors.
Many to most people do want the government's aide in protection of that property to an extent...which I do agree with because not every person has the ability to protect their own property. And I'd hope not everyone wants this society to be survival of the strong only and weak no longer have rights. Because I can guaran-damn-tee you that as tough as everyone thinks they might be...there's always someone tougher or more wiley and if they decide they want your property, you're screwed.
I also don't want the government's nose up my butt over every little thing. I do follow the Nunya rule...sometimes it's nunya's business. Why do things have to be absolute? Why not choose to comply with the reasonable and lobby/fight/vote against those things that arne't? Very few things in like are black and white or have an absolute. And if people want an absolute on everything they personally believe in...yet the majority of their area doesn't agree with that so the first group doesn't get their own way...then move to a better fitting area. It's a big planet and there's quite a few locations that have absolute freedom of rights. It might be somewhere without electricity or internet...but we can't all get everything we want. We decide what's most important to us and choose our locations from there. A small handful cannot and *should not* force everyone around them to live a lifestyle nobody else wants.
QuoteSuppose these laws were changed to disempower the SPCA from being a quasi-government arm. In order to survive, they would have to think of other ways to help protect the animals. Perhaps they would have arrived with grain and de-wormers and offers of temporary barn space instead of armed men with search warrants.
Brian, respectfully disagree. Research shows that animal welfare did indeed start out just the utopian ideal you've outlined above. It changed over time...because it did not work. Not to mention...and where is the "new and improved" SPCA supposed to get the income for supplying everyone who doesn't feel like paying for their own property's upkeep? And what's to stop more people from saying, "Well if we don't feed/care for our animals the new SPCA will for us. And we get to keep our animals and not pay for upkeep." Or a ton of people who can't afford enough food for pets or horses can now get them because there's no longer any reason to try to afford them. If you think peole take advantage of stuff like the welfare system...imagine the same for animal care. Rewarding ignorance or cheapness or stupidity has never improved any society anywhere.
If you weren't willing to pay for the proper nutrition and parasite control for your horses...why should someone else have to do that and not reap the benefits of enjoyment of the animals? I would imagine you're hardly destitute. Two adults working full time...one who has two businesses...owning many supposedly "very expensive race horses"...and you couldn't afford these things? Or chose not to so someone else should pony it up? (pardon the pun folks) Would you be donating to the new improved utopian SPCA without force so that others can benefit from it? Think about that question because it's a toughie...either you say you wouldn't donate which means your idea has no merit in your own mind...or you would donate which means you had the funds all along to care for those horses and chose not to. And Mr Kauffman also has a pretty interesting point...I suppose that means the horses did indeed need those things?
As for not needing lobbyists anymore...that would be MY Utopian world indeed. ;D I'm not paid for that at all. Never a thin dime for it. It's a crapload of work for absolutely no financial gain. I do it because it needs to be done, otherwise all the lazier folks have the government doing stupid things to them and it WILL affect me also. So I put on my big-girl panties and cowgirl up. No whining here...if I want something changed I work towards changing it. Because it's the right thing to do, not because it gains me fortune or fame. More like notoriety/infamy with local governments and headaches most of the time, LOL! And before I try changing anything...I put in the hours and time and effort needed to FULLY research the best way to do that, the way that will have the best chance of succeeding and whatever long term snowball effects those changes might have. In other words...I aim before I shoot. ;) Better chance of hitting my targets. so lobbying is a huge pain the tuckus to me and I'd love to drop it. I've got enough on my plate already.
BTW, just out of curiosity's sake and because I'm feeling a bit >:D right now...I did have a buttload of questions for you in previous ridiculously wordy posts of mine. So far you've managed to not answer any that I recall reading. You must have been the best Dodgeball player as a child. ::)
Quoteit's the government that gives us the right to own property.
No, we come out of a state of nature and
consent to forming a civil society which includes giving up on arbitrary use of force (might makes right) and empowering governance via a constitutional limited mandate with a monopoly on force within a geographical territory to adjudicate wrongful acts and uphold our natural rights to life, liberty and labor-based property which pre-exist governance (notice I slipped in that originally horses weren't labor-based).
Some people believe that this consent has to be
explicit and therefore society's natural conclusion with this requirement is free market, poly-centric law (no monopoly on force to uphold statutory law within a geographical region) with private defense agencies and private insurance.
Most others outside the anarchist wing of the liberty movement - apparently like you - believe in an implicit social contract theory.
QuoteVery few things in like are black and white or have an absolute.
Most all the people here believe that the right to life, liberty and property
IS absolute.
QuoteA small handful cannot and *should not* force everyone around them to live a lifestyle nobody else wants.
But a majority should? I think the explicit consent crowd believes they are doing no harm while adhering to the non-aggression principle (NAP).
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 06, 2009, 03:57 PM NHFT
Mr Mercier does make an excellent point IMO...it's the government that gives us the right to own property. And few areas impose that many constrictions on the quiet enjoyment of your property.
Rebecca, I really hope you don't think the government gives us the right to own property. Or any other rights, for that matter. Even their founding documents (declarations, constitutions, etc.) are very clear that rights are endowed by our creator, and that governments are instituted among men to protect life, liberty and property. Something like that. If you can point me to the part where my right to own property is granted by governments, I'd be interested in looking at that.
My philosophy starts with the assumption that you own you. If you don't believe that you own you, then who does? If you do own you, then you also own the things that come from you. At what point in this journey does someone else have a claim on you?
This 8-minute video does a great job of illustrating this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 06, 2009, 03:57 PM NHFT
BTW, just out of curiosity's sake and because I'm feeling a bit >:D right now...I did have a buttload of questions for you in previous ridiculously wordy posts of mine. So far you've managed to not answer any that I recall reading. You must have been the best Dodgeball player as a child. ::)
Actually, I was that guy setting up the projectors in school. Didn't much care for sports.
Frankly, I just skimmed your long posts. Being a typesetter, I appreciate white space and everything looked like a blur. Your posts were kinda tough to read.
If you have specific questions, I'd be happy to answer, but I'd request that you make them short, pointed questions. You can ask them here or by private message if you'd like so as not to bore the few people who are still slogging through this thread. :)
Governments do not grant rights.
They can take them away and often do.
Our system was set up to protect the people FROM government and to protect the minority FROM the majority.
In essence, to protect their rights.
Unfortunately, it is a failed experiment as is evidenced daily.
Rights exist. Period. They cannot be granted.
This is how it's worded in The NH Constitution: (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)
Quote from: The NH ConstitutionArticle 1. [Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.] All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.
Article 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.
MistyBlue, even though your posts are a bit long, they would be much more readable if you would use the return key more often.
For starters, hit "return" twice after ending a paragraph; this will create a blank line of space before the next paragraph. Just that simple step will make your posts much easier to read.
Guys, I'm feeling a little low on karma. Power me up if you will. Or smite me a blow if you are so inclined.
looks like I got whacked pretty good too. Thankfully, to me it means little more than the fact that people read what I said and reacted. Smite and applaud away.
The phantom smiter is definitely active lately.
Quote from: brian.travis on April 06, 2009, 04:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 06, 2009, 03:57 PM NHFT
Mr Mercier does make an excellent point IMO...it's the government that gives us the right to own property. And few areas impose that many constrictions on the quiet enjoyment of your property.
Rebecca, I really hope you don't think the government gives us the right to own property. Or any other rights, for that matter. Even their founding documents (declarations, constitutions, etc.) are very clear that rights are endowed by our creator, and that governments are instituted among men to protect life, liberty and property. Something like that. If you can point me to the part where my right to own property is granted by governments, I'd be interested in looking at that.
My philosophy starts with the assumption that you own you. If you don't believe that you own you, then who does? If you do own you, then you also own the things that come from you. At what point in this journey does someone else have a claim on you?
This 8-minute video does a great job of illustrating this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 06, 2009, 03:57 PM NHFT
BTW, just out of curiosity's sake and because I'm feeling a bit >:D right now...I did have a buttload of questions for you in previous ridiculously wordy posts of mine. So far you've managed to not answer any that I recall reading. You must have been the best Dodgeball player as a child. ::)
Actually, I was that guy setting up the projectors in school. Didn't much care for sports.
Frankly, I just skimmed your long posts. Being a typesetter, I appreciate white space and everything looked like a blur. Your posts were kinda tough to read.
If you have specific questions, I'd be happy to answer, but I'd request that you make them short, pointed questions. You can ask them here or by private message if you'd like so as not to bore the few people who are still slogging through this thread. :)
Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?
Nowhere in it does it list 'property' as an inalienable right.
As for the NH Constitution, it does not differentiate between that property which is acquired by human labor... and that which naturally existed without reference to human labor. At least in those Articles... and I would submit if used should include Part First Article Three.
Natural right, I would submit to be
common and not allow for the
exclusive use of any particular tract of land... nor naturally occuring resource... outside of government.
I'm getting hit too. All you non-thieves get 1+
Quote from: KBCraig on April 06, 2009, 06:54 PM NHFT
The phantom smiter is definitely active lately.
It seems I have not been granted the right to smite nor applaud anyone. It feels a little unfair to see my karma keep dropping when I'm not allowed to play that game! :crybaby2:
Me been feelin' smited, also. ::)
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 06, 2009, 07:21 PM NHFT
Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?
Nowhere in it does it list 'property' as an inalienable right.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.I know what life and liberty are. My silly interpretation is that I need property to pursue happiness. I mean, how happy are you without the wind blowing through your hair in your new convertible? And nothing says "happy" like racking a round into your new AK-47. So the word "property" isn't in this sacred document. Does that mean that property is
not an inalienable right?
The sacred document continues:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governedDoes this mean that if I no longer want to be governed I can withdraw my consent? Were it only that easy. Many have tried. Many have been thrown in metal cages for doing so. Talk about your cruelty to animals!
only silly people need a piece of paper to tell them that they have rights to private property.
QuoteIf you have specific questions, I'd be happy to answer, but I'd request that you make them short, pointed questions. You can ask them here or by private message if you'd like so as not to bore the few people who are still slogging through this thread.
Ask and ye shall receive:
I realize these are bunches of questions, pick some at least:
Beth built the fences? Or you did? Or professionals did? Because so far you have personally stated three possible theories for how the fences ended up on the property. In video you stated you personally built the fences and they fell down. Then Heidi states in same video that professionals were hired to build fences. (if pros built the fencing seen in the video I hope they weren't paid) Now you're saying the poor fencing is entirely Beth's fault. Which is it?
Then there was this comment by you:
QuoteNov 6 08:Here's an update. Steve Sprowl, the SPCA investigator, finally called me back today and said that all he wanted to do is to check out the sheds as required by law. I assured him that our very expensive racehorses were well taken care of. I explained that the "Animal Cruelty Officer" from the town next door visited a couple months ago and reminded me that there was a "law" that required shelter between November 15th and April 15th. I told the cop then that I was aware of that rule of theirs. Their law actually says November 1st. Of course, I was supposed to be aware of this law by the mere fact that I was born?
My questions are:
So you weren't aware at all? And November wasn't even your first time being told of the shelter law...a few months before November you were also told. Why? No horses there yet supposedly. So you state you weren't aware of the rule, but you also state you were aware of the rule and were told a couple months before November, again in November. And neither of those times did you think to do a 30 second Google search to get the exact wording on the NH shelter law that states in full each horses must have a 10x10 3 sided covered area? Took me 30 seconds to find that info since I'm not in NH. After two warnings it never occured to you to check that since you've also stated you would have been happy to comply had you only been told/known?
And last group of questions:
Your own comments:
QuoteJust a couple of points. I've learned things since this whole fiasco started. You are reading/watching/listening to/channeling information that I've written/taped/recorded/thought as some facts were known and others weren't yet known. To say there are inconsistencies across time is certainly accurate. That's the nature of breaking news. Do you expect a newspaper to go back and correct last week's article when new information comes to light today? It would be nice if I had all facts on every facet of this case that were known and yet to be known in the future. That way, I'd be able to be more consistent.
My questions:
As facts were known to YOU? You did not know any of your own inconsistencies? You had no idea who actually built the fence until someone else told you? When you stated you built the fences you had no idea you didn't? When you claim you spent $____ on hay you had no idea you didn't do that? When you stated the horses got hay and grain always all the time you had no idea they didn't when you were standing next to Heidi as she said different on camera? When 3 different people told you between summer and November in 2008 that your shelters were inadequate and not legal you had no idea that they had done so when you claimed nobody told you anything about shelters until March? Even though it's been your own words stating these facts? I could go on listing the lies....or you could inform people that you have an extremely shoddy memory. Or that you've been skewing facts in order to get the most false support possible or the most fawning over you possible. Or maybe just the most free labor possible?
They're all related questions in each group.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 06, 2009, 10:19 AM NHFT
Brian and Heidi weren't being held to take by their own FSP community...which is the solution I keep reading on this and other liberty forums.
In this case, I don't think I should call the cops to steal their horses or even tell them how to care for them. I do want to let some people know that I do not agree with the spca or the government thugs in the taking of the horses. I also do not have the time or money to help them with their horse business.
I also will stay out of your business, unless it involves you helping the thugs or otherwise hurting people.
An understandable viewpoint Mr Kanning. I'd love to be able to always help every neighbor of mine out through tough time or issues, but it's not always possible or feasible. And there might be neighbors I don't like so much...I'm honest enough to admit that also. ;) Although I'm pretty lucky in the neighbor department.
But many others in this forum have stated that the replacement solution for removing the government and SPCA from upholding animal welfare issues was that the community would take care of the problem. But in this case...their own community didn't. You might not have voiced that the community should help out with animal welfare but others did. Yet when it was needed, nobody did. So my point was that the solution proposed is already proven to have not worked.
And if it doesn't work by those who think that the community should step in...and if the rest who don't care either way won't step in...then I guess people just allow their animals to decline and suffer and possibly eventually pass away? If you're one of the people that think property rights trumps everything including suffering then I guess that is the answer.
I'm jusy trying to understand the mind set of the folks on here. Everyone has different levels of beliefs and what they support and don't.
This comment I don't understand though:
QuoteI also will stay out of your business, unless it involves you helping the thugs or otherwise hurting people
I'm confused as to why I would have you in my business if I "help the thugs." I gather thugs are LEOs? I already do volunteer through 2 local PDs here in CT once in a while. I teach self defense and firearm safety on a volunteer basis. And a form of modified personal protection for women and teens. Does that mean I am now somehow open season for getting into my business? Because I don't share a hatred of LEOs? That sounds odd to me.
But if a solution is offered as a Better Way by some folks and yet that solution isn't working...then it's really not a better way, is it?
Quote from: coffeeseven on April 06, 2009, 07:45 PM NHFT
I'm getting hit too. All you non-thieves get 1+
I'll be negative soon, lol. ;D
QuoteAnd if it doesn't work by those who think that the community should step in...and if the rest who don't care either way won't step in...then I guess people just allow their animals to decline and suffer and possibly eventually pass away? If you're one of the people that think property rights trumps everything including suffering then I guess that is the answer.
I'm jusy trying to understand the mind set of the folks on here. Everyone has different levels of beliefs and what they support and don't.
I've tried to explain to you that in a voluntary society people have to explicitly sign a contract to abide by the rules governing them.
They believe property rights (first right being right to self and all other is a corollary to one's labor) trump everything including the suffering of animals which is a moral but not criminal wrong.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 06, 2009, 09:28 PM NHFT
I'm jusy trying to understand the mind set of the folks on here. Everyone has different levels of beliefs and what they support and don't.
I speak only for me. What's yours is yours and what's mine is mine. If I CHOOSE to share my things with you it's because I CHOOSE to share my things with you. If you FORCE me to share my things with you it's called theft.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 06, 2009, 07:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: brian.travis on April 06, 2009, 04:35 PM NHFT
Rebecca, I really hope you don't think the government gives us the right to own property. Or any other rights, for that matter. Even their founding documents (declarations, constitutions, etc.) are very clear that rights are endowed by our creator, and that governments are instituted among men to protect life, liberty and property. Something like that.
Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?
Nowhere in it does it list 'property' as an inalienable right.
That's below your usual standards, JEM. Brian's point was that rights are not
given by government, and do not
originate from government, and that the U.S. founding documents are clear on that philosophy.
I also would expect that someone as well-read as you would know the history of the phrase "pursuit of happiness". The earliest versions explicitly mentioned property, but that was considered too limiting; everyone should be able to freely define what their own "happiness" is, and not everyone seeks property. Some want the freedom to seek their own vocation, or education, or lifestyle.
The judicial opinions and legal scholars I've read (IANAL) typically hold that free ownership of property
is the "pursuit of happiness" referenced in the Declaration of Independence.
Actually it was from Lockean philosophy. Locke did not believe that which existed naturally (not derived from human labor) could be owned exlusively outside of societal contract (government).
Its why the NH Constitution allows for the taxation of certain elements but not others...
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 06, 2009, 03:57 PM NHFT
it's the government that gives us the right to own property.
*gag*
I think she missed my point... specific property is defined as common or private when government is the agent of exclusivity.
Domesticated animals do not fall under that category... they are neither natural nor common to NH.
But its quite obvious to most that NH is deciding on what restrictions will be placed on common property... irregardless of the basis of their fiduciary responsibility protect the individual common right from infringement.
And I fear that it will only get worse.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 06, 2009, 07:21 PM NHFT
As for the NH Constitution, it does not differentiate between that property which is acquired by human labor... and that which naturally existed without reference to human labor. At least in those Articles... and I would submit if used should include Part First Article Three.
Natural right, I would submit to be common and not allow for the exclusive use of any particular tract of land... nor naturally occuring resource... outside of government.
[Art.] 3. [Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.
The "surrender" in Article 3 does not specify property rights, only "some ... natural rights."
QuoteMy silly interpretation is that I need property to pursue happiness.
Happiness being subjective may or may not require property.
Certainly your life and liberty also requires that the products of your labor be your property.
"There is only one fundamental right (all others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action--which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life...Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life." -- Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pp. 321-2
"The right of life and liberty--that is to say, the right of the man to himself--is not really one right and the right of property another right. They are two aspects of the same perception--the right of property being but another side, a differently stated expression, of the right of man to himself. The right of life and liberty, and the right of the individual to himself, presupposes and involves the right of property, which is the exclusive right of the individual to the things his exertion has produced." -- Henry George, A Perplexed Philosopher, p. 210
QuoteDoes this mean that if I no longer want to be governed I can withdraw my consent?
Yes, by moving or within the political process set forth in the constitution or revolution.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 06, 2009, 09:28 PM NHFT
An understandable viewpoint Mr Kanning. I'd love to be able to always help every neighbor of mine out through tough time or issues, but it's not always possible or feasible. And there might be neighbors I don't like so much...I'm honest enough to admit that also. ;) Although I'm pretty lucky in the neighbor department.
But many others in this forum have stated that the replacement solution for removing the government and SPCA from upholding animal welfare issues was that the community would take care of the problem. But in this case...their own community didn't. You might not have voiced that the community should help out with animal welfare but others did. Yet when it was needed, nobody did. So my point was that the solution proposed is already proven to have not worked.
And if it doesn't work by those who think that the community should step in...and if the rest who don't care either way won't step in...then I guess people just allow their animals to decline and suffer and possibly eventually pass away? If you're one of the people that think property rights trumps everything including suffering then I guess that is the answer.
I'm jusy trying to understand the mind set of the folks on here. Everyone has different levels of beliefs and what they support and don't.
This comment I don't understand though:
QuoteI also will stay out of your business, unless it involves you helping the thugs or otherwise hurting people
I'm confused as to why I would have you in my business if I "help the thugs." I gather thugs are LEOs? I already do volunteer through 2 local PDs here in CT once in a while. I teach self defense and firearm safety on a volunteer basis. And a form of modified personal protection for women and teens. Does that mean I am now somehow open season for getting into my business? Because I don't share a hatred of LEOs? That sounds odd to me.
But if a solution is offered as a Better Way by some folks and yet that solution isn't working...then it's really not a better way, is it?
MistyBlue I appreciate your attempt to explain your views. I hope you realize that the participants on this forum don't walk in lock step with each other. :)
Many here view LEO as paid enforcers, even the name "Law Enforcement" as opposed to "Peace Officer" points this out. Russell for example does not "hate" cops. Russell tries not to "hate" anyone. He opposes what they do. For example him and his wife were arrested for holding signs on a public sidewalk. Russell had his arms twisted behind his back almost to the point of permanent damage by federal marshals, his crime, peaceful noncooperation after attempting to hand an IRS employee a piece of paper.
See Russell and others here take the Gandhi/MLK approach of peaceful resistance. They don't threaten or yell at the cops, the worse the do is remain silent or tell them that what they are doing is wrong.
Russell, Lauren, Dave Ridley and others have served time, sometimes extremely excessive punishments. Lauren was held 90 days, treated very badly for sitting on a porch in resistance to the imminent domain takings in New London CT.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 06, 2009, 08:52 PM NHFT
I realize these are bunches of questions, pick some at least:
OK, Rebecca. I'll answer your questions, but it's not fair that I have to answer yours and you don't have to answer mine. How about this? I'll answer one question at a time, and then I'll ask you a question. As soon as we are each satisfied with the answer, we can go to the next round. Let's start with the first one.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 06, 2009, 08:52 PM NHFT
Beth built the fences? Or you did? Or professionals did? Because so far you have personally stated three possible theories for how the fences ended up on the property. In video you stated you personally built the fences and they fell down. Then Heidi states in same video that professionals were hired to build fences. (if pros built the fencing seen in the video I hope they weren't paid) Now you're saying the poor fencing is entirely Beth's fault. Which is it?
No inconsistencies here. I started to build the first fence during the summer. I laid out the area and put the first wire of a four-wire fence. Beth told me she knew how to build fences, so I let her finish that one and do the rest, which she completed with the help of her boyfriend and my son. Like all fences, they were in constant need of repair, which was done by Beth and Heidi through the winter. Near the end of winter, the maintenance hassles were too much, and so Heidi hired a professional fence company to come in and replace them all with five-wire fences, which stand today.
Is that satisfactory?
So here's your question: You said:
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 06, 2009, 03:57 PM NHFT
Mr Mercier does make an excellent point IMO...it's the government that gives us the right to own property.
Where did you find that the government gives us the right to own property, and how are those rights conveyed by the government to someone who wants to own property?
Fair enough....I can answer your question with your own words, the Constitution gives us the right to the pursuit of happiness. Happiness being for many to own land. I've been under the impression that the Constitution was the start of our government, although I may be wrong in that.
Also the government allows us to consider land "our own" even before we own it. As in when we have a mortgage on the property....the bank may technically have all rights to the property when they own the controlling percentage of that land's worth. Kind of like the one who owns the controlling amount of shares in the company has the legal right to coontrol that company.
Yet if we take a mortgage on a property for 80% of it's worth...it's still ours to do with as we wish as long as we pay our mortgage/promise off in a timely manner. The bank cannot come in and say, "We own 80% of that property and it's better business for us to use it as ________ until you've paid off 51% of the worth of the property."
I guess we all interpret it in different ways. But if I follow the chain of rational thought backwards from purchase to owning a property...I keep bumping into the government at some point. Who knows? Maybe my train of thought is incorrect to other people.
Here's your next question: (I am humming the theme from Jeopardy here, LOL)
You stated both in the newspapers and online that you had no idea what the welfare shelter laws were for NH until March 2009 when they came to take the horses for neglect and non-compliance.
Yet you also stated in many different forums and areas that not only was your family informed in November that shelter was necessary, you also admit that another ACO had been out 2 months prior to then to tell you the same and even Ms. Paradis from the rescue told Heidi that you were not set up to care for and shelter 30 horses. You were told who to contact to get the specific shelter laws, and common sense dictates that after two comments from different ACOs and one from a rescue owner....it would make sense to look up the laws online in a 30 second google search to find oout what exactly those laws state.
Are you still stating that you had no idea that there wasn't adequate shelter on your property? (for desert evolved horses not equipped by mother nature to withstand NH winters)
QuoteI've tried to explain to you that in a voluntary society people have to explicitly sign a contract to abide by the rules governing them.
They believe property rights (first right being right to self and all other is a corollary to one's labor) trump everything including the suffering of animals which is a moral but not criminal wrong.
If it's a voluntary society why do they have to explicitly sign a contract? ;)
Just kidding... ;D...I understand the point that suffering of animals would be a moral wrong...but would the contract mentioned above address anything moral? And if it doesn't, what would be the remedy for moral wrongs such as purposely causing animals to suffer either with malice or by careless neglect?
If there isn't any remedy for that...then that's a free yet not moral society isn't it?
Shunning is not a remedy because that *was* the remedy for a couple hundred years or so. It worked so poorly that moral laws had to be implemented, the problem was rampant at that time due to leaving the care of animals 100% up to those who owned them. They never did remove animals from the Property status though, they just implemented consequences to those who, through malice or careless neglect, caused undue suffering to living things not able to have their own freedoms. So wouldn't that be the same as what's going on now? The government causing emotional suffering to some humans through either mailice or neglect...yet it's perfectly okay to remove the freedom of being free from suffering just because the living thing isn't capable of speech or cognitive thought? Is that acceptable?
Tom Sawyer...thanks. :) I do see that not everyone here marches to the exact same beat but does share the same core beliefs about liberty.
The ED issue in New Haven was a fiasco and definitely a bastardization of the ED laws by the government here. I was also involved with protesting and fighting that. (I used to be a Realtor) I'm still pissed off about the outcome, that was 100% wrong. And I'm sorry to hear that Lauren paid that price for protesting that also...that's reprehensible. :-[
Rebecca, I assume you're satisfied with my answer on the fences because you've taken on my question.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 07, 2009, 07:09 AM NHFT
Fair enough....I can answer your question with your own words, the Constitution gives us the right to the pursuit of happiness. Happiness being for many to own land. I've been under the impression that the Constitution was the start of our government, although I may be wrong in that.
First of all it was the Declaration of Independence that stated that all rights are unalienable. That is, we have them when we are born (the words they used were "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness").
The U.S. Constitution was written to create a government that will work to protect those rights.
I still don't see where the government has the ability to grant property rights to me. You mention that a bank might have a claim on my property, but that's a voluntary contract that I enter into with a private organization. And if I buy my land with cash, I should own it, right? Or do I have to ask the government to grant me the right to own property? What about other property, like my car? Or my television? Does government give me a right to own that property as well?
So I'm not quite satisfied with your answer. Can you try to clarify?
Property rights do not originate with the government, because no rights originate with the government. All rights originate from the individual, and collectively from "We The People". The government is authorized by The People to regulate certain things, "for the common good".
In the US Constitution, "unalienable" means that you have this right by birth. This right can not be taken from you under the law, and further, you can not even abdicate this right. So if a law is passed which abolishes this right, then the law is simply invalid. You still retain the inalienable right even if you (mistakenly) agree with the invalid law.
QuoteI still don't see where the government has the ability to grant property rights to me. You mention that a bank might have a claim on my property, but that's a voluntary contract that I enter into with a private organization. And if I buy my land with cash, I should own it, right? Or do I have to ask the government to grant me the right to own property? What about other property, like my car? Or my television? Does government give me a right to own that property as well?
So I'm not quite satisfied with your answer. Can you try to clarify?
Yes, people own personal property when they pay for it. You have that right. My point was the banks can NOT do what they want with a mortgaged property even though there isn't any wording in mortgage contracts stating otherwise. They legally cannot put that into any private contracts either...the government stops them from doing that. The government forces banks to give the rights of the property over the buyer regardless of who owns the controlling share of the property. Believe me...the banks would adore having the right to do whatever they want to increase income on a property that someone else is still paying for.
And since this is a subject that can be debated until the cows come home with neither party having a satisfactory answer...let's keep up the quid pro quo (Clarice ;) ) and stop hemming and hawing over the answers. The questions probably won't get any easier...yet I will continue to reply honestly and to the best of my own knowledge. I don't promise to agree with you, so that shouldn't be cause for not answering subsequent questions. Ya know...since this thread is about the horse seizure.
It seems you successfully illustrated how government attempts to attenuate rights, not that they can grant rights. Likewise, if I kick someone in the groin, we cannot logically conclude that I have the magical power to grant the right of not being kicked in the groin.
QuoteFair enough....I can answer your question with your own words, the Constitution gives us the right to the pursuit of happiness.
The Declaration of Independence says that right is given by the Creator. Does the Constitution even mention the pursuit of happiness?
QuoteAlso the government allows us to consider land "our own" even before we own it.
In my opinion, we never own it. When we buy and sell land, we are buying and selling the right to rent it from the government. Your local government sends you a rent bill every year, people who can't or won't pay it won't "own" their land for long.
QuoteYet if we take a mortgage on a property for 80% of it's worth...it's still ours to do with as we wish as long as we pay our mortgage/promise off in a timely manner.
In most places, no, it is not ours to do with as we wish. That same local government that sends us a rent bill every year also says we need their permission to do anything useful with our land. Where I live, there is no zoning but we still need permission from the town to put up buildings, and permission from the state to make a septic system. When we were shopping for land, one place we looked at had deed covenants that said we couldn't have an outdoor clothesline, a satellite dish, or animals on that land. So not only does the government tell us what we can and can't do with our land, a prior "owner" can restrict our rights also.
I was just posting my thought in the subject. Not arguing. I can't see how an opinion can be wrong. And as I stated...I could be wrong.
Can we get back to discussing the actual horse seizure? I realize this is also a property rights issue, but it's going off on so many tangents that the original topic keeps getting pushed aside.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 07, 2009, 07:22 AM NHFT
Tom Sawyer...thanks. :) I do see that not everyone here marches to the exact same beat but does share the same core beliefs about liberty.
actually there are some people who post here who completely oppose my core beliefs about liberty and some are willing to "take away my liberty" if necessary to uphold a law or "just do their jobs".
Many people who post on this forum live very peacefully with others and try to live in cooperation with others. They are my friends.
I do not agree with you ... that without moral laws, enforced by nice law enforcement officers, supported by decent caring animal lovers ... that animals would necessarily suffer. Since I may be wrong, it is better that I don't enforce my opinion on others.
QuoteIn most places, no, it is not ours to do with as we wish. That same local government that sends us a rent bill every year also says we need their permission to do anything useful with our land. Where I live, there is no zoning but we still need permission from the town to put up buildings, and permission from the state to make a septic system. When we were shopping for land, one place we looked at had deed covenants that said we couldn't have an outdoor clothesline, a satellite dish, or animals on that land. So not only does the government tell us what we can and can't do with our land, a prior "owner" can restrict our rights also.
Well, not *anything* useful with our land but I see what you're saying. You need permission from the state to put in a septic system because one put in improperly can easily be a major pain and expense and health risk to your neighbor or to surrounding land you do not own.
As a retired Realtor..I have seen first hand countless times what a bad septic system has done. Try explaining your inalienable property rights to the man I know who lost 74 head of cattle to e coli from his neighbors "I don't need the health board's approval of my septic" opinion. 74 head...guess the monetary worth of that? Or the single mom I know who sat in the hospital watching her 3 year old son suffer due to having the same type of neighbor. Or the 7 other people I know who had their own faucets start running their neighbor's feces.
As for the deed convenent...the government protects you from entering one unknowingly. In other words...when you buy into a restricted deed community you have to be given the entire list of covenents before the time of the closing. That's by government law. You buy into those areas at your own discretion, nobody forces you to do so. When you buy there, you sign knowing full well these are the restrictions and agree to them. Those are in PUDs (planned unit developments) and are 100% voluntarily entered into. It's the government that keeps the owner of the common from springing this on you by surprise.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 07, 2009, 08:02 AM NHFT
this is a subject that can be debated until the cows come home
Will someone be lying in wait to confiscate them, too? Will you declare yourself the winner if that happens?
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 07, 2009, 08:45 AM NHFT
I was just posting my thought in the subject. Not arguing. I can't see how an opinion can be wrong. And as I stated...I could be wrong.
Can we get back to discussing the actual horse seizure? I realize this is also a property rights issue, but it's going off on so many tangents that the original topic keeps getting pushed aside.
You're probably not going to like this answer, Rebecca. Heidi's lawyer has suggested that I STFU (he said it in a bit more tactful way) about specifics of the case. While he's not my lawyer, I'll respect his suggestion so he can best represent Heidi, the owner of the horses. I guess we'll have to wait for the trial.
I can tell you that it rained here yesterday, and I notieced that there were six horses standing in the rain right next to perfectly dry shelters. I guess you can lead a horse to shelter, but you can't make him stand under it.
But I'd be happy to talk about other topics in this thread, like private property, the abuse of government power, humane societies that use government force to stock their pet stores, or dodgeball.
Quote
Well, not *anything* useful with our land but I see what you're saying. You need permission from the state to put in a septic system because one put in improperly can easily be a major pain and expense and health risk to your neighbor or to surrounding land you do not own.
I agree with you that there are good reasons for the rules, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't really own land and are not free to do as we please with it.
QuoteI've been under the impression that the Constitution was the start of our government, although I may be wrong in that.
Actually the articles of confederation for the national government.
QuoteIf it's a voluntary society why do they have to explicitly sign a contract?
You are only bound to any contracts you voluntarily and explicitly enter.
Quotewould the contract mentioned above address anything moral? And if it doesn't, what would be the remedy for moral wrongs such as purposely causing animals to suffer either with malice or by careless neglect?
Only if both parties wanted it to. For instance the person who sold the horse could stipulate in the contract how they want the animal to be treated.
Quoteyet it's perfectly okay to remove the freedom of being free from suffering just because the living thing isn't capable of speech or cognitive thought? Is that acceptable?
Whatever is spelled out in contracts and agreed to voluntarily is "acceptable"...it might not be judged moral to others - but others are not to judge what two people do voluntarily without force or fraud.
Quote from: brian.travis on April 07, 2009, 09:24 AM NHFT
I can tell you that it rained here yesterday, and I notieced that there were six horses standing in the rain right next to perfectly dry shelters. I guess you can lead a horse to shelter, but you can't make him stand under it.
Might be a good idea to get video of it, just in case, record the temperature when it happens as well. ::) Crazy as it sounds, because apparently some think that horses are fragile like a summer flower.
Quote from: cyne on April 07, 2009, 10:06 AM NHFT
Quote
Well, not *anything* useful with our land but I see what you're saying. You need permission from the state to put in a septic system because one put in improperly can easily be a major pain and expense and health risk to your neighbor or to surrounding land you do not own.
I agree with you that there are good reasons for the rules, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't really own land and are not free to do as we please with it.
Zoning laws and covenants are simply trying to deal with negative externalities before they occur.
QuoteI still don't see where the government has the ability to grant property rights to me. You mention that a bank might have a claim on my property, but that's a voluntary contract that I enter into with a private organization. And if I buy my land with cash, I should own it, right? Or do I have to ask the government to grant me the right to own property?
One of the things you pay for is the upholding of your exclusive title via a monopoly on force.
Quote from: BillKauffman on April 07, 2009, 10:35 AM NHFT
Quote from: cyne on April 07, 2009, 10:06 AM NHFT
Quote
Well, not *anything* useful with our land but I see what you're saying. You need permission from the state to put in a septic system because one put in improperly can easily be a major pain and expense and health risk to your neighbor or to surrounding land you do not own.
I agree with you that there are good reasons for the rules, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't really own land and are not free to do as we please with it.
Zoning laws and covenants are simply trying to deal with negative externalities before they occur.
QuoteI still don't see where the government has the ability to grant property rights to me. You mention that a bank might have a claim on my property, but that's a voluntary contract that I enter into with a private organization. And if I buy my land with cash, I should own it, right? Or do I have to ask the government to grant me the right to own property?
One of the things you pay for is the upholding of your exclusive title via a monopoly on force.
If upholding my title is a "service" that they offer, I'd like to be able to opt out. I'd much rather be able to uphold my exclusive title privately, using private title insurance. Oh, wait. I pay for that now. It's a stipulation that the bank requires in order to protect their interest.
Tell me, then, what do I pay government for?
Quote from: Pat McCotter on April 07, 2009, 02:08 AM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 06, 2009, 07:21 PM NHFT
As for the NH Constitution, it does not differentiate between that property which is acquired by human labor... and that which naturally existed without reference to human labor. At least in those Articles... and I would submit if used should include Part First Article Three.
Natural right, I would submit to be common and not allow for the exclusive use of any particular tract of land... nor naturally occuring resource... outside of government.
[Art.] 3. [Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.
The "surrender" in Article 3 does not specify property rights, only "some ... natural rights."
The 'some' is described in further articles...
Like Part First Article Twelve which allows for the the 'representative body of the people' to take property rights.
But property rights are only natural when originating from labor (Life).
Land and natural resources do not originate from human labor and were originally held in common (Proudhon - Property is Theft).
Its exclusive use is derived by deeded title. The deeded title states by what authority the property was converted to exclusive use for the title holder.
Slavery, written about in sections of the US Constitution, was later abolished as a property right.
Quote from: brian.travis on April 07, 2009, 10:43 AM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on April 07, 2009, 10:35 AM NHFT
Quote from: cyne on April 07, 2009, 10:06 AM NHFT
Quote
Well, not *anything* useful with our land but I see what you're saying. You need permission from the state to put in a septic system because one put in improperly can easily be a major pain and expense and health risk to your neighbor or to surrounding land you do not own.
I agree with you that there are good reasons for the rules, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't really own land and are not free to do as we please with it.
Zoning laws and covenants are simply trying to deal with negative externalities before they occur.
QuoteI still don't see where the government has the ability to grant property rights to me. You mention that a bank might have a claim on my property, but that's a voluntary contract that I enter into with a private organization. And if I buy my land with cash, I should own it, right? Or do I have to ask the government to grant me the right to own property?
One of the things you pay for is the upholding of your exclusive title via a monopoly on force.
If upholding my title is a "service" that they offer, I'd like to be able to opt out. I'd much rather be able to uphold my exclusive title privately, using private title insurance. Oh, wait. I pay for that now. It's a stipulation that the bank requires in order to protect their interest.
Tell me, then, what do I pay government for?
Title insurance covers financial losses resulting from a flawed deed. It doesn't grant the exclusive use of property, which is the deed itself... granted by the State of NH (Unless you have allodial land granted from the British Crown like Dartmouth College).
Quote from: brian.travis on April 07, 2009, 10:43 AM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on April 07, 2009, 10:35 AM NHFT
Quote from: cyne on April 07, 2009, 10:06 AM NHFT
Quote
Well, not *anything* useful with our land but I see what you're saying. You need permission from the state to put in a septic system because one put in improperly can easily be a major pain and expense and health risk to your neighbor or to surrounding land you do not own.
I agree with you that there are good reasons for the rules, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't really own land and are not free to do as we please with it.
Zoning laws and covenants are simply trying to deal with negative externalities before they occur.
QuoteI still don't see where the government has the ability to grant property rights to me. You mention that a bank might have a claim on my property, but that's a voluntary contract that I enter into with a private organization. And if I buy my land with cash, I should own it, right? Or do I have to ask the government to grant me the right to own property?
One of the things you pay for is the upholding of your exclusive title via a monopoly on force.
If upholding my title is a "service" that they offer, I'd like to be able to opt out. I'd much rather be able to uphold my exclusive title privately, using private title insurance. Oh, wait. I pay for that now. It's a stipulation that the bank requires in order to protect their interest.
Tell me, then, what do I pay government for?
I think you mean a private defense agency to uphold your title.
As I explained before...this all gets boiled down to an argument around the validity of social contract theory. We agree to leave a state of nature and form civil society so as to not be subject to arbitrary force (might makes right). In doing so we agree to cede the use of arbitrary force to governance narrowly constituted with a monopoly on force - via statutory law/rulemaking with elected representatives abstracted from the whole - so we don't have to expend an enormous amount of energy, money and time protecting our property from others with guns.
Now it is true this narrowly constituted role has not worked so well for a variety of reason.
One of the problems is that most - like you - derive your concept of individual freedom from the biology of man (born with)...independent entities who can use reason and free will to voluntarily contract with anyone. This is the essence of classical liberalism which hasn't been around very long...
This naturally leads to a polycentric system of laws with private defense agencies and insurance - as you suggest.
But there is another view of individual freedom that is older than classical liberalism (since antiquity) that believes the only way to achieve (not born with) freedom is by practicing virtuous behavior within small-scale, face-to-face, deliberative civic bodies as the best chance not to be subject to arbitrary rule/force. This is called civic republicanism or civic humanism.
This leads
BACK to a system of common law where the judge just presides over the proceedings and the jury (a deliberative body) adjudicates justice based on a narrow interpretation of the constitution - no force or fraud (NAP).
The big, big question though is still...what is property and how is it ethically derived?
The "left" thinks our current Lockean derivation is flawed (homesteading via mixing one's labor with what is "unowned") and therefore government must be expansive (regulatory & bureaucratic via statutory law) in the name of "social justice".
The "right" thinks that the non-proviso Lockean view of property derivation
IS just.
So I would like to go back to civic republican view of freedom within a proviso Lockean view of property derivation that deals with the issue of distributive justice in the economic sphere NOT via statutory law based on trying to achieve "social justice" legislatively.
Apparently you and most others here want to go towards a pure classical liberal view of individual freedom and a poly-centric system of voluntary laws with no monopoly on force.
Let the reindeer games begin!!
QuoteOK, Rebecca. I'll answer your questions, but it's not fair that I have to answer yours and you don't have to answer mine. How about this? I'll answer one question at a time, and then I'll ask you a question. As soon as we are each satisfied with the answer, we can go to the next round. Let's start with the first one.
Time listed on my computer has this post at 6:42 am today.
QuoteYou're probably not going to like this answer, Rebecca. Heidi's lawyer has suggested that I STFU (he said it in a bit more tactful way) about specifics of the case. While he's not my lawyer, I'll respect his suggestion so he can best represent Heidi, the owner of the horses. I guess we'll have to wait for the trial.
Time on this listed as 7:40 am today.
Thank you...I just won a bet. :) I bet that no other questions would be answered due to not being able to think of any reply anyone on here could believe without resorting to the "attorney told me quiet" reply. Now I'm not saying the attorney didn't already tell you that, because it would be a crappy lawyer who didn't. However...I'm guessing the attorney didn't tell you that in the 58 minute time lapse between the two above quotes earlier this morning.
So, can only surmise that you weren't being truthful when you stated this morning that you would answer my questions. As soon as the questions got hard enough to not reply to with a truthful reply...the STFU from the ATTY pops up. You picked the question you could reply to with something the folks hear can easily believe, the second question was too hard to reply to so you decided to not be satisfied with my first answer to your question. Now the atty popped up early this morning to tell you to stop talking sometime in the 58 minutes between your agreement to answer the questions and when you state you cannot answer.
Okay....forgive me for not believing that in the least.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 07, 2009, 11:57 AM NHFT
QuoteOK, Rebecca. I'll answer your questions, but it's not fair that I have to answer yours and you don't have to answer mine. How about this? I'll answer one question at a time, and then I'll ask you a question. As soon as we are each satisfied with the answer, we can go to the next round. Let's start with the first one.
Time listed on my computer has this post at 6:42 am today.
QuoteYou're probably not going to like this answer, Rebecca. Heidi's lawyer has suggested that I STFU (he said it in a bit more tactful way) about specifics of the case. While he's not my lawyer, I'll respect his suggestion so he can best represent Heidi, the owner of the horses. I guess we'll have to wait for the trial.
Time on this listed as 7:40 am today.
Thank you...I just won a bet. :) I bet that no other questions would be answered due to not being able to think of any reply anyone on here could believe without resorting to the "attorney told me quiet" reply. Now I'm not saying the attorney didn't already tell you that, because it would be a crappy lawyer who didn't. However...I'm guessing the attorney didn't tell you that in the 58 minute time lapse between the two above quotes earlier this morning.
So, can only surmise that you weren't being truthful when you stated this morning that you would answer my questions. As soon as the questions got hard enough to not reply to with a truthful reply...the STFU from the ATTY pops up. You picked the question you could reply to with something the folks hear can easily believe, the second question was too hard to reply to so you decided to not be satisfied with my first answer to your question. Now the atty popped up early this morning to tell you to stop talking sometime in the 58 minutes between your agreement to answer the questions and when you state you cannot answer.
Okay....forgive me for not believing that in the least.
I told you you weren't going to like the answer. I only answered the questions in the order you asked them. You should have asked the hard ones first.
I'll be glad to answer any questions you might still have after Heidi is acquitted.
Anyway, I'm glad you won your bet, but you should be careful: cynicism could harsh your mello.
It's not cynicism to figure out the obvious. ;) That would be like being considered cynical if I lived under a volcano and it was belching smoke for a week and I made a bet it was going to blow.
I just asked the questions in the order of the inconsistencies. But at least you do seem to admit the other questions were harder to come up with acceptable answers for. ;D
So I can assume since you didn't answer when you were told to STFU that it wasn't after the first post telling me you'd answer my questions?
Or wait...can't you answer that question either?
So very many coincidences on the timing and inconsisties. It boggles the mind...but at least it doesn't harsh my mellow.
It is a shame in a way...you've had many past coherent and well spoken/written debates about the FSP movement and your past experiences fighting for freedom. Now one can only wonder how much of that was....umm...inconsistant with the actuality of the situations.
QuoteI do not agree with you ... that without moral laws, enforced by nice law enforcement officers, supported by decent caring animal lovers ... that animals would necessarily suffer. Since I may be wrong, it is better that I don't enforce my opinion on others.
Unfortunately history has shown in this country what the results are of an absence of moral animal welfare laws. :( And current times show us in other countries around this world what an absence of moral animal welfare laws. And I don't mean third world countries...China doesn't have them. I can't begin to list the dismal condition of animal care and welfare in that country.
QuoteQuote from: MistyBlue on Today at 08:02 AM
this is a subject that can be debated until the cows come home
Will someone be lying in wait to confiscate them, too? Will you declare yourself the winner if that happens?
If this is being viewed as a winners/losers type game...then I can understand that reply.
As long as they don't try starving the cows...nobody will take them. Seriously...it's not rocket science. If it's a living thing, it needs to eat to prevent it from suffering. If some folks think starving something not human is okie-dokie as long as they're waving a flag as they do it...well, gag right back at y'all. ;) (insert sarcasm here) ;D
is food a right? If something doesn't get food, it will suffer. . . right? Is that your argument?
So we should be forced to provide homeless people food? What if I decide to spend all my money on drugs and hookers? If I don't have any money left for food, would it be okay for me to force others to give me food? If I don't have food, I WILL suffer.
As a matter of fact, if I spend all my money this week on just hookers, and don't have any more money for food OR booze. . .then I should probably get an amount of food and booze. Sometimes, when a person drinks too much their body starts to NEED this substance to survive or they will face harsh physiological changes such as the DT's. Therefore, we must provide alcohol to alcoholics so that they don't suffer as well.
Personally, if I don't get some M&M's at the end of my day it's a lot like suffering. Make with the M&M's please.
Changes the frames and maybe you won't need to pay for it and can then afford groceries. :candy: ;)
(okay, just checked out the smilies on here...WAY cool emoticons)
Seriously though...pets can't leave their property and go to a soup kitchen or go grocery shopping or even apply for food stamps or a better owner.
Should we be forced to provide homeless people food? Absolutely not, they can go to soup kitchens, apply for aide, beg on the streets, barter for it, work for it or steal it. (I am NOT saying they should do any of these things but they are options open to them) Animals can't do any of those things. Just because they are property does not mean they're not worthy of decent treatment. And the "decent treatment" is the very basics for supporting life: shelter, food, water and whatever medical care they might need/or to be humanely euthanized. I'm not saying they have to be tucked into the Ritz Carlton every night and sung lullabyes for heaven's sake.
The analogies between humans and animals doesn't work either way...not if I were to compare animals to humans by giving them full human rights and not if you use them in sarcasm to try to make a point that's about as sharp as a bowling ball.
Believe you me...I am NOT for animal rights. I am for animal welfare. There's an enormous difference. Enormous. Like HUGE. Nothing alike. Really. I swear. ;D
If a person wants to humanely kill and then process their livestock and eat it...fine by me. If they want to torture it for sh*ts and giggles..or by not feeding it enough to keep it relatively healthy so that it suffers....well that falls under welfare. The welfare of the animal...not it's rights, it's welfare.
When this country didn't have animal welfare laws...the animal abuses were beyond the point of even being counted any more. The Amish are mentioned a few times on here as a sort of model to follow...guess what happens in their communities when someone starves their animals? Those people rally around and take care of the issue...nobody did that in this community so that leads me to believe it's more lip-service than emulation. Is this how you want the general public to view the FSP? As people who not only either condone or turn a blind eye on animal abuse/neglect but on public BBs actually tout it as a Right of theirs to be able to even torture if they so choose because their Rights should ALL be absolute despite what suffering some of that may cause. That there can be absolutely no conditions or caveats to any of the rights whatsoever.
Yeah, that'll get a lot of positive support and really want more people to join in and help out with your project. ::)
BTW:
Quoteis food a right? If something doesn't get food, it will suffer. . . right? Is that your argument?
So we should be forced to provide homeless people food? What if I decide to spend all my money on drugs and hookers?
Way to jump the shark with this post opening.
And yes Captain Obvious...it is my argument that something starving is suffering. Although it's an obvious connection for most people I guess in this case I do need to point that out. Is it your argument that it's not?
Quote from: AntonLee on April 07, 2009, 05:35 PM NHFT
is food a right? If something doesn't get food, it will suffer. . . right? Is that your argument?
So we should be forced to provide homeless people food?
Only the homeless people you own and keep confined so they can't get out to get food for themselves. If you own them, you're responsible for their care. I think I'll stick with the dogs and horses!
Pets can leave their property if they really want to. They could also eat their masters (and do) when really hungry. I've seen a horse kick down a fence. Homeless people aren't the only ones with options.
As far as I'm concerned, if something is starving it's because they haven't put the effort in to find something to eat. I agree that if you own something that you're responsible for their care. The amount of care I would say is up to the owner, not the public consensus. In the end, there are OTHER ways to deal with things you don't like. . . besides using the force of government.
If you cared so much, why didn't anyone make a bid to buy that horse and give it a good life as you might see fit? The answer is because you quite enjoyed the retribution you sought to people who behaved not as you would like. Men hiding behind their badges and threats of force quite enjoyed their little adrenaline rush. They got to act like heroes and run up the field to attack the bad guy. I wish I could have been there. There's something that always cracks me up about swat teams running.
My old neighbor broke some rules, he had WW2 mortar shells and an old plugged cannon. He had some cocaine and a crappy landscaping job on his property. That means my own parents had to call him in. Watching the SWAT cowards was like watching a douche convention. . . running down the street from their 'plumbing van'
it's all very funny, this force shit. . . until you realize that 1) You're paying for it against your will... and ... 2) You're next
Dude...like whoa. :o
I am going to guess this is the BBs funny guy? This is tongue in cheek, correct?
Horses cannot eat their masters. They're herbivores. They eat...like...herbs. ;) Not Herb the guy...herb the plant.
Most animals cannot think and problem solve in the abstract. Which is why they don't have rights. So they're not likely to form a recon mission for groceries. ::)
Which other way would you suggest dealing with an issue like this? I see the "well go give them your money to buy their horsie." Okay, there's one. Of course rewarding bad behavior with cash isn't likely to stop them from repeating it ad nauseum, I can see you don't have children and haven't figured this simple equation out. "Reward for bad behavior = escalating bad behavior for more reward." Apparently only horses have horse sense anymore.
Oh wait...I see you asked the question and answered it for me. Not the answer I would have given but then I'm guess you prefer playing solo and not having an actual debate with another person. Just enjoying your words in print then? ;)
There were other options open to Brian and Heidi...they tried to give 10 or so horses to a rescue who didn't have the room or finances to take that many at once. Okay...so they were willing to give them away. Couldn't find any other takers? None of the other FSPers wanted them? They're supposedly oh-so-expensive now that the SPCA has them. But were free a couple months ago. The SPCA does take horses that owners no longer want to/can feed...you can call them and give up those animals to them. They will then care for the animals and adopt them out. Why not that option? Ohhhh...because those are the...what was it...douchebags. Rather see them starve than give them to someone who will feed them and care for them just because you hate who they are. Yeah, makes sense. A wonderfully mature, adult attitude.
What's the deal with using douchebag as an insult anyways? I've never seen a douchbag run...and can't for the life of me figure out what a swat team and small bags of a vinegar solution have in common. And why douchebag and not colostomy bag?
It's an odd man who wears a sidearm into a battle of wits. ;D
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 07, 2009, 06:14 PM NHFT
The Amish are mentioned a few times on here as a sort of model to follow...guess what happens in their communities when someone starves their animals? Those people rally around and take care of the issue...nobody did that in this community so that leads me to believe it's more lip-service than emulation. Is this how you want the general public to view the FSP?
The obvious disconnect between the two is that the Amish --all of them-- own, use and rely on horses on a daily basis. As should be obvious, only a tiny fraction of Free Staters know anything at all about horses (probably about the same percentage as the general population).
I, personally, know everything anyone needs to know about horses: one end bites, the other end kicks, and everything in between costs money. ;)
The only FSPer that I know of who has a lot of horse knowledge (other than Heidi), and who happened to be in a position to see what was going on at the farm, was working there. I neither judge nor condemn her actions in staying quiet at first, or speaking out now; both were her call to make.
So, the "community" argument falls apart for Free Staters simply because so few had either knowledge of horses and their needs, or direct knowledge of circumstances at the Travis farm. Once they were asked to do what they could do --basic barn construction is easy-- they showed up in force. None of them knew one end of a horse from the other, but they knew how to work hammers and nails.
The community argument does
not fall apart for the "horse community", because the accusations were centered amongst the people who are supposed to know how to care for horses.
This is the community that failed, by seeking to use the power of the state instead of the power of community. Instead of helping, they accused. While knowing much more about animal husbandry than how to build pole barns, they didn't offer even that much help.
They sure offered to show up with massive trailers, though.
It would have been a nice bit of intra-community fellowship to offer assistance --even assistance of knowledge about local resources-- instead of calling for police to seize the horses.
After waiting through four months of winter!
Instead of asking why Heidi and Brian didn't get help from the FSP community, why not ask why they didn't get help from the horse community?
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 07, 2009, 08:55 PM NHFT
Dude...like whoa. :o
I am going to guess this is the BBs funny guy? This is tongue in cheek, correct?
Horses cannot eat their masters. They're herbivores. They eat...like...herbs. ;) Not Herb the guy...herb the plant.
Most animals cannot think and problem solve in the abstract. Which is why they don't have rights. So they're not likely to form a recon mission for groceries. ::)
Which other way would you suggest dealing with an issue like this? I see the "well go give them your money to buy their horsie." Okay, there's one. Of course rewarding bad behavior with cash isn't likely to stop them from repeating it ad nauseum, I can see you don't have children and haven't figured this simple equation out. "Reward for bad behavior = escalating bad behavior for more reward." Apparently only horses have horse sense anymore.
Oh wait...I see you asked the question and answered it for me. Not the answer I would have given but then I'm guess you prefer playing solo and not having an actual debate with another person. Just enjoying your words in print then? ;)
There were other options open to Brian and Heidi...they tried to give 10 or so horses to a rescue who didn't have the room or finances to take that many at once. Okay...so they were willing to give them away. Couldn't find any other takers? None of the other FSPers wanted them? They're supposedly oh-so-expensive now that the SPCA has them. But were free a couple months ago. The SPCA does take horses that owners no longer want to/can feed...you can call them and give up those animals to them. They will then care for the animals and adopt them out. Why not that option? Ohhhh...because those are the...what was it...douchebags. Rather see them starve than give them to someone who will feed them and care for them just because you hate who they are. Yeah, makes sense. A wonderfully mature, adult attitude.
What's the deal with using douchebag as an insult anyways? I've never seen a douchbag run...and can't for the life of me figure out what a swat team and small bags of a vinegar solution have in common. And why douchebag and not colostomy bag?
It's an odd man who wears a sidearm into a battle of wits. ;D
It's quite obvious you need to go watch the douchebags run! As for horses not being capable of eating their masters, I'm pretty sure that horses have teeth right? Do you think those teeth might be able to tear flesh from a body? Could these teeth mash the skin and flesh into pieces small enough for a horse to swallow? Since you're the expert, perhaps you could enlighten us. Seems to me if an animal is capable of ingesting flesh then, well. . .you know.
I would never dare insult a colostomy bag in such a manner. I'm glad the only option you see fit is to force people to do things. We all get it. If people don't do as you like, you force them to. It is pretty simple. . .and I frankly only continue talking here because I do like seeing my words in print. ;O)
Speaking of wonderfully mature adult attitudes. . . I'll have to work on mine. I've been silly all this time trying to figure out ways of solving what I see as problems without using threatening attitudes or the use of violence against others. I'm that asshole that actually goes up to someone and states my problem with them and offers time, debate, and conversation to hopefully solve problems without threats or violence.
QuoteI, personally, know everything anyone needs to know about horses: one end bites, the other end kicks, and everything in between costs money.
;D :D ;D
LMAO...you've got it!
The funny part is that there's a common saying among horse folk extremely similar
"You feed one end, clean up after the other and throw money at the middle." ;)
QuoteSo, the "community" argument falls apart for Free Staters simply because so few had either knowledge of horses and their needs, or direct knowledge of circumstances at the Travis farm. Once they were asked to do what they could do --basic barn construction is easy-- they showed up in force. None of them knew one end of a horse from the other, but they knew how to work hammers and nails.
I think this part is wonderful...and it also gave me a decent idea of how the FSP community works for one another. Made me realize that maybe it's not all tinfoil hat wearers. ;)
QuoteThe community argument does not fall apart for the "horse community", because the accusations were centered amongst the people who are supposed to know how to care for horses. This is the community that failed, by seeking to use the power of the state instead of the power of community. Instead of helping, they accused. While knowing much more about animal husbandry than how to build pole barns, they didn't offer even that much help.
They sure offered to show up with massive trailers, though.
But how could anyone else have helped? Both Brian and Heidi have argued from day one of this fiasco that those horses were fine, healthy, in good condition and didn't need a thing except maybe a couple more lbs after a harsh winter. That they didn't need help taking care of those horses because there wasn't anything wrong with them. So had I lived near enough to drive by and see the condition of those horses on thier property...had I walked up to the door and knocked to see if I could offer advice or help (without getting shot at hopefully)...would they have told me different? It seems their opinion is that those horses were healthy and didn't need a damned thing. So how could I or any other non-FSPer have helped?
The only other scenerio would be that they would tell what they've alluded to as "nosy neighbors butting into their private business on their private property" that they did indeed need advice, help, whatever. That somehow seems an extremely unlikely scenerio to me...and would also be admitting on their own part that those horses were indeed in need of intervention.
As for the massive trailers...those are pretty average. The most common is a two horse bp or gn (bumper pull or gooseneck hitch) but if they were going to need to move more than 2 or 4 horses it makes sense to ask help from people who had larger trailers. All farms have big pickups...I have a two horse place right now and have a 3/4 ton truck...you can't get hay or large feed purchases to your farm in a Kia. And if you ever want to move one of your horses you'll need a large pickup to move a trailer. Or a horse van. I guess or a school bus...but that's the first I've ever heard of that happening. The window height compared to the floor height makes it an extremely inapt vehicle to move large animals in. Massive trailers are usually pulled by semi trucks. Those are air-ride, heated and air conditioned.
QuoteIt would have been a nice bit of intra-community fellowship to offer assistance --even assistance of knowledge about local resources-- instead of calling for police to seize the horses. After waiting through four months of winter!
IIRC...the last person they bought a horse from offered them all sorts of information on vets to use, feed store locations and hay suppliers. She didn't offer resources for horses in need because she assumed if someone is buying a horse and has almost 30 more at home...that they have the funds to care for those horses. Or why buy another one and waste feed money for the skinny ones at home? They also didn't take her up on the offer of where to get hay, stated to her that they had massive $10k or so loads of hay coming in from out of state all the time. They knew at least one rescue and went there for help...that rescue could only afford/had room to take on 3. They didn't ask her for info on other rescues that might take more. And the SPCA is well known in every state of this country for taking in unwanted animals in need. If you go to them before they have to come to you....you can sign your animals right over to them and they take them for free, feed them for free, medicate them for free and adopt them out without asking for funds from the person signing them over. They opted not to do that either.
