Sarah Moulds

[Barton Bounty]

Fabulous idea @Amymay


Sarah Moulds……

 

[equinerebel]

I've found the wider discussion on the law super interesting (because I'm a self admitted law nerd), but as I stated up thread, it is my opinion that legislation could not realistically be written for individual turnout so I have avoided that discussion.

If anyone would like to discuss SM and how the law affected that specific case, I'm happy to although I think I've probably said most of what I have to say on it.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

I don't find wild and domesticated animal comparisons very helpful.
.

I do. I like to be able to see them all exhibiting natural behaviours. It is not so many years since zoo animals were kept individually in small ages, then attitudes changed and zoos either closed, like Belle Vue in Manchester, or changed their ways to give the inhabitants a much better, more natural quality of life. Perhaps the equestrian world could learn some lessons.

 

[Birker2020]

It was #229 where, instead of either engaging in discussing a comment or alternatively ignoring it, you decided to be a bit rude

I was hoping for an enlightened discussion on what constitutes "unnecessary suffering", since the definition didn't hold up in court on this occasion. I walked away when I saw it had turned into a pointless row, between the usual protagonists on both sides.

Unless I'm on a parallel universe how on earth is that rude?? It doesn't have anything to do with the subject of someone clobbering a horse, therefore it wasn't relevant, the subject of individual turnout was just brought in to cause a deliberate argument, a bit of scandal, something to detract from the subject i.e. Sarah Moults onto another poster i.e. me. Just because you don't like the subject, because I assume it has relevance to you, i.e. hunting/teaching, you try and detract away from it by changing the narrative.

I can see what direction this is going in and so I am going to walk away as I have been advised. Where there is no fuel, the fire goes out.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

View attachment 121699

Unless I'm on a parallel universe how on earth is that rude?? It doesn't have anything to do with the subject of someone clobbering a horse, therefore it wasn't relevant, the subject of individual turnout was just brought in to cause a deliberate argument, a bit of scandal, something to detract from the subject i.e. Sarah Moults onto another poster i.e. me. Just because you don't like the subject, because I assume it has relevance to you, i.e. hunting/teaching, you try and detract away from it by changing the narrative.

I can see what direction this is going in and so I am going to walk away as I have been advised.

Good grief!

 

[YorksG]

View attachment 121699

Unless I'm on a parallel universe how on earth is that rude?? It doesn't have anything to do with the subject of someone clobbering a horse, therefore it wasn't relevant, the subject of individual turnout was just brought in to cause a deliberate argument, a bit of scandal, something to detract from the subject i.e. Sarah Moults onto another poster i.e. me. Just because you don't like the subject, because I assume it has relevance to you, i.e. hunting/teaching, you try and detract away from it by changing the narrative.

Birker, my comments on individual turnout were made about the abuses that horses are subjected to, routinely. Those who cannot enjoy the five freedoms. My comments were not directed at any one poster. My view is that many people on social media have been very vocal about the verdict for Sarah moulds, while accepting, what I believe to be continued and ongoing abuse.

 

[AmyMay]

View attachment 121699

Unless I'm on a parallel universe how on earth is that rude?? It doesn't have anything to do with the subject of someone clobbering a horse, therefore it wasn't relevant, the subject of individual turnout was just brought in to cause a deliberate argument, a bit of scandal, something to detract from the subject i.e. Sarah Moults onto another poster i.e. me. Just because you don't like the subject, because I assume it has relevance to you, i.e. hunting/teaching, you try and detract away from it by changing the narrative.

I can see what direction this is going in and so I am going to walk away as I have been advised. Where there is no fuel, the fire goes out.

Individual turnout is something often discussed on this forum, discussion of which shouldn’t be avoided because it may upset you. I certainly don’t see the raising of it as trying to detract from the original subject. You’ll also be well aware of how lengthy posts always evolve to include a variety of topics. Especially when there’s nothing left to be said regarding the original topic.

 

[NinjaPony]

On the topic of Moulds, I was wondering how we could write legislation to tackle that kind of abuse, without making any kind of physical contact illegal, particular in dangerous situations (unlike hers). Do we need to be more specific?

