Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[Russell Kanning]

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.

[coffeeseven]

McGillen 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.

[Friday]

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.  

[leetninja]

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!

[Lloyd Danforth]

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.

Is this accurate?

[slave_3646]

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?

[bile]

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.

[bile]

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.

Our 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.

[Russell Kanning]

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

[leetninja]

Just found this:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rules/agr3700.html

Code Select Expand

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:

Code Select Expand

[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

Code Select Expand

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"

[bile]

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.

[leetninja]

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!?

Code Select Expand

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.

[bile]

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.

[FTL_Ian]

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?

[slave_3646]

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"