And last but definitely not least...they had Beth there. And my money is on Beth telling them those horses needed better care and gave options of how to get that done. Beth isn't someone to sit on her tuckus and not do something about scrawny animals stuffed in tiny pens open to the weather 24/7. But she can only do so much...she also can't force them to care for their animals properly or to provide her with enough funds for her to care for them properly. Not to mention that as soon as the truth started becoming public on this BB...Brian's first response was to change his sob story from "there was nothing wrong with them" to "it's all Beth's fault!" That alone says a whole lot about the mindset of these two people. So now at this time we're left with "My caretaker didn't pay for OUR horses' food and shelters with her own money!" I dunno...did you ever work anywhere where you had to pay to work there? Has anyone ever asked you to financially support their pets for them? With 2 people having 3 jobs between them?
The whole thing smells to high heaven to me. I can only go by what B & H have actually stated and by the videos I've seen. Very underweight poorly conditioned horses coming from a home that says they were just fine! 3 different times and 3 different folks telling them point blank their shelters weren't adequate over a period of months and well before the seizure and they claim they had no idea what the laws were regarding shelter. Now they're trying to insinuate they might not have had any idea how to care for their horses properly...yet Heidi is proclaimed a lifelong horse owner and professional breeder and race trainer who isn't liked by the horse community supposedly because she "does all the care herself!". They didn't know Coggins was necessary to move a horse to a new state...yet again Heidi had to have known that 100% or she's lying about knowing anything about horses or that they're expensive race horses/show horses/pro breeder. Something smells there...and it's not just the few hundred tons of manure packed all over the place. :-\
Anton...aha...now I get it. You're the resident wisenheimer. ;) Good...I can get into that. Been known to be a wise-arse myself. ;D
QuoteIt's quite obvious you need to go watch the douchebags run! As for horses not being capable of eating their masters, I'm pretty sure that horses have teeth right? Do you think those teeth might be able to tear flesh from a body? Could these teeth mash the skin and flesh into pieces small enough for a horse to swallow? Since you're the expert, perhaps you could enlighten us. Seems to me if an animal is capable of ingesting flesh then, well. . .you know.
I have seen douchebags...erm...swat teams run. Only one guy ran like a moron...but that's because he's my ex. >:D
Yes, horses have teeth. Yes, they can tear flesh from a body. They might *possibly* be able to chew it, however they have teeth designed specifically for dry forage and not chunks of bloody meat. They have incisors in the front of their mouth and then top and bottom jaws have what's called a bridge...a long toothless stretch of gums. This is where the bit sits in the mouth when they're wearing a bridle. After that are large flat grinding molars. Horses cannot swallow large bits of anything, hence the massive grinding molars. They can easily suffer from Choke...getting food stuck in their throats. Horses cannot vomit or burp...so choke can kill a horse if not treated. Horses also have the digestive system designed by hell...they're probably some of the worst designed large herbivores on the planet. They have small stomachs and huge lengths of intestines with tons of tight turns. The number one cause of death in a horse is colic. Colic is basically indigestion...they can colic from gas, from impactions, from twists in the colon...hell they can colic for any reason. And it can be very deadly without immediate treatment and in many cases surgery. Changes in food is probably the most common cause of colic. So yes, eating meat can kill them. Not to mention their bodies are designed to extract nutrition from plants and not meat. So even if the meat didn't lodge in their throats and kill them or lodge in their guts and kill them...they'd still slowly starve to death on a diet of meat. Horses can be a real pita to properly feed and manage due to their digestive system...all other large herbivore livestock are ruminants and digest totally differently. And much better.
A horse eating meat to survive would work as well as a human chained in a field of grass with only the grass to eat. Actually, it would work worse because we're omnivores so could extract *some* nutrition from grass. Not enough to live for long, but a horse eating meat would drop dead a lot more quickly. Not to mention I don't think many people would be safe if we had carnivorous attacking horses...I don't want to deal with an animal weighing over 1000 lbs who wants to eat me. :o
Now if the horses' owners were scarecrows stuffed with hay....... :D
thank you for that insight into how horses eat. It was interesting. I'm not being a wiseass (right now).
No problem. :) Sometimes I can actually get some use out of this head full of weird-ass (and usually useless) knowledge. I never seem to forget anything related to weird stuff...and yet don't ask me where the hell my truck keys are right now. *sigh*
Quote from: brian.travis on April 07, 2009, 10:43 AM NHFT
Tell me, then, what do I pay government for?
to not beat you up
For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 07, 2009, 08:51 AM NHFT
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 07, 2009, 07:22 AM NHFT
Tom Sawyer...thanks. :) I do see that not everyone here marches to the exact same beat but does share the same core beliefs about liberty.
actually there are some people who post here who completely oppose my core beliefs about liberty and some are willing to "take away my liberty" if necessary to uphold a law or "just do their jobs".
Many people who post on this forum live very peacefully with others and try to live in cooperation with others. They are my friends.
I do not agree with you ... that without moral laws, enforced by nice law enforcement officers, supported by decent caring animal lovers ... that animals would necessarily suffer. Since I may be wrong, it is better that I don't enforce my opinion on others.
An opinion can be wrong if it's wrong.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 07, 2009, 08:53 AM NHFT
Try explaining your inalienable property rights to the man I know who lost 74 head of cattle to e coli from his neighbors "I don't need the health board's approval of my septic" opinion.
No problem. If he was damaged by the actions of his neighbor, he is entitled to compensation. What does that have to do with me and why should I need permission from the crap police? Am I guilty of incompetence until proven innocent?
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 07, 2009, 08:53 AM NHFT
As for the deed convenent...the government protects you from entering one unknowingly.
No thanks. Not only don't I want the government to protect me from myself, I don't want to be forced to pay to protect you from yourself. If a person can't read or understand a contract, why would they sign it? Caveat emptor.
QuoteTry explaining your inalienable property rights to the man I know who lost 74 head of cattle to e coli from his neighbors "I don't need the health board's approval of my septic" opinion.
No problem. If he was damaged by the actions of his neighbor, he is entitled to compensation. What does that have to do with me and why should I need permission from the crap police? Am I guilty of incompetence until proven innocent?
He's definitely entitled to compensation. But without laws/regulations on putting in and maintaining a septic system...what's to stop the neighbor from constantly doing the same thing? And if that neighbor didn't pay up? Without a law to back it up...how does the farmer get his compensation? Or if the neighbor can't afford to replace 74 head? Then the lack of the law just bankrupted the farmer who did nothing wrong other than having an asshat of an ignorant "don't wanna follow no health laws" neighbor. That's fair?
How about the woman sitting by her child's hospital bed? There shouldn't be any laws concerning septic tanks because she's due compensation? ::) Seriously? So screw everyone's health...as long as *I* have the right for my shite to infect everyone else then by golly I'll fight for that right! It almost kills an innocent child? Too bad, give them a few bucks and let me do whatever I want on my own property because I happen to hate police officers. :-\
Makes as much sense as tits on a bull to me.
This is what confuses me...if I hate the teaching system I blame the board of ed and not the teachers. If I hate the laws...then I work to change the laws and don't waste my time and energy hating on those who's job it is to uphold those laws. It's not like the LEOs make the laws. Passive aggressive civil disobedience may possibly highlight some flaws with some laws. But it doesn't do bupkis to change them. To continue that as a way to change or reform is pissing in the wind. With zoning and farming and right to farm and land rights and open trails and all the other things I work on...I find it absolutely ineffective to protest by civil disobedience and actually get results by working to change things at the core instead. Not to mention if I'm walking around trying to get arrested just to "prove a point" then all I'm achieving is a tiny amount of pseudo-fame online instead of a lot of change in the actual laws. It's like a toddler having a tantrum...nobody gives in to the child because their method is ineffective...but loud so it gets attention. Just negative attention that doesn't change a thing.
Not that this has anything to do with the thread topic...which I see has a tough time staying on track here. ;) But I guess people can tell plonkers left and right and be believed...or at least keep changing the subject hoping people won't realize that they might be supporting someone who is lying through their teeth to those who don't understand horses so well in order to keep the anger levels high and support for themselves.
Misty Blue you say if you hate the teaching system you blame the board of education etc. What if a person hates the "teaching system" and doesn't want to pay for it? In your world would they still be forced to at the point of a gun via property taxes?
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 10, 2009, 09:29 PM NHFT
Try explaining your inalienable property rights to the man I know who lost 74 head of cattle to e coli from his neighbors "I don't need the health board's approval of my septic" opinion.
Quote
No problem. If he was damaged by the actions of his neighbor, he is entitled to compensation. What does that have to do with me and why should I need permission from the crap police? Am I guilty of incompetence until proven innocent?
He's definitely entitled to compensation.
Great, problem solved without a bloated bureaucracy funded by coercion.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 10, 2009, 09:29 PM NHFT
But without laws/regulations on putting in and maintaining a septic system...what's to stop the neighbor from constantly doing the same thing?
Guess I spoke too soon.
What's to stop him from doing it anyways? Apparently, the law didn't stop him as I'm sure it was already in place when the incidents you describe took place. Your stories demonstrate the epic failure of the system you're defending.
You act like the law is some kind of voodoo magic and words on paper somehow solve problems. If passing a law is so effective a solution, how's that war on drugs coming? And of course there is no child or spousal abuse because, after all, it's illegal. Hell, why not pass a law against hunger and solve starvation while you're at it.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 10, 2009, 09:29 PM NHFT
And if that neighbor didn't pay up? Without a law to back it up...how does the farmer get his compensation?
Civil court? Nah, I know, let's throw the guy in prison and then raise the farmer's taxes to pay for the cop to arrest him, the public defender, the prosecutor, the bailiff, the judge, the prison guard and oh, did I mention the cost of building the prison, feeding him and supporting the guy's family on welfare while he's in jail?
So your solution to him being damaged is to damage him further with higher taxes which if he doesn't pay, the town will take his property all together. You seem pretty sharp, I'll bet if you think about it you can come up with a better solution.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 10, 2009, 09:29 PM NHFT
Or if the neighbor can't afford to replace 74 head? Then the lack of the law just bankrupted the farmer who did nothing wrong other than having an asshat of an ignorant "don't wanna follow no health laws" neighbor. That's fair?
Apparently, the neighbor owns property. Maybe now the farmer does?
If the neighbor can't afford to pay, how is the current system any better? He still doesn't get compensated and in addition is forced to support a bureaucracy which is (clearly) unable to protect his interests anyways. That's fair?
Insurance. Problem solved.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 10, 2009, 09:29 PM NHFT
How about the woman sitting by her child's hospital bed? There shouldn't be any laws concerning septic tanks because she's due compensation? ::) Seriously? So screw everyone's health...as long as *I* have the right for my shite to infect everyone else then by golly I'll fight for that right! It almost kills an innocent child? Too bad, give them a few bucks and let me do whatever I want on my own property because I happen to hate police officers. :-\ Makes as much sense as tits on a bull to me.
No, you don't have the right to damage the person or property of others. Tragedies abound. Why compound the problem with forced non-solutions?
Talk to god about the bull tits.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 10, 2009, 09:29 PM NHFT
This is what confuses me...if I hate the teaching system I blame the board of ed and not the teachers. If I hate the laws...then I work to change the laws and don't waste my time and energy hating on those who's job it is to uphold those laws. It's not like the LEOs make the laws.
Please, not the "I'm just doing my job" bullshit. I really hate that. It's so 1946.
http://www.elharo.com/journal/job.html
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 10, 2009, 09:29 PM NHFT
Passive aggressive civil disobedience may possibly highlight some flaws with some laws. But it doesn't do bupkis to change them. To continue that as a way to change or reform is pissing in the wind. With zoning and farming and right to farm and land rights and open trails and all the other things I work on...I find it absolutely ineffective to protest by civil disobedience and actually get results by working to change things at the core instead. Not to mention if I'm walking around trying to get arrested just to "prove a point" then all I'm achieving is a tiny amount of pseudo-fame online instead of a lot of change in the actual laws. It's like a toddler having a tantrum...nobody gives in to the child because their method is ineffective...but loud so it gets attention. Just negative attention that doesn't change a thing.
Whatever works for you.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 10, 2009, 09:29 PM NHFT
Not that this has anything to do with the thread topic...which I see has a tough time staying on track here. ;) But I guess people can tell plonkers left and right and be believed...or at least keep changing the subject hoping people won't realize that they might be supporting someone who is lying through their teeth to those who don't understand horses so well in order to keep the anger levels high and support for themselves.
45 people are murdered everyday in the u.s.
1800 people are raped everyday in the u.s.
16,000 children die of starvation or malnutrition worldwide everyday
I'm sorry if the horsey didn't have a shelter.
Keyser Soce, FTW.
indeed. I find it quite amusing sometimes. . . hell, sometimes I even slip into trying to use the power of aggression against others to figure out problems. Nowadays, I stop, think about how it is I could solve this problem WITHOUT calling jackboots to come beat someone up for me.
It's hard, this critical thinking thing. . . lots of people just decide that if they don't have to see people getting beat up, then it doesn't happen. "Hell I pay my taxes, and those people did something wrong according to those pieces of paper in Concord. . .therefore I agree with just allowing some thugs to shoot them in order for my will to be done (when I say MY will, I mean the will of people who I know are just so much smarter than me)
believe as you wish, but try a little thought experiment sometime. . . try and watch the news and just think about how you might have been able to solve those problems without using police or shooting them because they don't do as YOU please on THEIR property.
Quote45 people are murdered everyday in the u.s.
1800 people are raped everyday in the u.s.
16,000 children die of starvation or malnutrition worldwide everyday
I'm sorry if the horsey didn't have a shelter
I always place people's safety above animals.
Starvation aside...have you bothered to check the statistics of a lawless society on the rape and murders?
The point with septic was...if nobody had to follow the more involved/more expensive ways of implementing a septic system these cases would inflate in numbers dramatically. How do I know? Hmmm, maybe actually researching it? In real life and not online? So screw the fact that more kids can and will get sick and possibly even die from e coli poisoning. As for the neighbor owning property? It was mortgaged to the hilt. And anywho...wouldn't being able to get his property in payment for the loss of your business or possible loss of your child involve...the law? or would it be At The Point of your gun?
And way to go to deflect, yet again, the truth about B&H's lack of compassion and even basic, bottom of the barrel care for living animals.
But no...go ahead and argue everything under the sun. Seriously...why keep on topic?
the law IS at the point of a gun. I fear you might think that we're all against 'the rules'. . . I have no problem with 'rules'. . .if you own property. . . you can make 'rules'. Since government doesn't really OWN anything, they don't have really any say about the 'rules'
a 'rule' where I live is that you can't leave shit on the ground, you can't point a gun at me, you can't rape children in my home, and you can't fart on my favorite chair. Doing so would have you escorted from the premises. When you own something, you can make rules about it. If you don't own something, you can't make rules about it (or at the very least, the rules you might make for someone else's property are illegitimate)
if you disagree, then perhaps I should be by with my men with guns, since we all took a vote and decided that the act of having a pet is the act of slavery on a living breathing being. I will liberate your pets at my will and with whatever force necessary. If you decide you don't like these rules, you can keep it to yourself and not talk back to my men with guns. They will put you in cuffs and drag you to a cold room until you decide to pay us some money.
I love America!!!
(just kidding I really wouldn't do that to you, I'm a decent human being)
Quote from: AntonLee on April 11, 2009, 09:32 AM NHFT
if you disagree, then perhaps I should be by with my men with guns, since we all took a vote and decided that the act of having a pet is the act of slavery on a living breathing being. I will liberate your pets at my will and with whatever force necessary. If you decide you don't like these rules, you can keep it to yourself and not talk back to my men with guns. They will put you in cuffs and drag you to a cold room until you decide to pay us some money.
Well said. Nothing like taking something a little further than "the law" usually does to make a point. MistyBlue appears to think that her opinion about what constitutes animal cruelty entitles men with guns to take Brian's property. How would she feel if "the law" went a little further and banned ownership of animals outright? Because a bunch of ne'er-do-wells who managed to get elected voted one day to make it so doesn't make it any more right in my book. Either horses are property or they're not. If they are, then it ain't nobody's business how Brian treats them (not that I think he mistreated them, I wasn't there, so I don't know). There's a name for a society that claims people have property rights, but puts all sorts of limits on how they may use "their" property. It's called fascism. At least communism is honest about everything belonging to the state.
Quote from: AntonLee on April 11, 2009, 09:32 AM NHFT
the law IS at the point of a gun. I fear you might think that we're all against 'the rules'. . . I have no problem with 'rules'. . .if you own property. . . you can make 'rules'. Since government doesn't really OWN anything, they don't have really any say about the 'rules'
a 'rule' where I live is that you can't leave shit on the ground, you can't point a gun at me, you can't rape children in my home, and you can't fart on my favorite chair. Doing so would have you escorted from the premises. When you own something, you can make rules about it. If you don't own something, you can't make rules about it (or at the very least, the rules you might make for someone else's property are illegitimate)
if you disagree, then perhaps I should be by with my men with guns, since we all took a vote and decided that the act of having a pet is the act of slavery on a living breathing being. I will liberate your pets at my will and with whatever force necessary. If you decide you don't like these rules, you can keep it to yourself and not talk back to my men with guns. They will put you in cuffs and drag you to a cold room until you decide to pay us some money.
I love America!!!
(just kidding I really wouldn't do that to you, I'm a decent human being)
So Brian's deeded title to his property is worthless?
I'm sure it's not worthless to him. I've not heard anything about him being a bad neighbor. Seems to me like a guy minding his own business is much more desirable than busy body neighbors.
Anton...if you did that I'd have to go to your house and fart in your favorite chair. After eating pickled eggs. :couch: ;D ;) (also kidding, but possibly not about the pickled eggs >:D )
Bill and Anton...it's not "my opinion" on what constitutes animal cruelty. The definition for each state is determined by panels of experts in animal care and health fields. So it's not even an opinion but an educated fact. And it really should be common sense that if you starve an animal, you're causing it to suffer and purposely causing suffering is cruel.
And since I follow ag and farming laws pretty much constantly...I also know that the law outlawing animal ownership will never happen. So I have little worries there.
As for putting a few small morality and anti-cruelty conditions on the ownership of something living...I don't see an issue with that as long as those laws aren't overboard. So I keep up 100% with those laws and those who make those laws and follow them around and make sure that doesn't happen. Seems to work better than pissing and moaning on a BB. ;) I'm no bleeding heart animal hugging overly emotional pinhead. I think the bare minimum in animal care needs to be addressed. When it wasn't by the law...the conditions of an enormous percentage of animals were horrendous. Centuries of condemnation and outrage and neighbors helping neighbors didn't do shite. Going back to that is assinine. Brian and Heidi didn't bother to meet even the BARE minimum for health for those animals. And it's seriously not that hard to do. Then they come crying online at the speed of light blathering lie after lie and contradicting themselves over and over. So where was all that blathering for help if there was an issue all along? They were trying to dump those horses at overloaded rescues, but didn't bother asking the SPCA because they hate government. So screw the animals...let 'em suffer as long as they can shun government help. That's an immature and spiteful way to handle an issue IMO.
hmmm so we need experts to dictate what they decide is common sense. If they're going to public schools you might as well take the "educated" out of "educated guess"
NO thanks, I'll do as I please with my property. You'll continue to send men with guns because of what you believe in. It's okay, it's just my life and shit.
I don't like pickled anything, so those who ingest pickled things must leave them outside. To do so I will have to form a panel to decide on the punishment for those who enter my home after eating pickles. Machines that scan your stomach to make sure there are no pickled things must be purchased. Technicians hired to make sure the machine works correctly. They need pensions and insurance. They need vehicles to get back and forth from my house. I will be adding a pickle tax of 30%. Thanks for your cooperation, and God Bless America.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 11, 2009, 08:52 PM NHFT
And since I follow ag and farming laws pretty much constantly...I also know that the law outlawing animal ownership will never happen. So I have little worries there.
I'm sure the Jews never imagined that a Hitler-type would come along and try to gas them into extinction.
Quote from: Jan on April 12, 2009, 06:49 AM NHFT
I'm sure the Jews never imagined that a Hitler-type would come along and try to gas them into extinction.
<satire>
And it was all done legally. But if they try it in America, all we'll be able to do about it is hold up signs and let them drag us off to the ovens. Violent defense against government employees is not useful.
</satire>
Misty Blue said:
QuoteAnd since I follow ag and farming laws pretty much constantly...I also know that the law outlawing animal ownership will never happen. So I have little worries there.
If you don't have any worries, you're not paying attention! It's a constant battle to keep our rights. There's a campaign to make us all "guardians" and not "owners" of animals, and laws have been passed in some places to make it so. Here's a list from www.guardiancampaign.com - in these cities (and the entire state of Rhode Island) animal ownership is no more; people are now guardians, not owners.
2 0 0 7
San Jose, Calif. (June 19, 2007)
2 0 0 6
Imperial Beach, California (July 19, 2006)
Santa Clara County, California (April 25, 2006)
2 0 0 5
Bloomington, Indiana (December 21, 2005)
2 0 0 4
St. Louis, Missouri (August 9, 2004)
Albany, California (June 7, 2004)
Windsor, Ontario Canada (May 10, 2004)
Wanaque, New Jersey (May 10, 2004)
2 0 0 3
Sebastopol, California (December, 2003)
Marin County, California (All 28 Cities) (December, 2003)
San Francisco, California (January 13, 2003)
Woodstock, NY
2 0 0 2
Amherst, Massachusetts (April 24, 2002)
Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin (March 11, 2002)
2 0 0 1
Sherwood, Arkansas (September 24, 2001)
Rhode Island (statewide) (July 5, 2001)
West Hollywood, California (February 19, 2001)
Berkeley, California (February 27, 2001)
2 0 0 0
Boulder, Colo. (July 12, 2000)
Coming soon to a town near you.
Not to mention breed-specific legislation and zoning restrictions. No, there probably won't be an act of Congress banning animal ownership outright. But Misty, you should know as well as anyone that it is intended to be a death of a thousand cuts, not a beheading.
And don't forget Steve Sprowl and "local animal activist" attempts to stop the pig scramble at the Stratham Fair in 2002.
SPCA seeks to halt fair's pig scramble (http://archive.seacoastonline.com/2002news/07202002/news/15050.htm)
Steve Sprowl kept losing the race, hence why he wants to end it.
Quote from: AntonLee on April 12, 2009, 10:38 AM NHFT
Steve Sprowl kept losing the race, hence why he wants to end it.
well played sir ... well played!
Let me be the first to say that, yes, I want people like Beth in my midst. I know there are plenty of others who will agree - most of which either do not post here or will not post here. I generally don't even log but I have been following this thread.
Beth is a principled person - anyone who knows her knows that. I'm not sure if Veracity is Sharon or just some cohort of hers, but too many of the "facts" they posted would have to be from someone connected to her for it to be random. The one thing that I do know is that there are plenty of people who can substantiate all sorts of details about issues with Sharon in the past, not just Beth. People that there is no reason in the world to not believe.
I am confident that what Beth did with regard to the horses was in no way some sort of spite over a disagreement with Heidi. Maybe she did it because the horses were in danger. Maybe she felt the horses were in enough danger that she complied with the police request knowing that there would be backlash, knowing that it would hit hard at home. That is not a decision she would make just out of spite.
I feel bad that Brian has had to deal with all of this horse mess. Had there been adequate shelters, had there been the number of horses Beth was told there would be, had there been ample hay and grain, had things just been different, none of us would be even having this conversation. It's nothing personal against Brian at all - it's just a very unfortunate situation that could have, and should have, been avoided altogether.
Let me reiterate - yes, I want people like Beth around me. She is a good and decent person that I'm glad to have as a friend.
Tammy
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 07, 2009, 06:14 PM NHFTBelieve you me...I am NOT for animal rights. I am for animal welfare. There's an enormous difference. Enormous. Like HUGE. Nothing alike. Really. I swear. ;D
If a person wants to humanely kill and then process their livestock and eat it...fine by me. If they want to torture it for sh*ts and giggles..or by not feeding it enough to keep it relatively healthy so that it suffers....well that falls under welfare. The welfare of the animal...not it's rights, it's welfare.
Violence is only acceptable in response to violations of rights. Since you argue that violence is acceptable in response to animal abuse, then you are arguing that animals have a right not to be abused.
Of course, animals don't have rights, so you are arguing a contradictory set of assertions.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 10, 2009, 09:29 PM NHFTHe's definitely entitled to compensation. But without laws/regulations on putting in and maintaining a septic system...what's to stop the neighbor from constantly doing the same thing? And if that neighbor didn't pay up? Without a law to back it up...how does the farmer get his compensation? Or if the neighbor can't afford to replace 74 head? Then the lack of the law just bankrupted the farmer who did nothing wrong other than having an asshat of an ignorant "don't wanna follow no health laws" neighbor. That's fair?
You're applying a double-standard. Governments murdered a quarter of a million men, women, and children in the last century. They maimed, tortured, raped, starved, enslaved, assaulted, abused, and oppressed billions more. They vaporized two cities, fire-bombed many more, set off nuclear weapons for "practice" and built piss-poor nuclear reactors that contaminated haw many square miles of land? They dump toxic waste and refuse to clean it up. They stifle innovation, preventing medical progress that could cure many diseases. The list goes on, and on, and on.
Amateur thugs, "asshats" and what-have-you could never hope to compete with that level of death, destruction. If you are going to judge two systems, use the same standards, please. Yes, anarchy/"voluntaryism" is imperfect, because humanity is imperfect. But if you apply the same standards to both options, one clearly comes out so far ahead that even comparing them is just plain silly.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 10, 2009, 09:29 PM NHFTThis is what confuses me...if I hate the teaching system I blame the board of ed and not the teachers. If I hate the laws...then I work to change the laws and don't waste my time and energy hating on those who's job it is to uphold those laws. It's not like the LEOs make the laws.
You are responsible for every action you take. Every last one. It doesn't matter if someone offered you a paycheck if you will just harm some innocent people. You are responsible for every good and ever evil thing that you do. So am I. So are they.
Cops choose to attack innocent people. It doesn't matter if they do it because they get paid to do it, of it they do it because they believe that hurting innocent people will make the world a better place, or if they do it because they had a vision that told them to go around hurting innocent people. The only thing that matters is that they do it. They do it, and they are responsible for what they do.
Bad laws don't cause problems because of legislators. Legislators can write whatever drivel they want, for all I care. Won't interfere with my life, any more than what's written in the newest novel at the bookstore. Those laws only interfere with my life because thugs with guns use them as an excuse to attack, kidnap, torture, and murder innocent people. The thugs with guns
are the problem.
And, to be blunt, "I was just following orders" is not an excuse. It wasn't an excuse when the thugs decided to exterminate my kin in Europe, and it's not an excuse today.
Joe
Too Little Information To "Take Sides"
All my data is coming in Second Hand.
Jumped the shark have we? :icon_pirat:
Quote from: shyfrog on April 05, 2009, 08:01 PM NHFT*Yells* Hey Maineshark! There's some cognitive dissonance here waiting for your input :icon_pirat:
There's a not of dissonant cognition around, these days. I think it's contagious. Maybe we should test for it, and "seize" those who are "infected," for "the greater good," eh? :o ;D
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on April 13, 2009, 02:39 PM NHFT
Quote from: shyfrog on April 05, 2009, 08:01 PM NHFT*Yells* Hey Maineshark! There's some cognitive dissonance here waiting for your input :icon_pirat:
There's a not of dissonant cognition around, these days. I think it's contagious. Maybe we should test for it, and "seize" those who are "infected," for "the greater good," eh? :o ;D
Joe
As long as we have someone else doing it for us. The thought of violence makes me ill. That's why we have elected officials and their enforcement thugs, right? There ought to be a law against cognitive dissonance. Perhaps a eugenics program? :icon_pirat:
Quote from: shyfrog on April 13, 2009, 02:50 PM NHFTAs long as we have someone else doing it for us. The thought of violence makes me ill. That's why we have elected officials and their enforcement thugs, right? There ought to be a law against cognitive dissonance. Perhaps a eugenics program? :icon_pirat:
Well, obviously. We wouldn't want to do it, ourselves. But if we hire someone else, that means we're not guilty. Or does it mean that our employees are not guilty, and we are? I'm so confused!
Joe
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 11, 2009, 07:28 AM NHFT
But no...go ahead and argue everything under the sun. Seriously...why keep on topic?
The topic is "invaded by bureaucrats".
Quote from: MaineShark on April 13, 2009, 01:16 PM NHFT
Violence is only acceptable in response to violations of rights. Since you argue that violence is acceptable in response to animal abuse, then you are arguing that animals have a right not to be abused.
Of course, animals don't have rights, so you are arguing a contradictory set of assertions.
In a perfect world, violence is only acceptable in response to violations of rights. In this world, the thugs with guns come out to enforce the laws. The laws, as you know, have nothing to do with rights, except to interfere with them.
The law in NH gives no rights to animals. It gives responsibilities to the owners. In this case, it is alleged that the owners failed to fulfill those responsibilities, thus violating the law and causing the thugs with guns to appear.
The law and the animal rights vs. animal welfare issues are completely different things. Your argument above conflates them. In terms of animal welfare, abuse of livestock constitutes the initiation of violence as you are using the term. Since you are opposed to the use of violence, you must therefore be opposed to the abuse of livestock. If you are opposed to the abuse of livestock, then you are in favor of stopping it. The law is intended to stop it. Therefore you must be in favor of the law. :Bolt:
yeah and with that, I think I check out of this thread. . . :wave: so long Misty ;D
Quote from: erisian on April 13, 2009, 07:36 PM NHFTIn a perfect world, violence is only acceptable in response to violations of rights. In this world, the thugs with guns come out to enforce the laws. The laws, as you know, have nothing to do with rights, except to interfere with them.
The law in NH gives no rights to animals. It gives responsibilities to the owners. In this case, it is alleged that the owners failed to fulfill those responsibilities, thus violating the law and causing the thugs with guns to appear.
Responsibilities only actually result from rights. You have a right to life, hence I have a responsibility to refrain from walking up to you on the street and killing you without cause. I have a similar right, so you have a commensurate responsibility towards me. We have the right to enter into contracts, so if we do so, we each have the responsibility to fulfill the terms of that contract.
The owners failed to fulfill the dictates of thugs with guns. They had no contract with those armed thugs, so they have no responsibility to engage in any particular behavior.
Quote from: erisian on April 13, 2009, 07:36 PM NHFTThe law and the animal rights vs. animal welfare issues are completely different things. Your argument above conflates them. In terms of animal welfare, abuse of livestock constitutes the initiation of violence as you are using the term. Since you are opposed to the use of violence, you must therefore be opposed to the abuse of livestock.
You can't engage in violence against
things.
Quote from: erisian on April 13, 2009, 07:36 PM NHFTIf you are opposed to the abuse of livestock, then you are in favor of stopping it. The law is intended to stop it. Therefore you must be in favor of the law. :Bolt:
That doesn't even vaguely follow by any stretch of logic. "The law" is one particular method that is (supposedly) intended to stop it. Opposing something does not mean supporting any and all proposed methods of stopping it. Summary execution of anyone who abuses animals would also be a possible method of preventing abuse, but I wouldn't support that, either.
Despite the fact that animals don't have rights to violate, I do find cruel treatment of those which can feel pain (which, in turn, only includes some animals) to be aesthetically-displeasing. I would, therefore, support non-violent means of discouraging abuse, including support for education of animal owners as to their proper care, voluntary sanctions against abusers (ie, encouraging local businesses to charge the abusers higher prices, for example), or outright ostracism in severe cases (ie, I will have nothing to do with someone who engages in dog-fighting, as I consider that irredeemably offensive).
The fact that I oppose something does not mean that I would support immoral methods of stopping that behavior. Ends don't justify means. Ever.
Joe
Nice job trying to turn that post around for your own personal vendetta, Tammy.
If you want substantiation: I was at Ron's house with Brian when he told several of us that the affadavit had been unsealed, and Beth was the one who filed it. I heard it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. At least a dozen others did, too. Probably the entire party did. Anyone can talk to Brian if they think "Veracity" is making things up.
I have no idea what the history is here between Beth and Heidi, or what the motive was, or whatever. I don't care what the condition of the horses was. That someone calling themselves a freestater called the State on another person—another freestater, no less—is the issue. And that you'd describe such a person as "principled" speaks volumes about your own principles (and is, unfortunately, entirely what I'd expect from you).
I for one am fully on board with an ostracism campaign. Until and unless Brian and Heidi forgive Beth for what she did, it sounds quite deserved to me.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 14, 2009, 03:39 AM NHFT
Nice job trying to turn that post around for your own personal vendetta, Tammy.
The only
vendetta I have is defending the people I consider to be friends when an anonymous poster creates a new account and posts a bunch of completely unfounded, bizarre stuff to try and make Beth look horrible. Gee, I would never think Sharon could have anything to do with that. It's not like she ever called the feds on anyone or anything.....but now Veracity would like to somehow say that Beth is responsible for that? Okay then.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 14, 2009, 03:39 AM NHFT
If you want substantiation: I was at Ron's house with Brian when he told several of us that the affidavit had been unsealed, and Beth was the one who filed it. I heard it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. At least a dozen others did, too. Probably the entire party did. Anyone can talk to Brian if they think "Veracity" is making things up.
As usual, there is always more to the story than meets the eye. But I guess because Brian declared the
truth at a party, it must be so. Sure, people can talk to Brian and get one side of the story. They can also talk to Beth and get the other side of the story. Or is Beth's side just completely wrong because she was put in a situation that involved the government?
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 14, 2009, 03:39 AM NHFT
I have no idea what the history is here between Beth and Heidi, or what the motive was, or whatever. I don't care what the condition of the horses was. That someone calling themselves a freestater called the State on another person—another freestater, no less—is the issue. And that you'd describe such a person as "principled" speaks volumes about your own principles (and is, unfortunately, entirely what I'd expect from you).
I actually do care what the condition of the horses was. I cared enough to go out and help build a shelter last fall. Beth cared about the condition of the horses was. Unfortunately it seems like Heidi did not. That's unfortunate.
And why does it matter whether it was another freestater or not? Is there two different ways to act - one towards freestaters and one towards the rest of the community? Like someone recently posted - I think on this very forum - being a freestater shouldn't mean you are expected to be held to a lower standard. I've paraphrased and I apologize to the poster for that, but it was along those lines....as to why we tolerate poor behavior just because someone moved here because of the FSP.
And, yes, your principles and mine are different....they always have been....and I'm really okay with that.
Really. And you of course are always 100% correct. After all, you surround yourself with some pretty damn principled folks. Gladly, I surround myself with different folks. :) Honestly, I really don't give a rat's ass what you think about me, my principles, or the people I associate with.
Really.Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 14, 2009, 03:39 AM NHFT
I for one am fully on board with an ostracism campaign. Until and unless Brian and Heidi forgive Beth for what she did, it sounds quite deserved to me.
I'm always on board for holding people to a certain standard. Oddly, that isn't what seems to be happening here at all.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 14, 2009, 03:39 AM NHFT
I don't care what the condition of the horses was.
No surprise coming from the pervert android. Personally, I wouldn't trust you to hold a kitten in your lap.
---
I've been watching this train wreck of a thread from the beginning, and I haven't said anything. Each time I think the conversation has hit rock bottom it manages to plunge into new depths.
First off, the horses were being abused. Period. I've been to Brian's house many times and I've seen first-hand the appalling conditions that were present. Perhaps it reflects poorly on me that I didn't speak up about it, as some feel that the community should be self-policing. My own view is that Heidi is mainly responsible, and Brian is just along for the ride... but if he wants to ride that train off the cliff it's his choice. I think any rational person reading the discourse over the past few weeks can see how duplicitous Brian has been about the situation... and I no longer find him trustworthy because of that.
Secondly, to those who share Jeremy's view that it is OK to torture animals, feel free to stay away from me. Don't come to my parties or movie nights, once I've sufficiently overcome the bad taste in my mouth to start having them again. You disgust me.
It seems the FSP is polarizing into two distinct groups. The first, original group came to the state with the intent of working for positive change. Part of this attitude includes being friendly to your neighbors and in general conducting yourself with a certain level of decency. The second group, which seems to include a lot of latecomers, doesn't give a damn about anyone apart from themselves, and wants to make the most waves possible. I count myself in the first group. This whole horse incident has been a major embarrassment to the FSP and makes me seriously question what I want to be involved with in the future.
See you all at the Taproom. It's gonna be a fun one.
We are not going to be able to keep anyone from posting lies here.
Since the front door is once again open to this forum, then anyone can join here and post. We have had many horsey people join lately and tell us all what to do and how to stay on topic in threads complaining about bureaucrats. Maybe they can start threads about horse care.
I don't know who posted or what they posted, since it is gone now. Kat is not wanting to accept Ivy onto this forum with open arms. She can post on many other forums across the internet.
Maybe you guys will want to take your discussions elsewhere. Many people don't read this thread or skip the long posts about horses. Most people won't have read this long post. ;)
The thugs are putting the pressure on us and we will realize who our real friends are and who will actually help others. It will be interesting.
Quote from: aworldnervelink on April 14, 2009, 09:16 AM NHFT
No surprise coming from the pervert android. Personally, I wouldn't trust you to hold a kitten in your lap.
I've been watching this train wreck of a thread from the beginning, and I haven't said anything. Each time I think the conversation has hit rock bottom it manages to plunge into new depths.
First off, the horses were being abused. Period. I've been to Brian's house many times and I've seen first-hand the appalling conditions that were present. Perhaps it reflects poorly on me that I didn't speak up about ..
You disgust me.
This whole horse incident has been a major embarrassment to the FSP and makes me seriously question what I want to be involved with in the future.
pretty strong words
If you had spoken up about Heidi's horses ... what would you have said or done?
I don't think this has embarrased the FSP. We are not going to be able to make other members of the group do what we want. Or at least I am not planning to.
I must not know jeremy very well ... because he seems like a decent guy who helps people.
I obviously don't know very much about a lot of these situations. I seem to have some friends on both sides of many different issues.
I'm thinking that the FSP should stop accepting women from Rhode Island. If there is a third woman from RI here, I apologize.
Quote from: aworldnervelink on April 14, 2009, 09:16 AM NHFTFirst off, the horses were being abused. Period. I've been to Brian's house many times and I've seen first-hand the appalling conditions that were present. Perhaps it reflects poorly on me that I didn't speak up about it...
There's no "perhaps" about it. If I believed that animals were being abused, I would surely try and remedy the situation.
Quote from: aworldnervelink on April 14, 2009, 09:16 AM NHFTI think any rational person reading the discourse over the past few weeks can see how duplicitous Brian has been about the situation... and I no longer find him trustworthy because of that.
What does that say about you? Regardless of whether there was abuse or not, you
believed that there was abuse, and you turned a blind eye to it? Doesn't sound like the behavior of someone worthy of much trust, to me.
Quote from: aworldnervelink on April 14, 2009, 09:16 AM NHFTIt seems the FSP is polarizing into two distinct groups. The first, original group came to the state with the intent of working for positive change. Part of this attitude includes being friendly to your neighbors and in general conducting yourself with a certain level of decency. The second group, which seems to include a lot of latecomers, doesn't give a damn about anyone apart from themselves, and wants to make the most waves possible. I count myself in the first group. This whole horse incident has been a major embarrassment to the FSP and makes me seriously question what I want to be involved with in the future.
That's an interesting take on things. As someone who has considered NH his home and been involved at various levels here, for years before the FSP was even a shadow of an idea, I have to disagree regarding pretty much the entire content of that claim. Most of the early movers involved with the FSP are the ones "making waves," and also the ones who believe in decency towards their neighbors. The ones behaving with the least decency tend to be later in the move, but also tend to be interested in defending the status quo rather than working for change.
And, speaking as a native Yankee, do you have even the vaguest conception of how despicable most of us consider backstabbing? You talk about being good and decent neighbors, and then turn around and support those engaging in behavior which most natives are going to consider the polar opposite.
Joe
I have yet to see a compelling reason for bringing the full force of the state down on them.
As for animal treatment: Has anyone ever seen Molly and Spencer? Or perhaps the cats that have outlived their 9 lives and then some?
BTW...I am at the Travis household every weekend (Sundays for band rehearsal, good food, and shooting) and count them as friends.
Quote from: aworldnervelink on April 14, 2009, 09:16 AM NHFT
Secondly, to those who share Jeremy's view that it is OK to torture animals,
That's not what he said.
Quote from: aworldnervelink on April 14, 2009, 09:16 AM NHFT
Part of this attitude includes being friendly to your neighbors and in general conducting yourself with a certain level of decency.
Like not calling the cops on them?
Quote from: MaineShark on April 14, 2009, 09:48 AM NHFT
There's no "perhaps" about it. If I believed that animals were being abused, I would surely try and remedy the situation.
OK, my bad. I believed at the time that it was not my business to speak out, so I remained quiet. You stated previously
QuoteI would, therefore, support non-violent means of discouraging abuse, including support for education of animal owners as to their proper care, voluntary sanctions against abusers (ie, encouraging local businesses to charge the abusers higher prices, for example), or outright ostracism in severe cases...
These are all good things that I will take into consideration. I've been struggling with this because there don't seem to be any easy answers.
Look, I am not necessarily in support of what the state did. However, there was clearly a problem, and clearly something was going to happen regardless of any amount of jawboning on the forums. As evidenced by postings on the Union Leader, this is yet another thing that the general public is using to paint all Porcs as wackos. Is it not possible that we can do a little better?
Quote from: ny2nh on April 14, 2009, 05:55 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 14, 2009, 03:39 AM NHFT
Nice job trying to turn that post around for your own personal vendetta, Tammy.
The only vendetta I have is defending the people I consider to be friends when an anonymous poster creates a new account and posts a bunch of completely unfounded, bizarre stuff to try and make Beth look horrible. Gee, I would never think Sharon could have anything to do with that. It's not like she ever called the feds on anyone or anything.....but now Veracity would like to somehow say that Beth is responsible for that? Okay then.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 14, 2009, 03:39 AM NHFT
If you want substantiation: I was at Ron's house with Brian when he told several of us that the affidavit had been unsealed, and Beth was the one who filed it. I heard it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. At least a dozen others did, too. Probably the entire party did. Anyone can talk to Brian if they think "Veracity" is making things up.
As usual, there is always more to the story than meets the eye. But I guess because Brian declared the truth at a party, it must be so. Sure, people can talk to Brian and get one side of the story. They can also talk to Beth and get the other side of the story. Or is Beth's side just completely wrong because she was put in a situation that involved the government?
As usual, you try to strawman what I say. Good politician.
First: "Was put." Try "put." Active voice. As in,
she did something.
Second: There are no "sides" to whose name is printed on a bloody piece of paper. If Brian said Beth's name is on it, then I'm going to believe Beth's name is on it. If Brian is lying, it'd be a pretty idiotic thing to lie about: The affadavit is a certified public record that we're
all going to get to see when the trial begins, so if someone else's name is on it, how could Brian possibly think he could get away with claiming otherwise?
Third, most importantly: Getting the State involved to protect someone else's property against them is about as "completely wrong" as it gets. It's an outright act of aggression. I have no issue with people turning to the State to try and fix things (
e.g., political activism). I understand people occasionally begging the State for permission to do stuff out of fear or whatever (
e.g., getting permits). I'll even tolerate, but not really "support," people turning to the State when acts of aggression have been committed against a
person. But victimless crimes where all that's been hurt are some animals? Hell no.
Quote from: ny2nh on April 14, 2009, 05:55 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 14, 2009, 03:39 AM NHFT
I have no idea what the history is here between Beth and Heidi, or what the motive was, or whatever. I don't care what the condition of the horses was. That someone calling themselves a freestater called the State on another person—another freestater, no less—is the issue. And that you'd describe such a person as "principled" speaks volumes about your own principles (and is, unfortunately, entirely what I'd expect from you).
I actually do care what the condition of the horses was.
Let me rephrase here: I don't care about the condition of the horses in the context of this thread. Back when people were debating with the horse-owners coming onto the forum, I posted at least once that everyone doing so was missing the point (and probably falling into an intentional trap): The thread is about the State
vs. Brian, and the correctness or wrongness of the State telling Brian how to treat his property, not Brian's treatment of his property itself. William tried to drag the thread back on-topic again, too: This thread is "Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats."
But no. People are going to keep turning this into an argument over the private care of a private citizen's private property. Let's not concentrate on the fact that someone sicced the gang with guns on someone
over that care. Let's post shrill and hysterical comments about how horses were starving to death, how they were full of worms and their ribs were hanging out, and that we must support "torturing" animals if we don't care.
"Won't someone please think of the children horses?!"I do not support someone maliciously mistreating animals. I'd ostracize such a person as surely as I'd ostracize an aggressor. But it's not an act of aggression against a person, so it doesn't rise to the level of requiring State intervention. (Like I said earlier, I don't support
any State intervention in people's lives, but I'll understand and won't condemn—and it's in keeping with the FSP SoI—people turning to the State when an act of aggression is committed against a person.)
Quote from: ny2nh on April 14, 2009, 05:55 AM NHFT
And why does it matter whether it was another freestater or not? Is there two different ways to act - one towards freestaters and one towards the rest of the community? Like someone recently posted - I think on this very forum - being a freestater shouldn't mean you are expected to be held to a lower standard. I've paraphrased and I apologize to the poster for that, but it was along those lines....as to why we tolerate poor behavior just because someone moved here because of the FSP.
Ever heard the term
hypocrisy? S'pose I could keep making politician jokes here, but I'll stop.
I'll paraphrase Brian on this topic: The one thing that binds freestaters together is their belief that the government isn't the solution to (most, if not all) problems. Some of us are Christian, some atheists. Some of us vegetarians, some meat-eaters. There's virtually nothing we have in common,
except that one thing.
Anyone claiming to believe in something is certainly going to be held to that standard by me—their own standard, chosen by themselves. A freestater siccing the State on another over
animal-welfare regulation is damned hypocritical.
Quote from: ny2nh on April 14, 2009, 05:55 AM NHFT
And, yes, your principles and mine are different....they always have been....and I'm really okay with that. Really. And you of course are always 100% correct.
Nah, I've been wrong plenty of times. For example: Up until Beth turned against Ivy over
her private dealings, I thought Beth was a decent person. And up until
this situation, I thought she was at least a libertarian, who, even if she might have personal emotional reasons that have made her do a few bad things, she was at least on board with the idea that we don't use the State to solve our problems.
Quote from: ny2nh on April 14, 2009, 05:55 AM NHFTAfter all, you surround yourself with some pretty damn principled folks. Gladly, I surround myself with different folks. :)
I surround myself mostly by people who understand the principle of non-aggression. Not local politicians who feign libertarianism to get them involved in mediocre Republican political campaigns. And certainly not people who cry to the State over their disapproval of other people's utilization of their own property.
Quote from: aworldnervelink on April 14, 2009, 09:16 AM NHFT
First off, the horses were being abused. Period. I've been to Brian's house many times and I've seen first-hand the appalling conditions that were present. Perhaps it reflects poorly on me that I didn't speak up about it, as some feel that the community should be self-policing. My own view is that Heidi is mainly responsible, and Brian is just along for the ride... but if he wants to ride that train off the cliff it's his choice. I think any rational person reading the discourse over the past few weeks can see how duplicitous Brian has been about the situation... and I no longer find him trustworthy because of that.
I'll admit, I don't go out to Brian's property nearly enough to know anything about the condition of the horses—in fact, I've never even seen the horses. But Beth, yourself, and how many other people who haven't posted, believe that Heidi was abusing her animals, and... you did nothing about it? Instead, you all kept quiet, and finally Beth went squealing to the bluelight gang?
Wow, there was the perfect opportunity here to demonstrate how we can privately police our own, how we can respond
in a free market way to undesirable behavior... and you dropped the ball. That,
or you and Beth actually believed that a statist solution was a superior solution.
Quote from: aworldnervelink on April 14, 2009, 09:16 AM NHFT
Secondly, to those who share Jeremy's view that it is OK to torture animals, feel free to stay away from me.
Straw man. See my post to Tammy.
Quote from: aworldnervelink on April 14, 2009, 09:16 AM NHFTDon't come to my parties or movie nights, once I've sufficiently overcome the bad taste in my mouth to start having them again. You disgust me.
Haven't been to one of your parties since 2007, and I don't plan to go to one again. I'd already decided I didn't want to associate with you as a result of your own past actions, and I respect people's property rights.
Darn, Jeremy's not going to Kevin's parties.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 14, 2009, 09:23 AM NHFT
I don't know who posted or what they posted, since it is gone now. Kat is not wanting to accept Ivy onto this forum with open arms. She can post on many other forums across the internet.
I don't want to turn this thread
further from it's topic, but I'd like to ask that Kat reconsider that.
Yet another person who was involved in the little clique turning people against Ivy has shown their true colors. How long before every one of them is exposed as untrustworthy, liars, or slanderers?
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 14, 2009, 12:39 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 14, 2009, 09:23 AM NHFT
I don't know who posted or what they posted, since it is gone now. Kat is not wanting to accept Ivy onto this forum with open arms. She can post on many other forums across the internet.
I don't want to turn this thread further from it's topic, but I'd like to ask that Kat reconsider that. Yet another person who was involved in the little clique turning people against Ivy has shown their true colors. How long before every one of them is exposed as untrustworthy, liars, or slanderers?
So now you're ragging on Kat for not allowing Ivy to post here? Kat is somehow part of this
clique that is turning people against Ivy? Wow.
QuoteLet's post shrill and hysterical comments about how horses were starving to death, how they were full of worms and their ribs were hanging out, and that we must support "torturing" animals if we don't care. "Won't someone please think of the children horses?!"
Ridiculous dramatics. :-\ I'm never shrill nor hysterical. I'm too often branded as too uncaring/cold because I refuse to whine or shriek or chest thump. I've also never equated children with animals. Never. That's your own estimation of this issue or it's a dramatic way to try to portray me as ridiculous.
QuoteBut Beth, yourself, and how many other people who haven't posted, believe that Heidi was abusing her animals, and... you did nothing about it? Instead, you all kept quiet, and finally Beth went squealing to the bluelight gang?
Did nothing about it? Beth was feeding those horses her own hay from her own out of pocket money because Brian and Heidi refused to. She was there personally caring for those horses to the best of her ability despite the uncaring owners. And she was supporting them as much as she could with *her own money.* Seriously...should she have taken out a loan to feed those freeloaders...erm...freestaters horses for them?
QuoteYet another person who was involved in the little clique turning people against Ivy has shown their true colors. How long before every one of them is exposed as untrustworthy, liars, or slanderers?
Would you like another list of the lies Brian has told so far? How about Heidi's list? They're lying to all of you because otherwise they're pretty positive that they'd be getting little, if any, support or agreement.
I *attempted* to give information about horses and their health and very bare bones basic needs to counter the lies Brian and Heidi have been feeding to those of you who know nothing about horses...so that those of you can make an INFORMED decision with all the FACTS. If facts aren't wanted...my apologies. I personally prefer to know the truth before I throw in my towel on any sides of anything I feel is important. I assumed others felt the same.
BTW...slander is spoken. Libel is written. Absolute truth is considered a defense against either. Try calling Brian and Heidi's past areas/personal contacts for a different version of the truth. Or prefer to believe them despite their extremely obvious lies where they change the stories themselves all the time. Up to you. Am I the only one finding it odd that TWO of their past caretakers aren't on good terms with them due to their lies that were told to them?
Quote from: ny2nh on April 14, 2009, 12:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 14, 2009, 12:39 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 14, 2009, 09:23 AM NHFT
I don't know who posted or what they posted, since it is gone now. Kat is not wanting to accept Ivy onto this forum with open arms. She can post on many other forums across the internet.
I don't want to turn this thread further from it's topic, but I'd like to ask that Kat reconsider that. Yet another person who was involved in the little clique turning people against Ivy has shown their true colors. How long before every one of them is exposed as untrustworthy, liars, or slanderers?
So now you're ragging on Kat for not allowing Ivy to post here? Kat is somehow part of this clique that is turning people against Ivy? Wow.
How did you even
get that from this post? I was
asking Kat to reconsider banning someone, because to a large extent, a lot of the animosity against Ivy is based on stuff that Beth (and secondarily, yourself, Kevin, and a few others) has said and done.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 14, 2009, 12:04 PM NHFT
For example: Up until Beth turned against Ivy over her private dealings, I thought Beth was a decent person.
I hate to go off on a tangent, but since you still don't get it I'll make another attempt: Bill was
married to Kate! Marriage! A contract! Get it? Any synapses rubbing together?
No, Kevin, you're confused. You're just out to turn people against Ivy. All this animosity against her is just because some clique makes stuff up about her just to make her look bad. Really Kevin, you should really try to embrace the goodness in Ivy more. :o And shame on you for being Beth's friend. Ivy=good, Beth=bad....don't you get it?
I'm from the Midwest, sometimes I'm a bit slow...
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 14, 2009, 12:54 PM NHFT
QuoteLet's post shrill and hysterical comments about how horses were starving to death, how they were full of worms and their ribs were hanging out, and that we must support "torturing" animals if we don't care. "Won't someone please think of the children horses?!"
Ridiculous dramatics. :-\ I'm never shrill nor hysterical. I'm too often branded as too uncaring/cold because I refuse to whine or shriek or chest thump. I've also never equated children with animals. Never. That's your own estimation of this issue or it's a dramatic way to try to portray me as ridiculous.
This wasn't directed at you personally. It's my estimation of how a now–50-page thread about someone being attacked by the State was hijacked and turned into a thread about animal cruelty, seemingly with the implication that if cruelty was proven, that that somehow justifies the State pointing guns at people.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 14, 2009, 12:54 PM NHFT
QuoteBut Beth, yourself, and how many other people who haven't posted, believe that Heidi was abusing her animals, and... you did nothing about it? Instead, you all kept quiet, and finally Beth went squealing to the bluelight gang?
Did nothing about it? Beth was feeding those horses her own hay from her own out of pocket money because Brian and Heidi refused to. She was there personally caring for those horses to the best of her ability despite the uncaring owners. And she was supporting them as much as she could with *her own money.* Seriously...should she have taken out a loan to feed those freeloaders...erm...freestaters horses for them?
Quoted out of context. "Did nothing" and "kept quiet" in the sense of didn't let any other freestaters know about this situation. Many of us around here believe that there are private solutions—social pressure, ostracism, and the like—to convince someone to behave properly. I'm not going to rehash this topic because it's been posted about amply already (Here (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=11006.0) is a nice past example of how to do the
right thing against someone doing something wrong), but simply put,
if Beth is telling the truth about Heidi's horses, and she had started a thread about it on these forums, with evidence, pictures, &c., I can assure you that virtually no one would support Heidi.
But that's not what happened. Beth answered an alleged wrong with another wrong. Two wrongs don't lead to a right. Now, this issue has become defending someone who's been attacked by the State for illegitimate reasons. The condition of the horses has unfortunately become secondary.
And I have no idea where this "loan" suggestion came from.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 14, 2009, 12:54 PM NHFT
QuoteYet another person who was involved in the little clique turning people against Ivy has shown their true colors. How long before every one of them is exposed as untrustworthy, liars, or slanderers?
Would you like another list of the lies Brian has told so far? How about Heidi's list? They're lying to all of you because otherwise they're pretty positive that they'd be getting little, if any, support or agreement.
If the allegations are true, you're probably right. If the allegations against them had been presented on our forums here, like that "open letter" post above, and they turned out to be true, you're probably right. But instead this situation was turned over to the police. So a bunch of us are rallying to support Brian & Heidi, because regardless of what they're doing with their horses, being threatened by the State over it isn't a legitimate answer.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 14, 2009, 12:54 PM NHFT
I *attempted* to give information about horses and their health and very bare bones basic needs to counter the lies Brian and Heidi have been feeding to those of you who know nothing about horses...so that those of you can make an INFORMED decision with all the FACTS. If facts aren't wanted...my apologies. I personally prefer to know the truth before I throw in my towel on any sides of anything I feel is important. I assumed others felt the same.
I don't mean to be harsh, but why wasn't any of this done
before this situation turned into "Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats"?
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 14, 2009, 01:14 PM NHFT
Quoted out of context. "Did nothing" and "kept quiet" in the sense of didn't let any other freestaters know about this situation. Many of us around here believe that there are private solutions—social pressure, ostracism, and the like—to convince someone to behave properly. I'm not going to rehash this topic because it's been posted about amply already (Here (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=11006.0) is a nice past example of how to do the right thing against someone doing something wrong), but simply put, [i]if[/i] Beth is telling the truth about Heidi's horses, and she had started a thread about it on these forums, with evidence, pictures, &c., I can assure you that virtually no one would support Heidi.
Except Beth was under contract with Brian to not discuss things having to with the "farm". So, she really couldn't post here.
Again, you
don't know the whole story. You are presuming that Beth went to the authorities and I don't believe that was the case.
On a side note - would you be OK with....say.... someone inferring that Beth should not testify honestly under oath about the condition and care of the horses if she is subpoenaed to court? Completely hypothetically of course.
I'm going to do something a bit nutty and try to steer this thread in a constructive direction. Back to the Future was just a movie and we can't change the past. The fact is, twelve horses have been relocated and no amount of philosophical discussion will make one bit of difference.
So, I am operating under the assumption that a problem did exist. I have my opinion based on what I saw at the property, and Brian admitted as much when he said the SPCA could have arrived with grain and deworming paste. Given that, what positive steps can we take to repair the situation? My personal interests are (1) the welfare of the horses, and (2) repairing the damage done to the FSP image in the community. OK, (3) the return of Brian and Heidi's property, so y'all don't jump on me. Anyone have some helpful suggestions?
I will publicly state that if Brian wants to build a real barn with real stalls and real paddocks and fences, I'll gladly assist. I'm not interested in building crummy shelters out of sticks.
Quote from: ny2nh on April 14, 2009, 01:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 14, 2009, 01:14 PM NHFT
Quoted out of context. "Did nothing" and "kept quiet" in the sense of didn't let any other freestaters know about this situation. Many of us around here believe that there are private solutions—social pressure, ostracism, and the like—to convince someone to behave properly. I'm not going to rehash this topic because it's been posted about amply already (Here (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=11006.0) is a nice past example of how to do the right thing against someone doing something wrong), but simply put, [i]if[/i] Beth is telling the truth about Heidi's horses, and she had started a thread about it on these forums, with evidence, pictures, &c., I can assure you that virtually no one would support Heidi.
Except Beth was under contract with Brian to not discuss things having to with the "farm". So, she really couldn't post here.
Kevin wasn't.
Beth could have alerted people to the conditions on the farm without discussing it with anyone and thus breaking her contract. Invite people over, let them see for themselves, and let things run their course: Let them post an "open letter" to start the pressure campaign.
Quote from: ny2nh on April 14, 2009, 01:21 PM NHFT
Again, you don't know the whole story. You are presuming that Beth went to the authorities and I don't believe that was the case.
No, I don't. I suppose it'll all come out when this case makes it to court.
Quote from: ny2nh on April 14, 2009, 01:21 PM NHFT
On a side note - would you be OK with....say.... someone inferring that Beth should not testify honestly under oath about the condition and care of the horses if she is subpoenaed to court? Completely hypothetically of course.
Should someone lie under oath, if subpoenaed?
On the one hand, subpœnaing someone to testify against someone else is an aggressive act of the State, and fraud, like force, is an acceptable response to aggression. So from a self-defense perspective, I see it as acceptable. If we were living in a police state and they were rounding up dissidents to put them in camps, would I lie to the thug at the door about the dissidents I was hiding in my attic? Sure, without a second thought. Lying under oath when the State is trying to stomp on someone else is just a lesser degree of the same principle.