Could we write a law allowing an open handed slap on the neck, shoulder, chest and hindquarters of a horse, but classing punching and kicking the horse either in those areas or anywhere else, eg face, belly as abusive? I can’t think of a reason why you’d need to kick or punch a horse when handling it, or hit a horse anywhere other than those areas? That way the law could distinguish between a slap on the shoulder, and the kind of behaviour Moulds demonstrated which was clearly abusive.

 

[bonny]

On the topic of Moulds, I was wondering how we could write legislation to tackle that kind of abuse, without making any kind of physical contact illegal, particular in dangerous situations (unlike hers). Do we need to be more specific?

Could we write a law allowing an open handed slap on the neck, shoulder, chest and hindquarters of a horse, but classing punching and kicking the horse either in those areas or anywhere else, eg face, belly as abusive? I can’t think of a reason why you’d need to kick or punch a horse when handling it, or hit a horse anywhere other than those areas? That way the law could distinguish between a slap on the shoulder, and the kind of behaviour Moulds demonstrated which was clearly abusive.

No, it would be impossible to enforce.

 

[NinjaPony]

It would be difficult to enforce day to day I agree. But it would mean that anyone caught on camera punching or kicking a horse would be open to charges of animal cruelty, whereas someone slapping their horse on the neck because it’s just tried to bite them wouldn’t be. Surely better to have some protection in law than none? As the law stands now, you can punch your horse repeatedly in the face and get away with it. I’d rather have a law that’s difficult to enforce day to day but can be enforced with clear evidence, than what we currently have which appears to be nothing.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

Its such a fine line between acceptable contact driven correction or unacceptable physical abuse I just can't see how new laws could be explicit enough to be enforceable. Personally I think every action Moulds took was pure and simple loss of temper animal abuse and it is a great pity the law did not choose to see it as such. However, on many occasions over the years, when training younger or more bargy horses that could become dangerous if not cured of the habit, I have often strategically placed my elbow at horse chest height to enable a stroppy horse to effectively barge straight into it, the shock off actually experiencing a short sharp 'self inflicted' jab in the chest has rarely needed repeating more than a couple of times. Is that animal abuse? Possibly some would say so.

Tricky really when you think long and heard enough about what exactly is, and needs redefining as animal abuse in law.

 

[Red-1]

On the topic of Moulds, I was wondering how we could write legislation to tackle that kind of abuse, without making any kind of physical contact illegal, particular in dangerous situations (unlike hers). Do we need to be more specific?

Could we write a law allowing an open handed slap on the neck, shoulder, chest and hindquarters of a horse, but classing punching and kicking the horse either in those areas or anywhere else, eg face, belly as abusive? I can’t think of a reason why you’d need to kick or punch a horse when handling it, or hit a horse anywhere other than those areas? That way the law could distinguish between a slap on the shoulder, and the kind of behaviour Moulds demonstrated which was clearly abusive.

I think it would be very easy. The Police have right to punch, kick, hit with a big stick, gas or shoot a man/woman/dog. But, for that to be legal, every single strike, kick etc has to be reasonable, proportionate and necessary. It is to gain compliance to keep everyone safe. It is never legal to meter out punishment.

Years ago a 'double strike' technique was taught. That was deemed in court to be illegal as a tactic, as the body was programmed in to do 2 strikes, without a pause to see if the second was reasonable, proportionate and necessary to gain compliance and ensure safety. That technique was banned.

It is already in courts, already being judged.

I believe already, in sport such as BE/BS, a strike cannot be used as punishment. It can be to urge on, to keep straight... so as a back up for an aid. Racehorses are not hit as punishment either. It is to keep straight or urge forwards.

I believe the RSPCA chose the wrong expert witness, or at least that witness didn't do a proportionality test for each individual blow.

I gave evidence by form of statement to someone who had kicked and punched a horse. I used this line of approach. The perpetrator said she was training the horse (including all but kicking the hind leg of a horse clean from under it). Non horse people were blinded by the issue that they are large and potentially dangerous animals, who need training. When it was broken down to looking at each blow to see if it was reasonable, proportionate and necessary, the argument broke down and it was clearly temper and cruelty.

When blows are rained down on a horse, how can he stop the next blow from occurring, even if compliant (as the pony seemed to be)? If his behaviour modifying cannot prevent more blows, that is abuse straight up.

I believe the RSPCA should have taken this tack.

