Page 1 of 2

40 horses left behind -Ocala- property owner leaves country

Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:43 pm
by camar711
http://www.ocala.com/article/20101001/a ... p;tc=yahoo

looks like mostly broodmares.


Edited for clarity --Jessi P

re: not abandoned

Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 7:06 pm
by seahorse
read before you post
Not abandoned

"There was no abandonment because she left the animals in someone's care. There is no cruelty because the animals are in good shape. She left the situation better than most of the cases we get. She left some food and they are all fat and well cared for. Their feet need some work, but it's nothing serious," Silver said.

Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 7:01 am
by Runnerandrider
UGH. Just because she left a rescue in charge does not absolve her of all responsibility. She left 40+ horses and left the country. Sounds like abandonment to me, no matter what anyone would like to say.

Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 8:46 am
by Jessi P
It appears that she only actually owned 10-15 of the horses herself. She gathered up all the foal papers and signed bill of sales for those horses that were hers to make transfer of ownership easy and legal. If I had to guess I would say that she instructed whoever was caring for them to sell or give them away and perhaps keep any profits. I would say that said caretaker person might have naively thought it would be no problem to give healthy horses with papers away, and when it became apparent that he/she needed some help, he called for assistance.

Not making any excuses for an owner who left the country leaving behind animals that didnt have new owners yet, but I would say there is more to the situation that appears at face level.

Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:02 pm
by madelyn
Give her a BREAK! She left them with a CARETAKER and with FOOD. These horses were not abandoned. The caretaker evidently need placement assistance - which might have been better served using CANTER or some other adoption group. Calling the Animal Control folks might have not been the best thing...

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:23 am
by camar711
So if I left my well fed child with on the doorsteps of an orphanage with enough food for a month and then leave with no intentions of ever coming back for my child, I technically have not abandoned my child because I have left it with with food and someone to care for it? ... just saying.

Definition of abandoment:

To surrender one's claim to, right to, or interest in; give up entirely. See Synonyms at relinquish.

The horses were abandoned, period.

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:03 am
by madelyn
You cannot compare a child to livestock. That is the DEFINITION of anthromorphism.

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:44 am
by camar711
True, but I was just using as an example. Replace the child in my example with any animal of your choice. It's still abandonment. If you go by the definition of abandonment, the horses were abandoned. Because they were left in good condition and with food and caretaker only means they weren't neglected (thankfully!!).

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 4:47 pm
by Jessi P
There is abandonment in casual language then there is the legal definition of abandonment, which is what is referred to in the article by Morgan Silver, executive director of the Horse Protection Association of Florida. When dealing with a legal situation one must use the legal definition as defined by court precedent and state statute, not a dictionary definition.

With a VERY quick google search here is one definition: According to ORS ยง 167.340 a person commits the crime of animal abandonment if the person intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence leaves a domestic animal or an equine at a location without providing minimum care.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/animal-abandonment/

These horses did have food and a person to care for them. So LEGALLY they were not abandoned.

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 6:10 pm
by Runnerandrider
I'm with Canamar, sorry. There is no way she didn't know that horses were a huge responsibility when she amassed 15+ of them. This reminds me of a husband walking out on his wife and kids and not looking back. Just irresponsible. And just my opinion, of course. It was her responsibilty as the OWNER of the horses to find them homes, and to stick around until it happened. I don't think she deserves a break.

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:23 pm
by Georgerz
It is so easy to pass judgement on others, even without knowing the circumstances. And usually the harshest judges call themselves loving christians.

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:22 pm
by griff
Camar 711

From what I can gather there were no foals left behind

So what it you left your 30 year old daughter behind with money for food?

griff

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:50 pm
by Georgerz
And look who is throwing stones!!!!!
(This was in reference to a post by Geri, which magically dissapeared as I was posting)

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:26 pm
by ireneinwa
Where I come from horse rescues take in unwanted, uncared for equines when theyre not wanted/ or can't be properly cared for. when you sign over your equine with papers in hand they now belong to the rescue not the previous owner. That owner is no longer responsible for those horses.

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm
by summerhorse
Sounds like their owner did the best she could. She must have had a good reason to leave like that. I can't imagine leaving my dogs and cats behind.