But on a personal level, I think lying after having taken an oath is rather dishonorable. Even if the one whom you're lying to is dishonorable (the State), answering dishonor with dishonor isn't particularly respectable. If
I were in that situation, I would simply refuse to testify. I probably wouldn't even take the oath, or even take the stand. I for one would rather stand up for myself—refuse to give in to coercion, outright
refuse to testify, and swallow their punishment for noncompliance—rather than weasel my way out by lying.
As for someone else testifying under subpœna... hmm. That might just fall into the sort of "unfortunate necessity" exception (
e.g., calling the police when you've shot someone in self-defense, for fear that you'd be charged with murder if you don't) that I follow when evaluating other people's interactions with the State. I'd have to see the testimony myself, and try to determine if they were truly coerced, if the punishment for not doing so was excessively harsh, and there was no evidence they didn't initiate the subpœna process (
e.g., "Just subpœna me so I have an excuse to coöperate.") in order to simply abrogate responsibility.
That I admit is a gray area, but only because of the practical statist reality that we live in.
Quote from: aworldnervelink on April 14, 2009, 01:41 PM NHFT
So, I am operating under the assumption that a problem did exist. I have my opinion based on what I saw at the property, and Brian admitted as much when he said the SPCA could have arrived with grain and deworming paste. Given that, what positive steps can we take to repair the situation? My personal interests are (1) the welfare of the horses, and (2) repairing the damage done to the FSP image in the community. OK, (3) the return of Brian and Heidi's property, so y'all don't jump on me. Anyone have some helpful suggestions?
Two more things:—
(4) Restitution by Beth to Heidi for whatever damage she caused. Ultimately, agreement between them that the situation is settled.
(5) Ending the existence of the NHSPCA, or at least their State-ordained authority to steal people's animals.
Suggestions: Convince Brian, Heidi, and Beth to sit down and discuss this situation like adults who know how to interact without going to the State. From what I know, Brian has evicted Beth and Heidi has lawyered up, so there's certainly some work to be done on convincing both sides to talk to each other, not just Beth's.
I'm not offering to mediate; I suck at it. I can sit back and see both sides of an issue, but I'm not good at actually talking to the parties into seeing each other's sides. And no one involved in this thread could possibly be trusted to truly see the other side, whichever side that is, since everyone's already so vocally taken sides. Anyone seen Mike Ruff around lately?
Again, Jeremy, you don't know the whole story at all.
I don't see that there is anything to mediate. Heidi failed to care for her horses....Beth got pulled in and honestly stated what happened....The State took horses that were in dire condition....Brian evicted Beth & Dan.
Yea - and somehow Beth would owe restitution to Heidi? Because Heidi didn't take proper care of her animals? OK then.
Quote from: ny2nh on April 14, 2009, 02:24 PM NHFT
Again, Jeremy, you don't know the whole story at all.
I don't see that there is anything to mediate. Heidi failed to care for her horses....Beth got pulled in and honestly stated what happened....The State took horses that were in dire condition....Brian evicted Beth & Dan.
How does not knowing the whole story impact, at all, my suggestions on how to handle this situation without the State? What makes you think that there's some bit of knowledge that, once possessed, would suddenly cause me to conclude, "okay,
now let's sic the State on them!"?
Perhaps Beth honestly stated what happened. She stated it
to the State—either with the intention to, or at the very least, with the knowledge that doing so would, turn their aggression against Brian and Heidi.
Mediation (http://ancapagency.com/node/7) is how you solve conflicts in a non-coercive manner. Mediation, as opposed to prosecution, is how you get people who aren't convinced they've done anything wrong to come to some sort of agreement or understanding with the other party. Why are you actively trying to block them from doing so? Why do you argue with someone when they take an opposing side, and then keep arguing when they try to see your side, step back, and offer solutions that don't involve the State? Is your sole purpose here to convince people that State intervention is necessary?
Quote from: ny2nh on April 14, 2009, 02:24 PM NHFT
Yea - and somehow Beth would owe restitution to Heidi? Because Heidi didn't take proper care of her animals? OK then.
Yes. Beth is the one who initiated (or at least enabled) the acts of aggression here. I honestly don't care
what Heidi or Beth agree on as "restitution"; it could be a million dollars or just a handshake and forgiveness. Point is, this is how you solve conflicts non-aggressively, and what it would take for me (and probably a lot of others here) to not conclude that Beth is the bad guy in this situation.
To my Dear Liberty Loving Friends!
We are brought together by the love of the principle of Liberty, with each of us, having our own varing definition.
We are from all walks of life and of all ages and thus there is bound to be debate/disagreement.
And I know how easy it is to think, "we know it all" (myself included :) )!, but each day I'm constantly reminded of how much I don't know.
But something I do know is, passing judgement, on a situation, without talking to each person(s) involved, or knowing the Whole story, is begging for trouble. I also know, if you're not asked, it's wise to keep your trap shut (if possible!), as you're better off just minding your own business.
It's too easy to get upset at what others can say so if find yourself thinking about Name Calling, then please take that as a sign you're too upset at the moment and you should speak later, after you've calmed down.
And as far as this being terrible for the FSP, I think not. I think most people are busy living their own lives and don't give two hoots about some Liberty Activists' dispute.
Well that's my 2 cents. Please don't misunderstand that I'm trying to say I don't think people should talk about events that happen in the community.
In the Pursuit of earning more Liberty, Meet you at the Top!
Markus
Quote from: aworldnervelink on April 14, 2009, 11:47 AM NHFTLook, I am not necessarily in support of what the state did. However, there was clearly a problem, and clearly something was going to happen regardless of any amount of jawboning on the forums. As evidenced by postings on the Union Leader, this is yet another thing that the general public is using to paint all Porcs as wackos. Is it not possible that we can do a little better?
It would have been possible, if those who believed there was a problem had chosen to seek voluntary assistance in remedying it.
I tentatively believe that Brian has no reason to lie about Beth being the "snitch," although I will refrain from making a final judgment until I see hard evidence. If that is the case, then Beth is directly the responsible party for any "painting" that occurs. If she is that party, then I would like to see her step up to the plate and offer what damage control she can. I would hope that others who were aware of a problem and chose to ignore it might feel some desire to assist in that endeavor.
Quote from: aworldnervelink on April 14, 2009, 12:56 PM NHFTQuote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 14, 2009, 12:04 PM NHFTFor example: Up until Beth turned against Ivy over her private dealings, I thought Beth was a decent person.
I hate to go off on a tangent, but since you still don't get it I'll make another attempt: Bill was married to Kate! Marriage! A contract! Get it? Any synapses rubbing together?
And? We get it. Bill violated a contract with Kate. Ivy was an accessory to his actions. Kate suffered some amount of harm as a result. Kate, by her statements to me and others, considers the apologies offered by Bill and Ivy to be sufficient restitution for that harm. Since the victim is satisfied that restitution has been made I, as a libertarian, am not about to second-guess her. That's how justice works.
This is actually topical to the case at-hand, because Beth (or whomever, if not her) caused substantial harm to the Brian and Heidi, and no self-respecting libertarian is going to have anything to do with her until she makes restitution to the satisfaction of those victims. It's up to them to determine what will be sufficient to make them whole again in response to the damage that was done. They might be as magnanimous as Kate and accept an apology. They might demand a thousand ounces of gold. Only the victim knows how much the victim was harmed, and only the victim can make that determination. I, as a libertarian, will respect their determinations in that matter, and will act accordingly with regards to the individuals who aggressed against them, until such time as those individuals make full restitution. (I know some of this overlaps what Jeremy posted, but I wrote it before he posted, and just got around to posting it now)
Other than in the case of a proven habitual offender, once restitution is made, I will "forgive and forget," as the saying goes.
Assuming Beth is guilty, she has a lot of harm to deal with (not just the theft, itself, but the fact that it was accomplished by means of armed robbers who constituted an obvious threat to the health, safety, and lives of the victims), and it will be up to Brian and Heidi to determine what they will accept as restitution for that harm. If she is not guilty, then Brian will owe her restitution for libeling her here. I find it unlikely that he would risk that but, as with previous cases, I will reserve final judgment until all the facts that seem likely to appear, have done so.
Joe
Quote from: ny2nh on April 14, 2009, 02:24 PM NHFT
Again, Jeremy, you don't know the whole story at all.
If her name is on the affidavit, that will be the whole story.
if people are so worried about the FSP's stellar image enough to call thugs in to steal people's property then perhaps I don't get the mission of this group.
Frankly, I don't really know any of you. I've never met Ivy, Bill, Beth, Tammy, Brian, or Heidi. What I see is *some* people claiming abuse yet they never spoke of it here. I would have expected if this issue was so important to someone who supposedly loves freedom (enough to grant others the freedom to treat their PROPERTY as they wish) they would have posted here a thread about how a certain FSP member was, in their opinion, abusing an animal. They could have started their own ostracism campaign and told others that these people were scumbags and deserved to be ostracized.
No such thread. No discussion here, on one of the liberty movement's biggest forums. I would have been interested in finding out who in the FSP was someone I wouldn't want to hang out with. Nothing. No using the brain to figure out how to remedy situations, just a kneejerk reaction to call in the thugs to steal and possibly beat up others who are harming no one.
So, one side defends a person's right to treat their PROPERTY as they see fit. The other side claims abuse and is in love with the fact that someone was stripped of their property by force, and on taxpayer's dime. Frankly, if that's your principle, it fucking blows. Dragging the situation of marriage infidelity (a private contract matter) and calling names only further pushes me to one side. As I said, I don't know any of you really. To a person who is an outsider, it's pretty damn disgusting the amount of bullshit I've seen lobbed at the Travis'.
If only you had thought for a few minutes, used the old noggin to come up with a way to let people know that there's an animal abuser in the midst, perhaps your argument would be stronger. Instead you've shown it to be more of an immature way to get what you want and then claim that you are in the right for doing so.
You're not. Using other people's money to get what you want is wrong. Denying others the right to treat their property as they see fit is wrong. I personally don't want to associate with people who are going to turn me into the police if they don't like what I do with my property. Are you going to call the popo because you catch me smoking weed? Is this what the FSP is all about? Sticking your nose in other people's business and then calling the police when you see something you don't like? If that's the case, maybe this FSP thing isn't for me. I was under the assumption that people would treat others as they would like to be treated.
this seemed to become more of a grudge against some supporters of one side of a failed marriage that I don't even need to know the details of to understand that it's not something that's any of your business. To attack those who defend others' rights to life, liberty, and property I find downright heinous. To demean Jraxis in such a manner truly offends me, and shows me how pathetic some of this FSP crowd can be. What I saw was Jraxis defending someone's right to property against those who decided to fuck off on the NAP. How disgusting.
All in all, I've decided I'm done listening to people spout off about Bill and Ivy being assholes and people I don't want to associate with. When it comes down to it, I'm more fearful of some of you calling the police on me because I smoke weed and drive fast than I am Bill and Ivy. I look forward to finding out for myself sometime about these so called "evil people" as was explained to me once. As for Mr. Pervert Android, my one time at Taproom he couldn't have been more friendly and welcoming. Not once did I think he would have called the popo because I had a bag of pot in my pocket. Some others, I'm not so sure about anymore.
If you'll call to steal people's property what's to stop you from calling on me?
I think its time to tell the whole story .My next post will do just that but I need to get rid of the anger first .I'll give you this much now .Beth tried for months to get Brians wife to listen ,when it didn't work she came to me .Tell you the rest later!
QuoteThis wasn't directed at you personally. It's my estimation of how a now–50-page thread about someone being attacked by the State was hijacked and turned into a thread about animal cruelty, seemingly with the implication that if cruelty was proven, that that somehow justifies the State pointing guns at people.
I assumed it was directed to me since I seemed to be the only one passing along equine information. I also assumed the thread was both about the seizure *and* the animals...since that was the reason for the seizure and what they seized. Also, since the video was posted...I did not see a single sidearm drawn, so am confused about the "pointing guns" comment unless it was used for dramatic effect.
QuoteQuoted out of context. "Did nothing" and "kept quiet" in the sense of didn't let any other freestaters know about this situation. Many of us around here believe that there are private solutions—social pressure, ostracism, and the like—to convince someone to behave properly. I'm not going to rehash this topic because it's been posted about amply already (Here is a nice past example of how to do the right thing against someone doing something wrong), but simply put, if Beth is telling the truth about Heidi's horses, and she had started a thread about it on these forums, with evidence, pictures, &c., I can assure you that virtually no one would support Heidi.
Brian has employees promise to not discuss anything that happens on his property. And seemingly for good reason...past and present prove that point. Beth is telling the truth about the horses...as are the 2 independent vets and the video released of the horses showing their condition. Plenty of people in that area also called the PD and SPCA about the conditions of those horses BTW. Plenty...they recognized emaciated poor condition shivering horses out in the worst winter in decades better than the owner of those horses did. So everyone is wrong? The video was false? Beth could not state a thing...but had talked to Heidi repeatedly over a long period of time letting her know that the money had to be released to bring those horses back to health or that too many reports from drive by's would come in and the SPCA would be back. Heidi ignored her and was rude to her over that. So Beth did what she could with her own supplies and money. So she tried to save their hides...once by keeping the SPCA off the property in November, multiple times since them warning to care for those horses and then again by spending her own money to care for someone else's property. Now it's *still* her fault that they had their horses seized? Nobody else from the FSP had ever been to that property and noticed the poor conditions?
QuoteBut that's not what happened. Beth answered an alleged wrong with another wrong. Two wrongs don't lead to a right. Now, this issue has become defending someone who's been attacked by the State for illegitimate reasons. The condition of the horses has unfortunately become secondary.
That couldn't happen...if the FSP members are supposed to be so independent...why do they need Beth to babysit them and try talking them into acting like compassionate mature adults? The wrong isn't alleged...already proven that with the video and vet reports. Beth all she could and IMO went above and beyond what others would have done considering the piss poor attitude of Heidi. Heidi is already proven to have done wrong by those horses whether anyone wants to admit it or not...Heidi and Brian are already proven liars by their own admissions and *Beth* is the one who is wrong??? :-[ And as has been said ad nauseum on here...even if Beth broke her word to Brian and posted an open letter on here as you suggest...few would have cared because the condition of the horses doesn't matter and the right to treat property however owners' wish does matter and that other people have no rights to infringe on that. So that's no solution at all, is it? If I understand correctly your solution is:
Heidi and Brian can lie all they want
They can neglect and cause suffering of their animals all they want
They can ignore the information given to them by mutliple people including Beth all they want
Brianis to be believed NOW because well...he said so! So this time he must mean it.
And yet somehow Beth owes THEM restitution after buying their horses hay because both lied and neglected their animals to the point of suffering. And none of the other many people who called the SPCA on them count anyways.
QuoteIf the allegations are true, you're probably right. If the allegations against them had been presented on our forums here, like that "open letter" post above, and they turned out to be true, you're probably right. But instead this situation was turned over to the police. So a bunch of us are rallying to support Brian & Heidi, because regardless of what they're doing with their horses, being threatened by the State over it isn't a legitimate answer.
So if everything is true...and Brian and heidi are totally in the wrong...everyone still needs to shun Beth because the state got involved. Makes absolutely no sense to me. Support the liars because the remedy you suggest which you also admit wouldn't work anyways wasn't implemented to *your* satisfaction...so rally those troups against the one person who tried for months.
QuoteI don't mean to be harsh, but why wasn't any of this done before this situation turned into "Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats"?
I didn't know about it before the seizure. I wasn't surprised after hearing it, but didn't know beforehand. And since it's been stated by many on here...it wouldn't have mattered since nobody has a right to tell other people how to treat their property. It's a Catch 22 no matter how you look at it.
Beth got yanked into this...I am assuming if/when she was asked after a multitude of other people called in numerous complaints about the obviously visible from the road horses that were in horrible shape (despite the blatant lies about their health from Brian and Heidi, if so healthy why all the calls and complaints that Beth was warning them would happen???)...when the authorities got a crapload of complaints from everyone else in the area and then IF they asked Beth about the condition of the horses and the quality of care Heidi allowed for...why would Beth have to lie to them? Because they're the law, she needs to lie when asked anything about suffering animals? Even though her requests to the owner were either ignored or cause for her to receive rude treatment from the owner? Even though she knows the FSPers think that an owner can do whatever the hell they want to their property? Even though she was running out of her own money to care for horses that weren't hers? And even if she knew some of those wouldn't make it much longer? But BETH needs to be blamed for the whole thing...huh. Why am I not surprised?
So the moral of the story is: Do whatever you can to help out, spend your own money, educate and warn all you can, protect them more than once, allow them to blame you and lie about you and then tell every other FSPer what's really going on in an open letter so they can do absolutely nothing about it because it's not their property and knowing that Heidi won't listen to them anyways and that Brian will lie to them anyways and that few of them know anything about horses anyways and then get dragged into a mess YOU did not create in the first place, be shunned by your own community on the say-so of one or two people who have zero to do with any of this but are just pissed off that other people called the authorities on any FSPer. Oh...and the kicker is then according to the FSP *you* owe the lying abusers money for this in order to be accepted back into your own community of like-minded folks who are leaving you hanging out to dry anyways. And forget about seeing a dime of your own hay money back that you fed the liars horses with.
Hmmm...that'll make anyone reading this public available forum want to join ranks or support you guys. You so obviously do the same for your own. (insert sarcasm here)
Anton...
QuoteWhat I see is *some* people claiming abuse yet they never spoke of it here. I would have expected if this issue was so important to someone who supposedly loves freedom (enough to grant others the freedom to treat their PROPERTY as they wish) they would have posted here a thread about how a certain FSP member was, in their opinion, abusing an animal.
Not to argue...especially since you crack me up...but those two statements are oxymorons. How can someone claim someone is treating their property badly to a BB of people who grant others to treat their own property as they see fit?
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 14, 2009, 09:23 AM NHFT
We are not going to be able to keep anyone from posting lies here.
Since the front door is once again open to this forum, then anyone can join here and post. We have had many horsey people join lately and tell us all what to do and how to stay on topic in threads complaining about bureaucrats. Maybe they can start threads about horse care.
I don't know who posted or what they posted, since it is gone now. Kat is not wanting to accept Ivy onto this forum with open arms. She can post on many other forums across the internet.
Maybe you guys will want to take your discussions elsewhere. Many people don't read this thread or skip the long posts about horses. Most people won't have read this long post. ;)
The thugs are putting the pressure on us and we will realize who our real friends are and who will actually help others. It will be interesting.
well they can join and they can post until youban them and remove their posts right? are you going to ban them as well? because they dont agree with your point of view? or have you done that already?
Misty, I believe people have the right to ostrasize people as they see fit and for whatever reason. If someone here had stated that there was someone who was abusing their animals on purpose or by neglect, they are choosing to point out that they are not associating with such people and suggest others do the same.
It's a matter of OPINION. If I don't like the way people are treating the animals, then I will not associate with them. If enough people decide that they will not associate with these people because they're treating an animal badly. . . the world will become a very very lonely place for them. In this case, the person was not ostracized, they were stolen from. Ostracism = ok. . . aggression against people = not ok.
For example. I'm very angry that a farm would participate in the theft of animals from another. . .for whatever reason that might make them feel good. I, in turn, am voting with my opinion and ostracizing them. It might not mean much to them, I'm just one person. However anyone that ever asks me about horse farms, I'll have one name in mind and make sure that I explain how that farm participated in an horse theft along with Candia Police. The people I tell will have a choice whether or not to follow my suggestion and take their business elsewhere. If they agree with the theft, they will use the business. If not, they won't.
No force initiated, no aggression. If I were to act like these thugs who use the gun of the state to hurt others and steal from them, I would not have ostracized the farm, I would have broken into the farm and stolen some of their valuables. After all, they're behaving in a way that I don't like. Heck, I wouldn't even need to do it myself, I could pay some assholes to put a badge on and do it for me. If the owner of that farm didn't like it, tough shit, I make the rules.
Thankfully, I'll stick to ostracizing them, and they'll continue not to care. Frankly, I've told the 5 horse people I know about the situation, and like me, they do not agree that starving an animal is a nice thing to do. What's worse is pushing forward the silly and evermore dangerous idea that you have a right to steal someone else's property for whatever reason you decide. I guarantee that a few of those horse people disagreed with the theft of the horses. Those people have explained how disingenuous they are about the "horse community" and wish that they could operate without the "uppity" and "bureaucratic" nature. There were others that disagreed with me and thought that it was in the best interest of the horses. At the very least, the idea has been put in their heads about having their own horses stolen. One in particular vehimently disagreed with the ranch's role in the theft of those horses and said that he knows the owner of the farm personally.
There are ways to figure out how to stop things without using force. In my humble opinion, IF the horses were abused, the "savior" crowd lost me when they decided to stop using their head and move to have others steal someone else's horses.
I understand your opinion Anton. I also agree with it when it doesn't involve living things suffering.
But with living things suffering...you and I can use ostracism all we want. By the time it starts to have any lonely affects on the uncaring animal owners..those animals will have either continued to suffer all that time or have died slow painful deaths. Death by starvation or parasite overload is excrutiating by the way. Living with it is also excrutiating.
Had the government come in and done the same with something not living and suffering in an extremely cruel and inhumane manner...I just might be standing right by many of your sides arguing the same side.
When it's affecting a living thing...even though I do consider it property...I can not personally condone the continuation of it's suffering whilst hoping my ignoring the folks purposely causing the suffering is hurting their feelings. That's my opinion.
"One can measure the greatness and the moral progress of a nation by looking at how it treats its animals." - Mahatma Gandhi"
My opinion is that by blindly supporting the animal abusers..the community as a whole will seem seriously flawed to everyone outside of it. And while many claim they don't care what others may think...they're also never going to grow or progress or ever hit that 20,000 mark without new members. And the members they have now may be perceived differently after the publlicity of this case.
Biting off the nose to spite the face in a way.
honest to god, if someone had started a fund to help pay off people who mistreated their animals in return for the release of those animals, I would have donated.
Even an "evil voluntaryist" such as myself doesn't want to see an animal suffer. I am not willing however to use force against those people. Not that it matters, but my own personal vet told me that I was abusing my animals because they were overweight. I give my cats treats twice a day and feed them twice a day. The same thing I've done since I got my first cat in Cub Scouts. My first two cats lived a good 9 year life in my home. I am now labeled an 'animal abuser' as the Vet said and pleaded with me to enter my cat into their "biggest loser" contest. Prizes awarded for the cat that loses the most weight. My cats don't care for what I'm sure they consider 'starving' them (I feed them twice a day, but no more treats and a different wet food that's better for them and twice the price). My baby Bailey didn't eat for an entire day and it killed me to see her laying in the corner.
Now, thank god someone didn't bust into my house and steal my kitties away from me. I can only hope that no one here takes that step to call some pigs over to 'liberate' my property which also happen to be my friends.
Ah geez...didn't think you were an evil anything. As I said...I understand your point of view. I might not agree with it 100% but you might be surprised as how much of it I do agree with.
I just don't happen to believe that many things can be 100% anything. 100% non-involvement by government doesn't make sense to me. I try looking at it with an analytical mind instead of an idealistic one. Not to say you or anyone else is definitely doing that...but I do definitely pick things apart and think things through and continue the idea in my head through time to see if I think it would work or if research states it has a snowball's chance to work.
In a perfect world...we could leave all animal welfare (to pick one issue) up to each individual. But history shows that's a massive mistake on the parts of the animals. Also current times show the same...just look to other countries that have zero animal welfare laws to enforce.
It's not easy not feeding our cute pets whatever they enjoy. Been there done that a million times over. ;) An obese pet can develop serious health issues, but the possibility of killing with kindness has a much different impact on a social group than killing with malice or neglect. An obese animal isn't having the minute by minute acute pain of feeling it's body feeding off it's own muscles because there isn't any fat reserves left. Muscle wasting due to being resorbed by the body hurts like hell. And before someone jumps in with "Oh they weren't showing signs of that!" please be aware that prey animals and predators act and react completely opposite to many outside influences. A hurt predator isn't risking it's own life by showing weakness in many cases. It may risk being outcast if it's part of a pride or pack but most predators aren't. If an animal is a natural food source for other animals and *especially* if it's a herd animal...any of it's own kind acting off/differently/slow becomes an instant target for predators. So that makes large herbivores sch as common livestock excessively stoic in regards to showing any weakness.
Remember my comments about colic being a huge horse killer? One manjor reason for that is although it's immensely painful for the horse...the horse rarely shows signs of it at all until it's progressed to a very serious point. It's genetically coded to never show weakness of any type if it can help it. So once an owner sees the physical symptoms...the problem is pretty advanced and many times past the point of any satisfying medical intervention short of surgery.
To *me*...allowing suffering due to a political or social opinion isn't a compassionate thing to do.
As for the reward system of paying off abusers and neglectors to get them to surrender those animals...how do you stop them from acquiring more? And doing the same to the next ones? And if you keep donating to pay them off...aren't you then just aiding the cycle? And not only condoning but rewarding the unwanted behavior while allowing even more animals to suffer the same way?
If there is a way to prevent live property from suffering while being owned by abusive or neglectful owners without the intervention of a third party, I'm all ears. But so far not a single proposed solution has any merit at all. Ostracism? What if the person doesn't care if you like them or not?
Quote from: AntonLee on April 14, 2009, 07:01 PM NHFT
this seemed to become more of a grudge against some supporters of one side of a failed marriage that I don't even need to know the details of to understand that it's not something that's any of your business. To attack those who defend others' rights to life, liberty, and property I find downright heinous. To demean Jraxis in such a manner truly offends me, and shows me how pathetic some of this FSP crowd can be. What I saw was Jraxis defending someone's right to property against those who decided to fuck off on the NAP. How disgusting.
All in all, I've decided I'm done listening to people spout off about Bill and Ivy being assholes and people I don't want to associate with. When it comes down to it, I'm more fearful of some of you calling the police on me because I smoke weed and drive fast than I am Bill and Ivy. I look forward to finding out for myself sometime about these so called "evil people" as was explained to me once. As for Mr. Pervert Android, my one time at Taproom he couldn't have been more friendly and welcoming. Not once did I think he would have called the popo because I had a bag of pot in my pocket. Some others, I'm not so sure about anymore.
Thanks, Anton. So when the hell are you escaping from MA like I did and moving up here? ;D
If I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of people posting here are adherents to the Non-Aggression Principle. If each of us professes NAP except for issue x, then we end up stuck in this same growing quagmire of bigger mightier arbitrary government by force.
Wow, over 50 pages. I'm not sure if I can read all of this so let me see if I understand things correctly and just sum things up.
You have got some animals suffering due to the neglect from their owners.
The owners then hide behind a bunch of witless activists who shamelessly make esoteric arguments about property rights and dispute resolution all while ignoring the fact that animals were suffering and apparently oblivious to the fact that they are simply being used as cover.
Instead of being ashamed for causing unnecessary suffering due to their careless irresponsible neglect, the owners (along with the cohort of witless activists) are engaged in a very principled libertarian campaign of trying to make excuses and shift blame from themselves and onto other people.
Some people getting on their high horse and talking about being principled as if they know what they are talking about. Yet they seem to forget about your basic core principles such as Integrity, Responsibility and Compassion.
The person who showed compassion and did something to help end the suffering of these animals is somehow the unprincipled one here and is now the bad guy?
so when can I come over to take your things? Nevermind I don't need to ask.
A chance to do the right thing is about to happen .I hope they take this op. and don't blow it.I will fill everyone in after it happens All the work we have done better not be for nothing.Be back tonite.
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 14, 2009, 07:02 PM NHFT
I think its time to tell the whole story .My next post will do just that but I need to get rid of the anger first .I'll give you this much now .Beth tried for months to get Brians wife to listen ,when it didn't work she came to me .Tell you the rest later!
your posts sound like a bad radio host doing a commercial break tease ...
The horses are probably going to be returned do to the bills that are being run up and the shelter law no longer in effect.
Yes, the horses will most likely be returned today if not soon. Not because of the shelter laws as much as the fact thay the law states this was a temporary seizure. Temporary means they get them back. I'm sure the younger stock have been fed back up to a level no longer dangerous to them and it is quite expensive for the SPCA to provide all the testing, health care and feed the horses needed. Brian and Heidi know that...they chose to keep the money for possible attorneys and bail instead of using ti to care for their horses. Much better to create a cause du jour and get tons of attention and donations than to feed the horses you can see through your window shivering due to lack of feed and shelter...watching them waste away to bones. ::)
So I guess the comments on the state or SPCA taking them for all the money they'll get wasn't correct. They lose money on stuff like this all the time. They're over run with animals in need and have to follow the laws regarding a temporary seizure. Dollars to donuts Heidi never repays them for saving her horses. Or uses any money to put up decent shelters and not ones made out of sticks. You don't have to put up the Taj Mahal...but something weatherproof might be a good idea. They *have* to had looked up the shelter laws by now I'd hope.
FWIW...has anyone called the SPCA or visited there to ask any questions? Because they were inundated with calls and complaints from countless people on those horses. Daily calls in most cases. From people driving by and seeing the deplorable conditions of those animals. Perfect strangers cared more about the suffering of those horses than Heidi or Brian did. And since they don't share the FSP views on 'no government' they did what they could and called the SPCA.
They (SPCA) were probably waiting for the owners to do the right thing...they never did until forced to do so. And even then have done it supposedly half-arsed. So blame Beth for the countless other people who called about those animals...makes no sense but then I'm not selling common sense on here. ;) And never think this could be Brian and Heidi making their own trouble...after all it's not like Heidi has a history of doing this. Or that either has a history of lying about it. Or that they've now actually put up decent shelters...because who would put up ones made of sticks if they REALLY cared about those horses? Or if they REALLY cared about not getting in trouble and attracting attention again? (my rolly eye muscles are pooped out, so imagine some inserted here)
Quote from: Moebius Tripp on April 15, 2009, 12:36 AM NHFT
If I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of people posting here are adherents to the Non-Aggression Principle. If each of us professes NAP except for issue x, then we end up stuck in this same growing quagmire of bigger mightier arbitrary government by force.
I prefer to call it the Zero Agression Principle.
Also the except for issue
x is the central theme of this thread, do animals have rights, do people have an obligation to care for them?
Deer licenses are sold by the state every year to cull the dear, which are arguably the cutest creature in the woods. So the exact opposite of an obligation to support deer exists in current society. So why is there a positive obligation to feed any other animal on your land?
Shooting deer isn't causing long term suffering. Neither is shooting a horse. Catching a deer, putting it in a tiny enclosure too small for it to develop and stay healthy, denying it shelter or the means to shelter itself and then slowly starving it is a hella lot different than sighting one and dropping it.
;)
Not to bore anyone else with the horsie facts...but lack of movement means they cannot digest properly. The more they move, the better their guts work. Nature evolved them to walk and digest at the same time. Less movement = less digestion. Just an FYI.
It has taken 53 pages to discuss a simple property right's issue? Methinks a lot of folks have let their emotions get in the way of reason.
I must confess I have not waded through all 53 pages of this discussion, but from what I have read I am left wondering if it were something less cute than a horse would any of this have happened? If I were raising earthworms for example to be sold to be impaled on a hook and used for bait, and I didn't keep their bedding moist and they dehydrated to the point that they died would anyone care? Would someone come out to my farm, seize the worms, and nurse the survivors back to health? I suspect not. And I suspect it would be the same with many types of animals that don't elicit a warm and fuzzy reaction from people.
But why should it be any different for horses? I don't pretend to know whether the horses were treated well or not. That is a separate issue from whether or not the government should be called in to seize someone's property. If the horses were owned by these folks then it is up to them to decide how to feed, house and maintain them. If they want to mistreat their property and render their property useless, it would be asinine, but their choice. It isn't up to me to tell them how to maintain their property. They aren't my horses. I may disagree with them about the way they are maintaining their property, but the fact remains they aren't mine. It would be the same if they were horses, cows, pigs, chickens, or what have you. I don't suddenly have some special claim on these folks simply because they are keeping livestock.
Now before the animal lovers on here jump me, I don't condone or support the mistreatment of any type of animal. My mother-in-law works for a horse rescue farm out in California. It never ceases to amaze me what people will do to their animals. It is a shame that any animal suffers the way some of them do. I don't understand why someone would mistreat their own property, particularly another living thing they have taken into their care, but then again I don't understand a lot of things that people think, say, and do.
However I cannot condone the forced seizure of someone else's property, living or non-living, because I don't like the way they take care of it. Using force to impose my will and my opinions on others is simply wrong.
If I was aware that someone was mistreating their property I could certainly talk to them about it. I could try to help them find a better solution for their situation. If it is apparent that they are doing this maliciously, rather than through ignorance or just an inability to cope with the situation, then I would no longer have anything to do with these folks because they would not be the sort of people I would want to associate with. And yes shunning folks could take too long for it to save the animals in question, but in my opinion it is better that a few animals die while a peaceful solution is reached, than to promote and support the stealing of other people's property.
George
Can we just merge all the 9/11, Browns, NAP/ZAP, and Ivy threads with this one? :icon_pirat:
And please remember, if you can't take care of your horses like everyone else...
(http://www.shyfrog.net/strange/spoiledhorse.jpg)
(http://www.shyfrog.net/strange/stableabuse.jpg)
(http://www.shyfrog.net/strange/wahhwahh.jpg)
...then you shouldn't be raising horses!
Hey Misty, I can roll my eye too :icon_pirat: yarrr
Quote from: sandm000 on April 15, 2009, 08:42 AM NHFT
Deer licenses are sold by the state every year to cull the dear, which are arguably the cutest creature in the woods. So the exact opposite of an obligation to support deer exists in current society. So why is there a positive obligation to feed any other animal on your land?
maybe they should have let the horses free and sold "licenses to kidnap" to the richer horse community .... but they wouldn't because heidi must be one of those people that can't have enough horses around.
Quote from: shyfrog on April 15, 2009, 12:03 PM NHFT
Can we just merge all the 9/11, Browns, NAP/ZAP, and Ivy threads with this one? :icon_pirat:
I was asking someone yesterday ... if they keep the horses long enough, will this thread pass ed and elaine's one?
I guess the horses will come back to castlerock farm and then guys can just go over and observe, build shelters for, call in weekly spca inspections on, and/or pet the horses.
I also don't see how this issue defines or ruins the reputation of the fsp or its members .... we seem to have about 17 different opinions or actions people have taken in this case.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 15, 2009, 12:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: shyfrog on April 15, 2009, 12:03 PM NHFT
Can we just merge all the 9/11, Browns, NAP/ZAP, and Ivy threads with this one? :icon_pirat:
I was asking someone yesterday ... if they keep the horses long enough, will this thread pass ed and elaine's one?
I guess the horses will come back to castlerock farm and then guys can just go over and observe, build shelters for, call in weekly spca inspections on, and/or pet the horses.
I also don't see how this issue defines or ruins the reputation of the fsp or its members .... we seem to have about 17 different opinions or actions people have taken in this case.
Is it being discussed on the FSP boards? I thought this was the underground?
BTW...do you guys ban IP blocks for any particular reason?
NJLiberty...since i do wildlife rehab I do indeed rehab abd care for some pretty fugly critters. Also many pretty nasty temperred ones. A lot of smelly ones. And many considered pests or varmints. Ever try to give an oral medication to a pissed off badger? Or try to rewrap the leg of a really pissed of fisher? hell, ever try just getting near either of those when it's in a good mood? >:D Evil freaking little buggers.
Earthworms don't have pain receptors. So no, I wouldn't have a fit if you dehydrated some. I would probanly give you a wide berth in society if you thought that was entertaining though. Not due to causing suffering since they can't feel it, but because it's a damned odd thing to enjoy, LOL!
So no, for me it isn't the cuteness factor at all. I'd be just as concerned if they were starving one of these:
(http://www.stefanmiller.de/img/nacktmull.jpeg)
naked mole rat, nasty critter. Breeds incestually, mother to sons. Blech. Wouldn't even use it as bait. ;) But it can feel pain and suffering and if a human has any redeeming qualities then they don't do that for shits and giggles. Just my humble opinion...and I will admit to being opinionated. :blush:
Shyfrog...nice stable photo! Although I'd hate to have to decobweb that! Although I would assume the owner of that barn has staff. Lucky bastard...I'd love to have "staff"...it's gotta be better than getting up at 5:30 am every...single...day...of the year.
The horse pictured first is ready for shipping. Horse owners with expensive horses tend to protect them during shipping because the act of standing in a moving vehicle isn't one many horses are set up to deal with. The things on the legs are called shipping boots, this keeps them from knocking themselves in their own legs when they move around to maintain balance. In a horse trailer, horse van, stock trailer or float.
In a school bus I would assume they'd need backpacks and lunch bags? And insurance....since it's a damned stupid way to ship horses even if they were cheap and you hated them. Top heavy tall vehicle with top heavy tall moving live weight...dumb as a sack of hammers. But I digress.... ;)
Nobody has said at all that the horses need to be pampered. Or cartoons characters on a book cover. (I think I read that book once...remedial read with a thin plot. Wouldn't recommend it) I'm pretty sure if you've read my posts that all my comments were that the horses are only required to have the bare minimum basics that ensure life, not that they needed their arses wiped and sung to sleep. I will admit to pointing and laughing at people who coddle all their animals or anthropomorphize their animals. I do like mine an awful lot, but they're not humans and they're not really into being coddled. Nor am I the coddling type.
I'm also not the stupid type either...I keep mine alive and healthy. Go figure. What a concept! Feed it, give it ample room to move around in, provide it enough shelter to keep itself alive and keep it from being stuffed full of parasites with a 5 minute cheap-ass treatment that only needs to happen once every other month. I don't consider that coddling. I consider it my responsibility when I bought them. If I were too cheap or too lazy to care for animals I wouldn't have them. It's called being a mature responsible adult.
I do love the pirate "yarrr" though. :D
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 14, 2009, 08:11 PM NHFTQuoteWhat I see is *some* people claiming abuse yet they never spoke of it here. I would have expected if this issue was so important to someone who supposedly loves freedom (enough to grant others the freedom to treat their PROPERTY as they wish) they would have posted here a thread about how a certain FSP member was, in their opinion, abusing an animal.
Not to argue...especially since you crack me up...but those two statements are oxymorons. How can someone claim someone is treating their property badly to a BB of people who grant others to treat their own property as they see fit?
Um, no, they're not.
You have a right to treat your property as you see fit. I have a right to ostracize you or use any other
non-violent means to address behavior I disapprove of.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 14, 2009, 08:51 PM NHFTWhen it's affecting a living thing...even though I do consider it property...I can not personally condone the continuation of it's suffering whilst hoping my ignoring the folks purposely causing the suffering is hurting their feelings. That's my opinion.
"One can measure the greatness and the moral progress of a nation by looking at how it treats its animals." - Mahatma Gandhi"
Someone who argues for murdering people who abuse animals doesn't get to quote Gandhi without proving herself to be a complete hypocrite.
You think Gandhi would call the cops on someone? He wouldn't even call the cops on you if you were going to kill him, let alone because you abused an animal.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 14, 2009, 08:51 PM NHFTMy opinion is that by blindly supporting the animal abusers..the community as a whole will seem seriously flawed to everyone outside of it. And while many claim they don't care what others may think...they're also never going to grow or progress or ever hit that 20,000 mark without new members. And the members they have now may be perceived differently after the publlicity of this case.
No one is blindly supporting Brian and Heidi, even assuming that the allegations of abuse are ever proven objectively (eg, not by biased witnesses who have an axe to grind). We're arguing that murdering people if they abuse animals is wrong. Or using any other level of
violence in response to such behavior, for that matter.
Anyone who we actually want to be associated with will grasp that concept easily, so no, our response here will not drive away anyone worth having. We'll do without thugs and those who work for and with them, thanks...
Joe
I have followed this thread with interest. I do not know who to believe. I would like to believe the freestaters (Travis etc) but that would make me biased, as I am staying open to the comments from both parties.
I must say that there is a very simple solution to this:
A few pictures would speak a thousand words.
Have any pictures been taken or posted?
Littlehawk
A few pictures (aka strange things afoot)
(http://www.shyfrog.net/strange/strange1.jpg)(http://www.shyfrog.net/strange/strange4.jpg)
(http://www.shyfrog.net/strange/strange3.jpg)(http://www.shyfrog.net/strange/strange2.jpg)
(http://www.shyfrog.net/strange/afoot.jpg)
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 01:18 PM NHFT
Shyfrog...nice stable photo! Although I'd hate to have to decobweb that!
Cobwebs are one sign of a healthy barn. A barn without spiders either overly relies on chemical pest control, or is overrun with flies and other nasties.
Actually cobwebs are the number one cause of barn fires. :o They catch fire easily from hot lightbulbs or sparks and they spread fire faster than most chemical accelerants. One of the very first things people learn in a barn fire safety course is to decobweb the barn.
MaineShark...we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. I seriously don't do drama. I don't equate fining someone for starving animals equals murder. ::) I don't think all levels of violence are equal and I don't think every violation of rights equals violence. It might not be right...but it doesn't mean it's violent to me. Or murderous. :-\ They had their horses removed for causing them suffering and for not providing them the shelter they knew they were supposed to provide. (and even if there wasn't a law for shelter...a person should stikll have the two cells to rub together to realize that they still need adequate shelter in -30 weather) They're getting or already have those horses back. Nobody shot them. Nobody slapped them. Nobody pulled a gun. The only "weapon" pointed was a video camera and the only violence it caught was REALLY bad acting by a seeming drama queen.
Nope...I'm "old school" I guess. Cowboy or cowgirl up, put on your big boy/girl pants and act like a grown up. If you take it in and it's alive, treat it somewhat decent. if you don't like the laws, work on changing them. Arguing endlessly on a BB about how tough everyone would be if it ever happened to them and how unfair everything is is whining...kids do that. Fix it, change it, work on it. Do it in ways that actually get results. JMHO.
Shyfrog...the bloated giraffe is fecking hilarious! ;D
Quote from: shyfrog on April 15, 2009, 02:56 PM NHFT
A few pictures (aka strange things afoot)
(http://www.shyfrog.net/strange/strange1.jpg)(http://www.shyfrog.net/strange/strange4.jpg)
(http://www.shyfrog.net/strange/strange3.jpg)(http://www.shyfrog.net/strange/strange2.jpg)
(http://www.shyfrog.net/strange/afoot.jpg)
I had the same thing happen when I tried to assemble an Ikea kit!
you can change the laws if you want, frankly I never agreed to follow anyone's rules. I just make sure I don't hurt people or steal from them. It has worked out so far, but how long can that last?
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 04:54 PM NHFTMaineShark...we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.
Folks can only "agree to disagree" when one isn't waving guns in the faces of the others.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 04:54 PM NHFTI seriously don't do drama.
Could have fooled me. Have you done anything
but drama, here?
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 04:54 PM NHFTI don't equate fining someone for starving animals equals murder. ::) I don't think all levels of violence are equal and I don't think every violation of rights equals violence. It might not be right...but it doesn't mean it's violent to me. Or murderous. :-\
Whether or not something was violent is not a matter of opinion. That, as with the case of whether or not the horses were healthy (as you were quick to point out) is a matter for fact.
If the Brian, Heidi,
et al had not just gone along with the cops, the guns would have come out. If they had responded in self-defense to that attack, they would have been murdered.
Every law is backed by the threat of deadly force. The State just gives you the chance to pay up (with money or time) to avoid that. But if you don't do what they say,
they will kill you. There is no room for opinion there. That's the fact.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 04:54 PM NHFTThey had their horses removed for causing them suffering and for not providing them the shelter they knew they were supposed to provide. (and even if there wasn't a law for shelter...a person should stikll have the two cells to rub together to realize that they still need adequate shelter in -30 weather)
For someone who doesn't "do drama," you sure exaggerate a lot. Thirty degrees below zero? In Candia?
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 04:54 PM NHFTThey're getting or already have those horses back. Nobody shot them. Nobody slapped them. Nobody pulled a gun. The only "weapon" pointed was a video camera and the only violence it caught was REALLY bad acting by a seeming drama queen.
I don't have to pull a gun, if I tell you that I will, if you don't do what I say. The gun is still being used.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 04:54 PM NHFTNope...I'm "old school" I guess. Cowboy or cowgirl up, put on your big boy/girl pants and act like a grown up. If you take it in and it's alive, treat it somewhat decent. if you don't like the laws, work on changing them. Arguing endlessly on a BB about how tough everyone would be if it ever happened to them and how unfair everything is is whining...kids do that. Fix it, change it, work on it. Do it in ways that actually get results. JMHO.
No, calling some punks with guns because you are too childish to deal with problems directly, is whining. Didn't we hear talk of folks supposedly making drive-by complaints? Folks who claim they knew there was a problem, but did nothing about it? That's childish nonsense. You talk tough, when you are having some other legally-untouchable thug do your dirty work for you. I doubt you would have the guts to approach an abuser, personally, and try to do what you are perfectly willing to pay your thugs to do.
Joe
if the link I'm reading is correct, it shows that Candia hasn't dropped below 0 degrees for an average temperature.
http://www.city-data.com/city/Candia-New-Hampshire.html (http://www.city-data.com/city/Candia-New-Hampshire.html)
This isn't just for you Misty, but for anyone else reading that is still tangled in the myth of society and the state.
The unfortunate truth is that the threat of violence is perpetually there. If a cop shows up, he is a weapon of the state and will murder you if you try to defend yourself or your property against that that weapon. There is no argument there.
Don't like it? Change it? What happens when the system for affecting change is corrupt and protected by the weapons of the state? What happens when the state has effectively shut down all but "feel good" measures to appease the general public? What happens when the majority think all of this is status quo and perfectly normal? What will happen when that apparatus decides to take away ANY effective way of defending yourself against it? So many questions...am I off topic yet? :icon_pirat:
I know. Just cowboy up and pull on my shit-kickers and labor like there's nothing wrong. Someone else will take care of it because they know what's better for the whole of the community. Volunteer for one of those feel-good, community-building events that gets posted in the local paper and makes everyone go "awww...how nice". Everything else is just fine. Ignore the gun in the room. Smile. Wave at your neighbors, unless they're doing something with their property you don't like. If that is the case, frown and disapprove, and then call Zoning or one of the other countless departments available on them. It's a free country :) Damn I'm proud to be an American. Ahhh...freedom. Makes me want to spread it to other countries (by force if necessary). I don't think I can be more sarcastic...
Honestly, the LEAST of your worries in this day and age is horse abuse.
Home school your kids. The public school system is a complete and utter disaster and not worth saving. Turn off your TV. American Idol (or Lost or any other tripe) doesn't matter. At all. Tell your "representatives" they don't represent you. Because they really don't. Stop empowering them. Power corrupts.
I will admit. We've got it really good here in NH compared to other states. Gee... how long till we're like the other states? Not long if we ignore the real issues.
I am not (yet) taking sides but there appears to be numerous occasions where Misty has exaggerated the truth. This I dislike (very muchso) because it becomes misleading to the average Joe-Reader trying to make sense of this incident. Its no different that the corporate media putting their patented "spin" on stuff.
If Mr. Spowl (DVM?) and his troops want to reveal the truth, why don't they post pictures of the alleged abused animals? Travis and Heidi could do the same (if they have photos). That would put this issue to rest, or at least we could have a more focused discussion instead of running off on assumptions, speculations, exaggerations and lies. Why is revealing the TRUTH such a rarity these days?
Littlehawk
All right. I'm a troll. I will admit it. >:D I've been reading this thread since day numero uno. I've found it very interesting. It is rare that I get to see a case such as this from both sides....
I have no comments to make about whether a horse is or should be property or whether or not they have rights. I've not met a horse that would argue his/her case with me, so they either don't care, or they don't talk. Whichever, doesn't matter. What they do is eat, poop and make more horses. As Heidi's head count rises and her horses wallow in their own manure, I'm sure she has at least figured out the second two things on that list by now....
So, as has been suggested in the scuttle butt, the horses are being returned to Castle Rock Farm ::) this evening. They are not 100% at the top of their game and they are not "in good flesh" with "blooming coats" as we say in the horse industry. They had a tough winter and that was simply not possible to accomplish in five short weeks. However, they are not at risk, hopefully, of dying in their owner's care at this point and as of today the shelter law is no longer in effect. Therefore, Hoardy, Ahem, I mean Heidi, will be getting the rest of her herd back. :-\
Now, why don't all you guys put this thread to rest and get off your butts and keyboards. Put your money where your mouths are and help them out a bit. Be it by friendly chit chat, training and education, contributing financially to their cause, volunteering to help clean the paddocks, feeding, watering, brushing & handling the horses, building sheds, convincing them that they have WAY too many and should sell some or by ostracizing them, if that's your gig - whatever it takes so that the animals (Brian and Heidi included) do not end up in this situation again. It is time to practice what all y'all are preachin'. ;)
It's not rocket science but it's not easy either. It's a boat load of thankless work, but guess what, the vast majority of it is FREE. Cleaning Paddocks - $0.; Scrubbing and Filling Water Buckets - $0.; Brushing horses - $0. Get the point? Once the routine maintenance items such as food, wormer, farrier care, vaccines, odds and ends for the fencing, etc. are bought the rest is simply time. However, that is a commodity too and with a full time job, a house and kids(?) and 30 horses. Superwoman wouldn't be able to manage it. Properly caring for 30 horses (and I mean real care, ie: EVERY DAY - feeding/watering, cleaning, grooming, training and routine hoof/vet care as needed) could very certainly be a full time - 40hr/wk. job for 3 people - 10 horses each. Heidi does not have that kind of support. Now she doesn't even have Beth. Since you guys want to dissect this every which way, why not head on over there and see what you can do with all that. It would certainly be a lot more proactive.
At the very least you'd get to see her horses; although they ain't much to look at I'm afraid. :( The REAL ISSUE here, is the care or lack thereof that the horses were receiving on the Travis/Fredrick property. :P
Sounds expensive to be involved in stealing horses
xyz, don't you know the government wouldn't have given back horses to people who couldn't take care of them correctly?
If they abused the animals, what's to stop them from doing so again? If they are suspected of abusing animals, do you think the government is right to give them back?
I've never seen one picture showing any abuse. That coupled with the return of the animals only tells me that this was just another silly vendetta. Unfortunately, it was from someone who was supposed to take care of them but decided not to. Even more unfortunately it was from someone who thought they believed in freedom.
How pathetic.
I'm surprised that I am the fist to post this news.All but one horse has been returned to Brain and his wife.Of corses I helped bring them back, but I'm not real happy about it .Brian of corses came out with his camera and checked me out along with my truck and trailer.I think he figured out that it was me .I even sent back a bag of grain with Steve so if she changed thier grain ,it would be easier for the horses.I have said all along that this was only about them .It just pissed me off to here the bullshit that came out of Brains mouth when this whole thing started.Let see how we are protrayed in the next Travis video.I'll get arround to posting the story from the start when I have the right mind set..I guess there is some deal where Brain and his wife get another chance to do the right thing for these horses If I get the call to go back from Steve or Candia PD. I'll be right there ,infront with my own film crew and I'll be pissed .I hope for the horses sake they prove me wrong .We put alot of time in on these horses and I don't want to see it go to waste! GOOD LUCK! YOUR GOING TO NEED IT!
Quote from: xyz on April 15, 2009, 06:26 PM NHFTNow, why don't all you guys put this thread to rest and get off your butts and keyboards. Put your money where your mouths are and help them out a bit. Be it by friendly chit chat, training and education, contributing financially to their cause, volunteering to help clean the paddocks, feeding, watering, brushing & handling the horses, building sheds, convincing them that they have WAY too many and should sell some or by ostracizing them, if that's your gig - whatever it takes so that the animals (Brian and Heidi included) do not end up in this situation again. It is time to practice what all y'all are preachin'. ;)
Why don't you (meaning all the folks involved in this armed robbery, either before, during, or after the fact, and including those who have condoned it) help out by reimbursing Brian and Heidi for the financial costs you have caused them to incur (like lawyer's fees, time and fuel to attend court hearings, and such)?
You could even do it by way of purchasing horse supplies for them, so you know that the funds will go to the horses, right? Because that's what you care about, and you wouldn't want the financial hardships that you have forced upon Brian and Heidi to adversely affect their ability to care for those horses, would you?
Quote from: xyz on April 15, 2009, 06:26 PM NHFTAt the very least you'd get to see her horses; although they ain't much to look at I'm afraid. :( The REAL ISSUE here, is the care or lack thereof that the horses were receiving on the Travis/Fredrick property. :P
No, the "REAL ISSUE" is that thugs with guns engaged in armed robbery, and were aided and abetted by others. The condition of the horses is a side issue that only matters to those (myself included) who care about how animals are treated. Trying to use that side issue to cloud the situation is roughly on the same moral level as a lawyer trying to slander a rape victim by calling her a slut in order to defend a rapist. Whether or not that description of her is accurate, it doesn't justify the fact that she was attacked. And nothing that Brian or Heidi or anyone else does to a horse will ever justify violently attacking them.
Joe
Maineshark...nope, I don't do drama. Maybe we have different definitions of it. I've said things that obviously many on here do not agree with. My opinions, my information and my posts aren't popular...I'm guessing so because I've just figured out what the karma thingy is beneath the screen names. ;) I personally consider it dramatic to say murder and horse seizures go hand in hand. Sarcastic I will admit to, dramatic...nope.
But wait...I'm the dramatic one?
QuoteTrying to use that side issue to cloud the situation is roughly on the same moral level as a lawyer trying to slander a rape victim by calling her a slut in order to defend a rapist. Whether or not that description of her is accurate, it doesn't justify the fact that she was attacked. And nothing that Brian or Heidi or anyone else does to a horse will ever justify violently attacking them.
::)
QuoteIf the Brian, Heidi, et al had not just gone along with the cops, the guns would have come out. If they had responded in self-defense to that attack, they would have been murdered. Every law is backed by the threat of deadly force. The State just gives you the chance to pay up (with money or time) to avoid that. But if you don't do what they say, they will kill you. There is no room for opinion there. That's the fact.
Please explain that *fact* to all of those posting on this forum who've had some sort of civil disobedience they've related online. I don;t think they know they're dead yet. Now I may be a HUGE fan of Monty Python...so maybe as they're being carried off the dead heap they're saying, "But Oim not dead yet!" Someone needs to tell the poor souls. :'( And forgive my craptastic memory...but the only one I can think of off the top of my head is Mr Barsky, so Mr Barsky et all...my deepest condolences on your recent demises. :'(
QuoteFor someone who doesn't "do drama," you sure exaggerate a lot. Thirty degrees below zero? In Candia?
Apologies then...I had spoken to someone not too long ago from that general area who stated that they had windchills at that temp over the winter there during some storms. If they related incorrect information from me, I apologize for passing that on. FWIW...warmer temps with snow does mean the snow is wet. Which is just as bad for underweight young animals wiith no shelter. So not sure how that helps?
QuoteNo, calling some punks with guns because you are too childish to deal with problems directly, is whining. Didn't we hear talk of folks supposedly making drive-by complaints? Folks who claim they knew there was a problem, but did nothing about it? That's childish nonsense. You talk tough, when you are having some other legally-untouchable thug do your dirty work for you. I doubt you would have the guts to approach an abuser, personally, and try to do what you are perfectly willing to pay your thugs to do.
The folks who made drive by complaints happen to believe in the laws and followed them correctly. Just because they don't share the same anti-government sentiment you do does not make them wrong. It makes them different from you. You aren't by chance going for some sort of master race where everyone thinks and looks alike, are you? ;) :o ;)
As for not having the guts...been there, done that and have 11 t-shirts to prove it in the last 5 years or so in this location. More if you count previous locations. Got punched once too. :-\ Sucker punched...but what can one expect from a someone who thinks it's manly to abuse animals and then hit a female about 1/2 his size? I'm one of the people also called in to deal with this type of stuff...and not be government. By my neighbors. And I do the same for wildlife who belong to nobody. And I have a cat sitting behind my computer screen right now that I took home 10 years ago after taking her away from some abusive dorks. ;D So not sure if that means I have guts...or that I'm dain bramaged.
Shyfrog...I do agree with you that many aspects of government and law are screwed up. I don't agree that they all are. I also don't think public schools raise my children...I'm pretty sure *I* do that. I am the one responsible for making them free thinkers and to question anything and everything. And also for making them responsible before I unleash them on society. If someone's children are being brainwashed by a school...shame on the parents for not being active in their childrens' lives.
LittleHawk...I'm sorry you think I'm exaggerating but if that's your opinion what can I do? I think it's odd that I'm the one you think is exaggerating when it's been pointed out more than once the definite contradictions in the involved partys' statements...but then again I did figure out the karma thing and since I don't share all the same opinions as many on here I'm not exactly the homecoming queen. ;) I'd go cry into my night cup of coffee here...but apparently I'm also dead according to Maineshark because I have not agreed with authorities in the past. I might cry over my early death though...that's kinda sad. :'( As for the photos...they'll probably be available in court. I don't think the issue will be tried on an online BB. But two independent vets did score them as emaciated or close to. I do hope you're not another conspiracy theorist who thinks the vets are on the take though.
Lloyd...it is indeed expensive to bring a very unhealthy horse back to health. Oddly enough it's cheaper to care for it right in the first place. So it's pretty obvious the SPCA wasn't in this for the money. :)
BTW...I do have to ask about this:
QuoteI had the same thing happen when I tried to assemble an Ikea kit!
I'm almost afraid to ask which picture you were referring to. :D Please tell me it was the photo of the fecked up chair and table and NOT the dismembered foot covered in what looks like Gorilla Glue? :o Because if it was the foot...ouch! ;)
Anton...hello again. The government needed veterinary proof to seize the horses...so proof was proven at that time by professionals. The law states that the first seizure is temporary only. So they *have* to return the horses. Believe me...they're probably not thrilled about having to return them. That's one of the hardest things working in animal rescue...when the law forces you to return animals to situations where you're almost positive they'll not be treated humanely. But they follow the law. So nope, not a vendetta. The SPCA has to follow the laws as well as the horse owners are supposed to be doing. Independent vets determined at risk animals...law requires they be returned due to it being a first seizure. Plain and simple. ;D
QuoteDeer licenses are sold by the state every year to cull the dear, which are arguably the cutest creature in the woods. So the exact opposite of an obligation to support deer exists in current society. So why is there a positive obligation to feed any other animal on your land?
Horses and other livestock are domestic animals, deer are not.
The deer are not confined to my land, I do not own them, so I don't have any obligation to feed them. The obligation to feed an animal comes with ownership. I have to feed the animals I own.
"You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
you can see how burned up the horse thieves are that the property was given back to their rightful owners. How dare someone give back property I rightfully stole!!! Right?
I'm never going get into your whole rootin' tootin' shootin' gubmint crap. I guess I'm just a drone.... Honestly, I gave up on the government a long time ago. It's so broken it'll never be fixed, but bless your hearts for trying. The other thing that I don't get is that you talk about thugs with guns, but you all seem to have one or ten. You love your guns - open carry, right? Does that not make you a thug with a gun? I'm really confused by that. :-\ What I do know is that, late night, on a dark NH highway, I'd rather run into a LEO packin' than one of you guys... Even if I was so tanked I didn't know my name and I was bouncing off the guardrails. DUI any day... :D No offense.
The horses weren't stolen; they were taken into protective custody. You can't seem to get that straight. The difference is that stolen property, at least in my world, doesn't get returned. And especially not in better condition than when it left. Whether or not I agree with the 2nd chance they've generously gotten is irrelevant. Do I think they'll do it again? IMO - Yes. Historically speaking, most hoarding behavior is continually repeated over and over and over and over and over, until the person goes crazy from ammonia fumes or dies.
Hopefully a little pain in the pocket book will help Heidi to realize that she got in over her head. Maybe it will force her to sell some stock. There are consequences to think about when breaking the law. You guys aren't above the law, at least at this point, to the best of my knowledge.
Hopefully, this will be a wake up call. Hello ~ The horses are hungry.... I honestly hope that Heidi does do what needs to be done. I was actually hoping that you guys would help her.
Quoteyou can see how burned up the horse thieves are that the property was given back to their rightful owners. How dare someone give back property I rightfully stole!!! Right?