I have been accepted (and used) as an expert witness for court. I am sometimes stunned by the ineptitude of expert witnesses for the prosecution. Often, they may be expert at ponies etc, but not as law enforcers.

 

[Upthecreek]

That said, what she did we've all of us - sadly - seen happen at ANY show, pleasure ride, hunt meeting, race meeting or whatever - over behind the horseboxes when someone's trying to get an equine into a box/trailer and it just doesn't want to oblige. And did we go across and say this isn't acceptable? No we didn't.

And here in lies a big problem for horse welfare generally. Most people will not call out unacceptable behaviour if they see it and advocate for the animal or young/old/vulnerable person. Why? Fear of confrontation? Don’t want to cause upset? It’s none of my business? It won’t make a difference anyway? I have spoken out when I’ve witnessed abusive behaviour, poor horsemanship or horses being ridden or competed whilst obviously unsound or uncomfortable. Is it always well received? No. People do not like to be told that that their behaviour is unacceptable or that they are causing pain or suffering (whether intentionally or unintentionally).

Who would have confronted SM if they had witnessed the incident? I most definitely would have. There is a lot of people on this forum who talk a lot about horse welfare and the ethics of keeping horses and I’m interested to know who would speak up in real life.

 

[AmyMay]

Who would have confronted SM if they had witnessed the incident? I most definitely would have. There is a lot of people on this forum who talk a lot about horse welfare and the ethics of keeping horses and I’m interested to know who would speak up in real life.

I most definitely would have too. But not everyone has the confidence to do so. Certainly when I was younger I’d not have said anything.

 

[YorksG]

Having stewarded for many shows, over many years, I have indeed spoken to people about their behaviour towards their horses, up to and including having the show vet to confirm lameness. Well received by the person being spoken to? No, but often received backing from others present.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

Who would have confronted SM if they had witnessed the incident? I most definitely would have. There is a lot of people on this forum who talk a lot about horse welfare and the ethics of keeping horses and I’m interested to know who would speak up in real life.

I would have done, I have done on more than one occasion. I would do so again without hesitation.

I won't repeat the whole story that I have told before. Interfering with people of a certain ethnic background probably put myself in some danger as I was alone and there were several males perpetrating the cruelty. Fortunately the oldest member of the group directed the others to allow the pony to get up and stop physically abusing it. I have to say my heart was in my mouth a bit, but I was not leaving until they stopped. I don't suppose it saved the wretched animal of further abuse at a later date but at least I did what I could in that moment given the circumstances.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

And here in lies a big problem for horse welfare generally. Most people will not call out unacceptable behaviour if they see it and advocate for the animal or young/old/vulnerable person. Why? Fear of confrontation? Don’t want to cause upset? It’s none of my business? It won’t make a difference anyway? I have spoken out when I’ve witnessed abusive behaviour, poor horsemanship or horses being ridden or competed whilst obviously unsound or uncomfortable. Is it always well received? No. People do not like to be told that that their behaviour is unacceptable or that they are causing pain or suffering (whether intentionally or unintentionally).

Who would have confronted SM if they had witnessed the incident? I most definitely would have. There is a lot of people on this forum who talk a lot about horse welfare and the ethics of keeping horses and I’m interested to know who would speak up in real life.

I certainly have when we were on a livery yard, teenager kicked her pony, who appeared to be doing nothing wrong, standing tied up outside the box, at least twice under his belly in the very softest part. She complained to YO, who asked me not to interfere again. I didn't need to as I never witnessed her bad behaviour again

 

[equinerebel]

Well that's the thing. The Animal Welfare Act doesn't actually make any provisions for what exactly constitutes abuse, but it does say the following must be met:

• need for a suitable environment
• need for a suitable diet
• need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns
• need to be housed with, or apart, from other animals
• need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

Which is why convictions are so hard to come by. If you see any animal being physically abused, you have to contact the police and the RSPCA (most police will contact them even if you don't), who then need to investigate. Which is what the RSPCA did in this case.

 

[fetlock]

It would be difficult to enforce day to day I agree. But it would mean that anyone caught on camera punching or kicking a horse would be open to charges of animal cruelty, whereas someone slapping their horse on the neck because it’s just tried to bite them wouldn’t be. Surely better to have some protection in law than none? As the law stands now, you can punch your horse repeatedly in the face and get away with it. I’d rather have a law that’s difficult to enforce day to day but can be enforced with clear evidence, than what we currently have which appears to be nothing.