It was stolen fair and square!!! :P ;D ;D
Actually, while surely bittersweet, rescuers know the game. I have my own horses that I can love and take good care of. Honestly, Heidi's - not the greatest. Whatever, it's what we do. You love to chat on BB's and puff your weed, we like to help and care for animals. Different strokes.... It's your thang, do watcha wanna do.... ;)
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 15, 2009, 07:33 PM NHFT
I'm surprised that I am the fist to post this news.All but one horse has been returned to Brain and his wife.Of corses I helped bring them back, but I'm not real happy about it .Brian of corses came out with his camera and checked me out along with my truck and trailer.I think he figured out that it was me .I even sent back a bag of grain with Steve so if she changed thier grain ,it would be easier for the horses.I have said all along that this was only about them .It just pissed me off to here the bullshit that came out of Brains mouth when this whole thing started.Let see how we are protrayed in the next Travis video.I'll get arround to posting the story from the start when I have the right mind set..I guess there is some deal where Brain and his wife get another chance to do the right thing for these horses If I get the call to go back from Steve or Candia PD. I'll be right there ,infront with my own film crew and I'll be pissed .I hope for the horses sake they prove me wrong .We put alot of time in on these horses and I don't want to see it go to waste! GOOD LUCK! YOUR GOING TO NEED IT!
It might just be
your luck that will be put to the test.
people (with or without guns) who don't harm others nor steal from them = good people
people (with or without guns) who harm others and steal from them = thugs
I smoke weed, harm no one, steal from no one, and protect the innocent, and I'm a radical law breaker.
Do you take good care of those horses? You won't mind if a few of us come by for a wellness check then? It'll just be me, some friends with horse trailers, a couple of vets, some thugs with guns. . . no biggie. . .
if everything looks good according to what I say, you'll be done in about 3 or 4 hours maybe.
Someday I can only hope to be as good of a horse thief as you are. Maybe if I put down the bowl once in a while I'll be able to figure out how to completely disregard any notion of private property and pretend that the true crimes in which I'm involved in are merely considered 'caring' and 'helping' and I'll convince myself that I'm doing good by taking other persons' property.
So when can we come by? Go ahead and PM your horse ranch address. Very serious. If you're not doing anything wrong, then I guess you have nothing to worry about now do you? Or do you??? :lockstep: :peace: :peace: :deadhorse:
Quote from: xyz on April 15, 2009, 08:22 PM NHFT
The difference is that stolen property, at least in my world, doesn't get returned.
So I steal your car and, after denying you the use of it for a while, return it. It wasn't stolen. Right? OK, now that we have established your idiocy, have you considered that Sprowl or whatever his name is won't help you if any fallout that results from this?
Anton, you're a crack up. Love the smileys. Too funny.... OMG, I'm crying!! You know, I almost want to invite you to my humble little farm. You could see what real happy healthy horses look like and we could pass the peace pipe around until no one cares anymore....
I'm sure we'd have some good laughs at least.
Do you have any idea what Lloyd is talking about? At least I can follow your posts....
QuoteDo you take good care of those horses? You won't mind if a few of us come by for a wellness check then? It'll just be me, some friends with horse trailers, a couple of vets, some thugs with guns. . . no biggie. . .
if everything looks good according to what I say, you'll be done in about 3 or 4 hours maybe.
If it were up to you...nope. If it were up to two different and independent vets? Yup. You've already admitted to not knowing much about horses so I doubt you would ever be in a position to rate a horse's condition.
QuoteI am a new member and they did the same thing to me. Took all my horses in Sullivan County. I wrote 2 articles on NH. Indymedia. Here are the links with pics. I would like some input on what they have done to me. They put me in jail for 88 days on a traffic ticket on my own private road. They sold my horses BEFORE I was charged with anything. They prevented me from living in my own home for 21 months. And so much more... I have been fighting all of this since 2005 and will NEVER give up. I would like some ideas.
Oh hi Deb! Here's some ideas...stop having emaciated and *dead* horses on your property. Horses that died due to your lack of care. That way you greatly reduce the chances of having the rest taken. Also a good idea to have food for them on the property...oh and water. What was the final death count at your place? Was it 3 or 4?
QuoteSo I steal your car and, after denying you the use of it for a while, return it. It wasn't stolen. Right? OK, now that we have established your idiocy, have you considered that Sprowl or whatever his name is won't help you if any fallout that results from this?
If someone comes and tells me my car is in crap condition and that if I don't fix it up they will come take it...then I ignore that and leave it in crap condition and they come take it...only to return it 5 weeks later after it's been in a Trick My Ride garage with a new paint job and all the engine problems fixed...I doubt I'd be crying too much.
Simple as pie really...don't starve your animals. The saddest part of this is...that there has to be a law on that. :-\
Misty, Have you ever felt like you were just going around and around in circles? :-\
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 07:53 PM NHFTMaineshark...nope, I don't do drama. Maybe we have different definitions of it. I've said things that obviously many on here do not agree with. My opinions, my information and my posts aren't popular...I'm guessing so because I've just figured out what the karma thingy is beneath the screen names. ;) I personally consider it dramatic to say murder and horse seizures go hand in hand. Sarcastic I will admit to, dramatic...nope.
You're posting somewhere that you are obviously disliked, where you clearly are not going to change anyone's mind (since the information you claim to be generously providing relates to animal welfare, whereas we are discussing armed robbery, so your information is meaningless to our discussion), and you are then going to claim that you "don't do drama," and with a straight face?
Sorry, but that would be a textbook definition of drama...
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 07:53 PM NHFTBut wait...I'm the dramatic one? QuoteTrying to use that side issue to cloud the situation is roughly on the same moral level as a lawyer trying to slander a rape victim by calling her a slut in order to defend a rapist. Whether or not that description of her is accurate, it doesn't justify the fact that she was attacked. And nothing that Brian or Heidi or anyone else does to a horse will ever justify violently attacking them.
::)
Yes, you're the dramatic one. See, what I posted is called an "analogy." You may want to look up the term.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 07:53 PM NHFTPlease explain that *fact* to all of those posting on this forum who've had some sort of civil disobedience they've related online. I don;t think they know they're dead yet. Now I may be a HUGE fan of Monty Python...so maybe as they're being carried off the dead heap they're saying, "But Oim not dead yet!" Someone needs to tell the poor souls. :'( And forgive my craptastic memory...but the only one I can think of off the top of my head is Mr Barsky, so Mr Barsky et all...my deepest condolences on your recent demises. :'(
No, they're not. Because they have taken the "high road" and refrained from exercising their human right to self defense. They have given your thugs a pass, whether because they were outnumbered and chose to stand down, or because they happen to be pacifists, or for some other reason. They actively had to refrain from exercising their human rights, in order to survive the encounter.
Just like giving a mugger your wallet instead of shooting him dead on the spot. Choosing to hand him your wallet does not mean that he did not use the threat of deadly force to coerce your actions.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 07:53 PM NHFTQuoteFor someone who doesn't "do drama," you sure exaggerate a lot. Thirty degrees below zero? In Candia?
Apologies then...I had spoken to someone not too long ago from that general area who stated that they had windchills at that temp over the winter there during some storms. If they related incorrect information from me, I apologize for passing that on.
You seem to be getting a lot of your information from unreliable sources, for someone who wants to claim to have "the facts." You're certain that none of the other "facts" you've related were from the same unreliable source, or others who might not be giving you honest information?
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 07:53 PM NHFTThe folks who made drive by complaints happen to believe in the laws and followed them correctly. Just because they don't share the same anti-government sentiment you do does not make them wrong. It makes them different from you. You aren't by chance going for some sort of master race where everyone thinks and looks alike, are you? ;) :o ;)
No one has to think like me, because I don't enforce my opinions at gunpoint.
You and your ilk, on the other hand, do demand conformity with your views, or else the guns come out.
I have had cause to draw my sidearm on several occasions. I have chosen to act on that cause in only one of those occasions, where it was clear that I had no other choice in order to save my own life. In all of those cases, I was being directly attacked by an armed individual intent on harming/killing me.
You, on the other hand, will pay some thug to attack someone who has harmed no person.
That's why I'm right and you're wrong. Because you can believe anything you like, and even do anything you like (short of violating someone's rights) and I won't interfere with your life. You, on the other hand, won't allow that same freedom of action to others. You demand that others conform to your personal opinions of right and wrong.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 07:53 PM NHFTAs for not having the guts...been there, done that and have 11 t-shirts to prove it in the last 5 years or so in this location. More if you count previous locations. Got punched once too. :-\ Sucker punched...but what can one expect from a someone who thinks it's manly to abuse animals and then hit a female about 1/2 his size? I'm one of the people also called in to deal with this type of stuff...and not be government. By my neighbors.
T-shirts prove something? I have more than 11 t-shirts. Does that mean I have more guts than you?
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 07:53 PM NHFTI am the one responsible for making them free thinkers and to question anything and everything.
Except for questioning whether violence is an appropriate way to settle inter-personal disputes, eh? Wouldn't want to question that...
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 07:53 PM NHFTAnton...hello again. The government needed veterinary proof to seize the horses...so proof was proven at that time by professionals. The law states that the first seizure is temporary only. So they *have* to return the horses. Believe me...they're probably not thrilled about having to return them. That's one of the hardest things working in animal rescue...when the law forces you to return animals to situations where you're almost positive they'll not be treated humanely. But they follow the law. So nope, not a vendetta. The SPCA has to follow the laws as well as the horse owners are supposed to be doing. Independent vets determined at risk animals...law requires they be returned due to it being a first seizure. Plain and simple. ;D
"Independent vets" who have government licenses, which will be revoked if they refuse to cooperate with the government.
Speaking as someone who was a "licensed professional" in the past, I can state for the record that I have been present when another tradesman was ordered to make a false report of a code violation that did not actually exist, or the agent of the State making the demand would have his license revoked, thereby costing him his livelihood. Was his professional opinion on that code matter "independent," Misty?
Joe
QuoteMisty, Have you ever felt like you were just going around and around in circles?
Kinda yeah. But there are differences of opinions and that I can understand. The world would be a boring place indeed if we all thought alike.
I'll probably never understand the "well let them suffer and then die, as property it doesn't matter if they're alive." To me that's a sign of a crap society.
Few people like the truth when it doesn't agree with their dogma. :-\
So Deb's shown up...how long until you think Gerry will? She had 78 horses taken...9 dead I think. I'm hoping this place doesn't get inundated with animal killers looking for support just because it was the SPCA who stole/saved the survivors under their care. Because these folks just lurk the google and try to find sympathetic ears for their sob stories. The wording in many of these posts will be attractive to them.
QuoteYou're posting somewhere that you are obviously disliked, where you clearly are not going to change anyone's mind (since the information you claim to be generously providing relates to animal welfare, whereas we are discussing armed robbery, so your information is meaningless to our discussion), and you are then going to claim that you "don't do drama," and with a straight face?
Sorry, but that would be a textbook definition of drama...
According to you I'm unliked. I won't lose sleep over that. And boy howdy do you get defensive when called dramatic. I have received a few e-mails and a few contacts on another BB I frequent from people who googled me from here and contacted me there. So I don't think I'm disliked by everyone. And there have been some nice replies on this thread too. I did not realize you spoke for the masses.
QuoteYes, you're the dramatic one. See, what I posted is called an "analogy." You may want to look up the term.
A dramatic analogy. Didn't have to look it up. And since the textbook definition of drama you posted above wasn't correct, you're welcome for the clarification. ;)
And good Lord...I toss up my hands and heartily apologize for calling your replies dramatic! I didn't think it would elicit such vehemently...ermm....vivid? emotional?...replies. ::)
QuoteNo, they're not. Because they have taken the "high road" and refrained from exercising their human right to self defense. They have given your thugs a pass, whether because they were outnumbered and chose to stand down, or because they happen to be pacifists, or for some other reason. They actively had to refrain from exercising their human rights, in order to survive the encounter.
Oh I'm sorry. I had thought when you stated so UNdramatically that if anyone doesn't do what the law tells you that they KILL you and that was a FACT that you actually meant that. Not that the statement had caveats and addendums to it and only applied to nonFSP folks.
QuoteYou seem to be getting a lot of your information from unreliable sources, for someone who wants to claim to have "the facts." You're certain that none of the other "facts" you've related were from the same unreliable source, or others who might not be giving you honest information?
One comment...not "a lot of my information." Stating that a LOT of info.. could be considered...exaggerating? I was chatting with a cousin of mine in Manchester. I thought that was somewhere near Candia, I could be wrong. She has a temp gauge on her back deck and we were comparing wind chill temps. So either she lied to me, her temp gauge that measures windchills was incorrect or...I dunno. Many of my facts weren't mine so much as me pointing out how the exact words of the folks involved didn't match up at all and were direct contradictions of what they said elsewhere or previously. I guess you'd consider them unreliable sources?
QuoteThat's why I'm right and you're wrong. Because you can believe anything you like, and even do anything you like (short of violating someone's rights) and I won't interfere with your life. You, on the other hand, won't allow that same freedom of action to others. You demand that others conform to your personal opinions of right and wrong.
Your opinion. Not fact. I don't demand that others conform, the law does. But I'm impressed that you think I have the power to influence the law. Thanks. ;D
QuoteT-shirts prove something? I have more than 11 t-shirts. Does that mean I have more guts than you?
"Been there, done that and got the t-shirt" is an expression. And can also be considered an analogy. And yes, you probably do have more guts than I do. Unless you're a much smaller than average adult male then you most likely have a higher weight of organs and innards than I do. *You* were the one bringing up the highschool saying of "or don't you have the guts?" challenge. I replied. Was I not supposed to? Did it piss you off that I have indeed approached people about animal welfare? Did that screw up your argument? If so, my apologies. But please refrain from asking challenging questions withough knowing the actual person if you're going to be pissed off about the answer you get.
Quote"Independent vets" who have government licenses, which will be revoked if they refuse to cooperate with the government.
Speaking as someone who was a "licensed professional" in the past, I can state for the record that I have been present when another tradesman was ordered to make a false report of a code violation that did not actually exist, or the agent of the State making the demand would have his license revoked, thereby costing him his livelihood. Was his professional opinion on that code matter "independent," Misty?
Had you kept up on reading current (and not so current) laws pertaining to medical and veterinary licenses you would know that only the medical association that awarded that license can revoke it. If in fact the SPCA or even the PD tried to coerce agreement...they'd be in a shiteload more trouble than the one carrying the vet license. It's not a conspiracy theory going on there...no matter how much you want it to be. So it's a big ol' NOPE on them being coerced by the SPCA or PD. Neither of those have any control over their licenses.
Probably the last post I'll make in this thread unless someone replies to me directly.
This whole situation reminds me why I'm building my home in Grafton—underground, with hundreds of yards between me and any other human development.
I for one will be willing to help Brian build whatever he needs around the property for the horses. I'd suggest, first, an 8'-high wall around his entire 40+ acres, replete with razor wire and signs like this one (http://www.decalsnsigns.com/DSCN2331.JPG) posted every fifty feet.
A moat wouldn't hurt either.
With alligators or sharks with lasers or something.
The most disturbing thing about this situation isn't that some horses may have been abused. The most disturbing thing about this situation isn't that a freestater may have turned the State against another person. The most disturbing thing about this situation is how little control people have over their own property, on their own land, and how many people apparently either approve of, or themselves engage in (if the allegations of numerous anonymous complaints from neighbors are to be believed), nosing about other people's property and reporting things they disapprove of to the police. And not just this situation. That "couch enforcement" farce out in Keene. That restaurant that was painted the wrong color. That fire- and health-code harassment at another restaurant. That woman with the "illegal" sink in her house a few years back. Every single time you hear about the SPCA, DCYF, DSS, DHHS, OSHA, EPA, ABC, DEFG, LMNOP, or some other government alphabet soup swooping down on some private citizen's private use of their private property, putting it under a god-damned microscope, and then telling them what to do with it, or taking it away, "for its own safety," or even more galling, "for your own safety," all because some officious twit or twits got their panties in a bunch over someone else's problem, and made an anonymous report to mommy fucking government. And then people applaud what was done.
It's not about animals. It's not about backstabbing. It's not about philosophical masturdebating over property rights. It's about mind your own damned business.
Crap like this is why groups not in agreement with the "values" (hah) of the society around them eventually become insular, paranoid, and cultish. (Think FLDS, Branch Davidians, and the Montana Freemen here.) I swear, the only way we're ever going to achieve peace and security against these prying busybodies is to do the same.
Sorry if this post isn't helpful to our "image," Kevin. ::)
I am seriously starting to grok NHArticleTen's whole "Repel and destroy" and "Everyone leave everyone else alone!" attitude.
Enjoy!
ah I see that you disagree me being allowed to make the rules. . . seeing as I don't have any horse experience. I know a lot of people that make rules about horses that don't really know anything about them. They're called your local politicians. Frankly, vets are not in the business to help and save horses, they're in business to make money.
Let's not joke around about that last point. Unless of course you'd like to show me some examples of vets that do not have a practice except for volunteering their time and knowledge to only save and help horses. I don't know of any vets that work for free. If it's all about the welfare of the animal, why is it that I don't see this? I figure dinners with politicians cost a lot of money. Since they're going to do your bidding, might as well try to give them some of the hard earned money.
If you feel like you're going around in circles, maybe it's time to stop and think outside of your circle for a few minutes! I'm not trying to be your enemy. As a matter of fact I don't remember ever going to a horse owner bulletin board to tell you how to live your lives. I don't really remember hearing anything about Brian or his family entering your property to steal your horses. Seems to me that half the people here have left others alone, and the other half seem determined to change our minds about allowing others to do as they please with your property.
So, lets organize a viewing. I'd love to see how *you say* horses are *supposed* to be kept. Honestly. I'll go in with an open mind and be quite polite about it. I will videotape some things and post them so that the people who you wish to educate on the proper care of horses can see them. I'll even let you view it before I post it.
It'll be a good step in helping others who might be abusing their animals to see how you say it should be done. It won't involve hurting people nor stealing their property. It might just SAVE A FEW HORSES FROM BEING TORTURED.
so seriously, lets set it up.
Quote from: xyz on April 15, 2009, 08:22 PM NHFTThe other thing that I don't get is that you talk about thugs with guns, but you all seem to have one or ten. You love your guns - open carry, right? Does that not make you a thug with a gun? I'm really confused by that. :-\
I'm a civilized person, who believes in self-defense, hence I carry a gun. That gun is a statement that I believe all people should be equally-able to defend themselves, regardless of their physical size or whether they are a lone individual with an unpopular opinion, or someone with dozens of friends to back them up at all times. I believe that violence should be limited in scope to only self-defense, but available to all. Firearms are the best that human ingenuity has come up with in that regard, and well over 99% of the population can effectively wield them if they choose to do so. Eventually, some bright mind will come up with a solution for the few remaining individuals who can't operate one.
A gun on a cop's belt is a different symbol, entirely. That gun is an implicit threat of attack. If you don't do what he says, that gun will come out.
Quote from: xyz on April 15, 2009, 08:22 PM NHFTWhat I do know is that, late night, on a dark NH highway, I'd rather run into a LEO packin' than one of you guys... Even if I was so tanked I didn't know my name and I was bouncing off the guardrails. DUI any day... :D No offense.
Which just proves that you are ignorant, since the statistics are clear on the matter, and you are far more likely to be shot by a cop than me or anyone other than violent criminals.
Quote from: xyz on April 15, 2009, 08:22 PM NHFTThe horses weren't stolen; they were taken into protective custody. You can't seem to get that straight. The difference is that stolen property, at least in my world, doesn't get returned.
If you deprive someone of the use of their property without their permission, then you are a thief. No ifs, ands, or buts. Whether you return that property at some later time is not relevant. The condition of that property when it is returned is not relevant. The deprivation of the owners' use of their property is, by definition, theft.
Quote from: xyz on April 15, 2009, 08:22 PM NHFTYou guys aren't above the law, at least at this point, to the best of my knowledge.
I'm not anywhere with relation to your laws. Those are your rules, which I didn't sign up for. If you attempt to force me to obey them, you're just a kid on a playground trying to tell everyone that they have to play the game that you want them to play, and throwing rocks at them when they don't do what you say.
Quote from: xyz on April 15, 2009, 08:22 PM NHFTI was actually hoping that you guys would help her.
If you're so concerned, why don't you "pony up" some cash? You're concerned about the condition of the horses, and you want
us to assuage your concern with our time and money? Why don't you put your time and money where your mouth is?
Joe
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFTKinda yeah. But there are differences of opinions and that I can understand. The world would be a boring place indeed if we all thought alike.
I'll probably never understand the "well let them suffer and then die, as property it doesn't matter if they're alive." To me that's a sign of a crap society.
Do you understand the concept of "cognitive dissonance?" Experiencing any?
You can understand that differences of opinions are good, but then when a different opinion comes along on some topic, your response is that, because you can't understand that particular opinion, those who hold it need to conform or die?
I don't understand how someone can abuse an animal (except in terms of clinical psychology - I can describe the mechanisms, but I can't empathize with an abuser). I don't understand how someone can be a racist or a homophobe, either (again, except in psychological terms). However, when I come across a divergent opinion, my response isn't to violently attack the individual holding that opinion, no matter how despicable that opinion is, by my standards.
Attacking others who have not harmed any person is the sign of a "crap society."
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFTFew people like the truth when it doesn't agree with their dogma. :-\
Yes. You're living proof of that.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFTSo Deb's shown up...how long until you think Gerry will? She had 78 horses taken...9 dead I think. I'm hoping this place doesn't get inundated with animal killers looking for support just because it was the SPCA who stole/saved the survivors under their care. Because these folks just lurk the google and try to find sympathetic ears for their sob stories. The wording in many of these posts will be attractive to them.
I doubt they will find anyone sympathetic to their stories of abuse, but I will always be sympathetic to victims of armed robbery, regardless of what else I may think of them. Just like I can call for boycotting a business that discriminates based upon race, while simultaneously opposing the use of force to make them end their discrimination. It's called having principles higher than "whatever happens to please me is good, and whatever happens to offend me is evil"...
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFTAnd boy howdy do you get defensive when called dramatic.
Um, no. I just dislike hypocrites. However, I don't demand that you give up your hypocrisy or die. I just ridicule you.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFTQuoteNo, they're not. Because they have taken the "high road" and refrained from exercising their human right to self defense. They have given your thugs a pass, whether because they were outnumbered and chose to stand down, or because they happen to be pacifists, or for some other reason. They actively had to refrain from exercising their human rights, in order to survive the encounter.
Oh I'm sorry. I had thought when you stated so UNdramatically that if anyone doesn't do what the law tells you that they KILL you and that was a FACT that you actually meant that. Not that the statement had caveats and addendums to it and only applied to nonFSP folks.
There's no caveat. If you don't go along, they will kill you. They went along, so they didn't get killed.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFTOne comment...not "a lot of my information." Stating that a LOT of info.. could be considered...exaggerating?
I seem to recall that other claims were refuted, earlier in the thread...
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFTI was chatting with a cousin of mine in Manchester. I thought that was somewhere near Candia, I could be wrong. She has a temp gauge on her back deck and we were comparing wind chill temps. So either she lied to me, her temp gauge that measures windchills was incorrect or...I dunno.
Manchester is likely similar to or warmer than Candia. Of course, a back deck in a city likely gets exposed to much higher wind velocity than a a wooded farm (I haven't seen the property in question since before the horses arrived, but it was heavily wooded at the time, and I doubt they've done a massive lumbering operation since then). Still, other than an individual gust, windchills are not going to reach -30 in Manchester. And an individual gust isn't going to hurt horses.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFTQuoteThat's why I'm right and you're wrong. Because you can believe anything you like, and even do anything you like (short of violating someone's rights) and I won't interfere with your life. You, on the other hand, won't allow that same freedom of action to others. You demand that others conform to your personal opinions of right and wrong.
Your opinion. Not fact. I don't demand that others conform, the law does. But I'm impressed that you think I have the power to influence the law. Thanks. ;D
You support it, hence you are responsible for it. You sound like someone claiming that a butcher is evil, while munching on a hamburger.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFT*You* were the one bringing up the highschool saying of "or don't you have the guts?" challenge. I replied. Was I not supposed to?
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 04:54 PM NHFTNope...I'm "old school" I guess. Cowboy or cowgirl up, put on your big boy/girl pants and act like a grown up. If you take it in and it's alive, treat it somewhat decent. if you don't like the laws, work on changing them. Arguing endlessly on a BB about how tough everyone would be if it ever happened to them and how unfair everything is is whining...kids do that. Fix it, change it, work on it. Do it in ways that actually get results. JMHO.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFTDid it piss you off that I have indeed approached people about animal welfare? Did that screw up your argument? If so, my apologies. But please refrain from asking challenging questions withough knowing the actual person if you're going to be pissed off about the answer you get.
No, I don't get pissed off by unsupported claims from folks who have already proven themselves to provide false information in the past. I just assume that unsupported claims by such folks are false until proven otherwise.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFTHad you kept up on reading current (and not so current) laws pertaining to medical and veterinary licenses you would know that only the medical association that awarded that license can revoke it. If in fact the SPCA or even the PD tried to coerce agreement...they'd be in a shiteload more trouble than the one carrying the vet license. It's not a conspiracy theory going on there...no matter how much you want it to be. So it's a big ol' NOPE on them being coerced by the SPCA or PD. Neither of those have any control over their licenses.
I can see you know nothing about this subject, or are willfully providing false information. Aside from the fact that government agencies can certainly pressure such revocations, such licensure includes a "good moral character" clause, which allows revocation if the licensee refuses to cooperate with law enforcement, among other things.
Joe
Anton...large animal vets are drastically underpaid. Small animal vets make a ton more money than horse and cow vets do. As a matter of fact this country is in crisis right now due to so few large animal vets staying in business because they can't afford to and extremely few future vets now in school for that are majoring in large animals due to the brutal hours, no office, brutal work conditions and lack of income. A large animal vet does not make anywhere near what other doctors make. They work 24/7 too BTW. They're on call all the time. Many of their appointments come at 3 am on blow freezing nights to work in an unheated barn or outside on a sick/injured terrified animal weighing in excess of 1000 lbs that has a fight or flight reaction ingrained in it's DNA. The graduate with a butt load of debt, they usually go through new trucks every 18-24 months due to wear and tear and mileage. They have many various injuries from their jobs and their patients. I wouldn't take that job for a 6 figure income. And yet they take it for less than half of that in many parts of this country unless they're part of a surgical hospital for equines. These aren't plastic surgeon salaries. :( So nope, I have never met a single one in it for the money. Considering they do the same procedures on horses that small animal vets do on dogs (in heated buildings) for about 1/3 the cost...they're not making crap.
If I knew you personally, I'd have no problem having you to my house here in CT. With video camera. My animals are well taken care of, my property is clean. I'm pretty camera shy though.
Maineshark...just reply "Neener neener, you're a big doodyhead" to me and get it out of your system. ;D
And since I do care for my horses enough to keep them healthy...I'm off to bed. 5:30 am comes around pretty early every day of the year. Can't sleep in. Take care.
Anton, maybe in another life that will be possible. I do know where we could go to show how not to do it....
Maineshark, thanks for the definition on the thugs with guns. I can wrap my brain around that. I still don't see any difference, threat of attack is threat of attack, but I see how you possibly could. So good, you've enlightened me on one point.
Anyway, I was reaching out to you guys because you all seem really wacked out by this whole thing and I just thought I could give you some insight of what could really be done constructively to help Heidi and Brian out. That's all, you guys, frankly have attacked me. I didn't come on here with guns ablazin'. Not even a little bit. Not mad or bitter or hateful, don't care how you live your lives (as long as you're not trying to starve, etc. animals), none of it. I also have absolutely no desire to get involved in your hashing and rehashing.
I'm not going to be assisting them because they're not in my circle of friends not to mention that they probably wouldn't be so excited to see me pull up on their property. But, if they were my friends, I would try, I would have been trying all along, to help them out.
If Heidi called back in Nov. and said she needed help ~ would have helped. If she called in Dec. and asked, would have discouraged her from buying another horse, and would have helped. Jan. - you got it, would have helped. Feb. - would have helped. March - DID HELP, she didn't even have to call. You just don't like the level of help that she received. Such a pity.
None of any of this will change anything. The system is what it is and the wheels will continue to slowly turn, as they do. So, carry on. I shall bid you adieu. Happy Trails!
Quote from: xyz on April 15, 2009, 10:23 PM NHFTMaineshark, thanks for the definition on the thugs with guns. I can wrap my brain around that. I still don't see any difference, threat of attack is threat of attack, but I see how you possibly could. So good, you've enlightened me on one point.
The difference is that they will threaten to attack you if you don't do what they say. I will only attack you if you attack me, first. I will respond to force (sometimes), but I will
never initiate it.
Quote from: xyz on April 15, 2009, 10:23 PM NHFTNone of any of this will change anything. The system is what it is and the wheels will continue to slowly turn, as they do.
A lot of folks were saying that in the latter half of the 18th century...
Joe
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFT
QuoteYou're posting somewhere that you are obviously disliked, where you clearly are not going to change anyone's mind (since the information you claim to be generously providing relates to animal welfare, whereas we are discussing armed robbery, so your information is meaningless to our discussion), and you are then going to claim that you "don't do drama," and with a straight face?
Sorry, but that would be a textbook definition of drama...
According to you I'm unliked.
I like you, MistyBlue.
I'm not looking for a video on how NOT to take care of animals. . . I'm looking for you to step up and show us how it's done right, at least in your opinion. I mean, everyone most likely has some sort of skeleton in the closet. You leave a rake out and a horse steps on it and whacks itself in the face. . . just like a three stooges thing.
But, you very well could be following all the rules. Every rule, to the letter. It's very well possible. From what you say, especially Misty, it seems you have a lot of information to share. I'm sorry you and XYZ have felt attacked from the minute you entered here. I don't really understand what it was you expected from some of us, after all, you've come here to defend people who took someone else's property. You say that it was justified, and some of us don't believe that taking someone else's property is ever justified. A difference in principle, yet the gun in the room is clearly not on the liberty side of the table.
Misty, if you decide to change your mind at some point, please PM me. In all honesty, I'm not trying to set you up, or put you into a trap. I am quite fair and very transparent. People know my position because they know my principles. I understand how hard it must be to take care of horses. Actually, I probably have no possible idea how much work must be put into it. I wouldn't attempt to even look at the amount of laws that a piece of paper says you must abide by. I question the validity of those laws, and question to what end is all of it necessary.
a lot of us have to get up early as well. I've been later to my job than I would like because of this forum. Trying to keep a healthy discussion is very difficult when people are very happy to point out their 'caring' ways which usually entail jackboots swarming someone's property in order to steal that person's property.
If you decide to change your mind, you know how to reach me. I'm sorry that XYZ is hoping for this to happen in another life, because I'm still working on the one I've got. This is one of those times when one of the persons involved is being fair and most likely is somewhat principled on 'live and let live' philosophy. Misty has already stated that in some instances that she would not want to aggress against their neighbor. Her break in this philosophy comes down to when she feels that an animal is being abused.
I don't agree, but I can let live with the amount of slack she's given to us. It took me a very very very long time to see how easy it can be to get what you want without hurting other people. Maybe you'll see that in some time, that you could talk someone into not abusing their animals. Until then, I'd be glad to have you stand beside me on other issues that you and I can both agree are clearly violations of a person's right to life, liberty, and property.
I like Misty as well, because I do feel she has taught me things. I hope you don't feel that all dislike you.
Quote from: shyfrog on April 15, 2009, 05:33 PM NHFT
This isn't just for you Misty, but for anyone else reading that is still tangled in the myth of society and the state.
The unfortunate truth is that the threat of violence is perpetually there. If a cop shows up, he is a weapon of the state and will murder you if you try to defend yourself or your property against that that weapon. There is no argument there.
Don't like it? Change it? What happens when the system for affecting change is corrupt and protected by the weapons of the state? What happens when the state has effectively shut down all but "feel good" measures to appease the general public? What happens when the majority think all of this is status quo and perfectly normal? What will happen when that apparatus decides to take away ANY effective way of defending yourself against it? So many questions...am I off topic yet? :icon_pirat:
I know. Just cowboy up and pull on my shit-kickers and labor like there's nothing wrong. Someone else will take care of it because they know what's better for the whole of the community. Volunteer for one of those feel-good, community-building events that gets posted in the local paper and makes everyone go "awww...how nice". Everything else is just fine. Ignore the gun in the room. Smile. Wave at your neighbors, unless they're doing something with their property you don't like. If that is the case, frown and disapprove, and then call Zoning or one of the other countless departments available on them. It's a free country :) Damn I'm proud to be an American. Ahhh...freedom. Makes me want to spread it to other countries (by force if necessary). I don't think I can be more sarcastic...
Honestly, the LEAST of your worries in this day and age is horse abuse.
Home school your kids. The public school system is a complete and utter disaster and not worth saving. Turn off your TV. American Idol (or Lost or any other tripe) doesn't matter. At all. Tell your "representatives" they don't represent you. Because they really don't. Stop empowering them. Power corrupts.
I will admit. We've got it really good here in NH compared to other states. Gee... how long till we're like the other states? Not long if we ignore the real issues.
Loved your Post Lou! Way to bring it home!!! :)
XYZ wrote:
The other thing that I don't get is that you talk about thugs with guns, but you all seem to have one or ten. You love your guns - open carry, right? Does that not make you a thug with a gun? I'm really confused by that. What I do know is that, late night, on a dark NH highway, I'd rather run into a LEO packin' than one of you guys...
_____________________________________________________________
I'll be happy to help you. Being a Thug with a Gun, means you INITIATE Physical Force, Violence, against others, in order to take whatever (property or worse), whenever, for whatever reason you come up and decide to Print on your best Stationary.
And on the other hand, Being a responsible Gun Owner means you would only use your Firearm in Self Defense to protect yourself from Threat, Harm, versus using it to Rob your Neighbors, for example. And you would use it for Target Practice and maybe Hunting too.
And on your comment that You'd "rather run into a LEO packin than one of you guys." I find unbeleiveable. Are you serious? If you truly believe this, then you don't have a CLUE who the Liberty Activists associated with the Free State Project are.
I'm suddenly reminded of the Movie Stripes with Bill Murry..."And that's a fact, Jack!" :)
Quote from: littlehawk on April 15, 2009, 02:48 PM NHFT
I have followed this thread with interest. I do not know who to believe. I would like to believe the freestaters (Travis etc) but that would make me biased, as I am staying open to the comments from both parties.
there are way more than 2 parties in this thread. :)
btw Shyfrog ... your posts are very welcome and make me laugh
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 16, 2009, 08:02 AM NHFT
Quote from: littlehawk on April 15, 2009, 02:48 PM NHFT
I have followed this thread with interest. I do not know who to believe. I would like to believe the freestaters (Travis etc) but that would make me biased, as I am staying open to the comments from both parties.
there are way more than 2 parties in this thread. :)
btw Shyfrog ... your posts are very welcome and make me laugh
Parties!!!!! Woohoo!1!1!! I'll bring the nuts. :icon_pirat:
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFT
Unless you're a much smaller than average adult male then you most likely have a higher weight of organs and innards than I do.
Just for the record.... MaineShark is. >:D
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 15, 2009, 09:15 PM NHFT
QuoteDo you take good care of those horses? You won't mind if a few of us come by for a wellness check then? It'll just be me, some friends with horse trailers, a couple of vets, some thugs with guns. . . no biggie. . .
if everything looks good according to what I say, you'll be done in about 3 or 4 hours maybe.
If it were up to you...nope. If it were up to two different and independent vets? Yup. You've already admitted to not knowing much about horses so I doubt you would ever be in a position to rate a horse's condition.
QuoteI am a new member and they did the same thing to me. Took all my horses in Sullivan County. I wrote 2 articles on NH. Indymedia. Here are the links with pics. I would like some input on what they have done to me. They put me in jail for 88 days on a traffic ticket on my own private road. They sold my horses BEFORE I was charged with anything. They prevented me from living in my own home for 21 months. And so much more... I have been fighting all of this since 2005 and will NEVER give up. I would like some ideas.
Oh hi Deb! Here's some ideas...stop having emaciated and *dead* horses on your property. Horses that died due to your lack of care. That way you greatly reduce the chances of having the rest taken. Also a good idea to have food for them on the property...oh and water. What was the final death count at your place? Was it 3 or 4?
QuoteSo I steal your car and, after denying you the use of it for a while, return it. It wasn't stolen. Right? OK, now that we have established your idiocy, have you considered that Sprowl or whatever his name is won't help you if any fallout that results from this?
If someone comes and tells me my car is in crap condition and that if I don't fix it up they will come take it...then I ignore that and leave it in crap condition and they come take it...only to return it 5 weeks later after it's been in a Trick My Ride garage with a new paint job and all the engine problems fixed...I doubt I'd be crying too much.
Simple as pie really...don't starve your animals. The saddest part of this is...that there has to be a law on that. :-\
I have to disagree on some of this...
Though I know the horses were the main concern... the traffic ticket on a private road, I find rediculous. Though I honestly don't know the situation... I would be hard pressed to think of one that would be acceptable to such an outcome.
Also, by selling her horses... they broke constitutional statutes. Though someone else making the rules, I find unacceptable... someone then just ignoring the rules they've made I find reprehensible. Its gaming the game.
So while the animal ownership might not be absolute property... it at least should not be outside the current statutes.
Once that happens, we've returned to a ogliarchy... where the layman has no specific protections afforded to them from the system.
It does sound hinky the way Debra claims it all happened.
However...she had 12 walking skeletons of horses and 4 that had died on her property. She pled guilty...
QuoteDebra Bazell pleaded guilty to one count of misdemeanor neglect of animals before a scheduled trial could begin in Sullivan County Superior Court last morning.
A plea deal with the prosecution means Bazell will spend no time behind bars, and she will be able to petition the court in three years to once again own horses.
Bazell was arrested in January 2006 and charged with four counts of animal neglect. Authorities found 12 horses near death and four dead horses on her Unity property in December 2005.
"It puts an end to a very sad story and allows those horses to live in peace with their new owners," assistant Sullivan County attorney Jack Bell said Tuesday.
Bazell pleaded no contest to one of the counts and the other three counts were dropped by the state. As part of the plea, Bazell was given a suspended 12-month jail sentence which can be brought forward over the next 10 years if she violates any of the conditions of the agreement.
And since she lied so often about the horses...I somehow have a hard time believing the facts of the story of anything else she claims has 'wronged' her. :(
This is a common occurance with animal abusers...they lie constantly and they fabricate all sorts of stories of how everyone is out to get them and they *never* do anything wrong. Even when confronted with photos of what they've done, they'll claim the photos are wrong. They also claim the horses were fine and worth thousands and thousands of dollars. Deb's weren't either...and they weren't poisoned by run off or a neighbor. They starved. She didn't feed them. They weren't hundred thousand dollar anythings. She claims one thing when she writes it and another when talking to authorities:
Quote"I've never seen anything like it," said Kim Jordan, who helped rescue the horses. "It was pretty sad -- poor conditions, no shelter, no food or water on the days I had gone." Police said Bazell was involved in a rescue mission and had taken on 16 horses. They said she was having a hard time caring for them with no real shelter and little food, water or medication. "Over the last year, she was saving horses so they wouldn't go to a meat factory or anything like that, and she acquired up to 16,"
How many multi-thousand dollar horses are saved from the meat truck? I'd take anything she claims with a whole shaker of salt. But she'll try to weasel her way in anywhere for attention, and say whatever she has to so she can have that attention.
With the stolen car scenerio...my reply was tongue in cheek. ;) A stolen care is a stolen car. However comparing an off the street theft of a vehicle isn't similar to the forewarned seizure of horses involved in the crime of neglect. It would be more similar if your car had been involved in a crime and it was impounded. The people who took it aren't going to keep it...and if by some miracle while it was impounded they dropped a new engine in, gave it a new paint job and high performance tires and then returned it to you...well, that matches the seized horses more than someone just stealing your car.
Friday and Anton...thank you for the kind remarks. :blush:
Aworldnervelink.... :biglaugh:
Bald Eagle ... did Jesus log into your account and post?
or did you sign the post as Jesus?
or are you just typing that word for effect?
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 14, 2009, 07:02 PM NHFT
I think its time to tell the whole story .My next post will do just that but I need to get rid of the anger first .I'll give you this much now .
Did I miss the telling of the whole story, or are you still dealing with the anger?
I think he's been busy returning all but one of the "stolen" horses to Brian. I'm waiting for the YouTube video on that one. :D
Some of you will never get it ! I will give the basics of this story. I look for help at our farm .A friend sends Beth over,and I hire her .After two weeks she comes to me in tears,that she had been trying for months to get Heidi to do something about the under weight horses.She tells me how she is not allowed to talk to Heidi directly anymore by Brain and it gets to the point she had no choice but to ask me for help.Beth informs me of the conditions and that the horses did not have any coggins test done prior to moving them to NH.My concern for not only their horses but surrounding horse farms pushed me to take beths horse off the property and put it in isolation until the test came back . I told Beth at that time to get a message to Brain that shit was about to go down,witch prompted a call,from Brain to Steve at the SPCA ,leaving a message that the shelters had fallen down in the ice storm 3 months prior and they were just starting to work on them .Brain miss the point of the heads up. I called Steve to tell him what I was told and I asked him to set up a meeting with candia pd and himself at my house with myself and Beth to discuss these problems .I then find out that several conversations had taken place with Brain asking him to fix the problems at his farm.He had more chances than I've ever seen given before. So we all meet at my house and Beth told her story [reluctantly] to Steve and Candia PD .After she told her story in tears I urged both the departments to act fast due to the conditions of some of the horses.We all knew that given the history of Brain and the free staters party that this whole thing was to be done by the book.The fact that Brain open carry's a firearm I ask that all safety measures be done.No one wanted another Brown stand off. We had been told that after the first run in at the farm that Beth and Brains sons were directed by Brain that if they noticed anyone checking out the house that they were to get a shot gun and parade up and down the property line to warn off on lookers.You want to talk about thugs with guns,what the hell do you call this! Beth of course refused but with this mind set , no one was taking any chances.This whole thing was about the horses ,not the free staters.Brain and Heidi were given all the chances one could ask for AND AFTER THEY LIED TO ALL OF YOU, AND PUT THE FREE STATER PARTY INTO A BAD SPOT LIGHT! I don't go looking for trouble, but many people in the horses community know that I won't ignore neglect and they know that they can turn to me to help when they see it but don't know what to do We are the animals keeper ,wild or domestic it is all of our responsibility to do what we can to keep them from man made harms way .Call it rights or anything you want.If animals are raised for food then do it humanly .Heidi has horses for pleasure to herself which is fine but she needed to do a better job,or maybe not have more than she could handle.I and many feel that there was no choice but to do what was done.I believe in alot of the things your party does but I will always take the side of the animals and the weak.We need some laws to create fairness to all living animals,people too.
The Free State Party does not condone the use of force to extract horses from people's land against their wishes.
The Free Staters Party might not exist. But I would guess if they did, they would not care if you guys did this "by the book".
The Free State Project has no comment at this time.
Members of the Free State Project have various positions on this situation.
I would not have done what you did. I don't think it would be right for me to take Heidi's horses, if she doesn't want me to.
New Union Leader article: Seized horses returned to Candia farm (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Seized+horses+returned+to+Candia+farm&articleId=632efad5-eae8-4f1e-a303-ba8d4b9f7f85)
Mr. LeBlanc,
Is there some way I can view pictures of the horses the day they were taken? It seems to me if you "are playing by the book" you should have clear evidence of the alleged claims. IMO, this would include pictures.
Thanks in advance,
Littlehawk
Quote from: Friday on April 18, 2009, 07:28 AM NHFT
New Union Leader article: Seized horses returned to Candia farm (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Seized+horses+returned+to+Candia+farm&articleId=632efad5-eae8-4f1e-a303-ba8d4b9f7f85)
This quote is from the article.
"Sienkiewicz said the state will attempt to get Fredrick to pay if she is found guilty of the charges. If she is found not guilty, he said he is not sure who is responsible."
In other words, if we get our Guilty conviction, we want her to pay and if we find that it was "our bad," then we're not sure who should have to pay.
Who's this "Brain" person LeBlanc continuously refers to?
QuoteThe search warrant and supporting affidavit remain sealed in the case and police have not commented on the probable cause that led to the warrant.
So it remains sealed. Then I have to guess whomever it was that said they spoke to Brian and were told that the documents were unsealed and Beth's name was on it was fibbing? Or that Brian was fibbing about that? I'd quote that post too, but it seems to be gone now?
QuoteAfter two weeks she comes to me in tears,that she had been trying for months to get Heidi to do something about the under weight horses.She tells me how she is not allowed to talk to Heidi directly anymore by Brain and it gets to the point she had no choice but to ask me for help
So for months they were being told that the horses were in dangeroous condition and needed better shelter and more food. And although Beth started buying food for Heidi's horses out of her own pocket and was no longer allowed to speak directly to Heidi...this is all still her fault that they didn't know how to care for their horses? *sigh*
I'm wondering why Beth was no longer allowed to talk to Heidi? Doesn't make sense for the caretaker of the horses not to be allowed to talk to the owner of the horses.
Quote.I then find out that several conversations had taken place with Brain asking him to fix the problems at his farm.He had more chances than I've ever seen given before.
So now we have two previous ACOs telling Brian and Heidi the horses needed better shelter and care last year, the rescue telling them this year, Beth telling them alll along repeatedly and then the SPCA had talked with Brian numerous times telling him the same? Oh and LeBlanc gave them a head's up to start caring for and feeding those horses ASAP to avoid a seziure.
Color me cynical...but seriously...who else needed to talk to these two folks to tell them how to care for their horses enough to keep them healthy? They claim not to have known...it's easy to see it was more of a "we don't really care and nobody can tell us what to do." It seems even if the other members of the FSP had talked to these two, nothing would have been done. :(
I am not privvy to the private lives of Brian and Heidi...but it does seem as if there's a hoarding issue going on here. :-\ This is an emotional "glitch" in that an animal owner cannot understand that they cannot afford to care for the multiple animals they feel a need to obtain. It also prevents the owner from seeing or realizing the declining condition of the animals they do have. It doesn't make the owner "cruel" in the literal sense of the word...because they really cannot understand what they're causing. They can be presented with an emaciated animal and come up with a woolrd of reasons why it's that way when only good food in decent amounts always brings them back to health. They might not be "cruel" but the results of this disorder definitely are cruel.
Now I have *no* idea if this is the actual case here. Heidi wouldn't even know because hoarders can't recognize it in themselves. Brian would know though...if Heidi has issues getting along with people, prefers to be alone or isolated more often than not, cannot get along with other people well, tries to drive off other people, doesn't have any/many close personal friends, often attempts to obtain more animals, doesn't do anything with the animals she has, (hoarders are into getting animals, not caring for them)if she tends to make grand plans for the animals she has verbally yet never moves towards realizing those goals, if she tends to also hoard other things...kind of a packrat or has issues throwing things away when no longer needed....these are all signs of hoarding syndrom. Hopefully Brian can look into that...and if this might be the case then Brian is going to need a lot of help from friends and family to help manage the animals on the property and help stop more from coming in or being bred. Because if it is hoarding...then no matter how hard Brian and Heidi work on fencing and shelters and getting enough food it will never be enough because she may keep buying, taking in free or breeding more and more and more. The animals continue to suffer, the family will suffer and keep losing income trying to keep up and they have a strong chance of constantly being on watch for the next seizure. :-[ Because hoarding is not a defense for animal neglect in court to my knowledge. Even if it is a subconscious urge by the animals' owner.
If Brian does contact some of you for help...please offer to do so? Heidi may need some females to make closer friendships with her if she hasn't done that yet in NH...something to help take the place of the hoarding feelings. This could be something to bring the community closer. Hoarding isn't a "disease" or anything...more like a mental glitch in how a person perceives some things. But it can be as strong as alcoholism in some studies.
I'm only guessing hoarding because the facts so far just do not jibe. At all. A lifelong involvement in horses and claiming expertise and yet having so many issues not knowing how to feed or shelter them as they get so thin? And despite what's looking like massive outside involvement telling them how to remedy the situation and all being ignored? Doesn't make sense. I'd prefer to believe it's a glitch other than callous disregard. :-\
JMHO.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 04:00 PM NHFTQuoteThe search warrant and supporting affidavit remain sealed in the case and police have not commented on the probable cause that led to the warrant.
So it remains sealed. Then I have to guess whomever it was that said they spoke to Brian and were told that the documents were unsealed and Beth's name was on it was fibbing? Or that Brian was fibbing about that? I'd quote that post too, but it seems to be gone now?
Um, no. There are various levels to which a document can be "sealed." It sounds (from the description) like this one was open to Brian's lawyer (and hence to Brian), but not to the general public (eg, a newspaper couldn't call up and get a copy faxed).
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 04:00 PM NHFTSo for months they were being told that the horses were in dangeroous condition and needed better shelter and more food. And although Beth started buying food for Heidi's horses out of her own pocket and was no longer allowed to speak directly to Heidi...this is all still her fault that they didn't know how to care for their horses?
Hearsay. I'm willing to listen to first-hand accounts, but "I'm telling you that Beth told me that..." is hearsay, and not worth notice.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 04:00 PM NHFTColor me cynical...but seriously...who else needed to talk to these two folks to tell them how to care for their horses enough to keep them healthy? They claim not to have known...it's easy to see it was more of a "we don't really care and nobody can tell us what to do." It seems even if the other members of the FSP had talked to these two, nothing would have been done.
No one has even established that the horses were unhealthy. Until then, speculation about how they would have reacted to offers of help is meaningless.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 04:00 PM NHFT...if Heidi has issues getting along with people, prefers to be alone or isolated more often than not, cannot get along with other people well, tries to drive off other people, doesn't have any/many close personal friends, often attempts to obtain more animals, [etc]
I don't know Heidi, but I've met her at an event or two. She seems friendly enough and didn't appear to have trouble interacting with folks. I've met their dogs, which are certainly happy and healthy animals.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 04:00 PM NHFTIf Brian does contact some of you for help...please offer to do so? Heidi may need some females to make closer friendships with her if she hasn't done that yet in NH...something to help take the place of the hoarding feelings. This could be something to bring the community closer.
Why, specifically, would she needs
female friends? That seems rather sexist, to me...
Joe
Hi Maineshark. :wave:
QuoteUm, no. There are various levels to which a document can be "sealed." It sounds (from the description) like this one was open to Brian's lawyer (and hence to Brian), but not to the general public (eg, a newspaper couldn't call up and get a copy faxed).
The it would seem his attorney's suggestion to keep quiet about the case is being used on a convenience only basis. :)
QuoteNo one has even established that the horses were unhealthy. Until then, speculation about how they would have reacted to offers of help is meaningless.
2 veterinarians established that some of the horse were unhealthy enough to be removed for their own safety. Now it may be your position that the vets are involved in a great conspiracy against Brian and Heidi, but that is most likely not the case. If I hear hoofbeats I usually think "horse" and not "unicorn." ;)
There was also the released news video...clearly showed young horses in very poor weight and body condition. And that was after already a length of time for them to have gained some weight in the foster's hands. We all were able to see with our own eyes the condition of the horses. If you do not understand healthy body condition of horses...it doesn't make sense to speculated in either direction to me. Not being experienced with equines or being around them enough to recognize a health weight one from a very skinny one means that you might not have understood what you were looking at in that video. But experienced vets, other experienced horse people, some folks from this BB, etc have all stated that the horses were in pretty bad shape. Brian has stated he's not a horse person and has also danced around the replies about the condition of the horses himself.
Some folks didn't want to believe the horses were skinny...they wanted photo or video proof. Well, that was posted. Photos will be at the trial.
QuoteWhy, specifically, would she needs female friends? That seems rather sexist, to me...
I apologize for it seeming that way. I should have made it more clear...but so far research into certain disorders such as hoarding have shown that strong social relationships with people of the same gender have been a help. Would be the same for a male hoarder to have more male close friends.
Of course it can depend from person to person too. I have more make friends than female ones...although I do also have female friends too. It's just my daily living style usually is more similar to the males in my area outside of the equine folks. When we're out in public I tend to have less to discuss with non-equine females so will end up in more conversations/friendships with the males. Not many non-horsie females chatter often about the growing conditions for hay, hunting, fishing, tractors, etc.
As you seem to have noticed...I might be a bit of an oddball at times. :D
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 04:42 PM NHFTThe it would seem his attorney's suggestion to keep quiet about the case is being used on a convenience only basis. :)
Attorneys will often tell a client that they may discuss certain aspects of a case, but not others.
For example, I was involved in a case where the police had destroyed evidence, and we were able to prove that they had done so. I was advised not to discuss that aspect of the case, is being able to prove such behavior in front of a jury would obviously have substantial effect, which might be lost if the State had some time to fabricate an excuse for it.
Generally, something that is part of an affidavit would not be of concern in that sort of situation, since the State is obviously aware of what is on their own affidavit.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 04:42 PM NHFTQuoteNo one has even established that the horses were unhealthy. Until then, speculation about how they would have reacted to offers of help is meaningless.
2 veterinarians established that some of the horse were unhealthy enough to be removed for their own safety. Now it may be your position that the vets are involved in a great conspiracy against Brian and Heidi, but that is most likely not the case. If I hear hoofbeats I usually think "horse" and not "unicorn."
A handful of individuals is not a "great conspiracy." It's a very small one, and a common occurrence.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 04:42 PM NHFTThere was also the released news video...clearly showed young horses in very poor weight and body condition. And that was after already a length of time for them to have gained some weight in the foster's hands. We all were able to see with our own eyes the condition of the horses.
I haven't seen any such video.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 04:42 PM NHFTIf you do not understand healthy body condition of horses...it doesn't make sense to speculated in either direction to me. Not being experienced with equines or being around them enough to recognize a health weight one from a very skinny one means that you might not have understood what you were looking at in that video.
I live across the road from a horse farm, and there are cows, alpacas, and a variety of other livestock on farms within walking distance. I've been around farms all my life. I might not be able to identify the difference between a show-winner and an average horse, but I would like to think that I would be able to identify the difference between a horse in danger of starvation, and one that is not, if someone were to actually present me with quality images of that horse.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 04:42 PM NHFTQuoteWhy, specifically, would she needs female friends? That seems rather sexist, to me...
I apologize for it seeming that way. I should have made it more clear...but so far research into certain disorders such as hoarding have shown that strong social relationships with people of the same gender have been a help. Would be the same for a male hoarder to have more male close friends.
What research? I'd like to see some specific citations...
Joe
Here's the video:
http://www.wmur.com/video/19023226/index.html
QuoteA handful of individuals is not a "great conspiracy." It's a very small one, and a common occurrence.
So it's common enough to assume conspiracy by the vets as opposed to the fact that the vets might be telling the truth? Or that the video is wrong? Have vets been involved in that many conspiracies? Do you know many large animal vets? Do you have a lot of personal experience with them? Or do you automatically assume conspiracy by these two vets because that fits your personal feelings best?
Also, why the conspiracy? What would be the reason for it? It's a financial loss to the vets and to the SPCA. Seizures usually are. Because seized horses are in crappy condition...and the seized horses will not have their registration papers so even if they get the animals back to health unregistered horses are "a dime a dozen." A horse without papers is called a Grade horse. They can't be bred for profit, raced, shown in breed shows and sell for pennies on the dollar compared to papered horses.
So what would be the purpose of a conspiracy? To lose money on? Especially in the state of NH the first seizure BY LAW is temporary 90% or more of the time. So why conspire to take someone's animals that are in horrid condition, where they won't have the papers for the animals, who will cost a small fortune in vet care and rehab, who weren't even trained to do anything (and pro training costs a buttload) and who have to be given back?
That makes zero sense.
For the research...you'll have to google it yourself if you're really interested in the information. I though to hand out what I know and have read for others to read...specifically for Brian to read too since it would affect him the most if this is the case. I googled the video for you and posted the link here. But I'm getting ready to go bring in the horses for the night and do night care, then am hoping to take a ride downtown, gas up the truck, get a coffee and talk to the hay farmers probably down there now to see how this year's crop is looking so far. Keeping ahead of the coming year's crops is one of the many aspects of having a horse farm.
Not to mention I've heard a friend of mine got a new combine and I'm dying to wrangle an invitation to go check it out. ;D
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 05:30 PM NHFTHere's the video:
http://www.wmur.com/video/19023226/index.html
I don't see any malnourished horses on Brian and Heidi's property. Given the behavior Leblanc has shown, here, I'm not going to assume that the horses he presented are actually Brian and Heidi's horses. Nor do they look to be near death, even if they were.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 05:30 PM NHFTQuoteA handful of individuals is not a "great conspiracy." It's a very small one, and a common occurrence.
So it's common enough to assume conspiracy by the vets as opposed to the fact that the vets might be telling the truth? Or that the video is wrong? Have vets been involved in that many conspiracies? Do you know many large animal vets? Do you have a lot of personal experience with them? Or do you automatically assume conspiracy by these two vets because that fits your personal feelings best?
I don't assume anything. I don't assume that anyone is conspiring. I also don't assume that being a vet makes someone an unbiased source. It's called having an open mind.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 05:30 PM NHFTSo what would be the purpose of a conspiracy? To lose money on? Especially in the state of NH the first seizure BY LAW is temporary 90% or more of the time. So why conspire to take someone's animals that are in horrid condition, where they won't have the papers for the animals, who will cost a small fortune in vet care and rehab, who weren't even trained to do anything (and pro training costs a buttload) and who have to be given back?
That makes zero sense.
Few things that the government does, make any sense. They will spend a hundred thousand dollars on a court case to obtain a conviction against a little old lady who smokes a joint to deal with pain from her cancer, only to win a suspended sentence and a thousand-dollar fine, or to pay money to keep her in prison, if they can get a prison sentence.
That's standard procedure for the government.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 05:30 PM NHFTFor the research...you'll have to google it yourself if you're really interested in the information.
No. You asserted something as fact. If you can't back it up, then you're just making baseless claims. Since that seems to be all you do, I'm not expecting you to back it up. But I can hope. I enjoy reading psychology papers: if they're good, I can learn something, and if they're not, I can amuse myself by trashing the fallacious arguments. Win-win.
Joe
*sigh* What was that hilarious term used earlier in this thread? Masturdebating?
I guess I now have the definition of that. :) (BTW...I'm still giggling over that word, it's perfect for many scenarios)
Since you've decided A) Nobody likes me B) It's your career in life to reply to everything I state in an obtuse way for some odd reason and C) seem to enjoy playing point to point I guess I'll reply.
Again.
QuoteI live across the road from a horse farm, and there are cows, alpacas, and a variety of other livestock on farms within walking distance. I've been around farms all my life. I might not be able to identify the difference between a show-winner and an average horse, but I would like to think that I would be able to identify the difference between a horse in danger of starvation, and one that is not, if someone were to actually present me with quality images of that horse.
I've lived near a lot of things. Never made me knowledgeable in it though so I'll assume your base of argument is experience through osmosis.
Recognizing a horse expperiencing starvation, emaciation or varying degrees of neglect does indeed take some education on the animals, their digestive systems, varying differences in type and breeds of horses, age of animals and general conformation of the animals.
Since it can be subjective considering these varying types/situation there a scale/body scoring chart used called the Henneke Scale. A person using that must know the conformation of the animal because horses store fat in different areas and those areas become depleted at different stages of weight loss. There are exact correlations between the depletion of these areas and the health of the horse and it's organs and digestive system. You need to know neck, withers, loin, tail head, ribs and shoulder and what each should look and feel like in a healthy animal and then a visible exam followed by a hands on palpation of each area is needed to verify score.
In this case there is the added problem of many of the animals being young stock with possibly stunted growth from lack of proper nutrition during the developing stages and the fact that they were carrying wormy bloated bellies (many inexperienced will see bony horses with fat bellies and assume they're okay not realizing those fat bellies are fat due to there being more parasites in there than room for them) and winter coats. Which is why the horses are evaluated on palpation as well as visible. Visible can give one degree...when you use hands on that lowers the degree even more due to thickness of fat pads.
As someone who evaluates horses often enough...those young horses in the video eyeball at around a 2.5 after being fed for a couple weeks. A hands on would lower that somewhat. A 2 is Very Thin...3 is Thin, 4 is Moderately Thin, 5 is ideal, over 5s are varying degrees of overweight to obese and a 1 is emaciated. A 1.5 and under is feeding on it's own muscle and in danger (if not already starting) or organ shut down. Since horses gain weight fast and lose slowly as Mother Nature designed them to...it's a good bet those were 1.5 or so at seizure.
I also notice how you qualify your own statement as "present me with quality images of that horse" just in case somebody did present you with photos...you had your "out" already in place so you could claim that the photos weren't "quality." So I already figured when you saw the video I was planning on posting that you'd already have some inane "well those weren't QUALITY photos"...imagine my surprise when instead you went with this:
QuoteI don't see any malnourished horses on Brian and Heidi's property. Given the behavior Leblanc has shown, here, I'm not going to assume that the horses he presented are actually Brian and Heidi's horses. Nor do they look to be near death, even if they were.
Ahhh haa....okay...so it's not the quality...now it's the location. Despite numerous requests to see photos of the horses now they needed to have been in the location of your own choosing. Okay, got it. In other words...doesn't matter what someone posts to try to explain anything further to you, you will find a way to refute it.
So now it's a new conspiracy...the SPCA and the vets colluded somewhere to steal a bunch of worthless to them horses to spend a crapload of time and money on only to then video different young Arabian horses they happened to have at the same time someone else had their young Arabian horses taken. And the ones taken were taken for neglect and poor weight and they just happened to have stand-in stunt young Arabian horses that they keep scrawny just in case they might need photos of scrawny Arabian yearlings.
Yup, makes perfect sense. ::)
And yet...someone else on here stated they'd noticed the horses while on Brian and Heidi's property looking really poor. Beth knew the horses were in poor condition. Brian can't seem to decide if they were in poor condition or not...and he lives on the same property with them. He even posted his own conspiracy theory of the SPCA possibly purposely starving those horses after they got them to prove a point. And yet you still managed to top that theory with stand-in horses of the same age and breed that are skinny looking.
So despite vets, another FSPer on here stating the same thing, the video, Beth who is also an FSPer and Brian's hemming and hawing over the subject you prefer to think these are possibly fakes? :-\
And you also admit that while you think they don't look "near death" you also admit "even if they were." So doesn't that basically say that even if they were near death, you wouldn't recognize it?
QuoteI don't assume anything. I don't assume that anyone is conspiring. I also don't assume that being a vet makes someone an unbiased source. It's called having an open mind.
And yet you're assuming those aren't actually Heidi's horses. How is that not assuming and not conspiring? And it wasn't one vet...it was two at the scene to make the call on what the actual health conditions of the horses were and then the SPCA also works with different vets. (they use non-SPCA vets for seizures) So now we're over 3 vets, all apparently biased.
I personally don't see that as an open mind.
There's a saying that a person should keep an open mind...but not so open that their brains fall out. ;)
QuoteNo. You asserted something as fact. If you can't back it up, then you're just making baseless claims. Since that seems to be all you do, I'm not expecting you to back it up. But I can hope. I enjoy reading psychology papers: if they're good, I can learn something, and if they're not, I can amuse myself by trashing the fallacious arguments. Win-win.
So now on top of nobody liking me...*all* of my claims are baseless? Okay. :-\ I'd hate to have to use the word "dramatic" again Joe. ;D ;) ^-^ If you're not expecting me to back it up then I won't. Because this tit for tat is tiring when it devolves into "but those probably aren't Heidi's horses!" and other such drivel. Seriously...I've typed out what information I can pass on in the spirit of *helping.* Some to help others learn a tad more about equines in general so they may have a better understanding of the severity of things. Some to help others think of ways to help Heidi and Brian. ALL to help the future care of those animals. I don't really enjoy typing out tomes...but I had hoped it would help someone somewhere on here. You keep turning into personal attacks. I'm glad you're having fun...but at least try to HELP. More than just trying to help Brian come up with new conspiracy theories after his "the SPCA is starving them" comment.
I understand you hate the idea of animal welfare laws. I hate the idea that they're necessary. So we're different. Deal with it. Neither of us are drones...that's a good thing.
But if you want to ensure that the government never comes in and takes Brian or Heidi's property again...I'm GIVING you blueprints on how to keep that from happening. I'm giving you guys the HOW...take care of the HOW and then you can take care of the WHY without the "harassment" of government interferrence.
And if you want the damned research on animal hoarding...go to the library, go to google.com and type in keywords. I'm only here to try to help the animals stay healthy and to give out the info on how to do that since Brian mentioned more than once that nobody was willing to tell them anything when they asked. I'm not here to act like a secretary for someone who professes to not like me, who cares nothing about the animals and who is coming up with the most ridiculous arguments I think I've ever debated online. And believe me...I've talked with some really off the wall conspiracy freaks before.
If you want to play the "repeated quote and reply" game then at least ask questions that may benefit Brian and Heidi keeping those horses healthy and the government out of their lives. This *isn't* about you.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 09:12 PM NHFTB) It's your career in life to reply to everything I state in an obtuse way for some odd reason and C) seem to enjoy playing point to point I guess I'll reply.
Nothing I've said has been the least bit obtuse. I would suggest looking up the definitions of words before attempting to use them as accusations.
Replying to each point is done for the purpose of being thorough and accurate. And to get the posts quoted in case you attempt to edit them. Since I've already caught you doing that, you can't exactly claim that it's not a valid concern.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 09:12 PM NHFTI've lived near a lot of things. Never made me knowledgeable in it though so I'll assume your base of argument is experience through osmosis.
No, it's a general level of experience. Not "expert" status, but probably as much as most "average" horse owners that I've met. As I said, I've been about farms all my life.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 09:12 PM NHFTRecognizing a horse expperiencing starvation, emaciation or varying degrees of neglect does indeed take some education on the animals, their digestive systems, varying differences in type and breeds of horses, age of animals and general conformation of the animals.
Oh, so now it requires some sort of special skill? We must be told from on-high if the horses are healthy or not?
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 09:12 PM NHFTSince it can be subjective considering these varying types/situation there a scale/body scoring chart used called the Henneke Scale.
And you've just proved my point, nicely. Science isn't subjective. Science is objective. You're supporting violence against innocent people based upon someone's
subjective opinion.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 09:12 PM NHFT...and the fact that they were carrying wormy bloated bellies (many inexperienced will see bony horses with fat bellies and assume they're okay not realizing those fat bellies are fat due to there being more parasites in there than room for them)...
That level of infestation by parasites would be something that could actually be verified, scientifically. Why don't you provide some evidence?
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 09:12 PM NHFTI also notice how you qualify your own statement as "present me with quality images of that horse" just in case somebody did present you with photos...you had your "out" already in place so you could claim that the photos weren't "quality."
It's not an "out." Or are you going to assert that
any photo of a horse could be used for evaluation? You've already said that photos are difficult to use, so it's rather obvious that a quality photo would be necessary. Some blurry nonsense would clearly be inadequate, right?
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 09:12 PM NHFTQuoteI don't see any malnourished horses on Brian and Heidi's property. Given the behavior Leblanc has shown, here, I'm not going to assume that the horses he presented are actually Brian and Heidi's horses. Nor do they look to be near death, even if they were.
Ahhh haa....okay...so it's not the quality...now it's the location. Despite numerous requests to see photos of the horses now they needed to have been in the location of your own choosing. Okay, got it. In other words...doesn't matter what someone posts to try to explain anything further to you, you will find a way to refute it.
No. I will just refute it if it doesn't apply. I'm sure you could post photos of hundreds of horses from all over the world. How would that say anything about Brian or Heidi? I recognize their property, so if I were to see images of horses there, I could say with a high degree of certainty that they are actually Brian and Heidi's horses. Images of horses that are most obviously not located on their property tells me nothing.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 09:12 PM NHFTSo despite vets, another FSPer on here stating the same thing, the video, Beth who is also an FSPer and Brian's hemming and hawing over the subject you prefer to think these are possibly fakes? :-\
I don't "prefer to think" anything. I'm a scientist. Show me evidence. So far, you've provided assertions that some individuals of unknown integrity and some individuals who are known liars claim that the horses were in danger. That's not evidence. You're asserting that I should just believe these assertions, without anything to back them up. It sounds like you are very used to dealing with Statists who just automatically believe anything that a government official tells them, and your religious faith in those officials doesn't allow room for doubt. Well, I'm an agnostic. I want evidence, not assertions that I should have faith.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 09:12 PM NHFTAnd you also admit that while you think they don't look "near death" you also admit "even if they were." So doesn't that basically say that even if they were near death, you wouldn't recognize it?
No, I said "even if they were" in response to whether or not they might be Brian and Heidi's horses. As I said, I'm not assuming either way, when I see horses that are not obviously on their farm. Try to keep up.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 09:12 PM NHFTQuoteI don't assume anything. I don't assume that anyone is conspiring. I also don't assume that being a vet makes someone an unbiased source. It's called having an open mind.
And yet you're assuming those aren't actually Heidi's horses. How is that not assuming and not conspiring?
I'm not assuming anything. I don't assume that they are. I don't assume that they aren't. I haven't seen any credible evidence to indicate either as being the case.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 09:12 PM NHFTSo now on top of nobody liking me...*all* of my claims are baseless? Okay. :-\ I'd hate to have to use the word "dramatic" again Joe. ;D ;) ^-^ If you're not expecting me to back it up then I won't.
Your choice. I'll just assume that you are sexist, then, and were just making up more claims to try and distract us from that fact.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 09:12 PM NHFTSeriously...I've typed out what information I can pass on in the spirit of *helping.*
No, you've provided claims and opinions in an attempt to support a violent attack against innocent individuals. You didn't just wander by and post some information about horses, because you happened to think we might like to know. You came here because you support that violent attack, and are grasping at straws to try and justify it. Let's be honest, shall we? If you are honest, we can discuss how your position differs from my position. If you are going to misrepresent what your position is, then discussion becomes rather difficult...
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 09:12 PM NHFT...who cares nothing about the animals...
Which is yet another blatantly-false assertion. I've already stated that I want to know if actual abuse was occurring, because disapprove of animal abuse and won't have anything to do with actual animal abusers.
I'm simply unwilling to enforce my opinions on others at gunpoint.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 18, 2009, 09:12 PM NHFTIf you want to play the "repeated quote and reply" game then at least ask questions that may benefit Brian and Heidi keeping those horses healthy and the government out of their lives. This *isn't* about you.
No, this is about you, and your peers. It's not about Brian, or Heidi, or the horses, or me. The first three were minding their own business on that farm. I wasn't involved other than knowing vaguely that there was a horse farm in that location. You (speaking in general about your "side") went out of your way to invade and attack Brian and Heidi and steal the horses, thereby involving me, and others like me. Without you, this situation wouldn't exist. This is
all about you.
Joe
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 19, 2009, 12:27 PM NHFTI guess there will always be bottom feeders that only care for their veiws and no one elses.
Yes. Like you and your "animals rights" buddies. I'm willing to tolerate any views. You believe in enforcing your opinions as if they were absolute truth, and at gunpoint.
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 19, 2009, 12:27 PM NHFTThe ones who still would like to make this a goverment issue, are the ones who will make alot of noise for any reason .
Again with the self-description?
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 19, 2009, 12:27 PM NHFTAs far as Joe the scientist goes, the ones I know lack compassion and would use animals for thier own personal gain,.Is this you Joe?...
Why do you have horses, if not for personal gain? If it's for the horses' sake, shouldn't they be running free? You keep them for your own private, personal gain.
If you think scientists lack compassion, you probably don't know any real scientists.
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 19, 2009, 12:27 PM NHFTHumans most likely will not be on the earth forever and if we are we will be ruled by other animals or insects...
Oh, good. We should treat animals nicely because some day the ants will rule, and punish our distant ancestors? I'm glad you're so very sensible...
FYI, if I ever do meet an ant capable of reason, I will treat her with all the rights than any person has. Those capable of reason are persons, regardless of their physical appearance or biological makeup. I don't discriminate. Do you?
Joe
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 14, 2009, 10:16 PM NHFT
In a perfect world...
There will never be a perfect world. Deal with it. Your infatuation with utopia is what leads you to believe that you can fix everything with the magic wand of government all the while making things worse.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 14, 2009, 10:16 PM NHFT
But history shows that's a massive mistake on the parts of the animals.
History shows that coercive government is a massive mistake on the part of humans. Social engineering has and will continue to fail. The best of intentions lead to the worst unintended consequences the road to hell being paved with them and all.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 14, 2009, 10:16 PM NHFT
Also current times show the same...
Yes they do.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 14, 2009, 10:16 PM NHFT
An obese pet can develop serious health issues,
So we should or should not send out the morality police?
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 14, 2009, 10:16 PM NHFT
but the possibility of killing with kindness has a much different impact on a social group than killing with malice or neglect.
So, killing is fine as long as it's done in a way you approve of? Perhaps I missed the study on how this impacts my social group.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 14, 2009, 10:16 PM NHFT
An obese animal isn't having the minute by minute acute pain of feeling it's body feeding off it's own muscles because there isn't any fat reserves left. Muscle wasting due to being resorbed by the body hurts like hell.
Have you ever gone a day without food in your life? My friend here just came off a 42 day fast and guess what? No pain! Also, obesity causes joint and back pain because their skeleton was not designed to carry that kind of load.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 14, 2009, 10:16 PM NHFT
And before someone jumps in with "Oh they weren't showing signs of that!"
No! Don't mention that there are no signs of what I'm talking about. Just take my word for it.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 14, 2009, 10:16 PM NHFT
please be aware that prey animals and predators act and react completely opposite to many outside influences. A hurt predator isn't risking it's own life by showing weakness in many cases. It may risk being outcast if it's part of a pride or pack but most predators aren't. If an animal is a natural food source for other animals and *especially* if it's a herd animal...any of it's own kind acting off/differently/slow becomes an instant target for predators. So that makes large herbivores sch as common livestock excessively stoic in regards to showing any weakness.
Well, they could be "excessively stoic" but a more reasonable explanation might be; there's nothing wrong with them.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 14, 2009, 10:16 PM NHFT
To *me*...allowing suffering due to a political or social opinion isn't a compassionate thing to do.
To *me*...placing your ideas about compassion ahead of basic human rights (to keep, use and dispose of property) is loopy.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 14, 2009, 10:16 PM NHFT
If there is a way to prevent live property from suffering while being owned by abusive or neglectful owners without the intervention of a third party, I'm all ears.
See, you've got the sequence backwards. First, you decide to go to the moon, then you find a way. First, you decide to make a light source run on electricity, then you find a way. First, you decide to help animals without stealing money from people to hire thugs to trespass, then, you find a way. First, you decide that the ends do not justify the means, then, you live that way.
Quote from: Keyser Soce on April 19, 2009, 01:08 PM NHFT
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 14, 2009, 10:16 PM NHFT
An obese animal isn't having the minute by minute acute pain of feeling it's body feeding off it's own muscles because there isn't any fat reserves left. Muscle wasting due to being resorbed by the body hurts like hell.
Have you ever gone a day without food in your life? My friend here just came off a 42 day fast and guess what? No pain! Also, obesity causes joint and back pain because their skeleton was not designed to carry that kind of load.
This I can attest to. My uncle starved himself to death. He had cancer, had had it treated, it returned, and rather than subject himself to more torturous treatment he opted to starve himself to death. After the first few days he was no longer hungry. He never complained of there being any pain from his body feeding off its own muscles. He wasted away slowly in spite of folks trying to convince him to eat. It was very, very sad to watch, but I have to say he never complained about any of it. He continued to live his life his way and was mentally sharp right up until the last few days. The last time I saw him was at Thanksgiving a few weeks before he died and he spent the afternoon telling me about his adventures during WWII as a paratrooper. He certainly wasn't unhappy or in any pain and at that point had hardly eaten for weeks.
George
Just curious...When the "'insects rule" will we have to bow and curtsy to Queen bees and stuff like that? :P
Not bow'in to no fuck'in Bees, either!
Quote from: Free libertarian on April 20, 2009, 06:03 AM NHFTJust curious...When the "'insects rule" will we have to bow and curtsy to Queen bees and stuff like that? :P
Not bowing to the bees is abusive. They will send their minions to get you, if you don't bow to them...
Edited to add: just noticed that he deleted his post. Luckily, I have him quoted, so he's on record claiming that the insects are going to take over.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on April 20, 2009, 07:52 AM NHFT
Luckily, I have him quoted, so he's on record claiming that the insects are going to take over.
And we're the whack jobs? o.O;
I hear there are lizard people who control the government too...
(http://lumiere.ens.fr/%7Ealphapsy/blog/images/21701757_them_lg.jpg)
It's strange reading all this I'm not sure where I fit in.
I care about human beings and animals, I hate factory farming and cruelty towards animals. I think if I saw someone beating their dog I would probably say something or try to stop it, I couldn't stand knowing an animal is being harmed in my presence. Just like if I saw someone beating their kid or another human being. But I eat meat and therefor I am a hypocrite, I understand. I don't like what the NHSPCA did and do NOT approve. But I care about animals and don't look at them like "property" like I would a car or tool.
I like the idea of stewardship of the land and her creatues not ownership. I think the Native Americans had a better idea of how to appreciate and honor the Earth and all that dwell on her.
I agree with what Mainshark posts but I am curious Joe, what would you do if your neighbor abused their animals? I have had neighbors that did just that and it was sickening. I had to at least secretly feed the poor dear and give it water. It would be chained for days with no shade and no water or food and with only a few feet to move around. I never called the thugs but I can't live in a world where I just let an animal suffer either.
I tried to talk to the neighbor and they said fuck off, I moved but wanted to steal their "property" poor thing and give it a new life. I didn't but not because I didn't want to.
Am I alone here?
Quote from: lastlady on April 20, 2009, 06:01 PM NHFTI like the idea of stewardship of the land and her creatues not ownership. I think the Native Americans had a better idea of how to appreciate and honor the Earth and all that dwell on her.
I agree with what Mainshark posts but I am curious Joe, what would you do if your neighbor abused their animals? I have had neighbors that did just that and it was sickening. I had to at least secretly feed the poor dear and give it water. It would be chained for days with no shade and no water or food and with only a few feet to move around. I never called the thugs but I can't live in a world where I just let an animal suffer either.
I tried to talk to the neighbor and they said fuck off, I moved but wanted to steal their "property" poor thing and give it a new life. I didn't but not because I didn't want to.
Am I alone here?
No, you're not alone. My views are essentially the same as yours. And, like you, I refrain from violently forcing my views on others, no matter how much their behavior disgusts me.
Joe
I did not delete my post.I guess some one did'nt like what I said . story comming from the union leader soon try and delete that.
How will a newspaper story make this any less of a theft? Oh. Wait a minute! They got them back! No theft!:p
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on April 22, 2009, 06:51 AM NHFT
How will a newspaper story make this any less of a theft? Oh. Wait a minute! They got them back! No theft!:p
Lloyd,
Haven't you learned yet if it is in the newspaper it must be true? We are going to have to send you to Remedial Media Brainwashing 101 :)
George
I hope you wrote it, that way the idiot kids can look to an idiot old person for that kind and special knowledge that illiteracy brings.
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 22, 2009, 06:26 AM NHFTI did not delete my post.I guess some one did'nt like what I said . story comming from the union leader soon try and delete that.
Sure, you didn't.
It was your ant overlords, right?
Joe
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 22, 2009, 06:26 AM NHFT
I did not delete my post.I guess some one did'nt like what I said . story comming from the union leader soon try and delete that.
Maybe it was the spelling and grammar fairy!
You're right, my grammer is crap along with my spelling.I guess the real question is who realy has control . news flash none of us..... Look for more news and see for you're selves the bullshit we all have been given .the report comming on tuesday will intrest most of you. Lets see if Brian and his wife start making apologies or try to turn the truth into more poor me crap.
good thing taking care of horses doesn't mean you have to be even somewhat literate. I've seen better spelling and grammar from mentally handicapped people. To think, they let YOU steal horses. Geez anyone can get a job in this economy huh?
I drove through Hot Springs, Arkansas, yesterday. It's home to Oaklawn Park, one of the premier thoroughbred racing tracks in the country.
Naturally there are many horse farms along Highway 7, for breeders, trainers and boarding stables, so I got to see lots of pampered horses in green pastures with hay feeders also available, and barns that cost more than any house I'll ever own.
After a very mild Arkansas winter (no snow at all), every single one of these very expensive race horses had visible ribs.
Better keep Sprowl away from Rockingham.
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 25, 2009, 06:47 AM NHFT
You're right, my grammer is crap along with my spelling.I guess the real question is who realy has control . news flash none of us..... Look for more news and see for you're selves the bullshit we all have been given .the report comming on tuesday will intrest most of you. Lets see if Brian and his wife start making apologies or try to turn the truth into more poor me crap.
are you doing your bad radio show break tease again "joe"
lol
locking bad
rudeness to new posters bad
QuoteAfter a very mild Arkansas winter (no snow at all), every single one of these very expensive race horses had visible ribs.
Mr. Craig, This is a very good point. It is not uncommon to see many many horses "ribby" during late winter/early spring all across the nation. It is a sad state of affairs that some people with false authority ruin peoples lives.
IMO, if these horses were in fact starving and worm infested why didn't the state/fed help out the owners and drop off some hay and worm paste? Instead of busting in and making all this drama and wasting money.
Littlehawk
Quote from: littlehawk on April 27, 2009, 05:53 PM NHFT
IMO, if these horses were in fact starving and worm infested why didn't the state/fed help out the owners and drop off some hay and worm paste? Instead of busting in and making all this drama and wasting money.
I don't think it's the "state/fed" role to spend other people's money doing such things. But it's important to ask why the
private NHSPCA didn't attempt to secure the help they allege the horses need, before calling police.
Woman: Tough call reporting sick horses
By GRETYL MACALASTER
Union Leader Correspondent
6 hours, 21 minutes ago
CANDIA – Horses or housing. That was the choice Beth Golomb was left with last month when her employers ignored repeated warnings that their horses were in danger.
Last month, she reported unhealthy, underweight and unsheltered horses at the 456 Critchett Road property where she rented from and was employed to care for the horses by the property's owner Brian Travis and his wife Heidi Fredrick.
Two weeks later, the property was raided by Candia police and the New Hampshire Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Fredrick was charged for lack of proper shelter and animal cruelty.
Fredrick has pleaded not guilty to all charges and her trial is scheduled for July 22.
The search and arrest warrants in the case were sealed to protect Golomb's identity but were released to the New Hampshire Union Leader yesterday.
Golomb's name had already made the rounds on Free State Project Web sites after the warrants were released as discovery to Fredrick's defense attorney.
Golomb and Travis are both members of the Free State Project which promotes personal freedom and minimal government involvement in personal issues.
As such, Golomb faced a tough decision when she was unable to convince Fredrick to provide adequate resources to properly care for the horses. But this time, she felt she had no choice, she said.
Her eyes filled with tears as she recounted the difficult decisions that she made.
"I really tried my hardest not to go this route. I made attempts, the horse community made attempts and it fell on deaf ears," Golomb said. "I did this because I wanted what is best for the horses "... I felt like if I didn't stand up and do what I did for these horses, nobody was going to."
Golomb said she watched as donations and help from other local horse people were shunned, including offers of blankets and grain.
As time went on, Golomb and Fredrick's relationship became more difficult and Golomb again started communicating with Travis, who had originally hired her to care for the horses before his wife moved to New Hampshire with him.
In January, Golomb was instructed by Travis to attempt to find new homes for the majority of the 30 horses then residing at the property.
But then Travis stopped responding to e-mails and Golomb watched helpless as some of the horses continued to starve.
Previously, when first considering Travis' offer of caring for the horses in exchange for free rent she thought it would be "awesome" she said.
Her friendship with Travis made it easy to work for him, but once Fredrick came to the state in November, things took a turn for the worse.
"It was hard for me to take care of the horses now that I was not dealing with Brian," Golomb said. "Heidi had a hard time communicating with me."
Golomb repeatedly informed Fredrick that they were low on supplies, that fences needed maintenance and that they needed to make more progress with the construction of shelters.
She said that Fredrick stopped returning e-mails and phone calls and that issues she raised about illness, injury or other problems were ignored.
"The horses did not have enough food and they were starting to whither away," Golomb said, her voice catching. "When I saw the offer of grain turned down, I said something is not right."
At the time, Golomb was keeping her own horse at the farm and worried for his safety. Other horses were breaking into her feed stores and Fredrick had overloaded the paddock where he was kept with other horses.
"I felt it was unfair to keep my horse in those conditions," Golomb said.
Golomb was connected with Joe LeBlanc, owner of Rockin' Horse Ranch in Raymond. She moved her horse to his stable and then started working there to pay for the board.
"I think the breaking point was when I started working here and realizing that these horses are in good condition, are well-kept, get daily care," Golomb said. "I can sleep well knowing my horse is here."
Golomb said she has since been evicted from Travis's property, but she does not regret her decision.
"They (the horses) received the necessary care and treatment they needed to become healthy horses again," Golomb said.
All 12 horses have been returned to Fredrick with stipulations for care.
Racehorses are always ribby looking. The difference is; you can see the delineation of ribs due to the muscle surrounding those ribs because they're uber-fit. Kind of like someone being 5'10" and weighing 200 lbs as a regular joe means you couldn't see his ribs but someone 5'10" and a professional body builder has his rib muscles all visible. And then there's the third world country starving people who have visible ribs...that's what's comparable to those horses when they were removed. Those horses were not race or polo fit (polo is another sport that the horses are at a level of fitness rarely seen in other equine sports)...they were malnourished. Comparing young Arabian stock stuck in tiny pens without room to exercise and who weren't trained to be exercised outside of those tiny pens and weren't given adequate food or adequate shelter to keep whatever weight they had on by not using reserves to keep warm to uber-fit top racing stock that has it's supplements and feeds and even grass they graze tested and retested for nutritrional content and are in regular training programs is comparing apples to oranges.
The NHSPCA could have brought food and dewormer *IF* Brian or Heidi asked for help. They didn't. And they claimed repeatedly there wasn't anything wrong with their horses....so why ask for help? And why would they have accepted any food or dewormers if they thought nothing waas wrong with scrawny worm loaded horses?
And as we can see from the newest article...it seems food and help was offered from the equine community in that area. It was turned down. Heidi refused to speak to Beth also. So who actually cared about the animals? Sure as hell doesn't seem to be Heidi, who ignored repeated offers of help and who ignored repeated advice on their care and who ignored any pleas to release enough funds to care for those horses enough to keep them somewhat healthy.
Hmmm...
I can't really say much right now as we prepare for trial, but I can try to unspin some of this story.
The reason I asked Beth to find homes for some of the horses was because the caretaker wasn't taking care of the horses, and Heidi had to take up the slack. Heidi ended up donating three horses to a local rescue, which placed them right away.
I don't really know about me not responding to emails. In fact, the opposite is true. Beth responded very immaturely to normal employer criticism Heidi gave Beth when she wasn't doing her job, and the relationship went downhill. As a result, I had to get between the two warring factions and try to salvage the relationship. This is why Heidi "stopped returning e-mails and phone calls". I set the policy that they had to talk to each other face-to-face in order to avoid mis-communication.
During this time, Beth and I attempted to finalize our contract so all parties would know their responsibilities. It was Beth who stopped responding to questions about the contract.
I don't know anything about refusing offers of grain or blankets. I do know that Heidi just accepted a donation of a ton of grain from a farm in Maine. Plus, she gets lots of grain from Manchester Brewing. And there were plenty of blankets, if just we could have gotten the caretaker to put them on the horses. She refused to go near the colts and stallions.
Beth wasn't "evicted" from my property because she wasn't renting from me. I asked her boyfriend to remove the trailer from my property.
I banned Beth from my property because I don't want people near me who use the force of the state to solve their personal problems.
Sounds like more spin than my washing machine as opposed to unspinning. ;)
Heidi was getting "lots of grain" from local breweries? And how was that working out for her? Because she stated in one of your own videos how she wasn't able to get or afford grain on a regular basis and could only feed it a couple times per week. I guess that's now changed? Again? And why accept a ton of grain from Maine (hey that rhymes) if the horses weren't in need of it as you both continually stated?
And you asked Beth to find homes for the horses you state she wasn't taking care of? Does that make sense to anyone else? Because it sure doesn't to me. Who asks the neglecting party to find homes for the animals they're neglecting?
And if you *just* accepted a donation of 2000 lbs of grain...does that mean you cannot afford the feed/care of that many horses? If you could afford it, why accept the donation? I hope not just because it's free...because otherwise it could have gone to someone who really needs it. If you can't afford it...then that speaks volumes about what actually happened...not being able to afford horses while owning 30 of them means they starve...and if they're starving because *you* couldn't afford feed, that's hardly Beth's fault now, is it? But you were easily able to get LOTS of grain before? Well hell, which is it? This story makes zero sense.
Heidi had to take over the care? So who's responsible for the condition of the horses? Beth who wasn;t receiving enough funds to so or Heidi who had taken over the care? The owner is ultimately responsible BTW. You own it, it's your responsibility. If a caretaker isn't doing their job and you're giving them enough funds to do so....why ask that caretaker to rehome the horses? And why try to give away "many thousands of dollars of race stock?"
And still the contradictions of "there was nothing wrong with those horses!" stated repeatedly to changing it over really fast after the video of their actual conditions came to notice, "Well BETH wasn't caring for them, it's all her fault!" So which was it? Nothing wrong with the horses? Or emaciated animals that were the fault of Beth? It can't be both even though you've stated both so far.
None of that seems to make much sense considering what information has come directly from you and Heidi before. Just more contradictions. :-\
Quote from: brian.travis on April 28, 2009, 07:36 AM NHFT
The reason I asked Beth to find homes for some of the horses was because the caretaker wasn't taking care of the horses, and Heidi had to take up the slack.
Pathetic. ::)
Quote from: Friday on April 28, 2009, 08:43 AM NHFT
Quote from: brian.travis on April 28, 2009, 07:36 AM NHFT
The reason I asked Beth to find homes for some of the horses was because the caretaker wasn't taking care of the horses, and Heidi had to take up the slack.
Pathetic. ::)
It sure is. You hire someone you trust to take care of your property, and you end up doing the work yourself.
Boy. It surely is a he-said/she-said event. I have read 2 completly different stories.
I do hope the truth comes out.
I have been around horses my entire life. I must say it would be quite a rarity for any horse owner to refuse free feed. As far as horses with exposed ribs? Take a drive anywhere in the nation and look at horses. This time of year horses are shedding and its quite common to see their ribs. Once pastures freshen up, the horses put their weight back on. (Out here, almost all horses have pasture grounds and are not confined to stables)
Shelters? I can honestly tell you I have always built shelters for my horses. They never use them and I live out west in mountain country where storms can be very fierce. The horses seek natural shelter by rock outcroppings, thick trees, low culverts, alongside a building etc. It is my opinion that it makes a horse "heartier" by being able to climatize to weather conditons. Of course there are always the exceptions. (i.e a sick or injured horse, a young colt, expecting mare, etc and they need to be brought in or put by a wind-break.)
I always keep my horses on the lean side. A lean horse is a much healthier horse than an overweight one. Making a determination in regards to animal abuse and underweight conditions is often judgemental and difficult. Other cases are quite easy to determine.
Even if I think of the worstcase scenario (Mr Travis neglected to feed them properly and their were extremely overrun with worms) I still have disagree with how the "men with guns" handled this situation. Like I said before, if they really had the horses best interest in mind, they could have delivered hay and meds and gave Mr Travis a warning.
The troubling thing is that legal arenas, judges and uninformed jurors do not always make the right decision. Too many times, the legal system does not reveal truth and justice. The old saying applies, "How much justice can you afford?"
Littlehawk
I haven't indicated my support or non-support for anyone involved in this thread. Yet, I put a couple posts up and my karma gets dinged. This thread is toxic...the closer anyone gets to it, the more contaminated you become.
QuoteIt sure is. You hire someone you trust to take care of your property, and you end up doing the work yourself.
Well, that would have meant the horses were cared for. They quite obviously were not. So caretaker couldn't care for them, owners wouldn't.
And if you were caring for themselves yourselves...why blame Beth for their condition? Which I'm still trying to figure out how they could be in that condition if obviously you've had lots of grain and they were perfectly fine according to both of you. Video and cameras don't seem to lie though...although they aren;t doing your side any favors so far.
Littlehawk, I know very few horse owners who would accept a ton of free grain if they were not in financial need of it and it was being offered as if I had no means of caring for my horses. I would redirect that grain to people/places that need the grain more than I do. Like a rescue. Like probably the rescue that took horses off my hands for me as a thank you to them. To do otherwise is like all those folks who go on the government dole who are capable of working.
So I'd have to assume if they accepted 2000 lbs of free grain, they cannot afford thier own horses. They also tried to give away a lot of "very valuable" horses...the same ones they insisted the SPCA was going to makes tons of money off of. ::) If they can't afford to feed them, why didn't they just sign them over to the SPCA and be done with it? Or did they want to make sure no quasi-government folks ended up with those horses even though they couldn't afford to feed them? So what then? Let the horses go downhill again...beg others to support your animals for you...anything to keep them from being fed and cared for by the government. Because hating the government counts more than the health and well being of the horses? And had they only gone to them in the first place and asked for help...the SPCA *would* have given them the stuff they needed to help care for their horses. Instead they tried to pawn a crapload off on already stretched rescues who do good work. Remember...they tried to give 10 to the rescue...the rescue only had room and finances for 3. So private rescue = good...SPCA = bad because they have government ties.
As for all horses coming out of winter ribby...I've worked in the equine world for more than 2 decades. I have *never* seen an adequately cared for horse lose weight just because it got cold out.And even emaciated ones like Heidi's were (they weren't just a tad ribby) but they had piss-poor management and care over the winter. I live in an extremely horsie area of CT...just going downtown to gas up the truck I drive by at least 15 horse properties and it's only 6 miles to downtown...no ribby horses. My two are on dirt turnout...no ribs. And why would Heidi's horses be ribby after winter? None were on grass turnout and relying on grass as nutrition. They were all kept crowded in small pens without grass. So it was up to the *owners* to make sure they got enough forage to keep up their weight and stay warm.
Even my neighbor's 32 year old blind mare came out of winter fat and sassy. And she has barely any teeth left. But adequate shelter meant she wasn't shivering off any weight and high quality food in large amounts kept her weight up. That's all it takes folks...they need access to shelter when they feel they need it and a lot of quality food...not moldy sunbleached no nutrition crap hay. It's not rocket science to keep horses. Good food, clean water available at all times, shelter available.
"I really tried my hardest not to go this route. I made attempts, the horse community made attempts and it fell on deaf ears," Golomb said. "I did this because I wanted what is best for the horses "... I felt like if I didn't stand up and do what I did for these horses, nobody was going to."
I wonder if Beth would go this route again.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 01:11 PM NHFTTo do otherwise is like all those folks who go on the government dole who are capable of working.
Um, no. Taking something that is freely-given is not even vaguely related to taking funds that were extorted by the threat of violence.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 01:11 PM NHFTSo I'd have to assume if they accepted 2000 lbs of free grain, they cannot afford thier own horses.
Those of us who live in the real world often have situations where funds are tight on occasion. I can afford my kids, but I have zero problem accepting hand-me-down clothing from friends and neighbors. Once they outgrow it, I'll hand it off to others. It's called "paying it forward."
To be blunt, you sound like someone who's independently wealthy, or otherwise has never had to think about day-to-day funds. There was just magically always enough in the checking account to cover all your expenses, right? Never got close to zero on that balance, right? Never asked a friend to help you out because things were tight, one particular month, knowing full well that you would return the favor in an instant, were the situation reversed, right?
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 01:11 PM NHFTBecause hating the government counts more than the health and well being of the horses?
Hating thugs with guns attacking innocent
people counts infinitely more than the "health and well being" of any
animal.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 01:11 PM NHFTIt's not rocket science to keep horses. Good food, clean water available at all times, shelter available.
Wait, I thought only folks with extra-special, super-secret training could tell if a horse was healthy. You're contradicting yourself, here. Which is it?
Joe
Brian, do you believe all the bullshit that comes out of your own mouth.I have seen the emails from you and your wife .YOU NEED HELP.iF you go into a court room with this crap your going to look like a fool.If your attorney has a clue, he probably will tell you to cut a deal and run. When he gets ahold of your emails he's going to be pissed..Maybe we can post those next..Your better off keeping quite
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 01:11 PM NHFT
So I'd have to assume if they accepted 2000 lbs of free grain, they cannot afford thier own horses.
I want to be your cell phone provider. Most people get the free phone instead of paying for it. But I guess you've never even gotten something on sale, because that would be an admission that you couldn't afford to pay full price. Puhleeze.
I asked Heidi about the free grain and blankets Beth mentioned in the article, and she can't think of when that might have occurred. I know that Heidi would never turn down anything free. She grew up Lutheran.
We'd like to know when and from whom this mysterious donation offer came from.
"Rebecca", I know you are just trying to look out for your sister Beth, but your responses are really getting ridiculous. You came on to this forum long before I found out that Beth was the one who called the government. You obviously knew it was Beth from the beginning, and you tried to impeach my credentials. You knew the truth and you were going on the offense, calling me out as a liar as I found out more about the case and what was behind it. I'm a big boy with pretty thick skin, so I can take it. I just want to make sure Heidi gets a fair chance at clearing her name, so I've been taking the arrows.
Because you knew who the traitor was you had me at a disadvantage. I toyed with you in the beginning, thinking it was amusing how you really have no idea what this forum is about. If you want to debate a 2 vs 3 on the Henniker scales, I'm sure there are a thousand forums where people give a shit.
This is about the appropriate use of government force and the unimaginative people who use that force.
OK. Your turn. Go ahead and respond with your too-long response that no one will read.
so did you guys get your horses back?
Wow! I didn't realize offering somebody something because I thought they might be able to use or appreciate it was implying that they couldn't fend for themselves. I hope I haven't insulted anyone through the years by giving them some tomatoes, or strawberries, or such. I guess I better more careful with my excess garden produce next year and only give it to soup kitchens. Am I supposed to feel insulted because my cousin gave me some sand this year for my icy driveway? Or that my landlord offered me his excess mulch that has converted to compost under his tarp for my garden?
If someone came and offered you something you had a use for why would you not take it? How is accepting a gift from a friend anything like being a parasite on the government dole? It seems to me that someone offering something they personally own is a lot different than the government stealing from one person to give to another.
I don't know, maybe I just don't understand.
George
Quote from: J Leblanc on April 28, 2009, 02:03 PM NHFTBrian, do you believe all the bullshit that comes out of your own mouth.I have seen the emails from you and your wife .YOU NEED HELP.iF you go into a court room with this crap your going to look like a fool.If your attorney has a clue, he probably will tell you to cut a deal and run. When he gets ahold of your emails he's going to be pissed..Maybe we can post those next..Your better off keeping quite
I assume you will be testifying in court, too?
Why don't you tell them your little theory on how the ants are going to take over the world?
I'm sure they'll love that one...
Quote from: NJLiberty on April 28, 2009, 03:13 PM NHFTWow! I didn't realize offering somebody something because I thought they might be able to use or appreciate it was implying that they couldn't fend for themselves. I hope I haven't insulted anyone through the years by giving them some tomatoes, or strawberries, or such. I guess I better more careful with my excess garden produce next year and only give it to soup kitchens. Am I supposed to feel insulted because my cousin gave me some sand this year for my icy driveway? Or that my landlord offered me his excess mulch that has converted to compost under his tarp for my garden?
Yeah. I'm sorry for insulting folks by offering them free pallets (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=17765.0). That was obviously very cruel of me.
Same goes for the free plants I offered last year.
Joe
Brian, I am not related to Beth nor have I ever even met her. As I stated before...google me. My screen name is well used on a variety of places online. Check wildlife, equine related, firearms related, self defense related...bunch of places. I'm quite easily found via google, including my full name, location and even family tree. You'll see I am not related to Beth at all.
And there's an enormous difference between buying something on sale and getting a free donation of horse feed right after getting your horses back from being confiscated for not feeding them. At least there is to me...maybe not others on here. Call me odd I guess, but when people I don't know personally offer me free stuff because they think I cannot care for my animals otherwise...and if I can indeed afford to care for my own animals (which I would not own them if I couldn't...it's called being responsible) then I graciously thank them profusely and help them find a person or venue who really needs that free stuff a lot more than I do. I prefer to help those who truly need it before benefitting myself.
And Brian...again with the "I didn't know yet" theory? You're own words...captured online...state that's false. You knew a whole bunch of stuff and were happily repeating that over and over all over online. Got you a lot of attention too. Unfortunately it's now biting you in the tuckus. And you contradicted so much stuff I'd need too long to retype it all. From your *own* words stating one thing and then changing the story every time new evidence pops up.
And if nobody is reading my posts...what's with all the quoting of it and replies to direct comments I make? Or the e-mails I've received? And why does your karma go almost as low as mine every time it's pointed out exactly what you've said and then how you've contradicted it trying to pass off blame?
Maineshark, you're just a ball of joy aren't you. ;D
I cannot see how taking a free donation of something you do not need when you know others need it more than you is in any way comparable to taking help from the SPCA. And BTW...the SPCA does not offer help at the point of a thug-held gun. Had Brian or Heidi simply gone to them FIRST before they ever even contacted them, the SPCA would have helped them. For free. Not at gunpoint...but by request from the animal owners.
And no, I am not independently wealthy. I work my arse off for what I have, as does my spouse. And I donate heavily...time and whatever income we can. And if we're capable of working or bartering...and since we have built up a healthy circle of friends...it's true we rarely have to ask for anything. And if we do not NEED something and it's offered free...we have enough pride to not take it and we have enough compassion to make sure whatever it is gets to whomever needs it most. It's being part of a productive community.
NJLiberty...when the SPCA gives out services and items...it's stuff that was freely donated and not taken from someone else. It's a tad odd seeing how some folks on here will saddle up the drama llamas and go soooo completely off on a tangent in order to attempt to support their opinions.
Maybe this will be more clear:
*SPCA gives out donated items...nothing they stole or took by force
*SPCA helps people for free without use of force or violence or even the government IF the people ask first
*Comparing giving away free garden veggies or wood pallets to taking an animal welfare donation if you do not need it is depriving someone else who actually needs it of much needed help and resources does not make sense.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 03:54 PM NHFTMaineshark, you're just a ball of joy aren't you. ;D
I cannot see how taking a free donation of something you do not need when you know others need it more than you is in any way comparable to taking help from the SPCA. And BTW...the SPCA does not offer help at the point of a thug-held gun. Had Brian or Heidi simply gone to them FIRST before they ever even contacted them, the SPCA would have helped them. For free. Not at gunpoint...but by request from the animal owners.
Odd. Since Sprowl showed up making threats, immediately. Not offering help. He showed up and made threats. Why would he do that if they are in the business of offering help, first?
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 03:54 PM NHFTAnd no, I am not independently wealthy. I work my arse off for what I have, as does my spouse. And I donate heavily...time and whatever income we can. And if we're capable of working or bartering...and since we have built up a healthy circle of friends...it's true we rarely have to ask for anything. And if we do not NEED something and it's offered free...we have enough pride to not take it and we have enough compassion to make sure whatever it is gets to whomever needs it most. It's being part of a productive community.
You do realize that I don't believe a word of that, right? The word of thugs and their accomplices is worth nothing. And your entire way of phrasing things speaks of someone who has never struggled for anything, or ever considered any idea that did not match her prejudices exactly.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 03:54 PM NHFT*Comparing giving away free garden veggies or wood pallets to taking an animal welfare donation if you do not need it is depriving someone else who actually needs it of much needed help and resources does not make sense.
Um, those were plastic pallets, not wood. Not that I would expect you to speak truthfully about
anything. It's the mark of a compulsive liar when they make things up just "because" (ie, when it doesn't even vaguely matter to the fraud they are trying to perpetrate).
Joe
Quote from: brian.travis on April 28, 2009, 10:33 AM NHFT
Quote from: Friday on April 28, 2009, 08:43 AM NHFT
Quote from: brian.travis on April 28, 2009, 07:36 AM NHFT
The reason I asked Beth to find homes for some of the horses was because the caretaker wasn't taking care of the horses, and Heidi had to take up the slack.
Pathetic. ::)
It sure is. You hire someone you trust to take care of your property, and you end up doing the work yourself.
It was probably clear to most readers what my intent was, but just to be crystal clear... I was saying that it's pathetic to blame your animal cruelty and subsequent troubles with the law on Beth. Not to mention evicting Dan just because you're mad at Beth and he's her partner. Shame on you! >:(
Quote from: brian.travis on April 28, 2009, 07:36 AM NHFT
Beth wasn't "evicted" from my property because she wasn't renting from me. I asked her boyfriend to remove the trailer from my property.
Beth, I don't know you that well, and Dan, I've only spoken with you once (at the Travis property, donating my hard labor and a perfectly good hammer (which I never got back) to building horse fences!), but I imagine it was very inconvenient and expensive having to relocate your trailer on short notice with all your personal effects in it. If you need a short-term loan to help make ends meet, let me know; I trust that you'll pay it back when you can.
Quote from: Friday on April 28, 2009, 04:59 PM NHFTIt was probably clear to most readers what my intent was, but just to be crystal clear... I was saying that it's pathetic to blame your animal cruelty and subsequent troubles with the law on Beth.
Yeah, just because she called the cops and instigated those "troubles with the law," that's a silly reason to blame her! LMAO!
Joe
Quote from: brian.travis on April 28, 2009, 02:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 01:11 PM NHFT
So I'd have to assume if they accepted 2000 lbs of free grain, they cannot afford thier own horses.
I asked Heidi about the free grain and blankets Beth mentioned in the article, and she can't think of when that might have occurred. I know that Heidi would never turn down anything free. She grew up Lutheran.
We'd like to know when and from whom this mysterious donation offer came from.
"Rebecca", I know you are just trying to look out for your sister Beth, but your responses are really getting ridiculous. You came on to this forum long before I found out that Beth was the one who called the government.
Brian
I assure you she is NOT my sister. If my sister posts, she has nothing to hide, and will use her real name. I have never met Misty in person, only have seen her on other horse forums that I am on, and I believe she might be a tad too old to be my sis?
As for the grain and blanket donation, remember the nice girl who came and knocked on your door, and you sent her to talk to me? about 5'5, brown pulled back hair, jeans, white and black winter coat, (not going to mention her name, but it begins with an E.) she spoke with me, told me she volunteers at the rescue where you signed over 3 of the horses to, she gave me her phone number, and asked for me to give it to you, she said quite clearly, she had blankets, and grain for donation for you, as she saw some of the horses from the street without blankets on. I sent you the email, which you responded to, you ignored the part about the donation, as there was other things to talk about in it. Im looking at the email now. I sent you her phone number. Shall I send the email again so you can call her and ask her for the grain now?
That is all I am responding to, since you asked where that came from.
You know I really don't appreciate being called a liar. I guess because I called Brian one with proof of his lies then you feel that's the mature response back? I haven't accused you of anything...founded or unfounded...out of maturity and respect. I'd appreciate the same mature respect in return. Or is this how you treat anyone who provides another side to situations if you don't tend to agree with them? Devolve into name calling and accusations? :-[
If you continue to accuse me of lying...then please point out what you think I am lying about.
Sprowl did not show up immediately. In Brian's OWN words...he had already been contacted by another ACO and told the same things. Fact unless Brian is lying.
Had Brian or Heidi gone to their own local SPCA or ACO, they would have been directed as to how to get help and supplies for their horses. They did not do that. Fact.
The SPCA can not give help if people do not ask for it. Fact.
The SPCA can not give help to people telling everyone that there is nothing wrong with their horses and they don't need anything...Brian's words not mine. Fact.
Two different animal officers told him ahead of time what exactly was needed to care for their horses according to law and according to keeping them healthy....Brian's words, not mine. They ignored both and didn't do what was suggested. Fact.
I can continue for probably half the night with facts right from Brian and Heidi's own words...not mine and not made up. So it isn't me who's lying here.
And now my way of phrasing things makes me a liar or means I never struggled for anything? Am I the only one shaking my head here at this ridiculous statement? Not that my private life is ANY of your business...but my mother raised 6 kids on her own with a tiny income working in a machine shop. I didn't finish highschool...went to work instead. We grew our own vegetables and raised and processed our own meat...because grocery stores weren't affordable. I was a single mother for a while working 3 jobs without support. I am now married, 3 daughters, a career working physically harder than many to most people (farm work is a bit different than inside work). I'm no different than anyone else and certainly am not wealthy and have struggled on and off like anyone else.
I am not lying when I said wood pallets...I assumed wood pallets. I live and work on a FARM...we use wood pallets. I didn't even know they made plastic ones. That isn't lying nor does it make me a compulsive liar. I have edited posts in this thread...to add paragrapg spacers because someone politely suggested that for ease of reading. I keep forgetting to do that as I type and sometimes go back and add them as an edit. I have not changed statements or facts. I am sure your moderators here could let you know the same thing.
Maineshark...if the best debating you're capable of is calling me a liar...without reason other than you can't seem to make a point otherwise...then maybe I should just stop debating with you.
Brian, Beth is not lying. We are not related, never met and probably only spoke in the same threads online on horse BBs maybe a handful of times ever. I only "know" her from reading her posts online on a BB I've been a member of for almost 10 years.
However..I'm not *that* old. ;) ;D ;) I'm 40...I don't know how old Beth is.
woops! you are not that old, im 27, and I got to say, I can tell by reading what and how you write, you are more eloquent in your online language than my sister ever could be! I wouldnt put it past my sister, to curse more, and have silly spelling mistakes in a fit of online rage! For some reason, she is more Irish than I!
Do yourself a favor Brian, and compare the sentences, language, and general flow of Mistys posts, to my sisters email that you read. Its NOT her.
I think it maybe time for my sister to post. Ohhhh Sissy!!!! Are you all ready? Buckle your seat belts, if and when she posts, its going to be a wild ride, as she knows many details, and has seen the conditions first hand, she has the same breed of horses, and she is brutally honest.
I cant make my sister post, but here is her official invite, have at 'em!!
-beth
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 06:31 PM NHFTYou know I really don't appreciate being called a liar.
You should probably stop lying, then.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 06:31 PM NHFTI haven't accused you of anything...founded or unfounded...out of maturity and respect. I'd appreciate the same mature respect in return. Or is this how you treat anyone who provides another side to situations if you don't tend to agree with them? Devolve into name calling and accusations? :-[
Asserting that someone is a liar, while quoting that individual lying, is not "name calling." It's just applying correct labels.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 06:31 PM NHFTSprowl did not show up immediately. In Brian's OWN words...he had already been contacted by another ACO and told the same things. Fact unless Brian is lying.
Another ACO. Not Sprowl. When Sprowl showed up, he immediately started making threats. He's on video, doing it.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 06:31 PM NHFTAnd now my way of phrasing things makes me a liar or means I never struggled for anything? Am I the only one shaking my head here at this ridiculous statement? Not that my private life is ANY of your business...but my mother raised 6 kids on her own with a tiny income working in a machine shop. I didn't finish highschool...went to work instead. We grew our own vegetables and raised and processed our own meat...because grocery stores weren't affordable. I was a single mother for a while working 3 jobs without support. I am now married, 3 daughters, a career working physically harder than many to most people (farm work is a bit different than inside work). I'm no different than anyone else and certainly am not wealthy and have struggled on and off like anyone else.
See, I have no reason to believe you. You think that murdering people for their treatment of animals is acceptable behavior. Why would I believe a word you say?
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 06:31 PM NHFTI am not lying when I said wood pallets...I assumed wood pallets. I live and work on a FARM...we use wood pallets. I didn't even know they made plastic ones.
I live and work on a farm. We use plastic pallets. Because they don't rot. Most competent farmers do. They're really quite common. I can't imagine anyone working on a farm and not knowing that they make plastic pallets. The only thing wood pallets are good for is fuel for fires.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 06:31 PM NHFTThat isn't lying nor does it make me a compulsive liar. I have edited posts in this thread...to add paragrapg spacers because someone politely suggested that for ease of reading. I keep forgetting to do that as I type and sometimes go back and add them as an edit. I have not changed statements or facts. I am sure your moderators here could let you know the same thing.
I don't need the moderators to tell me what you've posted. There's a little feature of these forums where you can "subscribe" to a thread, and it will send you emails with updates to that thread. I've seen posts you've made, then logged in and seen the content changed. Not re-formatted... changed to different content.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 06:31 PM NHFTMaineshark...if the best debating you're capable of is calling me a liar...without reason other than you can't seem to make a point otherwise...then maybe I should just stop debating with you.
You aren't debating with me. You're just making assertions of the righteousness of violent response to people you dislike, and ignoring any ideas that don't agree 100% with your prejudices.
Here's a fact for you, and it's one of the only meaningful issues which can be determined factually: Brian and Heidi were attacked by armed men who were aided and abetted by Beth, and Brian and Heidi chose to take the "high road" and respond non-violently to that attack, rather than defending themselves, as they had every moral right to do so. That's one of the few things we can actually determine, as it's not based upon hearsay, testimony from known liars like Beth (who has a prior history of making false claims of animal abuse against folks she dislikes), or magical super-secret horse-diagnosis super-powers. The few actual, meaningful facts don't look well for your attempt to make Brian into a villain.
Joe
I give up Joe...from now on pontificate away. I had no idea I was a liar because you've quoted me and because you think I somehow support murder of any sort for any reason. Which you *are* lying about, show me where I've ever stated that. ANYWHERE online.
As for changing content of my posts...nope, haven't done it in this thread. Corrected a few typos, added paragraph spacers. Did remove one line from a post about Deb The Convicted Horse Killer when she piped up looking for support here. Just thought I'd clue others in on HER habit of lying. I removed the one line because I typed it and then thought better of calling her something that wasn't appropriate to the thread. Other than that...no changes.
So I had no idea they make plastic pallets...that somehow makes me a poor farmer. Okay. I don't work with pallets except for the occasional delivery that comes on a pallet, where we remove pallet and return it...you don't work with horses I have yet to call you a liar or idiot for not knowing about horses.
So enjoy your one man show and self congratulatory back patting. I give up, it's like trying to talk sense to a fence post.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 06:34 PM NHFT
Brian, Beth is not lying. We are not related, never met and probably only spoke in the same threads online on horse BBs maybe a handful of times ever. I only "know" her from reading her posts online on a BB I've been a member of for almost 10 years.
It's interesting that you continue to speak as if you're providing definitive first-hand knowledge about people you've never met and horses you've never seen on a farm you've never visited.
Quote from: MaineShark on April 28, 2009, 05:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: Friday on April 28, 2009, 04:59 PM NHFTIt was probably clear to most readers what my intent was, but just to be crystal clear... I was saying that it's pathetic to blame your animal cruelty and subsequent troubles with the law on Beth.
Yeah, just because she called the cops and instigated those "troubles with the law," that's a silly reason to blame her! LMAO!
Beth and all Free-Staters should be familiar with this:
http://www.freestateproject.org/soi
I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property.I'm interested in hearing Beth explain how someone's life, liberty, and[or] property were in danger, which would justify government intervention.
I don't see that any of those standards were met... at least not until Beth called the police, and they threatened all of the above.
I recall Beth being very upset with an individual who broke his marriage oath. I wonder if she sees any conflict with how she broke her FSP oath.
Quote from: beth on April 28, 2009, 06:23 PM NHFT
As for the grain and blanket donation, remember the nice girl who came and knocked on your door, and you sent her to talk to me? about 5'5, brown pulled back hair, jeans, white and black winter coat, (not going to mention her name, but it begins with an E.) she spoke with me, told me she volunteers at the rescue where you signed over 3 of the horses to, she gave me her phone number, and asked for me to give it to you, she said quite clearly, she had blankets, and grain for donation for you, as she saw some of the horses from the street without blankets on. I sent you the email, which you responded to, you ignored the part about the donation, as there was other things to talk about in it. Im looking at the email now. I sent you her phone number. Shall I send the email again so you can call her and ask her for the grain now?
That is all I am responding to, since you asked where that came from.
Heidi did not turn down any offer of grain and blankets. Get your facts straight.
I turned that offer down. I knew that Live and Let Live Farm was having financial difficulties. She offered whatever grain she had. I told her I appreciated that offer very much but couldn't accept, knowing their financial situation. I offered the farm a $100 donation, which they turned down.
Besides, we had grain coming regularly from
Manchester Brewing (buy more beer) and Heidi had plenty of blankets for her horses, if only the horses knew how to put them on.
Your quote in the newspaper said "offers", and "including grain and blankets". What were the others?
QuoteIt's interesting that you continue to speak as if you're providing definitive first-hand knowledge about people you've never met and horses you've never seen on a farm you've never visited.
Not so interesting really...there was *plenty* of videos online to see things. There were plenty of videos and articles that Brian was speaking on that gave me all the information I've posted here. The information has come from Brian and all of his online appearances. He was the one that was stating who came out, when they came out, what they've said. Unfortunately for them...much of it wasn't as recent as this year and apparently he's forgotten what he's said in the past. Or was hoping nobody else remembered or had search capabilities.
I haven't had to meet him or visit his place...he puts his life and business all out there for the world to see. One only has to google the subject and his name. Or try googling Heidi's name and areas she's lived in. All the info I've posted has come from that.
I've also received a fair amount of e-mails from people who do know Brian and Heidi personally...apparently they've been reading what's been posted online and decided to contact me for whatever reason. Almost all of that stuff has not been complimentary of either at all. And a lot of it has nothing to do with the horses or this case...but other stuff as well. But if it's not in his words, I haven't posted it. If you think what I'm posting is lies...thank Brian and Heidi for that. Not me. It's their words, not mine. Not my fault if those words make them look contradictory.
QuoteI turned that offer down. I knew that Live and Let Live Farm was having financial difficulties. She offered whatever grain she had. I told her I appreciated that offer very much but couldn't accept, knowing their financial situation. I offered the farm a $100 donation, which they turned down.
Really? Huh.
They were having financial difficulties, yet they were still offering you grain because of the condition of your horses? That says a lot right there.
It also says that you knew of a place that does rescue that was having financial difficulties and yet even though you're getting grain regularly and apparently having no issues doing so according to you...at a later date when someone offers you one ton of grain yoou grab it up even though you apparently didn't need it, knew someone who did and didn't ask the donor to please send the grain donation to Live and Let Live Farm? Nice.
QuoteBesides, we had grain coming regularly from Manchester Brewing (buy more beer) and Heidi had plenty of blankets for her horses, if only the horses knew how to put them on.
Seriously...you're now admitting the horses needed blankets due to lack of shelter. You are saying the caretaker didn't put them on. So you both watched the horses being cold and wet instead of getting off your duffs and doing it yourselves? Wow...okay. If I had a caretaker who wasn't doing their job I wouldn't continue to watch what needs to be done and not do a damn thing about it. I'd get off my hind parts, put a jacket on and go do it myself. And then fire the caretaker. You two did neither. Yeah, okay.
So what was the comments before by Heidi in the video that you weren't able to get grain very often and only fed it a few days a week when you were able to get it? Now it's regular to get and have grain. yet you still take large donations of grain even though you find it easy to get and afford. And you know of at least one rescue who could have used that grain...but never thought to tell anyone to please send THEM the free grain. *sigh*
Quote from: Friday on April 28, 2009, 04:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: brian.travis on April 28, 2009, 10:33 AM NHFT
Quote from: Friday on April 28, 2009, 08:43 AM NHFT
Quote from: brian.travis on April 28, 2009, 07:36 AM NHFT
The reason I asked Beth to find homes for some of the horses was because the caretaker wasn't taking care of the horses, and Heidi had to take up the slack.
Pathetic. ::)
It sure is. You hire someone you trust to take care of your property, and you end up doing the work yourself.
It was probably clear to most readers what my intent was, but just to be crystal clear... I was saying that it's pathetic to blame your animal cruelty and subsequent troubles with the law on Beth. Not to mention evicting Dan just because you're mad at Beth and he's her partner. Shame on you! >:(
Shame on you for speculating (I don't know how to do that cool emoticon, but back at ya'). The truth is that they both knew that their residence on my land (plus power, water, and high-speed Internet) was in exchange for Beth taking care of the horses. Once Beth stopped caring for the horses, their trailer would have to go. We all knew that when we started.
Funny thing happened about a week after Beth quit. I got a letter from the town code enforcement officer notifying me that I had an illegal residence on the property and it would have to be removed.
So yet again, the force of the government is used to take property that doesn't meet their standards.
Quote from: Friday on April 28, 2009, 04:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: brian.travis on April 28, 2009, 07:36 AM NHFT
Beth wasn't "evicted" from my property because she wasn't renting from me. I asked her boyfriend to remove the trailer from my property.
Beth, I don't know you that well, and Dan, I've only spoken with you once (at the Travis property, donating my hard labor and a perfectly good hammer (which I never got back) to building horse fences!), but I imagine it was very inconvenient and expensive having to relocate your trailer on short notice with all your personal effects in it. If you need a short-term loan to help make ends meet, let me know; I trust that you'll pay it back when you can.
I have some tools that I found during construction. Most people contact me telling me they've left something here and I've been happy to return them. Tools that I find that aren't mine are kept in a box away from the tools I use on a daily basis. Let me know what kind of hammer, and I can bring it to Murphy's.
Thanks for helping, by the way. The Free Stater community really helped us feel at home when we moved here.
I feel badly for Dan, too. It was a real hassle to get that thing down there. Beautiful setting, though. We both thought it would be there for a while.
Problem is that when you initiate force, there is always unintended consequences.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 08:35 PM NHFT
QuoteI turned that offer down. I knew that Live and Let Live Farm was having financial difficulties. She offered whatever grain she had. I told her I appreciated that offer very much but couldn't accept, knowing their financial situation. I offered the farm a $100 donation, which they turned down.
Really? Huh.
They were having financial difficulties, yet they were still offering you grain because of the condition of your horses? That says a lot right there.
It also says that you knew of a place that does rescue that was having financial difficulties and yet even though you're getting grain regularly and apparently having no issues doing so according to you...at a later date when someone offers you one ton of grain yoou grab it up even though you apparently didn't need it, knew someone who did and didn't ask the donor to please send the grain donation to Live and Let Live Farm? Nice.
Impressive logic, "Rebecca". The people in Maine offered the grain to Heidi. I'm sure if they wanted Live and Let Live have it, they would have offered it to them.
Oh. Maybe I should use your solution and force them at the point of a gun to give it to someone else?
Is it just me, or has this thread jumped the shark? It probably did about 40 pages ago.
Think I'll just head over to Free Talk Live's Excellent Breasts (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=25507.0) thread.
has nothing to do with offering it at gunpoint...has to do with a sense of community...haven't you stated before that a free society would involve people helping out the people who need it? And you keep stating you didn't need it. So why keep it? Did Heidi not know Live and Let Live could use it? So now it's Heidi's fault it didn't go where it was needed? Passing the blame again?
So I guess your idea of community helping others only pertains to when you do not benefit from it so far that I've seen online. After all, lots of people came to help you build shelters. You couldn't pay that forward by taking the grain and then at least offering it yourself to Live and Let Live?
And why is my name in quotes? Are you hoping that if you keep insinuating that I'm somehow related to Beth that my comments on this forum will be then not be believed. That would definitely help you out, wouldn't it? I'm guessing due to your current karma rating that not a lot of people are believing you right now. Maybe they would believe you more if it weren't your own words I was typing...all found online. People on here have e-mailed me...they know I'm not related to Beth and most know my location. Like I've said...google me. Or you already have...and found out the truth about me and who I am and that there isn't any relation. I know quite a few people on here already have...and found out the same. Could it be you've also checked and now only use the quotes around my name to try to get others to believe I'm somehow related to Beth and family? Everyone is free to google whomever they choose...they'll find out if they care to know. If they don't care to know, they won't bother. And a handful of people will refuse to anyways because they're having way too much fun playing Conspiracy Theory. Doesn't really matter when it gets to court.
And now that the thread has jumped the shark as you say, let's hope everyone follows you away from the thread. Can't be fun seeing your own words contradict what you're saying now. I'm impressed though, some use smoke and mirrors...you lure with boobs. ;D
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 08:26 PM NHFT
QuoteIt's interesting that you continue to speak as if you're providing definitive first-hand knowledge about people you've never met and horses you've never seen on a farm you've never visited.
Not so interesting really...there was *plenty* of videos online to see things.
Really? Because people have repeatedly asked for video and photo evidence to support the claim that the horses were being badly abused through neglect, yet none have been forthcoming. The only videos posted here certainly don't support that claim. If there are "*plenty* of videos" showing otherwise, please post them or link to them.
The news video clearly showed excessively undernourished horses...pertaining to the condition of the horses.
There's also been licensed vets who were quoted in online articles as to the condition of the horses...I personally don't believe the vets are in on some sort of conspiracy. Some may believe that...or say they believe that...only because it might semi-support their position on the issue. But the video was pretty telling. Heidi is supposedly a quite experienced horse person, it's easy to see those horses were malnourished and looked parasite bloated.
As for the rest...I've been using Brian and Heidi's own words. They both say the horses are fine. Then they weren't and it was someone else's fault. They're taking food donations yet claim they can easily afford their horses. They claim that a better solution to SPCA involvement was people helping people...yet they took a large donation of grain they claim they don't need and then keep it instead of passing it on to someone they know who definitely needs it. They claimed these were very expensive race horses...yet there aren't any records with the Arabian Jockey Club supporting that. They've also tried to give away these very expensive race horses. They claimed they had no idea what the laws were regarding shelter for horses in that state at the time of the seizure yet they also claimed they were told by three different people what the laws were. They then claimed they had no time in winter to build more shelters, yet also claimed they were told the first time well before winter. They claimed they had no idea a negatice Coggins test was needed for a horse to cross state lines...yet even 8 year old Pony Club kids know this. They also claim to have had a thriving breeding, racing and show business and there is no way to do any of those things without a current negative Coggins.
I could keep adding to that...but I think their own words are proof enough that these two haven't exactly been forthcoming with much of anything. And again...none of those are my words, guesses, etc....all have been said directly by either Heidi or Brian on quite a few different videos and articles and on this forum.
So call me jaded for not believing the vets aren't in on any conspiracy to make them look like liars. So far I haven't read a whole lot of truthful anything from either one.
Quote from: KBCraig on April 28, 2009, 07:46 PM NHFT
It's interesting that you continue to speak as if you're providing definitive first-hand knowledge about people you've never met and horses you've never seen on a farm you've never visited.
This from a guy in Texas who chimes in on every NH-related thread as if he's some sort of expert! How entertaining...
Quote from: aworldnervelink on April 29, 2009, 08:54 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on April 28, 2009, 07:46 PM NHFT
It's interesting that you continue to speak as if you're providing definitive first-hand knowledge about people you've never met and horses you've never seen on a farm you've never visited.
This from a guy in Texas who chimes in on every NH-related thread as if he's some sort of expert! How entertaining...
I agree ... that is part of the reason I have had him on "ignore" for many years now.
Quote from: aworldnervelink on April 29, 2009, 08:54 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on April 28, 2009, 07:46 PM NHFT
It's interesting that you continue to speak as if you're providing definitive first-hand knowledge about people you've never met and horses you've never seen on a farm you've never visited.
This from a guy in Texas who chimes in on every NH-related thread as if he's some sort of expert! How entertaining...
Rather than "some sort of expert", I've repeatedly said in this thread that I'm not a horse person.
I'm sorry if you think that defending someone else's property rights is somehow subject to geographic restrictions.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 29, 2009, 09:03 AM NHFT
I agree ... that is part of the reason I have had him on "ignore" for many years now.
I stopped caring what you think a long time ago.
Quote from: aworldnervelink on April 29, 2009, 08:54 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on April 28, 2009, 07:46 PM NHFT
It's interesting that you continue to speak as if you're providing definitive first-hand knowledge about people you've never met and horses you've never seen on a farm you've never visited.
This from a guy in Texas who chimes in on every NH-related thread
He's an FSP participant isn't he? What's the problem?
Quote from: Atlas on April 29, 2009, 12:31 PM NHFT
He's an FSP participant isn't he? What's the problem?
just because a person says they are a part of the FSP does not make them part of our community ... obviously guys like kevin and I don't consider everyone from the fsp to be part of every discussion. The fsp is a big tent that has people in it that I might not welcome with open arms into smaller groups.
I don't know what has been happening at their farm or between these folks much ... so my comments are discounted or ignored also ... or I don't make them. :)
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 07:29 PM NHFTI give up Joe...from now on pontificate away. I had no idea I was a liar because you've quoted me and because you think I somehow support murder of any sort for any reason. Which you *are* lying about, show me where I've ever stated that. ANYWHERE online.
I've quoted your support for murdering Brian numerous times.
The fact that
he defused the situation, such that your beloved thugs didn't murder him, does not change the fact that you support murder.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 07:29 PM NHFTAs for changing content of my posts...nope, haven't done it in this thread. Corrected a few typos, added paragraph spacers. Did remove one line from a post about Deb The Convicted Horse Killer when she piped up looking for support here. Just thought I'd clue others in on HER habit of lying. I removed the one line because I typed it and then thought better of calling her something that wasn't appropriate to the thread. Other than that...no changes.
You can keep lying, but anyone with any sense can go back and check your posts, and see the edits that occur
after others have already replied.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 07:29 PM NHFTSo I had no idea they make plastic pallets...that somehow makes me a poor farmer. Okay. I don't work with pallets except for the occasional delivery that comes on a pallet, where we remove pallet and return it...you don't work with horses I have yet to call you a liar or idiot for not knowing about horses.
Not being aware of a very common piece of material that would be found around many farms, does tend to impeach your credibility as a farmer. Even if you've never used one, you should still know that such things exist...
Joe
This is my first post to a forum, as I have 4 businesses, a wife, eight children, 4 cats, and 2 dogs that I am responsible for. I was compelled to weigh in on this situation.
My oldest son has been converting me from a conservative republican for some years now. He still considers me a bit of a "Statist" but admits I've come a long way. Everyone I have met through "Free Talk Live", "Liberty Forum", the Free State project etc.. have been very cool and rational people. I enjoy being associated with people like Brian and his family, Mark and Ian,and Gardner to name a few. I enjoy the diversity and comradery of people who love freedom and liberty as my son and his friends do.
What really resonates with me is the pointing out of "the gun in the room". I cannot imagine a situation that could not be dealt with through mediation from peers in the Liberty movement or others that are professional mediators. When I heard a fellow "Lover of Liberty" sending government goons with their guns to Brian's house to steal his property and threaten his family I could not believe it.
That should never be an option, especially in the "Free State". Ian, Sam and others have been submitted to this type of "thuggery" and suffered because of misguided citizens using bureaucratic hit squads to do their bidding.
We are supposed to be the people that use rational thought and non-violence to solve disputes. Sorry for rambling, but lets not abuse each other, as there are plenty of people with the power of government behind them that are trying to do that every day.
and it will keep on happening ... it is going to be a slow process to a freer society
I read this thread over a couple of days, and what bothered me throughout was the sentiment by some, that if one doesn't condone state action, one must, therefore, condone animal cruelty.
:bs:
Quote from: Goble on April 30, 2009, 03:06 PM NHFT
I read this thread over a couple of days, and what bothered me throughout was the sentiment by some, that if one doesn't condone state action, one must, therefore, condone animal cruelty.
It helps them sleep.
Quote from: Goble on April 30, 2009, 03:06 PM NHFT
I read this thread over a couple of days, and what bothered me throughout was the sentiment by some, that if one doesn't condone state action, one must, therefore, condone animal cruelty.
:bs:
Very good point. I refuted such fallacious thinking in a recent article on Free Keene called Fine Young Cannibals (http://freekeene.com/2009/04/20/fine-young-cannibals/).
Quote from: lastlady on April 20, 2009, 06:01 PM NHFT
It's strange reading all this I'm not sure where I fit in.
I care about human beings and animals, I hate factory farming and cruelty towards animals. I think if I saw someone beating their dog I would probably say something or try to stop it, I couldn't stand knowing an animal is being harmed in my presence. Just like if I saw someone beating their kid or another human being. But I eat meat and therefor I am a hypocrite, I understand. I don't like what the NHSPCA did and do NOT approve. But I care about animals and don't look at them like "property" like I would a car or tool.
I like the idea of stewardship of the land and her creatues not ownership. I think the Native Americans had a better idea of how to appreciate and honor the Earth and all that dwell on her.
I agree with what Mainshark posts but I am curious Joe, what would you do if your neighbor abused their animals? I have had neighbors that did just that and it was sickening. I had to at least secretly feed the poor dear and give it water. It would be chained for days with no shade and no water or food and with only a few feet to move around. I never called the thugs but I can't live in a world where I just let an animal suffer either.
I tried to talk to the neighbor and they said fuck off, I moved but wanted to steal their "property" poor thing and give it a new life. I didn't but not because I didn't want to.
Am I alone here?
Even if you had stolen the property being mistreated, which is wrong, it would be less wrong than sicking the government on your neighbor. Of course, if you had been caught trespassing while trying to free the animal and been shot, as sad and horrible as that would be, the property owner would have been justified in doing so.
Compassion for animals is a very human position. We project our own feelings onto animals and assume they suffer as we suffer. They very well may. If someone was torturing an animal in front of me, depending on the circumstances, I might intervene; possibly even to the extent of standing between the person and their property. But if I do so, I may be struck down and that should be something I'm willing to chance. Sometimes we all do the wrong thing for emotional reasons, we are emotional beings. If Ms. Beth had freed(stolen) the horses in the still of the night, she would have been wrong for doing so, but I could sympathise with desperate actions taken by individuals against other individuals.
I cannot sympathise with government goons being unleashed upon people who did nothing but allegedly mistreat horses.
Quote from: KBCraig on April 30, 2009, 03:35 PM NHFTQuote from: Goble on April 30, 2009, 03:06 PM NHFTI read this thread over a couple of days, and what bothered me throughout was the sentiment by some, that if one doesn't condone state action, one must, therefore, condone animal cruelty.
It helps them sleep.
No doubt.
Of course, the fact that they imagine such a pitiful argument would actually work, says a lot about the rationality of their usual audience...
Couple it with the fact that some of them are, themselves, guilty of cruel or neglectful treatment of animals, and the layers of psychological pathologies get pretty deep...
Joe
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 01:11 PM NHFT
So private rescue = good...SPCA = bad because they have government ties.
Now you're getting it!
If I give you a dollar, it's a gift. If you send men with guns to take my dollar, you're a thief and he's a hired thug. Just because I want to donate some property to Goodwill doesn't mean the IRS can seize it and sell it at auction.
I'm so glad you finally understand.
Quote from: MistyBlue on April 28, 2009, 06:31 PM NHFT
The SPCA can not give help if people do not ask for it. Fact.
Would that it were true. Seems like somebody got a lot more "help" from Stevie than they wanted.
Quote from: dalebert on April 30, 2009, 03:57 PM NHFT
Quote from: Goble on April 30, 2009, 03:06 PM NHFT
I read this thread over a couple of days, and what bothered me throughout was the sentiment by some, that if one doesn't condone state action, one must, therefore, condone animal cruelty.
:bs:
Very good point. I refuted such fallacious thinking in a recent article on Free Keene called Fine Young Cannibals (http://freekeene.com/2009/04/20/fine-young-cannibals/).
Fine Young Cannibals?
You mean these guys?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jG8EWr63k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrOek4z32Vg
QuoteNow you're getting it!
If I give you a dollar, it's a gift. If you send men with guns to take my dollar, you're a thief and he's a hired thug. Just because I want to donate some property to Goodwill doesn't mean the IRS can seize it and sell it at auction.
I'm so glad you finally understand.
Well, I agree with the second and third sentence. :)
However when people donate too the SPCA, it's with the knowledge that their donations will be going to the animals in the most need. If that's animals owned by the SPCA, it will be used there. If it's animals the SPCA is helping out still in custody of their owners, it will go there. :)
If someone got more help from Steve (Stevie sound too much like Mr Wonder or Ms Nicks and frankly Sprowl doesn't look much like either one.) than they wanted...it was because either nobody else was helping them or that they refused to admit they needed help. So either way it was a clusterf*ck for the animals.
As living property with the ability to suffer...I have a different opinion than you of this situation as it relates to property rights. I never took the oath so can have a different opinion. Not saying your opinion is wrong...not at all. And I understand the slippery slope problems. But I do wonder that if there is such a strong opinion on the entire property rights issues including living property...then why is nobody seemingly working for changes to that instead of just griping about the way things are now? Why break the laws instead of changing them?
And why break laws that screw up your own "valuable" property? Not stated as in a "they have no right to do this" way but in a "why do something so unreasonable" way. Did they neglect the horses just because they felt they*could* and were pissed that the SPCA and others told them they weren't providing enough care to keep the animals from suffering? Was it a way to try to prove a point?
And if it was, why lie about it? Why not state loud and proud, "Doesn't matter that they're skinny and parasite infested...they're mine and I'll do whatever I want with them."
And if property rights are complete absolutes in *all* aspects at all times...does that apply only to FSP members? Does it not apply to FSP members defacing someone else's property? Because the same couple with the horses seem to have issues with that part of the property rights issues. Their neighbors certainly would agree on that one. :-[
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 02, 2009, 09:05 PM NHFTWell, I agree with the second and third sentence. :)
However when people donate too the SPCA, it's with the knowledge that their donations will be going to the animals in the most need. If that's animals owned by the SPCA, it will be used there. If it's animals the SPCA is helping out still in custody of their owners, it will go there. :)
Really? It's going to the animals in the most need?
How much goes to pay for thugs like Sprowl? How much goes to "administrative overhead?" How much goes to paid lobbyists who seek to pass laws like the ones at-issue, here? Shouldn't that money be used to help the animals, instead of being used for other purposes?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 02, 2009, 09:05 PM NHFTAs living property with the ability to suffer...I have a different opinion than you of this situation as it relates to property rights. I never took the oath so can have a different opinion. Not saying your opinion is wrong...not at all. And I understand the slippery slope problems.
Except "you" believe in enforcing your opinion at gunpoint. "We" don't...
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 02, 2009, 09:05 PM NHFTBut I do wonder that if there is such a strong opinion on the entire property rights issues including living property...then why is nobody seemingly working for changes to that instead of just griping about the way things are now? Why break the laws instead of changing them?
Why
not break them? They're words on paper. They have no magical significance.
They are the "rules" by which a bunch of thugs claim to operate. Some of us don't want there to be thugs going around attacking innocent people, at all. We don't just want them to operate by different rules, or attack different innocent people.
Joe
Just a question here. The New Jersey SPCA does not appear to be a volunteer organization, though they seem to accept donations. On their home page, www.njspca.org, they are accepting donations for what look like bullet proof vests for their officers. According to their website they are "a law enforcement department that deals with cruelty issues...The NJSPCA will always investigate any complaint of abuse or neglect for any animal. Since we are an organization of Humane Law Enforcement Officers, we are equipped to take legal action against animal cruelty offenders."
Their vehicles were parked outside of where I work today. The officers were dressed as ordinary policemen, badged the same way except for their lapel pins, and their vehicles looked identical to police vehicles except they said SPCA and "Humane Police" on the sides.
Are the various SPCA organizations different, or do they all stem from the same parent organization? If the ones in NH bear any resemblance to the ones here in NJ they seem more like animal Gestapo than people ready to help out folks.
George
Welcome to The Police State...coming to a town near you. >:D
The SPCA is like the ACLU: there's a national parent organization, but each state organization is autonomous and geared for the circumstances in that state.
In some states or cities, SPCA does have full law enforcement authority. They investigate, get warrants, and arrest people. I think it was mentioned here that NHSPCA and/or Steve Sprowl had pushed for the same authority in NH.
For obvious reasons, that's a bad thing. Their jobs become self-justifying, so when there aren't enough criminals, they create them. It's like, oh, I don't know, letting a specialized law enforcement unit focus on drugs, get their funding from asset forfeiture, and still demand more from the taxpayers because "there's so much they can't do without more officers and funding!"
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 02, 2009, 09:05 PM NHFT
Why break the laws instead of changing them?
That's a good point.
I'll head over to the law library with some whiteout right away.
Quote from: mackler on May 06, 2009, 10:58 PM NHFT
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 02, 2009, 09:05 PM NHFT
Why break the laws instead of changing them?
That's a good point.
I'll head over to the law library with some whiteout right away.
lol that's a good response
QuoteThat's a good point.
I'll head over to the law library with some whiteout right away.
;D Okay, that made me laugh, LOL! ;D
I am hoping the owners get a little more serious about keeping their horses contained though. Twice loose in one week? Neighbor's lawn ruined. I also hope they offer to repair the damages their property made whilst cavorting across someone else's lawn. :-\ Loose horses can be a serious problem for passing traffic too, hitting a deer is tough enough on vehicles...hitting a horse is usually catastrophic for vehicles, humans and horses. :(
I haven't really heard much about the care of the horses since. I would have to say that if damage was done to a neighbor I would have to hope that they make good on the damage done by their property.
I would hate to see a horse get hit by a car, not to mention possible injuries to the driver.
No, they reportedly didn't say a thing to the neighbor until the neighbor talked to them about it the next day. Then Heidi offered an apology and nothing else until later on when they asked not to have the police involved and offered payment. By that time the neighbor had already reported the damage done by the loose horses as they assumed the apology would be all that was offered since nobody was willing to offer it or even let the neighbor know it was their animals that caused the damage until the neighbor approached them. Apparently according to neighbors this is the 4th time in 2 weeks the horses got loose, not the second time in a week. And not the first time these same folks have allegedly bothered other peoples' private property without asking or telling them anything...blocking and/or parking in their driveways and building silt walls across driveways not their own and blocking them, etc.
Some of the neighbors are getting annoyed at how private property seems to apply only to Heid and Brian and not their neighbors. :-\
Apparently the horse enclosure gates may now have locks on them but some folks are worried the locks won't matter if the gates don't stay up.
It's a tough situation all around for everyone I guess.
Horse vs vehicle is often a really bad accident...a vehicle hitting something that weighs 1/4 of the weight of the vehicle can be like a head on collision with another vehicle or even worse...a horse's legs are front bumper height to most cars. Meaning a direct hit can easily cause a 1000 lb solid animal to flip up onto the hood and smash into the windshield. :( They're often devastating impacts. There are some gruesome news photos of accidents like this online if you google them...but I wouldn't recommend seeing them for some people since the photos are pretty tough to see.
BTW Anton...I think I read in another thread on here that you're first name is Anthony? My neighbor just bought a couple new Sicilian donkey foals. One came with the name Anthony...I went to see the new arrivals today. Cute lil' buggers when mini donks are young...they look like cartoon characters but sound like fog horns, LOL! If I get a photo of him I'll post it...I think you'd get a kick out of the adorable little donk that shares your name. :)
Horses often "get loose" for one main reason. They are looking for food.
Or rarely, its a stallion wanting "action"
Littlehawk
hehe Anthony is my middle name actually, but I love donkeys so definitely post.
And. . .private property rights are for all, not just Heidi and Brian.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 08, 2009, 09:15 PM NHFT
No, they reportedly didn't say a thing to the neighbor until the neighbor talked to them about it the next day.
"Reportedly"? Has this descended to idle gossip mongering, or do you have something substantial to add?
Quote"Reportedly"? Has this descended to idle gossip mongering, or do you have something substantial to add?
"Reportedly" because I wasn't there personally and heard this from neighbors. Neighbors who aren't horse people...neighbors who just are tired of these folks doing whatever they want to other peoples' property.
Also the loose horses have been reported.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 09, 2009, 05:45 AM NHFT
Quote"Reportedly"? Has this descended to idle gossip mongering, or do you have something substantial to add?
"Reportedly" because I wasn't there personally and heard this from neighbors. Neighbors who aren't horse people...neighbors who just are tired of these folks doing whatever they want to other peoples' property.
Also the loose horses have been reported.
In other words, "Yes."
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 08, 2009, 09:15 PM NHFT
BTW Anton...I think I read in another thread on here that you're first name is Anthony? My neighbor just bought a couple new Sicilian donkey foals. One came with the name Anthony...I went to see the new arrivals today. Cute lil' buggers when mini donks are young...they look like cartoon characters but sound like fog horns, LOL! If I get a photo of him I'll post it...I think you'd get a kick out of the adorable little donk that shares your name. :)
Funny thing. I was just reading some Sumerian history the other day and came across a reference that the Sumerians used onagers - or wild Asian asses - to draw their battle chariots.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Kulaani_Korkeasaari.jpg
KBCraig, one of the neighbors tried joining this BB to post their experiences with these folks but they weren't able to as their e-mail wasn't accepted. If they had been able to post here you'd get some info right from them and not gossip.
Or maybe it's all gossip mongering unless it comes from Brian or Heidi?
Pat...that's cool. I never knew anyone had tamed onagers for anything. They're notoriusly tough to tame and train.
That photo gave me the grins...that's one ass-high ass! ;D
My neighbor's new additions look kind of like this little fellow:
http://www.minidonkey.net/images/miniature_donkey_foal_weba.jpg
Somehow this has gone from an issue of horse theft, to an issue of animal cruelty(unrelated) and now to private property violation(also not related). (I should say, except in the case of state employed thugs.)
All of these issues can be resolved without the police. That is except the horse theft, which is the only circumstance the police might be of some use to remedy, only in this case the servants and protectors are the thieves. That's what this is about. Property disputes are what they are. If someone is being a bad neighbor, that can be handled between two neighbors.
If horses are trespassing onto my property after I've informed the owners of the problem, I'll post signs along my fence line stating that any livestock that is unlawfully deposited upon my property shall be confiscated. I'd also make good on that warning should the policy be violated.
Most of these issues can be handled in civil court or through contracts.
MistyBlue, you seem like a nice person who means well, but you're throwing unrelated evidence at this case. In your opinion, this is a clear and cut case of animal cruelty in which the state was forced to step in between the owners and the animals for the animals' protection. I disagree.
I can't disagree with you over specific facts, I wasn't there, but I can disagree over principles. In your opinion, so it seems, animal suffering supercedes property rights. In my opinion, property rights supercede all others, except in situations of human violence enacted upon other humans.
It doesn't matter how crappy someone is. It doesn't matter how inconsiderate or cruel someone is. It doesn't matter if it's not fair that someone should have to live next to "bad" neighbors. The point is that if I own property, what I do on or to my property is no one else's business.
If Heidi had been contracted to care for these horses to certain specifications, or if Heidi had purchased these horses under conditions of a written contract, then I could see someone having the option of legal recourse. Whether our current way of hashing out contract violations is efficient or not is for another debate. But if any of the horses legally belong to someone else, who has entrusted their care to Heidi, and stipulations have been contracted, then possibly that horse should be confiscated, or compensation of another kind be paid to the owner. Otherwise, the condition of the property is beside the point.
QuoteIf horses are trespassing onto my property after I've informed the owners of the problem, I'll post signs along my fence line stating that any livestock that is unlawfully deposited upon my property shall be confiscated. I'd also make good on that warning should the policy be violated.
How is that any different from the police or dept. of ag. confiscating them after warning?
QuoteMost of these issues can be handled in civil court or through contracts.
I don't know about contracts but it will certainly go to court...
QuoteIt doesn't matter how crappy someone is. It doesn't matter how inconsiderate or cruel someone is. It doesn't matter if it's not fair that someone should have to live next to "bad" neighbors. The point is that if I own property, what I do on or to my property is no one else's business.
I'm sure that the voiceless animals, given a voice, would beg to differ...
QuoteIf Heidi had been contracted to care for these horses to certain specifications
The "certain specifications" are called LAWS. They are very specific and the fact that Heidi brought horses into this state makes her subject to them. Whether y'all like it or not is of no consequence.
if there's an obligation then there is proof I agreed to said obligation. If you're correct this proof will be available with a written signature proving so. When you find it, let us know. Otherwise return to your regularly scheduled fantasy land where men with dresses have power and it's fine and dandy for other guys with shiny badges to come and steal your things. In reality, there are no extra powers granted to them unless you so choose to grant those powers. I have not personally chosen to grant them power over me. Until I do, they're just regular old flesh and blood human beings like me. I don't have the right to steal from them or to hurt them. They, in turn, do not have the right to do the same to me.
Simple isn't it? I was where you were mentally once. I then figured out that hurting others and stealing from them wasn't what I wanted for myself and that I should stop doing so immediately and encourage others to do the same. Maybe you can tell me, why it is you want to hurt others? Do you get at thrill out of theft?
the state has power at the CONSENT of the governed. Find the consent. Moving to a place over imaginary lines does not prove consent. So many times, statists like to tell me I'm not dealing in reality. Reality is that everyone from cops to judges to nurses and construction workers have the right to own the fruits of their labor since it is an extension of their life. Heidi and Brian chose to use their labor to buy horses. What they choose to do with those horses is their business only, and is not and never will be ANY of yours until they allow you some sort of business with them.
Animals can have all the rights as soon as they let us know about them. Until then, it's just your opinion. That's the fact of the matter. I'll most definitely recognize their rights as soon as they recognize mine.
Excuse me, Mr. Grizzly Bear. It is my right to life, liberty and property. Therefore it would be wrong of you to violate my rights by eating me.
it's very easy to be a troll spreading the ideas of theft and violence against those who have not committed the same against you. Especially when you're too cowardly to even let it be known your name.
pathetic.
.... Full of sound and fury signifying nothing....
Implied consent.
The real estate and natural resources that make up the State of NH were taken by force many centuries ago. The British Monarch had never set foot in the Americas so had no real claim to the property, and thus did not have the naturally-derived authority of self ownership to acquire the property... then transfer it to a anyone directly at that time, or indirectly to those of us in possession at this time.
Even the agents that claimed it in his name did not have the natural authority. The Province of NH, that would later be named the State of NH, only existed in the southeast portion of the current land mass.
The western portion was part of the Iriquois Nation, and the northern portion part of the New France Colony. Both were acquired by force during the Seven Years' War (French-Indian War)... and were titled to the State of NH under the Jay Treaty enacted after the US Constitution did away with the Articles of Confederation and removing any Canadian claim to its former territory.
I don't think it would be plausible at this juncture to return the property to the original bloodlines, nor to even determine the restitution for abolishment of the original claims... as some property was clearly occupied while surrounding was only occassional or common use.
Any updates on how the horses are doing now? Is there going to be a trial? Did the Travis family get all of their horses back? Are they in better condition? Anyone know if there is any mediation going on? Anything positive coming out of this?
Quote from: xyz on May 10, 2009, 12:18 PM NHFT
QuoteIf horses are trespassing onto my property after I've informed the owners of the problem, I'll post signs along my fence line stating that any livestock that is unlawfully deposited upon my property shall be confiscated. I'd also make good on that warning should the policy be violated.
How is that any different from the police or dept. of ag. confiscating them after warning?
The difference is, the property was deposited upon my property against my will.
My neighbor's child behind me tends to throw toys over the fence. I usually pick them up and throw them back over. If it's something that appears to be fragile, I'll walk around and leave it on their front porch. I have no issue with it. But if I looked in my back yard and their dog is gleefully digging a hole and has crapped everywhere, I'm going to be angry. Even so, I'd probably just talk to my neighbor about it and see if we couldn't resolve it. If this becomes a regular issue, I'll write a letter to the neighbor explaining that if I find his dog in my yard again, I'll consider it mine, to be disposed of however I see fit. This is right, whether in the lawbooks or not.
If I look over the fence and see a see him beating his dog mercilessly, and the dog appears to be infested with disease and malnourished, I'll feel badly for the dog. I'm not going to call the police. It is not my place. It is wrong to do so, whether lawful or not.
The law has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. I believe animal cruelty to be wrong. I believe animals are property. I believe property is the property owner's affair, not mine. Any attempt on my part to steal the animal is wrong. If the animal wanders onto my property in a cruelly neglected condition, I'd probably be more hasty in letting the neighbor know that if the dog comes onto my property again, I'll be disposing of it.
I don't understand what is so complicated about it.
You either believe in property or not. If I ambushed you and stole your animal, you'd probably say,"Help! Help! Someone's stolen
my animal!!!" If my reasoning is that you don't use adequate flea control and the dog is forced to eat Gravy Train instead of Science Diet, would you feel that I had acted justly, simply because my opinion of animal cruelty differs from yours?
The reason this mindset is dangerous, is because once the government can decide what ways are acceptable in the way of property maintenance, said government can slowly use each example as an excuse to expand the rule. Until we own absolutely nothing, not even ourselves.
QuoteMistyBlue, you seem like a nice person who means well, but you're throwing unrelated evidence at this case. In your opinion, this is a clear and cut case of animal cruelty in which the state was forced to step in between the owners and the animals for the animals' protection. I disagree.
I can't disagree with you over specific facts, I wasn't there, but I can disagree over principles. In your opinion, so it seems, animal suffering supercedes property rights. In my opinion, property rights supercede all others, except in situations of human violence enacted upon other humans.
It doesn't matter how crappy someone is. It doesn't matter how inconsiderate or cruel someone is. It doesn't matter if it's not fair that someone should have to live next to "bad" neighbors. The point is that if I own property, what I do on or to my property is no one else's business.
If Heidi had been contracted to care for these horses to certain specifications, or if Heidi had purchased these horses under conditions of a written contract, then I could see someone having the option of legal recourse. Whether our current way of hashing out contract violations is efficient or not is for another debate. But if any of the horses legally belong to someone else, who has entrusted their care to Heidi, and stipulations have been contracted, then possibly that horse should be confiscated, or compensation of another kind be paid to the owner. Otherwise, the condition of the property is beside the point
Hi Goble. :) Yes, it seems we disagree and have different opinions on this subject.
My opinion does match with current laws on this subject...I don't agree with all laws though. I personally believe in property rights...but I also believe in certain caveats on those. Included is the unnecessary suffering of animals. I personally believe a society that condones it either directly or through inaction due to another set of beliefs isn't a humane or even succesful society. It doesn't make your beliefs wrong or my beliefs wrong...it just makes them different. In this case the current laws in that area agree with that, and they aren;t even considered stiff laws on animal cruelty. And instances in other areas and countries that do not have humane laws or that do have a 100% property rights in absolute lifestyle have much higher crime rates and much less happy citizens. Because lawless areas attract lawless folks who might not like laws for reasons other than peaceful or constitutional reasons. So IMO abolishing certain laws and leaving certain things 100% up to each individual is a mistake. It does not work for other areas. I doubt highly it would work there in NH either.
To me, I don't care how crappy someone else is as long as they aren't cruel to other living things that can suffer. Allowing that passively makes me less of who I am and what I believe and also condones cruelty. Even if I professed that I hated animal cruelty...by allowing it passively as someone's property right...I condone it. So mouth service on the subject doesn't mean anything if I allow it to happen.
Unfortunately if Heidi had a contract stating at the time of purchase that she had to care for her animals in a certain way...that's still not legally binding. Once you pay someone for something and they sign over ownership, in the eyes of the law that animal is yours. There are many pet owners who even have attorneys write out buy-back or first right of refusal contracts for horse sales and those don't stand up in court about 80% of the time right now. (yes, I follow that also legally) So a "standard of care" contract wouldn't do any better.
I do understand the idea of laws being wrong to some people...but understanding and agreeing are two different things. If I see someone mercilessly beating a dog next door and just stand there feeling bad for the dog or shunning them after that...IMO that makes me as cruel as the dog owner. And that would be the same for anyone else who ignored the situation...they'd be as cruel as the dog owner and only slightly less responsible IMO. I personally think a "blind eye" couple with bad feelings over the situation is ridiculous. I do understand you feel differently...but it's also your personal opinion and not an actual fact that it's wrong for the law to step in on a case like that. It doesn't make either of us wrong or right in our beliefs...but the majority does agree with animal cruelty laws and I choose to live in areas that have them. By choosing to do so I do not move into an area and try to force everyone else to agree with me and do things my way because I think my opinion is fact.
Believing in property or not when it comes to living property is not a black and white case. Laws change and evolve over time...for reasons. Sometimes good reasons, sometimes bad reasons. At the time the right to property some on here want back in a 100% absolute way...people being deliberately excessively cruel to their animals were able to be put in stocks or have their animals taken by whomever witnessed it if it happened in a public place. So even then the absolute right to property wasn't exactly 100% absolute.
QuoteAny updates on how the horses are doing now? Is there going to be a trial? Did the Travis family get all of their horses back? Are they in better condition? Anyone know if there is any mediation going on? Anything positive coming out of this?
Lastlady,
I am not the owners of the horses. But last updates are the horses have been lose a number of times in the last 2 weeks. The Travis family got 11 of the 12 horses back a while ago and may have the 12th back by now but I am not sure. The first seizure in NH is a temporary one so they got the horses back after they were made healthier, had proper disease testing done and after the shelter laws were no longer convered by date.
According to independent vets the horses were in better condition than their arrival when returned and they hope they continue to improve under the care of the owners.
The court date is July 22nd.
@Mistyblue:
I cannot accept this notion that some people believe some things and others believe other things and so no one is ever wrong. Belief and opinion can be wrong. This is why we debate - to determine who's opinion or belief system is the right one.
There is plenty of research on the subject of stricter property rights that points to the opposite of what you've written above. Laws get in the way of business and business raises the standard of living. But I'm no utilitarian. I believe in property rights based on principle. But it just so happens that this principle of people doing for themselves ultimately leads to the greater good of humanity, but even if it didn't, I'd still hold fast to what is mine.
It doesn't make me a less humane or compassionate person because I choose to allow my neighbor to do what he will with what is his. It makes me more humane.
If I decide that riding a horse is cruel because it forces the animal to be a slave to it's master, that the bit hurts the animal's mouth so much that it must turn or stop to relieve the pressure, that a three sided enclosure is not sufficient for the winter time, that horse shoes are cruel because they must be nailed into the hoof or that racing is cruel because the jocky carries a whip, do I then have the right to take any horse on any persons property that doesn't conform to my regulations? Do votes, legislation or public opinion really change that?
I've read over the NH livestock laws and see nothing about shelter. Does this mean that cattle, sheep, goats and swine are less vulnerable than horses? Shouldn't breed of animal play into all of this? Leaving a chihuahua outside in 30 degree weather would be quite cruel. Is leaving an Alaskan Malamute out in 30 degree weather also cruel, even though Malamutes have been known to sleep on TOP of their doghouses in subzero weather? I'm sure animal rights extremists would say that there is no difference, and I'd have to agree with them, though my ultimate conclusion is the opposite of theirs. And by that I mean their conclusion(animal liberation) is wrong and I am right.
This, again, is why bureaucracy fails so miserably. The only way to provide adequate laws for all situations is to confound and confuse any and all trying to follow and enforce them. You can't legislate common sense. It's best to leave it to the property owners to treat their property as well or as poorly as they wish.
Cruelty cannot ever be eradicated, not without a different kind of cruelty, tyranny, taking it's place.
Also, about lawless people being attracted to lawless areas... I disagree. The "Wild" West was far less so than hollywood would have you believe. Most towns had a citizen appointed sheriff who may or may not have been a criminal in the east. These towns were actually quite peaceful, especially by today's standards. Look up the kill stats of all of the old gun slingers and towns. Though some, who made their gunfighting a hobby, killed quite a few, most criminals were simply ciminals for profit and did very little actual killing. There was law and order without a large and complicated bureaucracy.
What was a man's was a man's. As unregulated capitalism did what it does best, areas became more civilized and people were able to work less. This ultimately led to people having so much leasure time and living in such luxury that they had the time and energy to care about animal rights. Unfortunately, government was more than eager to meet these nosey busy-bodies in the middle and now we have the current system.
Now anyone with a grudge, prejudice, curiousity or concern can have state or even sometimes federal thugs invade your privacy, disarm you and steal whatever is in their jurisdiction to take.
Helplessness is so much worse than lawlessness... any day of the week.
QuoteI cannot accept this notion that some people believe some things and others believe other things and so no one is ever wrong. Belief and opinion can be wrong. This is why we debate - to determine who's opinion or belief system is the right one.
And I'd hazard a guess that this is your way of saying, "So my opinion is right and yours is wrong."
Neglecting of course to mention that animal cruelty laws were voted in by a majority of people and supported by the majority of people. But then I'd guess they're all wrong too...their opinions are also considered wrong because they don't agree with your opinions? I happen to agree with a place where the majority rules by vote...and I then choose my home in an area where the majority opinions agree most closely with my opinions to achieve as much peace as possible. If I disagreed with most of the laws that most of the people want and agree with...I move myself to a new place. I do't try to force everyone else to agree with my very narrow minority views so that the smallest percentage of folks can have what they want at the detriment of all other folks.
So that's where we differ. I still happen to think that doesn't make my opinion wrong...or even your opinion wrong. I just agree that we don't agree and for now the laws are supporting my opinion on the stance of animal cruelty. Besides, complaining online will not change the laws. And until I see any evidence that there is an alternative set in place to handle the abolishment of some laws, I'll continue to passively support some of those laws at this time. And so far after reading a few threads on this forum I haven't yet seen an alternative that would work. Even the oft mentioned "shunning" has had a thread where many seem to agree that it wouldn't work in reagrds to changing anyone's behavior. It might make the few people doing the shunning feel a bit better, but doesn't help anything else in the long run seemed to be the consensus.
Also read on there how many different laws have been broken by self claimed FSP folks...and have to mention that those seem to be a higher percentage of folks committing serious crimes considering the amount of FSP members listed online. So it does seem to point to the hatred of laws being a magnet for those interested in breaking them. Unfortunate for the rest of the FSP members...but still no mention of a way to rectify that anyways.
QuoteI personally believe in property rights...but I also believe in certain caveats on those.
And that makes her no different than the founder of the FSP who also doesn't believe that property rights are absolute either - although their caveats are different.
Quote from: Goble on May 10, 2009, 04:03 PM NHFTIf I look over the fence and see a see him beating his dog mercilessly, and the dog appears to be infested with disease and malnourished, I'll feel badly for the dog. I'm not going to call the police. It is not my place. It is wrong to do so, whether lawful or not.
And if that diseased, malnourished dog-next-door is infectious?
QuoteAnd I'd hazard a guess that this is your way of saying, "So my opinion is right and yours is wrong."
Yes. I didn't mean to be vague about it.
I'll also say that if you are a person of principles then you
should believe that you are right and I am wrong. Why even discuss this if you have no true opinion?
QuoteNeglecting of course to mention that animal cruelty laws were voted in by a majority of people and supported by the majority of people. But then I'd guess they're all wrong too.
So right and wrong is determined for you by the number of people who agree? Yeah you're right, mobs always act rationally.
QuoteI do't try to force everyone else to agree with my very narrow minority views so that the smallest percentage of folks can have what they want at the detriment of all other folks.
Honestly, I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. What people in the liberty community propose is letting people do whatever they want, so long as they aren't harming another person or another person's property. You see, I don't support any law that would cause you any form of detriment. If went into my back yard and squeezed the life out of my dog, what detriment is that to you? Besides, you act as if without these laws people would be doing just that, destroying their property.
People who would be cruel to animals will do so whether there are laws protecting those animals or not. The vast
majority, would, and have, in fact, treated their animals very well. How could businesses like Petsmart and Petco stay in business if their weren't a hoard of animal lovers out there taking good care of their animals. How would veterinarians stay in business? People will take care of their animals and livestock for the same reason they take care of their vehicles, houses, and yards; because it's behooves them to do so.
QuoteAnd until I see any evidence that there is an alternative set in place to handle the abolishment of some laws, I'll continue to passively support some of those laws at this time. And so far after reading a few threads on this forum I haven't yet seen an alternative that would work. Even the oft mentioned "shunning" has had a thread where many seem to agree that it wouldn't work in regards to changing anyone's behavior. It might make the few people doing the shunning feel a bit better, but doesn't help anything else in the long run seemed to be the consensus.
One of the biggest traps people seem to fall into is the idea that in order to criticize what is wrong with one system, someone must have a better alternative. This is a ridiculous notion in of itself, but there
are alternatives. Even if we put theory aside, what of history? You claim that these laws were enacted by a majority, when in fact they were enacted by state legislatures that make up not even 1 percent of the state population. If my representative voted on my behalf for something I never would have voted for, my only recourse is to wait 2 years and hope that a representative more in line with my beliefs is elected, and then even if that happens, chances are he or she isn't going to vote the way I would 100% of the time. So am I fairly represented and is my voice really heard? I would answer with a resounding NO.
Majority rule is great for the majority, that doesn't mean that the majority is always right.
QuoteAlso read on there how many different laws have been broken by self claimed FSP folks...and have to mention that those seem to be a higher percentage of folks committing serious crimes considering the amount of FSP members listed online. So it does seem to point to the hatred of laws being a magnet for those interested in breaking them. Unfortunate for the rest of the FSP members...but still no mention of a way to rectify that anyways.
By serious crimes I'm going to assume you mean acts of civil disobedience, filming in courthouses, not standing or sitting fast enough for a judge, starving horses... just awful.
But in cases of FSP members engaging in violence or theft, I'd say that those people would eventually push themselves out of the community. I still don't know what you would like anyone to do about it. Those who commit violent crimes should be dealt with.
Abolishing any laws punishing thieves, killers or child molesters isn't on my agenda. I would say that government doesn't do a very good job of it, being that innocents are imprisoned every day. Many innocent people have undoubtedly gone to the noose, chair and needle. What is an alternative? I don't know.
Maybe I should just smile and shake my head, playfully scolding the government like a child who's eaten a cookie before dinner whenever I read about someone on death row being released from prison after 15yrs, cleared on DNA evidence or the confession of someone else.
QuoteAnd if that diseased, malnourished dog-next-door is infectious?
I suppose that would depend on whether or not my dog contracted a disease. But see, that comes down to personal responsibility. My dog is on flea prevention, is up on all her vaccinations, stays inside 99% of the day, and makes regular trips to the veterinarian.
I can take care of my own animals, and I do. I'm surrounded on all sides by outdoor animals that do have fleas and that I would doubt, though I could be wrong, ever make it to the vet's office. I've been living here for almost two years and haven't had a problem.
Every scenario I post is not pulled out of my ass. Some are actually from experience, believe it or not.
Quote from: BillKauffman on May 11, 2009, 01:21 PM NHFT
QuoteI personally believe in property rights...but I also believe in certain caveats on those.
And that makes her no different than the founder of the FSP who also doesn't believe that property rights are absolute either - although their caveats are different.
They couldn't be, or they wouldn't change over the centuries as our ability to reason matures.
Property is more of economic philosophy than morality. Its why slavery is consider immoral, but at the time of the founding of the union was so important an economic matter that slaves were property.
Its even why historically children take their father's last name, and wife's their husbands (at least in patriarchy).
Hey, look, another blatant lie:
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 12:39 PM NHFTNeglecting of course to mention that animal cruelty laws were voted in by a majority of people and supported by the majority of people.
As Goble noted, these laws were voted on by a few hundred individuals. Even if every legislator voted unanimously for them (I'll guarantee you that was not the case - I doubt there's ever been a unanimous vote here), that's still only a minuscule fraction of the population.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 12:39 PM NHFTI happen to agree with a place where the majority rules by vote...and I then choose my home in an area where the majority opinions agree most closely with my opinions to achieve as much peace as possible. If I disagreed with most of the laws that most of the people want and agree with...I move myself to a new place.
Hitler was democratically elected.
I guess my kin should have just left Europe, and it's their own fault they were slaughtered, for not leaving, right?
Sickening. Cruelty to animals disgusts me, but I'd rather sit there are watch a dogfight than spend any time with a monster like you.
Joe
For heaven's sake...the majority votes in the politicians in stages. They tend to vote for folks who they agee with.
And FWIW...the SPCA is donated to by a rather large amount of people. Nobody is forcing them to donate...I'm going to assume they agree with animal cruelty laws since the SPCA supports those laws.
So no, not a blatant lie and Joe...when you can re-paste those copies you have of me "wanting murder for Brian" and all those "saved original posts" that I supposedly changed drastically then maybe I'll believe you. Until then:
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/funny-pictures-this-cat-is-special.jpg)
QuotePeople will take care of their animals and livestock for the same reason they take care of their vehicles, houses, and yards; because it's behooves them to do so.
And when they don't, oh well - too bad how sad?
QuoteCruelty cannot ever be eradicated
So it should be condoned?
QuoteI guess my kin should have just left Europe, and it's their own fault they were slaughtered, for not leaving, right?
They clearly were not all slaughtered for you wouldn't be here to grace us with your presence. Luckily for them, they were liberated. Do you think the Nazis considered it theft??
Is it the horses' fault they got bought or bred by irresponsible people? I suppose they should just leave, right? I'll give them credit because at least they keep trying to. How does this thread always seem to wind its way back to the Nazis? And how are the Candia police different from the liberators? They simply didn't want the animals to needlessly suffer and die.
QuotePeople who would be cruel to animals will do so whether there are laws protecting those animals or not.
Yes, this I can agree with; however, without the welfare laws, nobody could protect the animals from the cruelest animals of all - you got it - humans.
QuoteCruelty to animals disgusts me, but I'd rather sit there are watch a dogfight than spend any time with a monster like you.
And I'm pathetic?
Didn't one of the FSP head honchos exonerate Beth for calling in the police? Is that not confirmation that your way doesn't work?
I'm really trying to understand the thought processes here, I must admit, I do not. Hopefully, Anton, someday I will be enlightened. Until then, I'll be happy in my lala land where people who break laws, be they right wrong or otherwise, are punished if caught.
Awesome pic misty. ;D
Goble:
QuoteBy serious crimes I'm going to assume you mean acts of civil disobedience, filming in courthouses, not standing or sitting fast enough for a judge, starving horses... just awful.
No, I actually meant serious crimes, I've been reading more than this one thread trying to stay informed on some of the opinions and information others have and have found much of it interesting. This was the first post on the shunning thread, these crimes are serious IMO, but thanks for the sarcastic quote above anyways:
QuoteHere are some of the things that have come up on this very discussion forum over the past few years that have been committed (in some cases, allegedly; in some cases, convicted in court; and in some cases, self-acknowledged) by members of the Porcupine community, none of which motivated even a discussion of shunning: murder, wife beating, child abuse, child neglect, theft, fraud, attempting to physically harm another Porcupine, threatening to kill other Porcupines, borrowing money and not paying it back, incurring debts and acknowledging one has no intention of paying them back, misusing other people's property, contract violation, and most recently, animal abuse. With the exception of sexual assault, I think that pretty much covers it, don't you?
Followed later on by this gem of a person:
QuoteFormer Somersworth school panelist accused of sexually assaulting child
By JENNIFER KEEF
Thursday, February 26, 2009
SOMERSWORTH - A former Somersworth School Board member and state representative candidate was indicted this week on two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault involving a minor.
Timothy Logsdon, 33, of 183 High Street, allegedly engaged in a pattern of sexual assault on more than one occasion with a victim who is now 5 years old.
A grand jury handed up the indictment this week and it was released Thursday.
In September, Logsdon was served a protective order by the Strafford County Sheriff's office, which was said to have emanated from the Columbia County Family Court in Hudson, N.Y.
Information as to who filed the order and why were not disclosed, but Capt. Lee Clement with the sheriff's office said then that a protective order carries some similarities to a restraining order.
Also in September, in accordance with the terms of the protective order, Somersworth police removed a number of weapons from Logsdon's home.
Police Capt. Russ Timmons said at the time that they removed pistols, rifles and shotguns - "some intact and some in a state of assembly or disassembly"- as well as semiautomatic pistols, a host of ammunition and gunpowder.
Logsdon has lived in Somersworth since 2002 and works as a computer consultant at the University of New Hampshire. Erika Mantz, media relations director for the university, confirmed Thursday Logsdon is still an employee of the university. Mantz said the school had been aware of the protective order but nothing else as of Thursday.
Logsdon ran three consecutive times as the sole Republican candidate for District 2 state representative but was never elected. He served less than one year on the Somersworth School Board between 2006 and 2007 and last year was involved in petitioning for a tax cap in the city.
Logsdon will be arraigned on Monday, March 9, at 2:30 p.m. at Strafford County Superior Court.
An indictment is not an indication of guilt, rather it means there is enough evidence to warrant a trial.
Now I don't equate filming in a courthouse or sitting fast with repeatedly sexually molesting a child under the age of 5, murder, beating children, beating your spouse, threatening murder, etc. But if you prefer to downplay that and use sarcasm, more power to you I guess. I don't get the humor in it, but then again according to Joe I'm a lying monster for not agreeing with him either. Of course neither of you seem to be up to date on the argument points, but then I guess devolving to insults and childish sarcasm or drama when people don't agree with you is a debate style.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 10, 2009, 07:34 PM NHFT
Quote
I can't disagree with you over specific facts, I wasn't there, but I can disagree over principles. In your opinion, so it seems, animal suffering supercedes property rights. In my opinion, property rights supercede all others, except in situations of human violence enacted upon other humans.
It doesn't matter how crappy someone is. It doesn't matter how inconsiderate or cruel someone is. It doesn't matter if it's not fair that someone should have to live next to "bad" neighbors. The point is that if I own property, what I do on or to my property is no one else's business.
I personally believe in property rights...but I also believe in certain caveats on those.
There seems to be some misunderstanding as the usage of the word "rights". The kind we believe in don't have caveats. They're unalienable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights
"Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between natural and legal rights.
Natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. In contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative."
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 10, 2009, 07:34 PM NHFT
Included is the unnecessary suffering of animals.
Right, and therein lies the problem. Who gets to define unnecessary? There are plenty who would claim that eating an animal causes it unnecessary suffering. As for your laws, I don't really care how a bunch of old farts in Concord think unnecessary should be defined. On my property, I decide what is and is not necessary. Not you, not the old farts, not a majority of the voters.
Interestingly, since you label some animal suffering as unnecessary, there must by definition be some necessary animal suffering. Could you expound on this point?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 10, 2009, 07:34 PM NHFT
It doesn't make your beliefs wrong or my beliefs wrong...it just makes them different.
As they are at odds, one of them must be wrong.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 10, 2009, 07:34 PM NHFT
And instances in other areas and countries that do not have humane laws or that do have a 100% property rights in absolute lifestyle have much higher crime rates and much less happy citizens. Because lawless areas attract lawless folks who might not like laws for reasons other than peaceful or constitutional reasons. So IMO abolishing certain laws and leaving certain things 100% up to each individual is a mistake. It does not work for other areas. I doubt highly it would work there in NH either.
Could you be more specific about where these non-functioning free market bastions are to be found?
p.s. If you tell my where they are, I'll tell you where they're not.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 10, 2009, 07:34 PM NHFT
Allowing that passively makes me less of who I am
But extorting people for taxes and using that extorted money to hire thugs to steal other people's property and tell them what they can and can't do on their own land makes you more of who you are?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 10, 2009, 07:34 PM NHFT
by allowing it passively as someone's property right...I condone it. So mouth service on the subject doesn't mean anything if I allow it to happen.
No kidding? Are you aware of all the crimes that took place today that you didn't do anything about? By passively "allowing" them, you condone them? I hereby dub this "Batman Syndrome". Said philosophy the ultimate busybody makes.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 10, 2009, 07:34 PM NHFT
By choosing to do so I do not move into an area and try to force everyone else to agree with me and do things my way because I think my opinion is fact.
Apparently you don't even live in NH and you're trying to force people to agree with you because you think your opinion is fact.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 12:39 PM NHFT
Neglecting of course to mention that animal cruelty laws were voted in by a majority of people and supported by the majority of people. But then I'd guess they're all wrong too...their opinions are also considered wrong because they don't agree with your opinions? I happen to agree with a place where the majority rules by vote...
Gotta go with Joe on this one. Hitler was, in fact, democratically elected. Two wrongs don't make a right and neither do a thousand. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It remains wrong even if a majority votes for it. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Just because the two wolves vote doesn't mean the sheep forfeits the right to defend his property (life). Just because you and xyz think you know what's best for Brian's (and everyone else's) property doesn't mean he has to oblige you.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 12:39 PM NHFT
If I disagreed with most of the laws that most of the people want and agree with...I move myself to a new place.
So again, if the Jews had just left Germany, there would never have been holocaust. Perhaps the blacks should have just moved out of the south instead of fighting for what was right, after all, a majority did believe in slave ownership and according to you, that makes it okay.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 12:39 PM NHFT
I do't try to force everyone else to agree with my very narrow minority views so that the smallest percentage of folks can have what they want at the detriment of all other folks.
You do try to force everyone to agree with your views by sending men with guns to their house if they don't. Whether your view is a majority or minority is irrelevant as we've already determined.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 12:39 PM NHFT
I just agree that we don't agree and for now the laws are supporting my opinion on the stance of animal cruelty.
If there happened to be a law passed requiring you to kick your cat once a day, would you follow it? Keep in mind that it would have been passed by a majority. No? But.. but, but, it's THE LAW!
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 12:39 PM NHFT
have to mention that those seem to be a higher percentage of folks committing serious crimes considering the amount of FSP members listed online.
Serious crimes? Seriously? Name a few. Gardening in the park? Holding a plant in their hand? Driving without permission? Ooooo
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 05:20 PM NHFT
QuotePeople will take care of their animals and livestock for the same reason they take care of their vehicles, houses, and yards; because it's behooves them to do so.
And when they don't, oh well - too bad how sad?
No, I've got a better idea. Let's extort money from then and use that money to hire thugs to make everyone do what you think is right. Let's take people's property and lock human beings in cages cause you know what's best.
QuoteCruelty cannot ever be eradicated
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 05:20 PM NHFT
So it should be condoned?
No one on this board has condoned animal cruelty. The contention is that your cure is worse than the disease.
QuoteI guess my kin should have just left Europe, and it's their own fault they were slaughtered, for not leaving, right?
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 05:20 PM NHFT
They clearly were not all slaughtered for you wouldn't be here to grace us with your presence. Luckily for them, they were liberated. Do you think the Nazis considered it theft?
Too bad for his relatives the Nazis didn't practice the non-aggression principle. Too bad the Nazis thought they could force others to do what they thought was best because they had guns and a majority. Sound familiar?
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 05:20 PM NHFT
Is it the horses' fault?
????
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 05:20 PM NHFT
I suppose they should just leave, right?
It was Misty who said if people don't like the way things are they should leave.
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 05:20 PM NHFT
How does this thread always seem to wind its way back to the Nazis?
Because they didn't respect property either.
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 05:20 PM NHFT
And how are the Candia police different from the liberators?
Now you're comparing a lady who may not have fed her horses as much as you think she should have, to a Nazi and let me get this straight, in your analogy, the horses are the Jews and the Candia PD are the Allied forces?
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 05:20 PM NHFT
Didn't one of the FSP head honchos exonerate Beth for calling in the police? Is that not confirmation that your way doesn't work?
This is something you don't seem to get, we don't have a "leader guy". We don't blindly follow because someone is in a position of authority. Nobody does my thinking for me. Following your line of thinking though, since the horses have been returned, what does that say about "your way"?
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 05:20 PM NHFT
Until then, I'll be happy in my lala land where people who break laws, be they right wrong or otherwise, are punished if caught.
Mmmm, yeah, hang those runaway slaves. They did break the law after all. Right or wrong... right?
QuoteSome philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between natural and legal rights
Keyword in that sentence: Some.
Key for content: Wikipedia? Really? ::) Almost any fool can add to that source of the inane information.
QuoteRight, and therein lies the problem. Who gets to define unnecessary? There are plenty who would claim that eating an animal causes it unnecessary suffering. As for your laws, I don't really care how a bunch of old farts in Concord think unnecessary should be defined. On my property, I decide what is and is not necessary. Not you, not the old farts, not a majority of the voters.
Interestingly, since you label some animal suffering as unnecessary, there must by definition be some necessary animal suffering. Could you expound on this point?
You speak of the laws and unfairness of them all the time and yet do not know who defines them or decides them? The "old farts" probably also aren't worried about your personal thoughts either.
Eating an animal doesn't cause unnecessary suffering unless you're eating it while it's alive. Common sense 101.
Do I seriously need to expound on the subject or are you just hoping for another round of "copy and paste rebuttal" games? Where you can pick apart any and every statement with odd sounding arguments. Do you really not know what the law considers necessary and unnecessary suffering? You don't know these things but yet still choose to argue the subject...an idea that makes little sense to me.
Necessary suffering: The process of slaughter...it's nerve wracking for livestock that have fight or flight instincts. yet the law requires it's not done in a tortuous manner and that certain humane guidelines are met. But no really, let's do away with that and subject 100,000 horses and countless cattle, swine etc to faster more efficient slaughter times that will definitely increase suffering.
Unnecessary suffering: Torture, neglect, abuse. As defined by the laws and those definitions outlined by a *massive* panel of vets and animal behaviorists state by state. Defined by people who are qualified, experienced and educated in these ares and not by online gurus who fancy themselves knowledgable by reading online tidbits since anyone who can type can put up online tidbits.
As if you really didn't know these things. Seriously, I don't mind a debate but it gets tiring when people debate just to see themselves in print.
QuoteCould you be more specific about where these non-functioning free market bastions are to be found?
p.s. If you tell my where they are, I'll tell you where they're not.
Since you've stated in the same area that you also know where they are, then I'm not interested in a geographical politics test being given to me by someone who shows little respect or manners in speaking to a stranger and who seems to assume Wikipedia is a 100% correct source of information.
QuoteBut extorting people for taxes and using that extorted money to hire thugs to steal other people's property and tell them what they can and can't do on their own land makes you more of who you are?
You and I have different views on this subject so why continue to hash it out?
QuoteNo kidding? Are you aware of all the crimes that took place today that you didn't do anything about? By passively "allowing" them, you condone them? I hereby dub this "Batman Syndrome". Said philosophy the ultimate busybody makes.
I'm not sure the reasoning behind the obtuse comment...it's patently obvious I referred to observing a crime and allowing it to continue without remedy because of whatever reason. If I do indeed observe a crime, I do something about it immediately. I'm not shy about that. At all. Many times I attempt to do something personally, a fact that my family and friends often bemoan. Yesterday I saw a car clip another car in a parking lot. Took down the license plate number, waited for dented car owner to come out and gave them that info and my name and number. Busybody? Maybe, definitely according to you. If someone did it to my car and someone else walked away shrugging thinking, "Not my problem" then bully for them but I'd guess the vast majority of all folks if asked about this same scenerio would have wanted to know and have a busybody pass the info on to them.
As for dubbing this...you're free to dub this whatever you'd like and it's quite obvious you were waiting and hoping for any comment you could twist into the ridiculous in order to attempt to make a point while insulting someone at the same time. But since you've dubbed it then at least you can now add it to Wikipedia and use it in your next rude reply to someone who's only trying to explain thier point of view without insulting you. You can probably define it as a syndrom usuaully commmited by people who do not agree with you and that hence opens the new Batman to insults and rudeness.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 05:05 PM NHFTFor heaven's sake...the majority votes in the politicians in stages. They tend to vote for folks who they agee with.
NH has a population of about 1.31 million, and about 864,000 registered voters. So, right off the bat, about 35% of folks aren't even able to vote. Anyone have voter turnout numbers for New Hampshire? Anyone think the total number of voters will be more than half of the population? Further, of those who vote, only a portion vote for the candidate who wins.
So no, the winning candidate does not represent the majority.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 05:05 PM NHFTAnd FWIW...the SPCA is donated to by a rather large amount of people. Nobody is forcing them to donate...I'm going to assume they agree with animal cruelty laws since the SPCA supports those laws.
Really? Do a majority of people donate to the SPCA?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 05:05 PM NHFTSo no, not a blatant lie and Joe...when you can re-paste those copies you have of me "wanting murder for Brian" and all those "saved original posts" that I supposedly changed drastically then maybe I'll believe you.
I've already quoted such for you. And just demonstrated one more lie, to top them off.
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 05:20 PM NHFTQuoteCruelty cannot ever be eradicated
So it should be condoned?
Has anyone here done so? Quote them, if so...
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 05:20 PM NHFTQuoteI guess my kin should have just left Europe, and it's their own fault they were slaughtered, for not leaving, right?
They clearly were not all slaughtered for you wouldn't be here to grace us with your presence. Luckily for them, they were liberated. Do you think the Nazis considered it theft??
Is it the horses' fault they got bought or bred by irresponsible people? I suppose they should just leave, right? I'll give them credit because at least they keep trying to. How does this thread always seem to wind its way back to the Nazis? And how are the Candia police different from the liberators? They simply didn't want the animals to needlessly suffer and die.
The Candia police didn't "liberate" any people. The attacked people and stole their property.
The thread found its way back to the Nazis because Misty declared that the outcome of democracy is always right. Hitler was elected democratically, ergo she believes what Hitler did was right.
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 05:20 PM NHFTQuoteCruelty to animals disgusts me, but I'd rather sit there are watch a dogfight than spend any time with a monster like you.
And I'm pathetic?
Didn't one of the FSP head honchos exonerate Beth for calling in the police? Is that not confirmation that your way doesn't work?
The FSP doesn't have any "head honchos."
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 05:20 PM NHFTI'm really trying to understand the thought processes here, I must admit, I do not.
It's very,
very simple: initiating force/fraud against any person is wrong. Can you understand that?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 07:25 PM NHFTNo, I actually meant serious crimes, I've been reading more than this one thread trying to stay informed on some of the opinions and information others have and have found much of it interesting. This was the first post on the shunning thread, these crimes are serious IMO, but thanks for the sarcastic quote above anyways:
QuoteHere are some of the things that have come up on this very discussion forum over the past few years that have been committed (in some cases, allegedly; in some cases, convicted in court; and in some cases, self-acknowledged) by members of the Porcupine community, none of which motivated even a discussion of shunning: murder, wife beating, child abuse, child neglect, theft, fraud, attempting to physically harm another Porcupine, threatening to kill other Porcupines, borrowing money and not paying it back, incurring debts and acknowledging one has no intention of paying them back, misusing other people's property, contract violation, and most recently, animal abuse. With the exception of sexual assault, I think that pretty much covers it, don't you?
Followed later on by this gem of a person:
QuoteFormer Somersworth school panelist accused of sexually assaulting child
...
An indictment is not an indication of guilt, rather it means there is enough evidence to warrant a trial.
Now I don't equate filming in a courthouse or sitting fast with repeatedly sexually molesting a child under the age of 5, murder, beating children, beating your spouse, threatening murder, etc. But if you prefer to downplay that and use sarcasm, more power to you I guess. I don't get the humor in it, but then again according to Joe I'm a lying monster for not agreeing with him either. Of course neither of you seem to be up to date on the argument points, but then I guess devolving to insults and childish sarcasm or drama when people don't agree with you is a debate style.
Notice how that includes crimes that folks have been accused of, not convicted of, let alone actually did? The "murderer," for example, drove an acquaintance to an address. Despite having no knowledge of what that acquaintance intended to do there, he was charged and convicted as an accessory by your beloved thugs. Logsdon is in the middle of a messy divorce, and has been accused of pretty much everything shy of treason by his wife. Actually, I retract that statement: I haven't been keeping up on things, and it's quite possible that she
has accused him of treason by now.
Joe
Whoa, I reply to one response and post it only to find out you weren;t finished with your insults and still enjoying your typing.
QuoteNotice how that includes crimes that folks have been accused of, not convicted of, let alone actually did? The "murderer," for example, drove an acquaintance to an address. Despite having no knowledge of what that acquaintance intended to do there, he was charged and convicted as an accessory by your beloved thugs. Logsdon is in the middle of a messy divorce, and has been accused of pretty much everything shy of treason by his wife. Actually, I retract that statement: I haven't been keeping up on things, and it's quite possible that she has accused him of treason by now.
makes it accessory to murder. Did he then turn that person in? And please dispense with the extensive dramatics..."beloved thugs?" Where did I say that? Or do you require the insults and dramatic exaggerations in order to make a point? And I also noticed how that included people who have admitted these crimes personally.
QuoteThe thread found its way back to the Nazis because Misty declared that the outcome of democracy is always right.
No I didn't declare that, but nice try. maybe if you type it others will think I declared that. You tried the same thing by claiming I supported Brian being murdered and that I changed content of posts...yet still hasn't come up with any proof of that. What I said was that democracy is what we have and what we follow and that it's voted on by the majority. I didn;t say it was always right, I did say what parts I agree with.
QuoteI've already quoted such for you. And just demonstrated one more lie, to top them off.
No you didn't. Repetition without proof does not make truth.
QuoteNH has a population of about 1.31 million, and about 864,000 registered voters. So, right off the bat, about 35% of folks aren't even able to vote. Anyone have voter turnout numbers for New Hampshire? Anyone think the total number of voters will be more than half of the population? Further, of those who vote, only a portion vote for the candidate who wins.
So no, the winning candidate does not represent the majority.
65% is the majority. I stink at math yet even I can figure that out. Turnout is up to the people, if they decide not to turnout, it's their own fault. Nobody is stopping them from doing so. If the majority wants a certain candidate and doesn't vote, sucks to be them I guess.
QuoteReally? Do a majority of people donate to the SPCA?
No, the majority doesn't. But the majority who did bother turning out voted for those to who have keeping up the SPCA as an agenda. As stated before, if the actual majority doesn't eant the SPCA and feels strongly enough about it, then get off the computer and go out and vote for those who don't like the SPCA either. And if you can't find a candidate who doesn't like them...then either all candidates realize not to piss off too many voters by professing hating an org that helps animals or find your own candidate and see if you can get the majority of people to agree with their (and by extension your) views on the SPCA. If all you want to do is complain about them online and aren;t out there actively trying to change things...then I can't see a basis for the argument.
At least with the dramatics I can now understand one of those SPCA seizure videos with the towel needed as a neck wrap for the crying Heidi. Can't convince them with facts or baffle them with bullshite? Then use dramatics to try to garner support or sympathy. Kind of like the magician waving one arm dramatically while the other performs a trick. ::)
The FSP doesn't seem to have any answers to this issue (any issue for that matter, from what I can see). If the only role of government should be to protect life, liberty and property and - I suppose in a perfect FSP world - everyone is in the FSP and is peace loving and deagressive, then wouldn't the role of laws and government be moot points?
I mean, who or what would need protection if everyone is observing the "rules" (which are not laws, but rules - or signed their contract or whatever) and are minding their own business and property. So, as long as we all do this it would be the perfect society. There would be no hunger, no murder, no theft. Just I do my thing and you do yours. Government could be abolished, because everyone is the quintessential perfect citizen. And if they're not, they're at least behind their own doors and fences and as long as I'm not bothered, screw it and do it, baby.
Would you still feel it necessary to carry arms? Would there even be police? Would they still be considered thugs with guns or would they be disarmed too? Who makes the "rules"? What if someone steps out of line, how would they be "dealt with"? Shunning? Would there still be courts and torts?
Where would the dregs and bottom feeders of society go? Would they cease to exist in this model society by osmosis? If there are no laws, then there could be no crime, right?
What about the 30% unemployment rate because there's no government, jails etc., etc.?
Would all the firehouses and paramedics and first responders become privatized? How would they get paid? If you burn your house down, you pay a fee?
What about the rest of the services that government offers other than simply governing, would those branches stay in place? How would they get money? Would there still be food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, etc.? What about the Army, Navy, Airforce, NASA, FBI, CIA, Foreign Affairs... The list could go on and on and on and I think I was way too modest with the 30% unemployment rate if all that is gone!!
How are all these people going to be absorbed into the private sector? We don't even have jobs now and the unemployment rate isn't anywhere near this level.
Believe thee me, I dislike large government, high taxes and wastefulness just as much as the next guy but truly, I just don't see how this could ever, even in a billion years, work. I would be less surprised to see a T-Rex crashing through my back door right now.
Was going to edit to add but don't want Joe accusing me or murder again.
QuoteIf there happened to be a law passed requiring you to kick your cat once a day, would you follow it? Keep in mind that it would have been passed by a majority. No? But.. but, but, it's THE LAW!
A ridiculous scenerio. :-\
QuoteSerious crimes? Seriously? Name a few. Gardening in the park? Holding a plant in their hand? Driving without permission? Ooooo
The serious crimes were already quoted by me. Guess you only read what you think you can dramatize later?
Is gardening in the park a serious crime? (wasn't that on a green?) No, not a serious crime. Was it done with the intention of getting publicity by arrest? Probably.
Is that park/green owned exclusively by Jesse? If not and it's owned by the public for the public, did Jesse bother asking if everyone else wanted a garden in the middle of it? or did he assume HE was the most important public and so would do whatever the heck he wanted?
As for his handling of a firearm in that video...any experienced responsible and mature firearms supporter would have wanted to kick his arse for that type of handling. Sliding weapon without control, pointed more than once directly at the camera without his notice, etc. Read in another thread he carries a loaded and ready Mac 11 on a string hanging on his body???? :o As a firearms instructor...I'm beyond cringing. Makes me thrilled we have concealed carry for folks who've passed a "I'm not a dangerous fool" permit test. Is this really the person you want to hold up as a shining example? :( Someone who tries to enforce a garden that most likely very few of the owners of that park wanted and who thinks carrying a Mac 11 on string is even slightly sane and thinks because he carries he's a Big Guy and can out-argue rowdy drunks by approaching them? I'd put money down that if he weren't carrying his bravery level would drop a lot lower and he would've acted more responsibly in that situation. We call that Balls By Beretta or Gonads By Gun. ::)
QuoteI would be less surprised to see a T-Rex crashing through my back door right now.
xyz...at least it's not more than a dozen loose Arabians ripping up and crapping on your lawn that you pretend didn't do anything wrong until confronted with the facts and evidence of that. ;D But maybe you can build a shelter of twigs for it and some mish-mash fencing and hope it doesn't want to keep leaving.
At least those Arabians listened to Anton's earlier advice on just leaving if they're not being cared for well. ;) Now I only hope for the neighbors' sakes those horses don't become carnivores too. (just kidding Anton...but it is funny that the horses took your advice! ;) )
PS: Now that I think about it... Brian initially started the whole Nazi reference in his very first seizure video. I believe it was Auschwitz (sp?) to be exact. He was talking about his skeletal horses being loaded onto trailers as if to be led to the concentration camp. IMO, if we were to make a comparison to concentration camps, then yes, I would consider the horses to be the POWs and the Candia PD and SPCA to be the allied forces. The horses were the ones overcrowded in their tiny "cells" without proper nourishment (at least the jews had shelter). Dramatic? Oh yeah. Just keep in mind, I didn't start it. :P
Misty: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFT
What about the rest of the services that government offers other than simply governing, would those branches stay in place? How would they get money? Would there still be food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, etc.? What about the Army, Navy, Airforce, NASA, FBI, CIA, Foreign Affairs... The list could go on and on and on and I think I was way too modest with the 30% unemployment rate if all that is gone!!
How are all these people going to be absorbed into the private sector? We don't even have jobs now and the unemployment rate isn't anywhere near this level.
Believe thee me, I dislike large government, high taxes and wastefulness just as much as the next guy but truly, I just don't see how this could ever, even in a billion years, work. I would be less surprised to see a T-Rex crashing through my back door right now.
You do realize of course that within living memory none of those things existed except the military, and they were a very small force, just what was necessary to guard the country...and people got along fine. We don't need food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, NASA, the FBI, the CIA, the BATF, and all of the rest of the alphabet soup bureaus and agencies. No society needs those things. Those are all the result of misguided progressives and socialists trying to run everybody's lives for them. I'm sorry if those people would be put out of work, but they live by receiving money stolen from other people. I personally am pretty damned tired of having to support my own family and hordes of parasites who live off of other's labor.
George
Wow, my Karma is BAD... :o
I dislike wellies too, but I wouldn't send them out to starve any more than horses....
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:22 PM NHFT
QuoteSome philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between natural and legal rights
Keyword in that sentence: Some.
Key for content: Wikipedia? Really? ::) Almost any fool can add to that source of the inane information.
Some? That's your answer to unalienable rights? How about a majority of philosophers and political scientists make the distinction. That should suit your fancy. The point was that a right cannot have a caveat.
The wiki link was just to point you in the right direction. I'm sorry if you were insulted by the lack of documentation. Please read The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine and any work by John Locke, then get back to me. Until then, there's not much point in either one of us using the word "right" since we're talking about two completely different things.
QuoteRight, and therein lies the problem. Who gets to define unnecessary? There are plenty who would claim that eating an animal causes it unnecessary suffering. As for your laws, I don't really care how a bunch of old farts in Concord think unnecessary should be defined. On my property, I decide what is and is not necessary. Not you, not the old farts, not a majority of the voters.
Interestingly, since you label some animal suffering as unnecessary, there must by definition be some necessary animal suffering. Could you expound on this point?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:22 PM NHFT
You speak of the laws and unfairness of them all the time and yet do not know who defines them or decides them?
No, I know who does. It's the old farts and again you missed the point. Why does writing something in a book and calling it "law" give it magical powers that overrun my property rights?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:22 PM NHFT
The "old farts" probably also aren't worried about your personal thoughts either.
I don't need them to be. I only need them, and you, to leave me alone. That's not, leave me alone as long as I comply with your whims. That's leave me alone period! There are two kinds of people in this world, those of us that want to be left alone and those that just won't leave other people the f**k alone. Which one are you?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:22 PM NHFT
Eating an animal doesn't cause unnecessary suffering unless you're eating it while it's alive. Common sense 101.
Says you. And I happen to agree, but that's not the point. The point is, who gets to say. Your answer is "the majority". I disagree.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:22 PM NHFT
Do I seriously need to expound on the subject or are you just hoping for another round of "copy and paste rebuttal" games? Where you can pick apart any and every statement with odd sounding arguments.
The oddest argument I've made is that people should mind their own business and leave others (and their property) alone. I know, weird huh?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:22 PM NHFT
Do you really not know what the law considers necessary and unnecessary suffering? You don't know these things but yet still choose to argue the subject...an idea that makes little sense to me.
I already clearly stated that I'm not interested in "your laws". I'm discussing morality, the two are, apparently, irreconcilable.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:22 PM NHFT
Necessary suffering: The process of slaughter...
Why is it necessary? There are plenty of vegetarians in the world and you could choose to be one. Yet, you choose not to so it's not "necessary" suffering, it's discretionary suffering. It's ok as long as it's done the way you want. We already covered this with the overweight animals and how that makes them suffer but is also ok in your book.
QuoteCould you be more specific about where these non-functioning free market bastions are to be found?
p.s. If you tell my where they are, I'll tell you where they're not.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:22 PM NHFT
Since you've stated in the same area that you also know where they are,
Misty Blued the point. Again. What I was stating is that there is no such place.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:22 PM NHFT
seems to assume Wikipedia is a 100% correct source of information.
One quote is an assumption that "Wikipedia is a 100% correct source of information"? I think not and, I've provided new and improved sources for you. I promise that if I ever respond to you again, I will not provide Wiki links but will instead point you to books, entire volumes, that will make my point.
Will you read them?
QuoteNo kidding? Are you aware of all the crimes that took place today that you didn't do anything about? By passively "allowing" them, you condone them? I hereby dub this "Batman Syndrome". Said philosophy the ultimate busybody makes.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:22 PM NHFT
I'm not sure the reasoning behind the obtuse comment...it's patently obvious I referred to observing a crime and allowing it to continue without remedy because of whatever reason.
When is the last time you were in NH? Have you visited the Travis residence? Did you see the horses gallivanting around loose?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:22 PM NHFT
If I do indeed observe a crime,
Or read about it on the internet...
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:22 PM NHFT
I do something about it immediately.
I'll bet there's plenty of real crime in your area that you could do something about instead of super sleuthing / busy bodying some folks in another state who haven't harmed you at all.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:22 PM NHFT
Yesterday I saw a car clip another car in a parking lot. Took down the license plate number, waited for dented car owner to come out and gave them that info and my name and number. Busybody? Maybe, definitely according to you. If someone did it to my car and someone else walked away shrugging thinking, "Not my problem" then bully for them but I'd guess the vast majority of all folks if asked about this same scenerio would have wanted to know and have a busybody pass the info on to them.
An honorable action on your part.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:22 PM NHFT
As for dubbing this...you're free to dub this whatever you'd like and it's quite obvious you were waiting and hoping for any comment you could twist into the ridiculous in order to attempt to make a point while insulting someone at the same time. But since you've dubbed it then at least you can now add it to Wikipedia and use it in your next rude reply to someone who's only trying to explain their point of view without insulting you. You can probably define it as a syndrome usually committed by people who do not agree with you and that hence opens the new Batman to insults and rudeness.
Rudeness of course is a matter of perspective, just take a trip to India.
Is it ok to aggress against someone as long as you do it politely?
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 10:09 PM NHFT
PS: Now that I think about it... Brian initially started the whole Nazi reference in his very first seizure video. I believe it was Auschwitz (sp?) to be exact. He was talking about his skeletal horses being loaded onto trailers as if to be led to the concentration camp. IMO, if we were to make a comparison to concentration camps, then yes, I would consider the horses to be the POWs and the Candia PD and SPCA to be the allied forces. The horses were the ones overcrowded in their tiny "cells" without proper nourishment (at least the jews had shelter). Dramatic? Oh yeah. Just keep in mind, I didn't start it. :P
I don't think he was referring to the horses. He would have been referring to bureaucrats who "just follow orders" because they're "just doing their job" without any thought to the morality of the situation as if they somehow aren't personally responsible for their actions.
QuoteHow about a majority of philosophers and political scientists make the distinction.
Sorry, only repeated your first comment that said "some." I only picked it out as a key word. So now you say it's the majority and not some...then why post "some?"
QuoteNo, I know who does.
Then why constantly ask questions you already know the answer to? Do you also hum the Jeopardy theme song in your head after you hit "post?" If you're only interested in talking to yourself and asking and answering your own questions...why do you keep addressing me?
QuoteWhich one are you?
You already know...again asked and answered. Repeating for dramatic effect or ADD?
QuoteWhy is it necessary? There are plenty of vegetarians in the world and you could choose to be one. Yet, you choose not to so it's not "necessary" suffering, it's discretionary suffering. It's ok as long as it's done the way you want. We already covered this with the overweight animals and how that makes them suffer but is also ok in your book.
How would you know if I'm a vegetarian or not? (I'm not BTW)
It's necessary because people have the freedom to choose to eat meat. Meat is a large product in this country. It comes from animals. Thus animals will be slaughtered. There are laws to help make that process as humane as possible. And no, it's not the way I personally want it and that's something I've been working on for 15 years. Some changes need to be made, we're working on them. I also never said I thought obese animals were okay. Never once. I've worked with 17 owners of seriously obese animals in the last 5 years. I'm one of the people who goes to their homes and helps them implement a healthier way to feed their animals. Obese animals are rarely seized...because owners of obese animals generally make them that way through caring too much and learning too little. Owners of emaciated ones tend to make them that way through not caring at all or cruelty. Quite a difference there. And please don't ask me what the difference is because I can't imagine that you do not know the answer.
QuoteWhen is the last time you were in NH? Have you visited the Travis residence? Did you see the horses gallivanting around loose?
5 months ago. Nope. Been talking personally to two of his neighbors. The loose horses have been reported by neighbors. Not hard to find that either. But I suppose the neighbors are lying and have damaged their own lawns for conspiracy reasons. ::)
QuoteOr read about it on the internet...
Observed plenty of crimes...did what I could each time. I do leave my computer and I do walk the walk instead of just typing the type.
QuoteIs it ok to aggress against someone as long as you do it politely?
Your rudeness is apparent to anyone with reading skills. Some may agree with you about it being me only thinking that...but those are also the ones who will aggree with you simply because it disagrees with me. Or maybe they're rude also.
The question...inane.
By Keyser:
QuoteI don't think he was referring to the horses. He would have been referring to bureaucrats who "just follow orders" because they're "just doing their job" without any thought to the morality of the situation as if they somehow aren't personally responsible for their actions.
He did seem to be referring to Nazis on the part of him and wife. A ridiculous comparison...having some horsies removed (luxuries BTW) for not caring for them is hardly even close to genocide of Jews. He (and others who think they can compare other small things to the Holocaust) seem to have very elevated opinions of their level of suffering to make such a ridiculous comparison.
xyz seemed to be making the point that while Brian's suffering was next to nothing (weren't his horses anyways, he stood outside for a short while in winter clothes/Jews had it a bit tougher than that) and Heidi's were ridiculously dramatized as she made sure the camera was on her before overacting (and the towel scene was worse than a grade school play) that horses in the entire issue were actually the closest similarity to the Holocaust than either Brian or Heidi were. The horses were underfed, unmedicated and had horrendous living conditions in too cramped quarters. (not that the horses compare directly to the Holocaust but between Brian/Heidi and the horses...the horses are a hella lot closer)
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFT
QuoteThe thread found its way back to the Nazis because Misty declared that the outcome of democracy is always right.
No I didn't declare that, but nice try. maybe if you type it others will think I declared that. You tried the same thing by claiming I supported Brian being murdered and that I changed content of posts...yet still hasn't come up with any proof of that. What I said was that democracy is what we have and what we follow and that it's voted on by the majority. I didn;t say it was always right, I did say what parts I agree with.
"animal cruelty laws were voted in by a majority of people and supported by the majority of people. But then I'd guess they're all wrong too...their opinions are also considered wrong because they don't agree with your opinions? I happen to agree with a place where the majority rules by vote"
Sounds very supportive of the tyranny of the majority. What exactly do you not like about democracy? Are there any laws you don't believe are moral and do you follow them anyways?
QuoteNH has a population of about 1.31 million, and about 864,000 registered voters. So, right off the bat, about 35% of folks aren't even able to vote. Anyone have voter turnout numbers for New Hampshire? Anyone think the total number of voters will be more than half of the population? Further, of those who vote, only a portion vote for the candidate who wins.
So no, the winning candidate does not represent the majority.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFT
65% is the majority. I stink at math yet even I can figure that out.
I doubt 65% of the people have ever showed up an election and even if they did, half of them voted for the loser so best case scenario is the winner of the election was supported by 30% of the population. Many of those were single issue voters so that in most cases, the candidate doesn't even represent the 30% that supported him.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFT
If the majority wants a certain candidate and doesn't vote, sucks to be them I guess.
New release title "Sucks to be you: The True Story of Democracy".
QuoteReally? Do a majority of people donate to the SPCA?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFT
No, the majority doesn't. But the majority who did bother turning out voted for those to who have keeping up the SPCA as an agenda. As stated before, if the actual majority doesn't eant the SPCA and feels strongly enough about it, then get off the computer and go out and vote for those who don't like the SPCA either. And if you can't find a candidate who doesn't like them...then either all candidates realize not to piss off too many voters by professing hating an org that helps animals or find your own candidate and see if you can get the majority of people to agree with their (and by extension your) views on the SPCA. If all you want to do is complain about them online and aren;t out there actively trying to change things...then I can't see a basis for the argument.
OR Or or, I could not run, not campaign, not vote and people could just.... mind their own business and leave me alone! What a concept.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFT
At least with the dramatics I can now understand one of those SPCA seizure videos with the towel needed as a neck wrap for the crying Heidi. Can't convince them with facts or baffle them with bullshite? Then use dramatics to try to garner support or sympathy. Kind of like the magician waving one arm dramatically while the other performs a trick.
You mean like how some bureaucrat writes words in a magic book and POOF, there go my property rights?
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFT
The FSP doesn't seem to have any answers to this issue (any issue for that matter, from what I can see).
It's not the role of the FSP to provide answers.
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFT
wouldn't the role of laws and government be moot points?
Good point!
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFT
So, as long as we all do this it would be the perfect society. There would be no hunger, no murder, no theft. Just I do my thing and you do yours. Government could be abolished, because everyone is the quintessential perfect citizen.
There is no utopia. Freedom isn't perfect, just better than what we have now.
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFT
Would you still feel it necessary to carry arms?
Yes.
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFT
Would there even be police?
If people want to pay for them.
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFT
Would they still be considered thugs with guns or would they be disarmed too?
Anyone who denies another their right to life, liberty or property (all the same thing) is a thug.
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFT
Who makes the "rules"? What if someone steps out of line, how would they be "dealt with"? Shunning? Would there still be courts and torts? Where would the dregs and bottom feeders of society go? Would they cease to exist in this model society by osmosis? If there are no laws, then there could be no crime, right?
All excellent questions. There are numerous threads on this site and voluminous works elsewhere that deal with these and other issues. I can recommend some good reading if you'd like.
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFT
What about the 30% unemployment rate because there's no government, jails etc., etc.?
Are you suggesting that we lock human beings in cages because it creates jobs and is good for the economy? What would prosecutors, defense attys, cops and prison guards do? Get jobs that actually produce something instead of sponging off the tax dollars of the productive minority. See broken window fallacy.
Dare I post a wiki link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
Misty, please read the original work by Frederick Bastiat.
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFT
Would all the firehouses and paramedics and first responders become privatized? How would they get paid? If you burn your house down, you pay a fee?
Many already are. Works just fine.
http://www.ruralmetro.com/
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFT
What about the rest of the services that government offers other than simply governing, would those branches stay in place? How would they get money? Would there still be food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, etc.? What about the Army, Navy, Airforce, NASA, FBI, CIA, Foreign Affairs... The list could go on and on and on and I think I was way too modest with the 30% unemployment rate if all that is gone!!
It's pretty simple, they'd all find something else to do. Something more productive. Our prosperity would soar as freeloaders switch to being producers. Do you have any idea how many carriage, wagon, harness, buggy whip makers etc. went out of business when the automobile caught on? What happened to them? They got new jobs making cars instead of saddles. I know it's easier to transition from making something to making something else than to transition from producing nothing to something but I have faith that they have real value as human beings and these folks will find a way to fit into a productive society.
Think of bureaucrats (and wellies) as lazy teenagers. They're never going to get motivated until you cut off their allowance. But mom, if I don't get an allowance, how will I afford those concert tickets? Get a job! Actually, today's officials are more like the 40 year old who never moved out of his mom's house.
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFT
How are all these people going to be absorbed into the private sector? We don't even have jobs now and the unemployment rate isn't anywhere near this level.
Without ridiculous regulations enforced by the newly unemployed, business would flourish and prosperity would follow. I'll give you a personal example. I've got a few good business ideas that would employ at least two dozen people. Why haven't I opened them? First, I have to get license (permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal) which I won't do. In AZ they call it a transaction privilege license. God only knows what it's called here. The right to own property includes the right to dispose of said property by sale or trade so why do I need their permission? Then there's the building codes, zoning, I have to submit a floor plan to the fire dept, there's osha and the IRS plus two dozen other federal, state, county and city bureaucracies to deal with.
So guess what? It's not worth the headache. I sit at home, play online poker, make a few currency trades and sell some crap on Ebay all of which it's becoming harder to do by the day. I try to stay out of the way and even that's not good enough. Congress passes stupid laws making it difficult to transfer money for online "gambling" (cause the terrorist use them to launder money [bullshit]) and now Paypal must report all e transactions directly to the IRS. I mean to say, some people just won't leave you alone no matter what you do. Census worker came to the door last week. Did you know they're carrying GPS with them this year and recording the coordinates of your front door?
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFT
Believe thee me, I dislike large government, high taxes and wastefulness just as much as the next guy
You get plus one karma for that!
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFT
but truly, I just don't see how this could ever, even in a billion years, work. I would be less surprised to see a T-Rex crashing through my back door right now
Please don't take this the wrong way but what do you know about molecular biology? Rocket science? Quantum physics? Not much? Me neither. You don't have to see how every detail would work out. Most people drive cars, use laptops, cell phones and more which they know little if anything about. I may not know what works but I know what doesn't work. Authoritarianism doesn't work.
Disclaimer: I do not speak on behalf of the FSP. The views presented are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Free State Project nor other members or the owners of this forum.
QuoteIt's not the role of the FSP to provide answers.
Clearly...
QuoteWould you still feel it necessary to carry arms?
Yes.
What would be the purpose and intent?
QuoteAre you suggesting that we lock human beings in cages because it creates jobs and is good for the economy? What would prosecutors, defense attys, cops and prison guards do? Get jobs that actually produce something instead of sponging off the tax dollars of the productive minority.
No, jails are necessary because people are freaks. Maybe they could all go to Detroit and make automobiles - not....
Broken Window: The parable describes a shopkeeper whose window is broken by a little boy. Everyone sympathizes with the man whose window was broken, but pretty soon they start to suggest that the broken window makes work for the glazier, who will then buy bread, benefiting the baker, who will then buy shoes, benefiting the cobbler, etc. Finally, the onlookers conclude that the little boy was not guilty of vandalism; instead he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town.
Brian and Heidi are the little boy. They starve and neglect their horses and everybody sympathizes with them because they have their horses taken away, which in turn makes work for me to care for the horses since they don't/won't. When I buy feed for them it benefits the feed store, I get their feet trimmed benefitting the farrier. I draw blood for coggins tests benefitting the lab. I get them vaccinated benefitting the vet and pharmaceutical companies. So not guilty of theft - guilty of being a public benefactor?? (My role is to care for animals that are "dropped in my lap", I was not even at the rescue so don't even go there).
QuoteAll excellent questions. There are numerous threads on this site and voluminous works elsewhere that deal with these and other issues. I can recommend some good reading if you'd like.
I live in NH and, as the FSP has decided that this is their state of choice, I feel that it behooves me to know what's going on up here. I have been intrigued and as such, reading, trying to broaden my perspective. I see there are many questions and few, if any, answers. How can one effect change when there is not a common basis for what the change should be? I would never expect one group to have all answers, but a couple would be nice. You hang your hat on freedom and don't even agree on what qualifies - both ends are fighting the middle. I've seen more organization and fewer tantrums in the sandbox at a preschool.
QuoteMany already are. Works just fine.
Holy mackeral - did you check out the stats? There's some pretty expensive ambulance transports going on there. Did I read correctly that they are getting some pretty hefty $$ from gov't contracts??? Hmmmmmm.
QuoteWithout ridiculous regulations enforced by the newly unemployed, business would flourish and prosperity would follow.
I disagree, I think corruption would flourish and prosperity would go overseas with the rest of our economy.
QuoteSo guess what? It's not worth the headache.
Now there's a productive thought. ::)
QuoteYou get plus one karma for that!
Yeah!!
QuoteYou don't have to see how every detail would work out.
How about one or two??
QuoteI do not speak on behalf of the FSP. The views presented are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Free State Project nor other members or the owners of this forum.
Isn't that the entire premise? To have only your own views and freedom to present them? I'm on the dock but the boat is gone, long gone.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFTQuoteNotice how that includes crimes that folks have been accused of, not convicted of, let alone actually did? The "murderer," for example, drove an acquaintance to an address. Despite having no knowledge of what that acquaintance intended to do there, he was charged and convicted as an accessory by your beloved thugs. Logsdon is in the middle of a messy divorce, and has been accused of pretty much everything shy of treason by his wife. Actually, I retract that statement: I haven't been keeping up on things, and it's quite possible that she has accused him of treason by now.
makes it accessory to murder. Did he then turn that person in?
Really? Guilt by being there? With no knowledge that a murder was going to take place? You imagine that is "just" behavior?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFTAnd please dispense with the extensive dramatics..."beloved thugs?" Where did I say that? Or do you require the insults and dramatic exaggerations in order to make a point?
No exaggeration. You've stated how great the cops are, and how much you support them, on numerous occasions... You just now noted that you would turn in anyone you saw committing a crime, didn't you?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFTAnd I also noticed how that included people who have admitted these crimes personally.
Yup. There are many who have admitted to crimes, personally. One of the owners of this forum, for example, committed the heinous crime of refusing to pay for a war that he finds unconscionable. Your beloved thugs showed up and dragged him out of his house in chains, at gunpoint. I think they also pointed a gun at his daughter while they were doing it. Have I mentioned that they are pacifists, and the thugs who attacked them knew that, so they were just enjoying themselves, threatening people they knew would not fight back?
Yeah, I'll take "admitted criminals" like that, over your beloved thugs, any day of the week.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFTQuoteThe thread found its way back to the Nazis because Misty declared that the outcome of democracy is always right.
No I didn't declare that, but nice try. maybe if you type it others will think I declared that. You tried the same thing by claiming I supported Brian being murdered and that I changed content of posts...yet still hasn't come up with any proof of that. What I said was that democracy is what we have and what we follow and that it's voted on by the majority. I didn;t say it was always right, I did say what parts I agree with.
See, this is why the "quote" button is useful...
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 12:39 PM NHFTNeglecting of course to mention that animal cruelty laws were voted in by a majority of people and supported by the majority of people. But then I'd guess they're all wrong too...their opinions are also considered wrong because they don't agree with your opinions? I happen to agree with a place where the majority rules by vote...
[emphasis added]
So yes, you did express your support for the Nazis.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFTQuoteNH has a population of about 1.31 million, and about 864,000 registered voters. So, right off the bat, about 35% of folks aren't even able to vote. Anyone have voter turnout numbers for New Hampshire? Anyone think the total number of voters will be more than half of the population? Further, of those who vote, only a portion vote for the candidate who wins.
So no, the winning candidate does not represent the majority.
65% is the majority. I stink at math yet even I can figure that out. Turnout is up to the people, if they decide not to turnout, it's their own fault. Nobody is stopping them from doing so. If the majority wants a certain candidate and doesn't vote, sucks to be them I guess.
65% is not the number of voters. Even if there were 100% turnout, a candidate could win with only about one-third of the population in support. To even get a simple majority, if there were 100% turnout, the candidate would need to win 76% of the vote.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:40 PM NHFTQuoteReally? Do a majority of people donate to the SPCA?
No, the majority doesn't. But the majority who did bother turning out voted for those to who have keeping up the SPCA as an agenda. As stated before, if the actual majority doesn't eant the SPCA and feels strongly enough about it, then get off the computer and go out and vote for those who don't like the SPCA either. And if you can't find a candidate who doesn't like them...then either all candidates realize not to piss off too many voters by professing hating an org that helps animals or find your own candidate and see if you can get the majority of people to agree with their (and by extension your) views on the SPCA. If all you want to do is complain about them online and aren;t out there actively trying to change things...then I can't see a basis for the argument.
So, now, you're suggesting that folks should be one-issue voters, and not concern themselves with anything else a candidate might stand for, as long as they agree on one particular issue?
Here's a notion, since you believe that folks should "vote with their feet" and move to places that match their ideals: America is a republic, not a democracy. Folks are supposed to be guaranteed certain rights, which are never, under any circumstances, to be subject to vote. That's what those pesky old documents like the Constitution say. Granted, it's an imperfect document, but it's quite clear on that matter. So, since you obviously don't believe in that system, doesn't the standard that you have asserted for others, if applied to you, demand that you leave and find someplace that is run based upon pure democracy?
Let me guess... that standard only applies to those who disagree with you. You and your buddies don't have to live by the standard you demand others live by. Just like how Beth and some of her supporters can neglect or abuse animals, but that doesn't matter, because she's on your side, so you don't care what she does, right?
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFTWould you still feel it necessary to carry arms? Would there even be police? Would they still be considered thugs with guns or would they be disarmed too?
I find it quite telling that your notion of what would happen can imagine them becoming thugs without guns, but can't imagine them becoming non-thugs, with guns. It's rather telling that, subconsciously, you can imagine the police disarming, but apparently can't imagine them not being thugs.
But that's the answer. Security would be provided by peace officers, not thugs. If some deranged nutcase starts attacking innocent people, I or someone like me would step up to stop him. If grandma wants to smoke a joint to deal with her arthritis, we won't bust down her door at 3AM and trample her cat to death just for sadistic pleasure.
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFTWhat about the 30% unemployment rate because there's no government, jails etc., etc.?
That one is just too insane to ignore. "No government" is going to somehow cause 30% unemployment?
Here's a clue for you: unemployment is caused by the government. It's a key part of Keynesian economics. There are folks whose job it is to calculate the proper ratios of employed workers to under-employed workers, and how many of those under-employed workers should be completely unemployed versus how many should be just scraping by. That's
your system's "planned economy."
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:56 PM NHFTAs a firearms instructor...
Really? Who are you certified by? How often do you teach classes?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 09:56 PM NHFTMakes me thrilled we have concealed carry for folks who've passed a "I'm not a dangerous fool" permit test.
"We" don't require any testing. We also don't have a minimum age - my kids can carry guns concealed, if I give them permission. No fingerprints or photographs, or any other violations of basic human rights.
Funny... what's the rate of negligent shootings where you are, versus here? Sounds like personal responsibility wins, yet again...
Joe
QuoteIt's rather telling that, subconsciously, you can imagine the police disarming, but apparently can't imagine them not being thugs.
Just using your own terminology. I happen to not hate the police or even think of them as thugs... Is twisting what people print and putting words in their mouths your only claim to fame?
QuoteThat one is just too insane to ignore. "No government" is going to somehow cause 30% unemployment?
Where are all the people who comprise the gov't. going to work? Would they not be unemployed if the gov't. was abolished? I admit that I have not a clue how many people are employed federally, but I'd imagine that if they all lost their jobs in one fell swoop, the unemployment rate would rise.
QuoteSounds like personal responsibility wins, yet again...
How did "personal responsiblity" help the animals? Answer: There was none, so not at all.
There are two phrases that make me cringe:
"Thats the law"
"I am just doing my job"
And most people believe these are justifiable statements to harass, beat, jail and kill people. It's quite sad.
Quote from: xyz on May 12, 2009, 09:09 AM NHFTQuoteIt's rather telling that, subconsciously, you can imagine the police disarming, but apparently can't imagine them not being thugs.
Just using your own terminology. I happen to not hate the police or even think of them as thugs... Is twisting what people print and putting words in their mouths your only claim to fame?
You chose the words you used. I think the choices you made are rather telling about what you understand, subconsciously, but refuse to face up to.
Quote from: xyz on May 12, 2009, 09:09 AM NHFTQuoteThat one is just too insane to ignore. "No government" is going to somehow cause 30% unemployment?
Where are all the people who comprise the gov't. going to work? Would they not be unemployed if the gov't. was abolished? I admit that I have not a clue how many people are employed federally, but I'd imagine that if they all lost their jobs in one fell swoop, the unemployment rate would rise.
Without the government keeping the economy depressed, companies would be competing for workers to fill all the jobs they would be creating. Economics 101, here.
And, of course, "the government" isn't going to evaporate overnight. It will take decades to wither away. Plenty of time for folks to find new ways to live.
Quote from: xyz on May 12, 2009, 09:09 AM NHFTQuoteSounds like personal responsibility wins, yet again...
How did "personal responsiblity" help the animals? Answer: There was none, so not at all.
"Personal responsibility"... responsibility for persons. Animals are not people, no matter how much you might want them to be.
Joe
I've seen a bunch of statements here that make me cringe...
Quote from: xyz on May 12, 2009, 10:02 AM NHFTI've seen a bunch of statements here that make me cringe...
No doubt. Reality can be a tough pill to swallow, when you've been living in Oz for so long.
Joe
I do not wish animals were people. I love animals just the way they are. I wish people would simply care for them or not have them.
I'm trying to learn, why attack me? Is your best defense always a good offense?
Have a blast, twist away! I must go to work, enjoy your day, it's a beauty!!
Quote from: xyz on May 12, 2009, 10:07 AM NHFTI do not wish animals were people. I love animals just the way they are. I wish people would simply care for them or not have them.
You don't just "wish" that people would care for them. You support using violence to
force people to care for them.
The only time violence is acceptable is to defend the rights of a
person. If you believe in using violence to defend animals, then you believe they are persons, with rights that need defending.
I "wish" that people would treat animals well. I will even speak up against those who abuse or neglect their animals (provided such abuse or neglect is
proven, not just an accusation by someone with a history of making false accusations of animal abuse against those who she takes a disliking to - I don't support or participate in witch-hunts). Because animals don't have rights, I will never use
violence to support my wishes for how animals be treated.
Quote from: xyz on May 12, 2009, 10:07 AM NHFTI'm trying to learn, why attack me? Is your best defense always a good offense?
"I'm right and you're wrong and I won't listen to anything you say" doesn't exactly strike me as demonstrating much interest in learning. Maybe that's just me...
If you truly do want to learn, you might want to start asking questions and actually looking at the answers, rather than ignoring or deriding anything which does not agree with your existing prejudices.
Joe
None of your verbatim has any basis in fact. Suffice it to say. Now I must really be going, maybe I'll head over to the Taproom tonight and get some real information.
Once again 60+ pages wasted on a debate where the two sides are not even acknowledging what the real issue is.
We are once again talking about social contract theory vs. poly-centric law.
QuoteBroken Window: The parable describes a shopkeeper whose window is broken by a little boy. Everyone sympathizes with the man whose window was broken, but pretty soon they start to suggest that the broken window makes work for the glazier, who will then buy bread, benefiting the baker, who will then buy shoes, benefiting the cobbler, etc. Finally, the onlookers conclude that the little boy was not guilty of vandalism; instead he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town.
Brian and Heidi are the little boy. They starve and neglect their horses and everybody sympathizes with them because they have their horses taken away, which in turn makes work for me to care for the horses since they don't/won't. When I buy feed for them it benefits the feed store, I get their feet trimmed benefitting the farrier. I draw blood for coggins tests benefitting the lab. I get them vaccinated benefitting the vet and pharmaceutical companies. So not guilty of theft - guilty of being a public benefactor?? (My role is to care for animals that are "dropped in my lap", I was not even at the rescue so don't even go there).
Your application of the broken window fallacy to this scenario is bizarre and ridiculous. Besides, the horses were property being stolen, so you could apply far more accurately as;
The state stole Brian and Heidi's property - this required the services of police, veterinarians, personell, rescue facilities, paperwork to be pushed by city personell, lawyers to be employed, corrections to be made to the property which would benefit the hardware store, all of the feed and medicine you mentioned being bought from the feed store/distributer...
So what exactly is your point?
It doesn't apply to this situation, or to this argument. You might be out of your mind.
I don't really know what a parable about the economy has to do with any of this. But ok. ::)
Quote from: xyz on May 12, 2009, 10:22 AM NHFTNone of your verbatim has any basis in fact. Suffice it to say.
Is that supposed to make any sense?
"Verbatim" is an adjective or adverb - it can't even fit there in a sentence.
And suffice
what to say?
Anyone who knows me can attest to the fact that I don't go around telling folks they're wrong because of poor grammar (heck, this thread, alone, is proof of that, given the spelling and grammar that I've replied to without comment). However, I literally can't even understand what you're trying to say, there, so I need to ask for some sort of clarification.
Joe
Quote from: xyz on May 12, 2009, 07:03 AM NHFT
QuoteIt's not the role of the FSP to provide answers.
Clearly...
I hope it's finally clear and becomes so to everyone else. The purpose of the FSP is to get people who want freedom to move to NH. That's all. Once someone moves here, their only continued involvement with the FSP would be outreach to get more people to move or possibly to help out new movers. The FSP is not now and will never be involved in New Hampshire politics either locally or at the state level.
Are you aware that the FSP has a forum, and that this is not it?
http://forum.freestateproject.org/
Quote from: xyz on May 12, 2009, 07:03 AM NHFT
Would you still feel it necessary to carry arms?
QuoteYes.
Quote from: xyz on May 12, 2009, 07:03 AM NHFT
What would be the purpose and intent?
A) To exercise a right. Rights are like muscles, if not exercised, they atrophy.
B) For self-defense.
C) Because an armed society is a polite society.
QuoteAre you suggesting that we lock human beings in cages because it creates jobs and is good for the economy? What would prosecutors, defense attys, cops and prison guards do? Get jobs that actually produce something instead of sponging off the tax dollars of the productive minority.
Quote from: xyz on May 12, 2009, 07:03 AM NHFT
No, jails are necessary because people are freaks.
Psychologists have a term for that; Projection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Misty: Ignore the wiki link, read Projection and Re-Collection in Jungian Psychology.
QuoteAll excellent questions. There are numerous threads on this site and voluminous works elsewhere that deal with these and other issues. I can recommend some good reading if you'd like.
Quote from: xyz on May 12, 2009, 07:03 AM NHFT
I live in NH and, as the FSP has decided that this is their state of choice, I feel that it behooves me to know what's going on up here. I have been intrigued and as such, reading, trying to broaden my perspective. I see there are many questions and few, if any, answers. How can one effect change when there is not a common basis for what the change should be? I would never expect one group to have all answers, but a couple would be nice. You hang your hat on freedom and don't even agree on what qualifies - both ends are fighting the middle. I've seen more organization and fewer tantrums in the sandbox at a preschool.
QuoteWithout ridiculous regulations enforced by the newly unemployed, business would flourish and prosperity would follow.
Quote from: xyz on May 12, 2009, 07:03 AM NHFT
I disagree, I think corruption would flourish and prosperity would go overseas with the rest of our economy.
QuoteYou don't have to see how every detail would work out.
Quote from: xyz on May 12, 2009, 07:03 AM NHFT
How about one or two??
This has gone way beyond off topic. I'd be happy to speak more about the above points in person. To that end, you're invited to the Porcupine Freedom Festival which is upcoming in June. It will be in Lancaster at Roger's Campground. There will be hundreds of Freestaters and locals as well as potential movers.
It would be a great opportunity for you to "know what's going on up here". We can talk about politics, philosophy, history, economics, morality, unemployment or whatever else you'd like (maybe not horses though :-). You can have a good laugh about how many of us disagree on the above issues. You may find that only thing we really have in common is a general belief that the governments are too big for our own good.
Hey Joe ~ Exactly... ;D ;) Lighten up!!
Keyser ~ Sorry to take it so totally off topic. I've been doing a little research, am rather confused, and was curious what some of the characters on this familiar forum had to say. I've been reading this thread for a while and feel like I almost know you guys. Fancy that. Anyway, thank you very much for the invitation to your Porcupine Festival. I may just take you up on it!! And not to worry, I live and breath horses every day of my life, they are usually the last thing I want to talk about in a social setting. ;) I certainly do not agree with big government and could personally use much less of it. Obama, well.... ::) Pa - lease!!! Talk about a "Pork Fest"!!!!
Everyone else, thank you also. It's been fun, maybe I'll see you around. Although I must admit that I don't know if I'd ever let you know who I am... Some of you don't seem all that nice and I'm thinking you'd (some anyway?) carry a grudge. I, however, do not. So, ta ta for now as I'm going to put this BB to bed for a while. Happy Trails.
PS: Antonlee - I still think you're a crack up even though your last post to me was pretty evil... >:D
Quote from: xyz on May 10, 2009, 12:18 PM NHFT
I'm sure that the voiceless animals, given a voice, would beg to dif
Whether y'all like it or not is of no consequence.
so the animals need to be treated well ... but us poor people just have to lump whatever treatment we get at the hands of others and the government thugs they hire to abuse us?
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 05:20 PM NHFT
Didn't one of the FSP head honchos exonerate Beth for calling in the police? Is that not confirmation that your way doesn't work?
I don't understand this reference.
Why would the FSP be involved with this? Who is this head honcho?
Does he speak for us or always speak truth?
Quote from: xyz on May 11, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFT
The FSP doesn't seem to have any answers to this issue (any issue for that matter, from what I can see). If the only role of government should be to protect life, liberty and property and - I suppose in a perfect FSP world - everyone is in the FSP and is peace loving and deagressive, then wouldn't the role of laws and government be moot points?
yes ... a whole new way of living is available to each of us ... and if everyone followed the simple golden rule then noone would want a government to abuse others.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 11:03 PM NHFT
QuoteHow about a majority of philosophers and political scientists make the distinction.
Sorry, only repeated your first comment that said "some." I only picked it out as a key word. So now you say it's the majority and not some...then why post "some?"
UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, look it up. Doesn't matter if it's only one, that's the point.
QuoteNo, I know who does.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 11:03 PM NHFT
Then why constantly ask questions you already know the answer to? Do you also hum the Jeopardy theme song in your head after you hit "post?" If you're only interested in talking to yourself and asking and answering your own questions...why do you keep addressing me?
It's called a rhetorical question (a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply).
QuoteWhich one are you?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 11:03 PM NHFT
You already know...again asked and answered. Repeating for dramatic effect or ADD?
It's called a rhetorical question (a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply). Although, an answer of "I'm the type of person who just won't leave other people alone" would have been interesting.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 11:03 PM NHFT
And no, it's not the way I personally want it and that's something I've been working on for 15 years. Some changes need to be made, we're working on them.
I don't understand any of this part. What's not the way you want it? What have you been working on for 15 years? Who decides what changes "need" to be made? Will this involve you telling more people what they can and can't do on their own property or with their own property? Who is the "we" that is working on it?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 11:03 PM NHFT
Obese animals are rarely seized...because owners of obese animals generally make them that way through caring too much and learning too little. Owners of emaciated ones tend to make them that way through not caring at all or cruelty. Quite a difference there. And please don't ask me what the difference is because I can't imagine that you do not know the answer.
No, it's clear to everyone the difference isn't the abuse, it's what you judge people's motives to be. All hail Misty, knower of the thoughts and intents of the heart. "Yes, both cases are abuse, but some people are nice caring abusers and some people are mean and nasty abusers - and I can tell the difference".
QuoteWhen is the last time you were in NH? Have you visited the Travis residence? Did you see the horses gallivanting around loose?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 11:03 PM NHFT
5 months ago. Nope.
Right. But your claim was that you couldn't passively do nothing about abuse. I said there was lots of abuse that you passively do nothing about at which point it seemed that your distinction was whether or not you personally witnessed it (the car example). Point is, you haven't witnessed any of this incident.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 11:03 PM NHFT
Been talking personally to two of his neighbors. The loose horses have been reported by neighbors.
Oh, so it's a firsthand account of hearsay? In a hierarchy of abuses which cannot be passively ignored, where would loose farm animals rank? I imagine that there are thousands of such cases per day in the U.S., are you in the loop on any others?
QuoteOr read about it on the internet...
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 11:03 PM NHFT
Observed plenty of crimes...did what I could each time. I do leave my computer and I do walk the walk instead of just typing the type.
I repeat, you haven't observed any of this incident. I guess I should be thankful, the more time you spend posting here, the less time you have to figure out how to further trample people's property rights.
QuoteIs it ok to aggress against someone as long as you do it politely?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 11:03 PM NHFT
The question...inane.
Because your answer is yes? You seem A-okay with aggression but boy howdy, that rudeness just can't be tolerated. Ya think there oughta be a law? Some new federal bureaucracy perhaps? They could read all of our emails, listen to our calls and censor any "rudeness" as determined by a qualified panel of experts. There would be fines and jail time but at last the world would be a safe place for horses and polite aggressors.
QuoteI don't think he was referring to the horses. He would have been referring to bureaucrats who "just follow orders" because they're "just doing their job" without any thought to the morality of the situation as if they somehow aren't personally responsible for their actions.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 11, 2009, 11:03 PM NHFT
He did seem to be referring to Nazis on the part of him and wife. A ridiculous comparison...having some horsies removed (luxuries BTW) for not caring for them is hardly even close to genocide of Jews. He (and others who think they can compare other small things to the Holocaust) seem to have very elevated opinions of their level of suffering to make such a ridiculous comparison.
xyz seemed to be making the point that while Brian's suffering was next to nothing (weren't his horses anyways, he stood outside for a short while in winter clothes/Jews had it a bit tougher than that) and Heidi's were ridiculously dramatized as she made sure the camera was on her before overacting (and the towel scene was worse than a grade school play) that horses in the entire issue were actually the closest similarity to the Holocaust than either Brian or Heidi were. The horses were underfed, unmedicated and had horrendous living conditions in too cramped quarters. (not that the horses compare directly to the Holocaust but between Brian/Heidi and the horses...the horses are a hella lot closer)
I'm going to type this really slowly. The comparison is not Brian/Heidi to the Jews, it's not the horses to the Jews, it's not living conditions in Candia to living conditions in Auschwitz. The comparison is people who blindly follow orders to people who blindly follow orders. People who think I'm just doing my job is good excuse to people who think I'm just doing my job is a good excuse. People who don't take personal responsibility for their actions to people who don't take personal responsibility for their actions. Get it?
Quote from: BillKauffman on May 12, 2009, 11:12 AM NHFT
Once again 60+ pages wasted on a debate where the two sides are not even acknowledging what the real issue is.
We are once again talking about social contract theory vs. poly-centric law.
I think they are acknowledging it... just in their own way.
QuoteI'm going to type this really slowly. The comparison is not Brian/Heidi to the Jews, it's not the horses to the Jews, it's not living conditions in Candia to living conditions in Auschwitz. The comparison is people who blindly follow orders to people who blindly follow orders. People who think I'm just doing my job is good excuse to people who think I'm just doing my job is a good excuse. People who don't take personal responsibility for their actions to people who don't take personal responsibility for their actions. Get it?
It doesn't matter how slowly you type something, I'll still be reading it at the same speed. (sarcastic comment)
I'll repeat my comments:
The living conditions in Candia have jack shite to do with Auschwitz...the comparison is about as accurate as me saying I'm just like a Nazi because I've eaten Paprika Schnitzel before. The comparison is so vague and laughable it's pathetic. YOU are NOT comparable to a Jewish person in Auschwitz...not now, not EVER. So dismount off the Drama Llama...you're a man for crisssakes...act like one.
Get that?
(seriously comparing you're personal living conditions on Candia as you sit with your unemaciated arse in a comfy chair in front of a computer inside a house with food in your fridge and no ovens ready to murder you for no reason other than your ethnicity...yeah...no drama there. Now I see why a few are so vehement about open carry everywhere all the time...only way to protect yourselves from the big scary meanie conspiracies and your own ridiculous imaginations )
(and yes, I finally got rude back. Apologies to those with social graces on here reading)
Ms. Misty,
Do you think it was acceptable for the nazis to kill jews?
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on May 13, 2009, 07:54 AM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on May 12, 2009, 11:12 AM NHFT
Once again 60+ pages wasted on a debate where the two sides are not even acknowledging what the real issue is.
We are once again talking about social contract theory vs. poly-centric law.
I think they are acknowledging it... just in their own way.
Seems a little silly though to be beating around the bush - no?
I mean do you think Misty Blue has any understanding at all or knowledge of "free market, poly-centric law" or even "social contract theory"??
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 13, 2009, 08:03 AM NHFT
QuoteI'm going to type this really slowly. The comparison is not Brian/Heidi to the Jews, it's not the horses to the Jews, it's not living conditions in Candia to living conditions in Auschwitz. The comparison is people who blindly follow orders to people who blindly follow orders. People who think I'm just doing my job is good excuse to people who think I'm just doing my job is a good excuse. People who don't take personal responsibility for their actions to people who don't take personal responsibility for their actions. Get it?
It doesn't matter how slowly you type something, I'll still be reading it at the same speed. (sarcastic comment)
I'll repeat my comments:
The living conditions in Candia have jack shite to do with Auschwitz...the comparison is about as accurate as me saying I'm just like a Nazi because I've eaten Paprika Schnitzel before. The comparison is so vague and laughable it's pathetic. YOU are NOT comparable to a Jewish person in Auschwitz...not now, not EVER. So dismount off the Drama Llama...you're a man for crisssakes...act like one.
Get that?
(seriously comparing you're personal living conditions on Candia as you sit with your unemaciated arse in a comfy chair in front of a computer inside a house with food in your fridge and no ovens ready to murder you for no reason other than your ethnicity...yeah...no drama there. Now I see why a few are so vehement about open carry everywhere all the time...only way to protect yourselves from the big scary meanie conspiracies and your own ridiculous imaginations )
(and yes, I finally got rude back. Apologies to those with social graces on here reading)
You didn't read it. Or you didn't understand it. One more time he said:
The comparison is NOT Brian/Heidi to the Jews, it's NOT the horses to the Jews, it's NOT living conditions in Candia to living conditions in Auschwitz.
The comparison IS the following:
People who blindly follow orders to people who blindly follow orders.
People who think "I'm just doing my job" is good excuse to people who think "I'm just doing my job" is a good excuse.
People who don't take personal responsibility for their actions to people who don't take personal responsibility for their actions.
QuotePeople who blindly follow orders to people who blindly follow orders.
People who think "I'm just doing my job" is good excuse to people who think "I'm just doing my job" is a good excuse.
People who don't take personal responsibility for their actions to people who don't take personal responsibility for their actions.
yes, it's also how the armed services work and plenty of other things work. To jump from politics directly to Auschwitz is high drama and ridiculous.
So the average police officer is NO different than a Nazi officer who was gassing millions due to their ethnicity? Seriously? There isn't *any* levels of degrees between the two? Or is the massive jump between the two brought up to point of nauseousness on this BB due to the drama-like impact?
Because comparing the police and politicians to Nazis means that all of you making the comparison are comparable to the Jews. And I *hardly* think that's close to accuracy. Or do some of you REALLY think you're in the same exact type of situation? If so...I do feel for you but there are meds for paranoid thoughts out there these days.
QuoteMs. Misty,
Do you think it was acceptable for the nazis to kill jews?
Obviously not. But then I am not the ones comparing myself to the persecuted and tortured Jews either, am I?
Does anyone discuss anything here or just type rhetoric for shits and giggles?
QuoteI mean do you think Misty Blue has any understanding at all or knowledge of "free market, poly-centric law" or even "social contract theory"??
Ayup...beleeves it or nots I cans read and I does has some smarts too. ::)
Lovely subset of culture going on here. Don't agree with the radical thinkers? Then you're open to insult for daring think differently than they do. Although they don't want everyone thinking the same...ONLY if it's the same as they think.
Argue amongst yourselves with this stuff. It's what y'all love to do and frankly I find it moronic at this point due to the condescending nature of the conversationalists.
QuoteSo the average police officer is NO different than a Nazi officer who was gassing millions due to their ethnicity? Seriously?
Again...it's not the atrocities we focus on, but the system in place to allow such atrocities to happen. The systems and means to get to that result are pretty well known and documented through the ages. The signs and tokens pointing to the cause are apparent and undeniable to those who have not been taken in by propaganda or apathy. Apathy is what the system counts on to continue its forward movement toward control and domination.
As long as you remain unaffected by the system or just outside it's violence, you have nothing to worry about. No really...go on living your life. Those people who get run over by the machine...yeah, they're deserving of it. As long as it isn't you. You've got nothing to hide...you follow ALL the rules. You're safe. Secure. Sleep. mmmmmmmm
QuoteArgue amongst yourselves with this stuff.
You never made an argument against "free market, poly-centric law" in all of your posts.
BTW - I am on your side.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 13, 2009, 12:55 PM NHFT
QuotePeople who blindly follow orders to people who blindly follow orders.
People who think "I'm just doing my job" is good excuse to people who think "I'm just doing my job" is a good excuse.
People who don't take personal responsibility for their actions to people who don't take personal responsibility for their actions.
yes, it's also how the armed services work
A great model of the world I don't want to live in.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 13, 2009, 12:55 PM NHFT
To jump from politics directly to Auschwitz is high drama and ridiculous.
There's no jump from
"People who blindly follow orders to people who blindly follow orders. People who think 'I'm just doing my job' is good excuse to people who think 'I'm just doing my job' is a good excuse. People who don't take personal responsibility for their actions to people who don't take personal responsibility for their actions."
Apples to apples doll, apples to apples.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 13, 2009, 12:55 PM NHFT
So the average police officer is NO different than a Nazi officer who was gassing millions due to their ethnicity? Seriously? There isn't *any* levels of degrees between the two? Or is the massive jump between the two brought up to point of nauseousness on this BB due to the drama-like impact?
For most of them, the only difference is that they haven't been ordered to do that yet. They do however already kidnap, imprison and torture people on a daily basis using the enforcement of immoral laws as an imperative.
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 13, 2009, 12:55 PM NHFT
Because comparing the police and politicians to Nazis means that all of you making the comparison are comparable to the Jews.
Not necessarily, it could make us communists or trade unionists but it definitely begs the question, 'Will you wait until they come for you to do anything'. I mean, it was
illegal to form a union and be a communist. It was the will of that majority you're so fond of.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew;
And then... they came for Misty... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
- Martin Niemöller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
Misty: Don't look at the wiki link. Instead, read They Thought They Were Free by Milton Mayer.
p.s. Do you think you're free? Yes? Read the book!
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 13, 2009, 12:55 PM NHFT
Or do some of you REALLY think you're in the same exact type of situation? If so...I do feel for you but there are meds for paranoid thoughts out there these days.
There are also plenty of meds for those who want to escape/ ignore reality and just be happy happy every day. Incidentally, they happen to be quite popular. Cymbalta, Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft etc
QuoteMs. Misty, Do you think it was acceptable for the nazis to kill jews?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 13, 2009, 12:55 PM NHFT
Obviously not.
Doesn't seem obvious to him or he wouldn't have asked. You could clear up the issue for good by answering the following questions.
A) Hitler came to power through the support of the majority.
Do you or don't you believe that majority rule is moral?
B) The atrocities committed were legal in Germany.
Do you or don't you believe that something is moral because it's the law?
C) The soldiers and police there were just following orders and doing their jobs.
Do you or do you not believe that individuals are solely responsible to determine the morality of their actions and to be accountable for any damages they cause?
My previously asked but unanswered questions;
D) Are there any laws which you believe are immoral? Do you abide by them anyways?
Quote from: MistyBlue on May 13, 2009, 12:55 PM NHFT
QuotePeople who blindly follow orders to people who blindly follow orders.
People who think "I'm just doing my job" is good excuse to people who think "I'm just doing my job" is a good excuse.
People who don't take personal responsibility for their actions to people who don't take personal responsibility for their actions.
yes, it's also how the armed services work and plenty of other things work. To jump from politics directly to Auschwitz is high drama and ridiculous.
So the average police officer is NO different than a Nazi officer who was gassing millions due to their ethnicity? Seriously?
If your average police officer blindly follows orders, never questions the legal or moral authority of what he's doing, then he's doing exactly what the Auschwitz guard was doing: "just doing his job". The end result, whether it's healthy horses or dead people, is not the point. The point, once again, is blind unquestioning obedience.
You said this is "how the armed services work", which leads me to believe you've never been in a military branch. From my experience (almost ten years of active and reserve duty), I can tell you that while there might be a culture of following orders, the reality is that the soldier carrying out orders is
constantly questioning them. Even Snuffy Slicksleeve learns pretty quickly that blind obedience can get you either: A) killed by stupid orders; or, B) killed by a firing squad for having obeyed illegal orders.
Quote from: KBCraig on May 13, 2009, 05:51 PM NHFT
If your average police officer blindly follows orders, never questions the legal or moral authority of what he's doing, then he's doing exactly what the Auschwitz guard was doing: "just doing his job".
Don't you work as a guard in a federal prison?
Quote from: LordBaltimore on May 14, 2009, 10:27 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on May 13, 2009, 05:51 PM NHFT
If your average police officer blindly follows orders, never questions the legal or moral authority of what he's doing, then he's doing exactly what the Auschwitz guard was doing: "just doing his job".
Don't you work as a guard in a federal prison?
Yes. I also don't blindly follow orders.
I just got back from court with great news for Heidi.
The prosecutor dropped all of the horse abuse charges. Dropped. Gone. Like they never happened. She (the prosecutor) even read into the record that Heidi is a conscientious horse owner who just had a temporary setback. This is the prosecutor saying this. She stopped just short of admitting they shouldn't have acted so forcefully when they did. Sounds like vindication to me.
So the misdemeanor charges are dropped. Fines, too.
In addition to the nullified misdemeanor charges, there were some charges for "inadequate shelter", which is a violation. Much like a parking ticket or speeding ticket. They dropped all but two of those charges, so they would have something to force her to pay some of the vet bills the town incurred when they had the horses for a couple weeks.
Those two violations will go away in a year as well.
That's great news for Heidi, of course. And now I think it would be appropriate for all of the people who have trashed her on these boards to apologize. It takes a person of good moral character to admit when she is wrong. Let's see what happens.
So I'm celebrating this by buying the next round of beer. At Taproom next Tuesday. See you there!
Excellent news, Brian!
I'm glad that's Heidi's not going to jail :)
;D 8) Great news Brian.
Are they returning the horses?
Quote from: brian.travis on October 07, 2009, 11:30 AM NHFT
I just got back from court with great news for Heidi.
The prosecutor dropped all of the horse abuse charges. Dropped. Gone. Like they never happened. She (the prosecutor) even read into the record that Heidi is a conscientious horse owner who just had a temporary setback. This is the prosecutor saying this. She stopped just short of admitting they shouldn't have acted so forcefully when they did. Sounds like vindication to me.
Well, now. That's just a little bit different from what someone was gloating on Facebook, about Heidi "pleading guilty to animal abuse", isn't it?
;D
Good work. That animal shelter law is a horrible law, anyway.
I called this guy...
Candia PD: Chief Michael McGillen 603-483-2318
and this guy...
Stephen Sprowl
603-772-2921 ext. 111
they don't seem to want to talk to me.
I want to know how they will modify themselves and their treatment of others in the light of their prosecutors apology.
Quote from: KBCraig on October 07, 2009, 01:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: brian.travis on October 07, 2009, 11:30 AM NHFT
I just got back from court with great news for Heidi.
The prosecutor dropped all of the horse abuse charges. Dropped. Gone. Like they never happened. She (the prosecutor) even read into the record that Heidi is a conscientious horse owner who just had a temporary setback. This is the prosecutor saying this. She stopped just short of admitting they shouldn't have acted so forcefully when they did. Sounds like vindication to me.
Well, now. That's just a little bit different from what someone was gloating on Facebook, about Heidi "pleading guilty to animal abuse", isn't it?
;D
You mean when Beth posted a photo of the letter from the state informing her that Heidi pled guilty?
(http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs224.snc1/7127_163831830571_563935571_3761016_6917900_n.jpg)
Quote from: Friday on October 07, 2009, 09:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on October 07, 2009, 01:50 PM NHFT
Well, now. That's just a little bit different from what someone was gloating on Facebook, about Heidi "pleading guilty to animal abuse", isn't it?
;D
You mean when Beth posted a photo of the letter from the state informing her that Heidi pled guilty?
It was more about the gloating than the plea.
The obvious question to ask, for anyone interested in objective answers, would be, "Pleaded guilty to
what, exactly?"
Almost everyone knows that plea deals are never made without a reduction in charges. In this case, it was a rather massive reduction in charges: two counts of failing to provide adequate shelter, versus much more serious charges of neglect and starvation (IIRC).
Beth didn't mention the reduced charges. She cheered that Heidi had "pleaded guilty", with the obvious implication that Heidi was guilty of everything she'd been accused of, both in court, and in the horse forums.
For the record (I shouldn't have to repeat it, but this thread has been ongoing for some time now): I can rightly be described as an animal lover. I deplore and condemn abuse, neglect, starvation, and cruelty. I also believe there are some people who love animals more than fellow human beings, hold them in higher regard, and are all too eager to see people punished by the State for treating animals like animals, instead of superior beings.
that is good news :D
just in time for the first snow flakes of this winter .... will the thugs be counting how many touch the backs of the horses?
Quote from: KBCraig on October 08, 2009, 02:13 AM NHFT
For the record (I shouldn't have to repeat it, but this thread has been ongoing for some time now): I can rightly be described as an animal lover. I deplore and condemn abuse, neglect, starvation, and cruelty. I also believe there are some people who love animals more than fellow human beings, hold them in higher regard, and are all too eager to see people punished by the State for treating animals like animals, instead of superior beings.
Also for the record, I love animals and would not want to ever see them abused or neglected. But when it comes down to it, we need to remember that humans are humans and animals are property.
We have some neighbors who have very large horses that they use in pulling competitions. These horses pull everything from wagons to rocks. Beasts of burden have helped create civilization for centuries. They are well taken care of because they represent valuable assets to their owners.
There are people who would call that cruelty. These mis-guided do-gooders are trying to ban these competitions.
From Beth's Facebook page: "Ill use force of the government against anyone who harms a human or horse."
I wish I would have known this before I hired her. I never would want such a dangerous, violent person around me or my family.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 08, 2009, 07:41 AM NHFT
that is good news :D
just in time for the first snow flakes of this winter .... will the thugs be counting how many touch the backs of the horses?
I don't know how many times I looked out in the paddocks during rain, wind, or snow and saw the horses standing in the weather right next to perfectly good shelters.
What if you build shelters and the horses don't use them? Can you legislate that the horses use them? Do you impose fines on the animals for standing in the wind? What if they don't pay the fine? Few horses can afford to pay, after all, and those that can are stingy with their money. Do you throw a horse in jail so it can work off $50/day? At least they'd be under shelter.
Maybe I shouldn't be giving the legislators any more ideas.
Quote from: KBCraig on October 08, 2009, 02:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: Friday on October 07, 2009, 09:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on October 07, 2009, 01:50 PM NHFT
Well, now. That's just a little bit different from what someone was gloating on Facebook, about Heidi "pleading guilty to animal abuse", isn't it?
;D
You mean when Beth posted a photo of the letter from the state informing her that Heidi pled guilty?
It was more about the gloating than the plea.
The obvious question to ask, for anyone interested in objective answers, would be, "Pleaded guilty to what, exactly?"
Almost everyone knows that plea deals are never made without a reduction in charges. In this case, it was a rather massive reduction in charges: two counts of failing to provide adequate shelter, versus much more serious charges of neglect and starvation (IIRC).
Beth didn't mention the reduced charges. She cheered that Heidi had "pleaded guilty", with the obvious implication that Heidi was guilty of everything she'd been accused of, both in court, and in the horse forums.
For the record (I shouldn't have to repeat it, but this thread has been ongoing for some time now): I can rightly be described as an animal lover. I deplore and condemn abuse, neglect, starvation, and cruelty. I also believe there are some people who love animals more than fellow human beings, hold them in higher regard, and are all too eager to see people punished by the State for treating animals like animals, instead of superior beings.
I asked Beth about the letter. They wouldn't tell her anything other then Hedi plead guilty to the charges and Beth was released from her subpoena. She called and asked and could get no further explanation on which charges. They did not tell her most of them were dropped.
I'm glad the free staters I know aren't willing to call the federales and staties on me for things that don't concern them. If you are willing to do so, call the po-9 in to bust some heads and steal some property, then I wouldn't consider you a freestater no matter what state you came from.
I wouldn't even consider you human, you'd be an animal to harm a human being because you don't care for how they treat their property. "I'm sorry, you're just a tool"
Sorry that this entire thing happened to your family.
Quote from: porcupine kate on October 08, 2009, 01:16 PM NHFT
I asked Beth about the letter. They wouldn't tell her anything other then Hedi plead guilty to the charges and Beth was released from her subpoena. She called and asked and could get no further explanation on which charges. They did not tell her most of them were dropped.
You know, Kate, it wasn't the letter that set me off. It was the gloating. That letter was a joyous justification to Beth and her supporters that they were right in calling in the thugs. I knew what the truth was, but didn't want to interfere in their party until after the court hearing. And they sure did make themselves look like ignorant, violent fools.
But I'm ready to let it go. This has been very painful for my family and our finances. It's over except for the last two tickets that will be removed next year.
I can't yet forgive Beth for what she did. But I will forgive most of the people who supported her, since some things I've been told that she said were blatant lies and mis-characterizations. I can't blame people for believing such a likable person. I know I did at first.
And I'm with Anton. When I signed on to the Free State Project, I agreed with the Statement of Intent, which goes like this:
...I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. Now it's perfectly fine for someone to move to New Hampshire for whatever reason they want. But if they don't live up to the Free State Project Statement of Intent, they really shouldn't be calling themselves a "Free Stater".
So let's move beyond this. We have the Medical Marijuana veto override, there's the Manchester spending cap to get passed and the broad-based tax to fight. And then the other 10,000 statutes that need to be removed.
The horse saga is over. It's time for me to get back to work!
Oh, one more thing. I had some time to kill and stumbled upon one of these horse sites that has been all a-twitter about this case. Someone re-posted my message from yesterday about the case being closed. At the end of that message, I mentioned that I am celebrating by buying a round of beer at Murphy's Taproom.
Well, several people on this horsey board were doubting that my offer included them.
Let me tell you, I'd be honored to have you people there so I can buy you a beer. Plus, you'll get to see that all of the Freestaters are not as evil/twisted/ignorant as you have reported that I am.
I'm serious. MistyBlue, I know you are still reading these replies, so can you please get the message to these people? I thought about registering, but I'm sure you have a zero-tolerance rule about trolls.
In the spirit of forgiveness and understanding, I invite anyone who is familiar with this case to get to Taproom next Tuesday, 13-Oct and I'll buy you a beer. Say, 7-ish?
494 Elm St
Manchester, NH 03101-2511
(603) 644-3535
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&q=murphy%27s+taproom&fb=1&gl=us&hq=murphy%27s+taproom&hnear=Manchester,+NH&cid=0,0,12707519620611232294&ei=kKDOStehFYy-lAfvjJiOAw&ll=42.986018,-71.463082&spn=0.010171,0.014613&t=h&z=16
...and thanks for the Karma, people. Apparently I'm not the last person reading this waaay too-long epic thread from hell.
See you at Taproom next Tuesday!
Your a better man then me Brian.
I love to give folks Beer, but those self right.......
well like I said you a better man than me.
Quote from: Pat K on October 09, 2009, 12:02 AM NHFT
Your a better man then me Brian.
I love to give folks Beer, but those self right.......
well like I said you a better man than me.
Sometimes it's tempting to just give someone the beer
bottle. ;)
Friday's UL reports how the prosecutor practically apologized in court, and the NHSPCA is pissed.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=1ec1880a-a16b-414e-b6bd-440a2ce38b2d
Quote from: KBCraig on October 09, 2009, 01:24 AM NHFT
Friday's UL reports how the prosecutor practically apologized in court, and the NHSPCA is pissed.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=1ec1880a-a16b-414e-b6bd-440a2ce38b2d
'
Where did you possibly read that in that article?
Quote from: brian.travis on October 08, 2009, 11:37 AM NHFT
Can you legislate that the horses use them [shelters]?
Thank you brian, for the delicious idea of how the legislation would be written, in the absurdist vein I could see police on a stakeout in mid-Decemeber, the sun goes down and they start writing tickets and sticking them on the horses or in the realist vein; ultimately it would be the owners responsibility that the horses be locked up, and being slightly larger than their owners, the only way to get them to go (if they didn't want to) would be a cattle prod.
It would require using force on the animals, for sure. But it's for their own good.
But it is just an extension of how the government treats its animals, the citizens. They must use force to make us obey them, but it's for our own good.
Quote from: ny2nh on October 09, 2009, 06:34 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on October 09, 2009, 01:24 AM NHFT
Friday's UL reports how the prosecutor practically apologized in court, and the NHSPCA is pissed.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=1ec1880a-a16b-414e-b6bd-440a2ce38b2d
'
Where did you possibly read that in that article?
Here:
Quote"The state has always maintained that her intentions were not to mistreat the horses, but she failed to recognize that she was in over her head," Docko wrote.
The New Hampshire SPCA sent out a press release yesterday expressing their disappointment in the decision.
I think dropping 100% of the neglect charges is evidence that they realize they went too far. I'll accept that apology.
The problem is the ridiculously over-inflated vet and boarding bills incurred for the couple weeks they had the horses. I could have rented 12 rooms at a Four Seasons resort for less than that. Probably schedule a few trips to the spa, too.
So, yet again, this is the government helping you by taking the animals for your own good, and then helping you by making it possible to pay back "restitution" over five years instead of all at once. With interest, of course.
I haven't looked up the dictionary definition of "restitution" lately, but I thought it was re-payment to someone you have harmed by your actions. So the town cops take the horses, put them at farms all over the state, and call in the vet. All of this against the will of the horse's owner. The vet and farms send the town a bill for charges. By the way, there doesn't seem to be any standard for what they can charge. The vet they used knows she charges exorbitant rates for this type of seizure. There are stories that she prefers to be present when she hands the bill to her clients to see the painful expression on their face.
There's no doubt that harm was done in this case, but it wasn't Heidi doing the harm. Perhaps the police should reimburse the town. Oh, but that would be justice. Can't have that here.
So whaddya gonna do? The town saves face. The prosecutor saves face. The horses are back with Heidi, and she's left with the bill.
Does this sound like "serving and protecting" to you?
QuoteFrom Beth's Facebook page: "Ill use force of the government against anyone who harms a human or horse."
NOT cool.
Any comment from that vet-guy, Mr. Stevie Spowl?
Brian, so "they" are holding your liable for the vet bills, etc. that they incurred?
Littlehawk
Quote from: KBCraig on October 09, 2009, 11:45 AM NHFT
Quote from: ny2nh on October 09, 2009, 06:34 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on October 09, 2009, 01:24 AM NHFT
Friday's UL reports how the prosecutor practically apologized in court, and the NHSPCA is pissed.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=1ec1880a-a16b-414e-b6bd-440a2ce38b2d
'
Where did you possibly read that in that article?
Here:
Quote"The state has always maintained that her intentions were not to mistreat the horses, but she failed to recognize that she was in over her head," Docko wrote.
The New Hampshire SPCA sent out a press release yesterday expressing their disappointment in the decision.
And you got
apology out of that? The state said they agree that Heidi may not have intended to mistreat her horses and Heidi failed to realize she was in over her head. SPCA was disappointed with the decision.
No matter how I read the article, I don't see how that infers apology. But, if you want to read that and get apology, whatever.
Who cares what the SPCA has to say? Support your local animal shelters. I met a woman at the Merrimack Valley River Rescue who said she doesn't go near the MSPCA people. . .
"they're crazy" -Linda from MVRR (It might be Feline River Rescue)
Quote from: ny2nh on October 10, 2009, 05:23 AM NHFT
And you got apology out of that? The state said they agree that Heidi may not have intended to mistreat her horses and Heidi failed to realize she was in over her head. SPCA was disappointed with the decision.
No matter how I read the article, I don't see how that infers apology. But, if you want to read that and get apology, whatever.
And if you want to read "the state dropped all cruelty charges" as some kind of vindication for your position, then whatever.
Quote from: AntonLee on October 10, 2009, 05:28 AM NHFT
Who cares what the SPCA has to say? Support your local animal shelters. I met a woman at the Merrimack Valley River Rescue who said she doesn't go near the MSPCA people. . .
"they're crazy" -Linda from MVRR (It might be Feline River Rescue)
Got my rats from Mainely Rat Rescue (http://mainelyratrescue.org/rattieblog2/), a wonderful and purely volunteer organization that saves unwanted rats with incentives (a carrot rather than a stick), making it easy to adopt rats by getting new owners the stuph they need and what not.
Brian~ It's a shame that you feel vindicated just because the state wants to save a buck, be done with your useless ramblings and has no idea what to do with your horses.
The fact remains that Heidi took crappy care of her horses last year and she'll take crappy care of her horses this year, that's probably why they all look like crap. Happy healthy horses my butt.
As for the vet involved in your case, she - indeed both of them - are a couple of the nicest people I have the pleasure of knowing, what you imply is pure rubbish. They would both go out of their ways to help animals, any time, any place, regardless of payment, as evidenced by being out in a snowstorm trying to offer some protection and solace to animals suffering under your very noses, with absolutely no guarantee of payment. Do you work for free? I don't believe you've paid either one of them a dollar yet...
As for the restitution, your horses were being cared for for 6 weeks, not a couple, your stallion was in such poor condition he needed months of rehab. He was returned to you happy and healthy, how's he looking these days?? Perhaps if you guys could manage to provide them with the absolute bare minimum this year, it won't go another round - or better yet, find them new homes. Perhaps Heidi could hoard something a little less expensive and difficult to maintain?
xyz, how do you function on so much hate towards others? Do you ever have a positive outlook on anything besides other people hurting each other over property?
maybe xyz will take the horses this year and bill heidi next summer
Quote from: xyz on October 16, 2009, 09:39 AM NHFT
As for the vet involved in your case, she - indeed both of them - are a couple of the nicest people I have the pleasure of knowing, what you imply is pure rubbish. They would both go out of their ways to help animals, any time, any place, regardless of payment, as evidenced by being out in a snowstorm trying to offer some protection and solace to animals suffering under your very noses, with absolutely no guarantee of payment. Do you work for free? I don't believe you've paid either one of them a dollar yet...
Xyz, your ignorance is only surpassed by your hate.
The vets are guaranteed full payment of their fees in cases when the town raids a farm. It was the town of Candia, not the SPCA, that stole the horses. In so doing, the town is on the hook for 100% of the expenses of the raid. The town is hoping that their victim will be convicted so they get their money back.
The trial would have been held by a single man, the judge of the Candia District Court. He alone would have decided if there was any malfeasance. And where do you think his paycheck come from? Oh, and by the way, he's the same judge who signed the search warrant based on a cowardly witness who insisted that the search warrant be sealed to buy time so she could build her case in her powerful animal-rights community. Proof of that is right here on this thread. Oh, my achin' Karma.
If Heidi went to trial and was acquitted, the town would be on the hook for the entire amount. In that case, Heidi would have lost also, because of the cost of mounting a legal defense to these charges.
If she took it to trial, Heidi would have incurred even more legal fees, and the town of Candia would be out a ton of cash for their actions. There is no scenario where the vets would not get their inflated contracted rates. Not only that, but the farms that hid the horses (remember the illegally covered license plates?) are guaranteed payment. Guaranteed. And yes, Heidi has already paid these thieves $3,000, with $8,000 more to come over time. The government just loves their easy payment plans.
In a time of recession when people are struggling, it's a pretty good business to contract with the government. They have plenty of money. If they run out, they just re-assess their real estate values to cover the difference.
In the case of the town of Candia, that is exactly what happened this year. I just got a nice letter from an "independent auditor" (hired by the town) that said that the town's increased assessment of my property was "within the guidelines of municipal standards at this time". Wouldn't you love to be able to do that to your boss?
I understand your love of the horses and your concern that everyone takes care of horses they way you deem proper. Unfortunately, the violence of the government in this case has diverted precious dollars to inflated "care" costs that did nothing to prepare the horses for the winter coming on us now.
So I hope you can get over your hatred for people who don't think the way you do. I've forgiven most of the people who've supported this violence, because they just haven't come to grips with the true nature of government.
If there is any silver lining on this cloud of violence, perhaps it is that some people will see that the real problem is government involvement in our personal decisions. If we could all strike at that root, perhaps the world would be a safer place for people and horses.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 16, 2009, 08:35 PM NHFT
maybe xyz will take the horses this year and bill heidi next summer
Maybe xyz will step up and pay Heidi's bill. Money talks xyz.
The boat is gone, you're not even on the dock....
I pay (and care) for my own animals, if I didn't want to, I wouldn't have them. I certainly wouldn't expect other people to foot the bill.
Since this is so apparently about the money to you guys, why not simply sell them all? Seriously, who in their right mind needs 30 some odd horses?? It's ridiculous, and that's all I have to say about that.
I think it's inhumane to own animals at all. You're caging another creature. I therefore deem your activities illegal and we'll be taking your horses away and back to the wild later.
Does "live and let live" mean anything to you? Someone could just as easily come by and make some regulation or law that you might not like. You'll follow the order or you'll be caged.
Welcome to America.
(I don't care if you have animals tard)
Quote from: xyz on October 18, 2009, 05:57 AM NHFTSince this is so apparently about the money to you guys, why not simply sell them all?
No, it's not about the money; it's about the violence.
Joe
Looks like Beth has learned that invoking the violence of government is bad for her social status among the liberty community. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like she has yet learned that it is wrong.
Now she's offering her expertise to others so they can do the same:
QuoteI have been getting a few emails about the conditions of the horses, how the water is dirty, how they dont look well groomed, with matted manes, and how they are ribby, emails from free staters, who were wondering if people were checking up on the horses. At this point, I just pointed them in the direction of the NHSPA, to make a complaint, take pics, and file a formal statement with the police dept, if they really feel there is an issue. Im sure they will be turned in again...I love it when non horse people ask me "is the long hair on the neck suppose to be looking like dred locks?"
I sure see another round of horse stealing this winter. Maybe we can get a part 2 of Heidi's acting on youtube.
Beth
So Beth's tips for invoking the violence of the government:
- Make a complaint
- Take pictures
- File a report with the police
Oh, she forgot one: Insist on a sealed affidavit so you can buy time until you can build support for your actions in public forums.
From http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=194174&highlight=candia&page=50
That forum seems to be the central meeting place of the horse ladies who know everything about how you should take care of your horse. For the freedom-lovers, it might be worth a trip over there to see what we are up against. The self-righteousness and smugness of these people and their exuberance to get government involved in other people's property is sickening.
Just go there on an empty stomach or you may end up seeing lunch again.
she called them free staters, lol.
Animal abuse, if it happened (and no one has proven anything remotely approaching unbiased evidence that it has, so I sure won't condemn an innocent person based upon unfounded accusations), is reprehensible.
Human abuse, which absolutely happened, and the perpetrators of which are seeking to have happen again, is so evil that it makes animal abuse look good.
Joe
my online karma goes to shit because of this thread. It makes me want to stop posting in it. The only thing stopping me is real karma. I'd have some serious real life smiting in my own mind if I didn't speak out about human on human crime.
Anton, my friend, I'm sorry that your karma has suffered at the mouse-clicks of the horse-lady trolls. Rest assured that your NHUnderground karma has nothing to do with the good work you are doing to change the hearts and minds of the sane people who are reading this thread.
To the people reading this post, please note the [applaud] link on AntonLee's posts and click it to get him back to his pre-horse-theft levels. He's earned it! And visit his site. It's awesome!
The same with MaineShark and the other animal lovers who have been brave enough to point out that "animal rights" takes us down the slippery slope that politicians love to use to divide and conquer us.
animals have rights ..... to be photographed only with their written permission
Quote from: AntonLee on October 24, 2009, 06:00 PM NHFT
my online karma goes to shit because of this thread. It makes me want to stop posting in it. The only thing stopping me is real karma. I'd have some serious real life smiting in my own mind if I didn't speak out about human on human crime.
+1! ;D
Quote from: AntonLee on October 24, 2009, 06:00 PM NHFT
my online karma goes to shit because of this thread. It makes me want to stop posting in it. The only thing stopping me is real karma. I'd have some serious real life smiting in my own mind if I didn't speak out about human on human crime.
There's smiting being done on both sides, Anton. I've lost 10 points in the last two days. Whatever. I stand by everything I've said on this thread. And you'd be surprised some of the people who contacted me privately to thank me for it.
There's still a shameful lack of speaking out about the issue of animal abuse, and an ongoing attempt by some to claim that Beth, two professional vets, the NHSPCA, and multiple horse rescue people were all lying about the horses being underfed and inadequately cared for (matted fur caked with shit, skin sores, wearing wet blankets in freezing weather, untrimmed hooves, fed hay that had been left outside on the ground in the rain and snow where it rots). And that, per Brian's own posted videos, money was not the issue.
Seriously, does the fact that someone gets "abused" by the state negate any actions he may have done to bring that "abuse" upon himself? That's the message I'm getting from most of the posters on this thread.
YES, philosophically, horses are property and the owners can do with them as they wish. In our fantasy future libertarian society, cops (if they even exist) will have far better things to do than go take people's horses away from them temporarily and force food and medical care on them (oh, the horror :o ). But seriously, how come so few of you have the balls to come out and say that, apparently, Brian and Heidi were treating their horses in a cruel manner, and that's not OK with you? It's not OK with me. If that means I don't get invited to some parties and my karma winds up in negative territory, so be it. Like Anton said, there's karma that's far more important than the silly forum kind.
Well since opinions were asked for here's mine.
I don't see were the horses were treated "cruelly"
Just not up to rich folks standards.
This disagreement was settled by sneaking around
behind peoples back and bring a raid down on their
house.
Brain handled it very well, I am not so sure I would have been as level headed or as kind as he was.
From reading the forums, all I can see is that the "horse people"
are a bunch of self righteous, know it all's.
Who have no problem helping their neighbors out
by stealing and looting in concert with Gov.
I am sure they would bring their trailers around
to pick up the Jews if they were asked to.
I guess that's enough for now.
Quote from: AntonLee on October 24, 2009, 02:57 PM NHFT
she called them free staters, lol.
There are probably a lot of people thought of as 'Free Staters' who are not libertarians and, have little or no understanding of libertarianism, who came on the coat tails of their significant others.
I know that horses are not food animals in the US but are horse people opposed to the agri-businesses that supply their beef, poultry and pork products?
http://www.factoryfarm.org/animal-welfare-issues/ (http://www.factoryfarm.org/animal-welfare-issues/)
I'm not sure why you're being smited on the forums Friday. You hadn't even posted in this thread in a while. I'll give you good karma because I consider you a friend a nice person and you give me lots of cool stuff in Mafia wars ;D.
When I feel my light inside tells me to stand up for animals, I do so. I have animals, I keep them hostage, they are my property and I take care of them as I see fit. I have plenty of balls to come out and speak out when I see that animals are being harmed. I've still got no shred of proof that the animals were in danger of dying any more than any other animal anywhere are. Arbitrary rules do not make a healthy animal. When I see someone abusing animals, I ostracize and let my friends know that they should not be doing business with them.
What I've seen is humans attacking other humans and stealing their property. Yes, even to steal them to feed them is still theft. People who attack others should also be ostracized. You don't have any right to steal something that belongs to someone else based on some rules written on paper by other people. . .other people who most definitely have something to gain from such rules. . .and let me tell you. . .they're not doing it for the welfare of the animals. . . they're collecting checks.
the vet, the fatass Steve Sprowl, the NHSPCA, they're getting plenty of money and should be focusing their efforts to help animals without violating the rights of other human beings. There's plenty of stray cats to worry about, the issue here was control.
I see so many douchebags flying gadsden flags now, so many people call themselves libertarian, and lots of people consider themselves to be free staters.
I can call myself a martian. Saying it, does not make it so.
the issue, in the end, is quite hypocritical on the part of the horse theft supporters. They will continue to eat beef, chicken, pork, and imprison cats and dogs against their will. I fear the day that those activities are outlawed as well, for those who keep their cats and steaks will be outlaws and I will stand beside them as well.
Quote from: AntonLee on October 25, 2009, 11:43 AM NHFT
the issue, in the end, is quite hypocritical on the part of the horse theft supporters. They will continue to eat beef, chicken, pork, and imprison cats and dogs against their will. I fear the day that those activities are outlawed as well, for those who keep their cats and steaks will be outlaws and I will stand beside them as well.
This makes no sense. No one is arguing that anyone should not be allowed to own horses. In case you missed it, every single horse has been returned to Brian and Heidi (so much for the theory that this was all a conspiracy to steal incredibly valuable horses and sell them for a profit). I don't believe anyone has argued on this thread that horses should never be killed as cows, chickens and pigs are. I know that some people oppose allowing horses to be used as food, but personally, I'm not one of those people. I
am arguing that it's wrong to treat domestic animals in a needlessly cruel manner. Where is the hypocrisy in that?
By the way, Anton, you're right that I hadn't posted in this thread in a long time. I was trying to do what I suspect a lot of people are doing: keeping my mouth shut so we can all pretend to get along and be one big happy libertarian community. But like you said, sometimes keeping your mouth shut is not the right thing to do. Despite the fact that it seems to have worked out just fine for Brian and Heidi, this has been a serious incident that has had repercussions in various ways. First and foremost, Brian evicted Beth and Dan over it, which necessitated them having an entire modular home relocated. I understand that some people now shun Beth over this. And that a number of people no longer frequent Murphy's Taproom, while another number of people *do*; whether this works out as more or less business for Murphy, and what his thoughts on the whole thing are, I don't know. Personally, there have been times where I have intentionally not attended an event because certain people whose posts on this thread I find abhorrent were going to be there. So I guess I am shunning too, in my own way.
I thought your post where you said you felt like you didn't want to post in this thread any more was kind of funny. This thread has been overwhelmingly supportive of Brian and Heidi. Not counting a couple of horse people who joined the forum just to post here, I can count people who have expressed dismay over this on one hand. I remain surprised and saddened by this. Guess I'm a slow learner. :BangHead:
Quote from: Friday on October 25, 2009, 03:51 PM NHFT
...
Despite the fact that it seems to have worked out just fine for Brian and Heidi, this has been a serious incident that has had repercussions in various ways.
$26,000 in lawyers and "vet care" is far from "just fine". Sandy, do you have $26,000 hanging around that you could pay to lawyers and vet care and boarding you didn't need or want? $26,000.
The NHSPCA called this a "slap on the wrist". They made this statement in a plea for more donations so they could pay their fundraisers more money to get more donations so they can hire more fundraisers.
Quote from: Friday on October 25, 2009, 03:51 PM NHFT
First and foremost, Brian evicted Beth and Dan over it, which necessitated them having an entire modular home relocated.
Um, before you make a statement of fact, perhaps you should know the truth.
Dan and I had a deal. As long as Beth worked for Heidi, I would let him keep his trailer on my property. Free wifi, water, and electricity too. Pretty sweet deal if you ask me. All Beth had to do was to take care of the horses. Instead, she decided to whine about how they do things in the big show barns and spend the cold days in her warm trailer sending Facebook messages to her friends. I don't know how many mornings before work and evenings after work Heidi had to go out and do the things I hired Beth to do.
About the time the search warrant was unsealed, Beth quit. That was the end of my contract with Dan. He needed time, so we came up with a month-to-month rent. When he could, Dan moved his trailer. There was no eviction. That was the end of the contract.
I've heard this eviction myth before. I don't know who's perpetuating it, but Dan and I parted under good terms when our contract was over. I guess the "mean landlord evicts horse lover for telling the truth" is easier to sell. I read the Union Leader article, titled something like, "Woman has to choose between home and horses". Now I've stepped in a lot of horse shit around here, but Beth's story in that article was deeper than anything Heidi's horses have ever been able to produce.
Even after Dan moved his trailer off my property, Beth was still sleeping in her same home. It just wasn't hooked up on my property. So she really didn't lose her home, did she?
Quote from: Friday on October 25, 2009, 03:51 PM NHFT
I understand that some people now shun Beth over this.
Even if I wasn't a victim of Beth's need to invoke violence, I'd ostracize her. It's the most effective way non-violent people can show their displeasure.
Quote from: Friday on October 25, 2009, 03:51 PM NHFT
And that a number of people no longer frequent Murphy's Taproom, while another number of people *do*; whether this works out as more or less business for Murphy, and what his thoughts on the whole thing are, I don't know. Personally, there have been times where I have intentionally not attended an event because certain people whose posts on this thread I find abhorrent were going to be there. So I guess I am shunning too, in my own way.
I talked to Keith a few days ago and he didn't mention anything to me.
Quote from: Friday on October 25, 2009, 03:51 PM NHFT
I thought your post where you said you felt like you didn't want to post in this thread any more was kind of funny. This thread has been overwhelmingly supportive of Brian and Heidi. Not counting a couple of horse people who joined the forum just to post here, I can count people who have expressed dismay over this on one hand. I remain surprised and saddened by this. Guess I'm a slow learner. :BangHead:
It's not hard to learn, Sandy. Initiating force is wrong. Taking someone's property is initiating force. Threatening them with jail if they don't pay $11,601 is wrong. The people who understand freedom get it.
The horse lady trolls who have posted on this forum don't.
whatever, it's all good. I can't make others choose to use logic and thought over force and aggression, they have to be capable of that thought on their own.
"First and foremost, Brian evicted Beth and Dan over it, which necessitated them having an entire modular home relocated."
Are you freaking kidding me!
Note to all inhabitants of earth, if you bring an armed raid
on my house, then think that your gonna stay living on my
place, rubbing my face in it. You are out of your Fucking mind!
Posted without comment.
Quote from: Friday on October 25, 2009, 07:54 AM NHFTThere's still a shameful lack of speaking out about the issue of animal abuse, and an ongoing attempt by some to claim that Beth, two professional vets, the NHSPCA, and multiple horse rescue people were all lying about the horses being underfed and inadequately cared for (matted fur caked with shit, skin sores, wearing wet blankets in freezing weather, untrimmed hooves, fed hay that had been left outside on the ground in the rain and snow where it rots).
Claiming that thugs who think nothing of sticking guns in the faces of innocent people and their families are also capable of lying, is not exactly a stretch.
Quote from: Friday on October 25, 2009, 07:54 AM NHFTSeriously, does the fact that someone gets "abused" by the state negate any actions he may have done to bring that "abuse" upon himself? That's the message I'm getting from most of the posters on this thread.
Unless his actions include initiating force against others, they are not justification for "bringing abuse." No matter what they are, if they do not involve initiating force against a person, they are not justification for force. End of story.
Those who initiate force against others, or willingly aid and abet the initiation of force against others, have zero credibility among decent people.
Beth had the option of presenting her concerns to neutral third parties who could have evaluated the issues objectively, and brought social pressure against Heidi, or not, as the actual situation warranted. She's certainly been substantially dishonest in the past, and made false accusations of animal abuse among that dishonesty, but neutral third parties could have evaluated the situation, neutrally.
She chose to hire thugs with guns to threaten, coerce, and pillage innocents. That means she has no credibility. The thugs and their accomplices have no credibility, either. Between them, they effectively destroyed all evidence which could have been examined by neutral parties. Brian and Heidi are, in the eyes of all decent people, innocent until proven guilty. And Beth (et al) ensured that they can never be "proven guilty" in any neutral situation.
Quote from: Friday on October 25, 2009, 07:54 AM NHFTBut seriously, how come so few of you have the balls to come out and say that, apparently, Brian and Heidi were treating their horses in a cruel manner, and that's not OK with you? It's not OK with me.
Because it's not "apparent" that any such thing happened. No credible sources support that claim. And the non-credible players destroyed the evidence, ensuring that the facts remain forever hidden.
Whether horses were abused is an unknown. That people were abused is a known.
Joe
Quote from: brian.travis on October 25, 2009, 06:13 PM NHFT
About the time the search warrant was unsealed, Beth quit. That was the end of my contract with Dan. He needed time, so we came up with a month-to-month rent. When he could, Dan moved his trailer. There was no eviction. That was the end of the contract.
I apologize for the misstatement, then. No one actually told me that B&D were evicted, I had somehow drawn that conclusion.
Quote from: brian.travis on October 25, 2009, 06:13 PM NHFT
It's not hard to learn, Sandy. Initiating force is wrong. Taking someone's property is initiating force. Threatening them with jail if they don't pay $11,601 is wrong. The people who understand freedom get it.
I get all of that. Those who have known me for several years know how much of my time, energy, money, physical health and personal life I have poured into trying to spread that message to others. I am very confident that those I admire and respect count me as someone who "understands freedom".
The point I was trying to make is that all of the Porcupine focus on this issue has centered around the seizure of the horses and not what *lead to* the seizure of the horses. I'm clearly a minority of one here, so I'll drop it. Enjoy Murphy's Taproom. Cheers! :ahoy:
This thread is still going? Wow.
I am not bothered by how Heidi treated her horses. I don't know much and I haven't delved into the situation. I definitely know that the situation did not call for me to interfere with their lives.
I don't think calling the cops on them was a good idea.
If I lived next to a crazy cat woman, I would probably not interfere with her.
If i lived next to these horsey people, I would not support them in their nhspca and police activities.
This thread will not die. I would guess Brian will have more trouble. It didn't cost the horsey crowd enough to make them stop.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 26, 2009, 06:31 PM NHFT
This thread will not die. I would guess Brian will have more trouble. It didn't cost the horsey crowd enough to make them stop.
The problem with their current "laws" is that it costs someone nothing to invoke the violence of government. The government likes it that way, and actively encourages snitches and busybodies. It makes the cops look more legitimate.
Perhaps in a post-government world there would be a cost to righting a perceived wrong. The case of the animal lover stealing a dog that is being beaten, for example. In that case, the dog is saved, but the person could face theft charges in arbitration. At that point, both parties would have a chance to air their side of the story. The arbitrator could say the theft was unfounded and that the animal lover would have to pay restitution.
That seems a lot more fair than today's situation because people can't make baseless claims about "animal neglect".
Let me tell you, I didn't neglect that porterhouse steak I had last night. That steer gave his life willingly and contentedly for the greater good. And I'll say, it was good!
those animals are okay to string up, slice down the middle to let their inards fall out. Some animals are just fine and dandy to tie up and stuff full of food in order to make them nice and fat.
I think pigs are cute animals. They always come over to me when I visit the farm. They're funny and they make cool noises. Their backs feel like sandpaper, but that's okay. On top of all that I find them delicious. Thank god that horse people don't cross over into pigs, otherwise no more bacon, no more sausage, no more pork strips, no more pork flied lice, no more pork ribs, no more petting them at the farm.
Some people enjoy a delicious horse, just like some people think Cat is second to none. It's not my thing, but hey, those horses aren't my property, neither are the cats, neither are the pigs, nor the cows.
Hypocritical thinking, that this "society" has chosen what animals are okay to torture, maim and murder and which ones aren't. Problem is, I didn't get a vote. . .and neither did you.
and would it matter in the end? Does your opinion matter to those who actually own the livestock they're going to need to eat or sell to live? Not really, because some people have guns, some people have big mouths, some people like to have people with guns hurt other people because they don't treat their property as they would. The only shameful part is that ostracism didn't happen, but force sure as hell did.
Is this a baaad place to post that the dome goats have a date with destiny and curry sauce tomorrow at 2pm? All are welcome.
What, no horseradish?
I used to et a goat dish at a Jamican place on the south side of Chicago.. damm miss Hudson's ...
Can a property owner in Grafton raise goats / sheep / chickens ?
Quote from: CJS on October 28, 2009, 02:12 PM NHFT
Can a property owner in Grafton raise goats / sheep / chickens ?
Yes. Just not certain plants.
Quote from: Friday on October 26, 2009, 03:50 PM NHFTThe point I was trying to make is that all of the Porcupine focus on this issue has centered around the seizure of the horses and not what *lead to* the seizure of the horses.
Friday, the problem is there are two forms of thought here.
Some feel that animals should have some level of rights while others feel that animals are property and thus no different then say a table.
If you treat your table poorly and allow it to get scuffed up and destroyed that's no one's business but your own.
You and I are clearly of a different mind set because we see horse and other animals have feelings and senses which make them different from a table. If you beat a horse it feels pain where if you beat on a table that table feels nothing. But I admit I'm conflicted here because while I do feel animals shouldn't be allowed to be beaten or abused, if you raise a cow for meat and when the time comes you go out and shoot it are you doing anything wrong?
do cows have feelings? Maybe there are those with more than the two mindsets you mentioned. It's pretty easy to lump people into groups and pretend they're not individuals. I hold people at what they say.
Quote from: CJS on October 28, 2009, 02:12 PM NHFT
Can a property owner in Grafton raise goats / sheep / chickens ?
yes ... but the nhspca could be called in at any moment
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 28, 2009, 06:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: CJS on October 28, 2009, 02:12 PM NHFT
Can a property owner in Grafton raise goats / sheep / chickens ?
yes ... but the nhspca could be called in at any moment
Well they better bring wine if they expect a seat at my dinner table . The animals I would raise may be cute ... they would be tasty .
Any one here raise their own protein ?
Turkeys. Is it ok to raise and kill turkeys because theyre uglier and dumber than horses or dogs? I lived on the tiny island of Okinawa for a year and ate dog there. They had dog farms.
I wonder if any of this is making any sense to anyone.
Quote from: lildog on October 28, 2009, 03:32 PM NHFTSome feel that animals should have some level of rights while others feel that animals are property and thus no different then say a table.
You can't have "some level of rights," other than all rights. Rights stem from self-ownership. People own themselves, and have absolutely every right that results therefrom. Property has no self-ownership and, therefore, no rights.
For a given creature to have any rights, it must have all rights; rights an all-or-nothing sort of deal.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on October 29, 2009, 07:46 AM NHFTFor a given creature to have any rights, it must have all rights; rights an all-or-nothing sort of deal.
There are people in PETA who believe animals should have the same rights as people and don't even feel owning a pet is acceptable.
Quote from: lildog on October 29, 2009, 08:12 AM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on October 29, 2009, 07:46 AM NHFTFor a given creature to have any rights, it must have all rights; rights an all-or-nothing sort of deal.
There are people in PETA who believe animals should have the same rights as people and don't even feel owning a pet is acceptable.
No, you can't have "the same rights as people," implying that the given creature is not a person, but still has rights.
People have rights. Anything not a person does not have any rights at all.
It's possible that some dolphin or ape out there has crossed the line into being a person, rather than an animal. If so, then that creature
is a person, and has all the rights commensurate with such.
Joe
Rights have to be reciprocal. That's the whole point of them. You invalidate your own rights to the extent that you disrespect the rights of others. Animals, with potential for very rare exceptions, are incapable of respecting rights or even understanding the concept and therefore they don't have rights.
Quote from: MaineShark on October 29, 2009, 08:18 AM NHFT
It's possible that some dolphin or ape out there has crossed the line into being a person, rather than an animal. If so, then that creature is a person, and has all the rights commensurate with such.
El Neil discussed that in "The Probability Broach".
Quote from: dalebert on October 29, 2009, 09:44 AM NHFT
Rights have to be reciprocal. That's the whole point of them. You invalidate your own rights to the extent that you disrespect the rights of others. Animals, with potential for very rare exceptions, are incapable of respecting rights or even understanding the concept and therefore they don't have rights.
(bolding added)
What about the mentally incompetent? Do they not have any rights since they are incapable of understanding the concept? Do they have the right to life or can we kill them like we kill animals?
Has a retarded person ever claimed not to understand?
Most retarded people I've ever known seemed to have a pretty good grasp of the idea of respecting others and their property. They have rights to the extent they respect the rights of others. If someone is coming at you with a bloody knife, it would not be unreasonable to violently defend yourself (your rights). If they're retarded, that doesn't change the situation. If animals began to show the capacity to understand rights like in The Probability Broach, it would make sense to start respecting their rights. If a retarded person repeatedly demonstrates that they can't be trusted to respect rights, then whoever cares for that person whether it be family, friends, or charitable organizations, should be exercising some effort to protect people from them so that they don't end up hurt in some justified act of self defense. I feel the same way about criminals, people who violate rights and do have the capacity to understand rights.
Quote from: dalebert on October 29, 2009, 04:30 PM NHFT
Most retarded people I've ever known seemed to have a pretty good grasp of the idea of respecting others and their property. They have rights to the extent they respect the rights of others. If someone is coming at you with a bloody knife, it would not be unreasonable to violently defend yourself (your rights). If they're retarded, that doesn't change the situation. If animals began to show the capacity to understand rights like in The Probability Broach, it would make sense to start respecting their rights. If a retarded person repeatedly demonstrates that they can't be trusted to respect rights, then whoever cares for that person whether it be family, friends, or charitable organizations, should be exercising some effort to protect people from them so that they don't end up hurt in some justified act of self defense. I feel the same way about criminals, people who violate rights and do have the capacity to understand rights.
well said.
Quote from: dalebert on October 29, 2009, 04:30 PM NHFT
Most retarded people I've ever known seemed to have a pretty good grasp of the idea of respecting others and their property. They have rights to the extent they respect the rights of others. If someone is coming at you with a bloody knife, it would not be unreasonable to violently defend yourself (your rights). If they're retarded, that doesn't change the situation. If animals began to show the capacity to understand rights like in The Probability Broach, it would make sense to start respecting their rights. If a retarded person repeatedly demonstrates that they can't be trusted to respect rights, then whoever cares for that person whether it be family, friends, or charitable organizations, should be exercising some effort to protect people from them so that they don't end up hurt in some justified act of self defense. I feel the same way about criminals, people who violate rights and do have the capacity to understand rights.
Wow, how did you get from "mentally incompetent" to "retarded"? What about someone in a coma who is mentally incompetent? What about someone suffering from temporary mental illness? Have they lost their rights?
I don't think rights are dependent upon appreciating the other's rights, but are inherent in all humans. Review your premise and I think it is wrong.
Quote from: grolled on October 29, 2009, 08:15 PM NHFT
Wow, how did you get from "mentally incompetent" to "retarded"? What about someone in a coma who is mentally incompetent? What about someone suffering from temporary mental illness? Have they lost their rights?
I don't think rights are dependent upon appreciating the other's rights, but are inherent in all humans. Review your premise and I think it is wrong.
Sorry, Anton mentioned "retarded". When you have an animal, like a potentially dangerous dog, for instance, YOU have to protect it and make sure it doesn't violate anyone's rights because the animal obviously can't be counted on to understand the notion of rights. The same goes for people. If someone is attacking you, they're violating your rights, i.e. either purposefully or because they don't understand the notion of rights. Either way, they lose their own rights in the process, at least to a certain extent based on the extent to which they're violating yours, and threatening life and limb is pretty big. In other words, you are not violating their rights when you defend yourself. It's not your responsibility to analyze WHY they are violating your rights. You are not being unreasonable to defend yourself regardless of their reasons for attacking you. You are not violating their rights if you steal back something they stole from you. They gave up their right not to be stolen from, to a limited extent, by not respecting your rights. This is the basis of the NAP.
Rights are meaningless without reciprocity. So when animals can understand rights and respect them, and this may happen in rare cases as Mainshark suggested, then their rights should be respected in return. Extending the notion of rights to animals who can't even understand and respect rights is a complete redefinition of rights into something that can't be logically consistent.
Quote from: jeremy2141 on October 28, 2009, 09:14 PM NHFT
Turkeys. Is it ok to raise and kill turkeys because theyre uglier and dumber than horses or dogs? I lived on the tiny island of Okinawa for a year and ate dog there. They had dog farms.
whhy not .... there are also plenty of wild ones to shoot
Quote from: grolled on October 29, 2009, 08:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: dalebert on October 29, 2009, 04:30 PM NHFT
Most retarded people I've ever known seemed to have a pretty good grasp of the idea of respecting others and their property. They have rights to the extent they respect the rights of others. If someone is coming at you with a bloody knife, it would not be unreasonable to violently defend yourself (your rights). If they're retarded, that doesn't change the situation. If animals began to show the capacity to understand rights like in The Probability Broach, it would make sense to start respecting their rights. If a retarded person repeatedly demonstrates that they can't be trusted to respect rights, then whoever cares for that person whether it be family, friends, or charitable organizations, should be exercising some effort to protect people from them so that they don't end up hurt in some justified act of self defense. I feel the same way about criminals, people who violate rights and do have the capacity to understand rights.
Wow, how did you get from "mentally incompetent" to "retarded"? What about someone in a coma who is mentally incompetent? What about someone suffering from temporary mental illness? Have they lost their rights?
I don't think rights are dependent upon appreciating the other's rights, but are inherent in all humans. Review your premise and I think it is wrong.
I have rights in me? I've been quite itchy lately can someone please remove these? Officer? Help please.
Quote from: grolled on October 29, 2009, 08:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: dalebert on October 29, 2009, 04:30 PM NHFT
Most retarded people I've ever known seemed to have a pretty good grasp of the idea of respecting others and their property. They have rights to the extent they respect the rights of others. If someone is coming at you with a bloody knife, it would not be unreasonable to violently defend yourself (your rights). If they're retarded, that doesn't change the situation. If animals began to show the capacity to understand rights like in The Probability Broach, it would make sense to start respecting their rights. If a retarded person repeatedly demonstrates that they can't be trusted to respect rights, then whoever cares for that person whether it be family, friends, or charitable organizations, should be exercising some effort to protect people from them so that they don't end up hurt in some justified act of self defense. I feel the same way about criminals, people who violate rights and do have the capacity to understand rights.
Wow, how did you get from "mentally incompetent" to "retarded"? What about someone in a coma who is mentally incompetent? What about someone suffering from temporary mental illness? Have they lost their rights?
I don't think rights are dependent upon appreciating the other's rights, but are inherent in all humans. Review your premise and I think it is wrong.
Good point.
Newborns also have no ability yet to comprehend.
But morality and belief in what is a "right" also has a lot to do with culture and education. Case in point, in the middle east and many parts of the world it is accepted belief that women do not have rights. For the longest time in this country black people were not believed to have rights.
You and I can agree that a woman is a person and thus has the same level of rights that either of us do but someone from a different culture sees it as acceptable to beat a woman and they believe that is a god given right according to their faith.
http://www.fuglyblog.com/2009/people-for-the-eating-of-tasty-arabians/
Thought you guys might find this interesting and/or entertaining. I especially love the last paragraph so here it is:
It comes down to what it always comes down to. Slaughter is the cheap, easy way out for people who do stupid crap like breed horses they don't handle and train, or cripple them up overriding them when young, or fry their brains with cruel training. As long as that cheap, easy way out exists, there are no consequences for poor horse care or treating your show prospects like they are disposable. Every time I see someone arguing that we should re-open the slaughterhouses, I know it is someone who has used them in the past to hide the evidence of their crappy horse care, thoughtless breeding or failed training. Enough already.
Hmmmm... Remind us of anyone??
Quote from: xyz on October 30, 2009, 12:18 PM NHFT
Every time I see someone arguing that we should re-open the slaughterhouses, I know it is someone who has used them in the past to hide the evidence of their crappy horse care, thoughtless breeding or failed training.
I've never owned a horse (and don't want one) but it would be great for the people that live in North America if there were quite a few slaughterhouses opened in the US.
those damn farmers must be not taking care of their cows and pigs too! Otherwise there'd be no slaughterhouses!
Quote from: grolled on October 29, 2009, 08:15 PM NHFTWhat about someone in a coma who is mentally incompetent?
How is someone in a coma going to violate your rights? Drool on you in a malicious manner?
Quote from: grolled on October 29, 2009, 08:15 PM NHFTWhat about someone suffering from temporary mental illness? Have they lost their rights?
Depends. Are they going around attacking others?
Quote from: grolled on October 29, 2009, 08:15 PM NHFTI don't think rights are dependent upon appreciating the other's rights, but are inherent in all humans.
All
persons (human or otherwise) start out with rights, by virtue of their self-ownership. Persons are reasoning creatures, and reasoning creatures respect the rights of others. Someone who violates the rights of others acts in an un-reasoning manner, demonstrating that he has given up his person-hood in the choice to abandon reason. As he is not a person, but merely a dangerous animal, self-defense is acceptable (cannot violate his rights, because he has none, by his own choice). If he decides to make restitution to his victim, then he has demonstrated that he has once again embraced reason, and has re-acquired his person-hood. As a person, he has the same rights as any other person (which is why libertarians don't believe in loss of rights for felons, for example).
Joe
Some horse lovers really do take it to extremes.
http://probablybadnews.com/2009/11/02/funny-news-headlines-say-nay-to-bad-puns/
(http://probablybadnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/KevinC-saynay.jpg)
This isn't exactly related, similar to Kevin's story. 11 city government workers in Memphis were reveled of duty after evidence suggests that they have been starving dogs at a city animal shelter for years. These people may have been paid tax dollars to slowly starve dogs until the dogs died.
Of course, no charges have been filed, yet.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/oct/27/sheriffs-deputies-raid-city-memphis-animal-shelter
Horse news update.
Guess there won't be any drama surrounding all this anymore. hurray....
Quote
I have it on good authority that the horses are being "surrendered" to whoever will have them. We should have a listing together soon and not sure where we're at with the numbers but from what I hear there are at least 28 still.
McKulley, now's your chance to get BG back, PM me or give me a call if you still have my cell no. I'm going to try to track down your no. too...
Anyone in NH or the surrounding states interested in helping out or who could offer permanent placement, please PM me.
This is great news for the horses without a doubt. I've had knots in my stomach with the frigid weather we've been having and am so looking forward to closure of this case.
http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4588361#post4588361 (http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4588361#post4588361)
thank god for another horse update.
im so confused ...