I think the current law is actually adequate. In this instance it was down to the jury to decide and the jury decided otherwise.

Juries are directed that unless they are absolutely “sure” they should acquit. The defence did enough to provide that slither of doubt in their minds.

It’s hard to get my head around how they could look at that footage and decide she wasn’t guilty but, for whatever reason, they weren’t absolutely “sure” enough to convict her. Equally they could have been absolutely sure she wasn’t guilty in every way too. Some people still think it’s acceptable to rub a pup’s nose in its urine or take a rolled newspaper to it when it soils in the house. Some could be sitting on that jury thinking of the times they’ve struck out at their own pet or even child in the shock of a moment or even in anger. We’ll never know what went through their minds.

Always a possibility too that they collectively decided with the publicity and job loss she’d had punishment enough by that point, regardless of what the law says. Judges can guide. Juries don’t always listen.

 

[equinerebel]

I think the current law is actually adequate. In this instance it was down to the jury to decide and the jury decided otherwise.

Juries are directed that unless they are absolutely “sure” they should acquit. The defence did enough to provide that slither of doubt in their minds.

It’s hard to get my head around how they could look at that footage and decide she wasn’t guilty but, for whatever reason, they weren’t absolutely “sure” enough to convict her. Equally they could have been absolutely sure she wasn’t guilty in every way too. Some people still think it’s acceptable to rub a pup’s nose in its urine or take a rolled newspaper to it when it soils in the house. Some could be sitting on that jury thinking of the times they’ve struck out at their own pet or even child in the shock of a moment or even in anger. We’ll never know what went through their minds.

Always a possibility too that they collectively decided with the publicity and job loss she’d had punishment enough by that point, regardless of what the law says. Judges can guide. Juries don’t always listen.

BBM - Most likely because they argued her behaviour wasn't unusual in the equestrian world.

 

[Sanversera]

My FIL was impressed when someone punched a horse hard enough to wind it and bring it to its knees - it was when he was in the Kings Troop and the horse had but bitten somone (this was many years ago). MIL bought this up last night in support of SM - I told her that I was not impressed. I think the difference to the SM case was the 'punishment' was instant not some minutes later. FIL was not an animal lover, he once launched their cat out of the top window of their house because it had messed in the bathroom.

What an evil man I hope you reported him to the RSPCA

 

[Sanversera]

How is individual turnout abusive if the horses can see and touch each other,have enough food and water and shelter? Its quite different from keeping one horse in a paddock on its own with no other horse in sight . individual turnout can be used to stop a dominant horse bullying another and frustration caused by food competition.

 

[Sanversera]

I feel that anyone who chooses to keep a herd animal in an enclosure, on its own, chooses to compromise the animals welfare. If a zoo, or a circus were to keep a herd animal alone people would be up in arms, quite rightly. If people can't meet the five "freedoms " should they be keeping the animal?

Should we be keeping horses in paddocks at all? After all their wild ancestors roamed the plains with no fencing, how big is big enough, should no field be smaller than fifty square miles? , should we ever put a horse in a stable? That's a very unnatural thing for it, should we be riding them? That's unnatural for them too.

 

[palo1]

What an evil man I hope you reported him to the RSPCA

How is individual turnout abusive if the horses can see and touch each other,have enough food and water and shelter? Its quite different from keeping one horse in a paddock on its own with no other horse in sight . individual turnout can be used to stop a dominant horse bullying another and frustration caused by food competition.

I think that is somewhat reductive thinking - horses on individual turnout may be able to see and touch each other but that doesn't mean they have the freedom to express their natural behaviours; to scratch each other, to play, to choose to physically approach one another, to sleep in the company of other horses grazing closely and all manner of other entirely normal horse to horse behaviours. A single horse turned out with another horse or two over the fence cannot choose to join them, to nibble them, initiate play etc. It may be better than being in a stable but it is in all likelihood stressful and damaging for a horse. If you watch natural, settled groups of horses their interactions are so numerous and often subtle that it is difficult to imagine that any kind of individual turnout isn't actively stressful for a horse. There are problems with the way we manage turnout for groups of horses and change is one of the big issues that comes with livery yards etc. But that doesn't take away from the fact that horses actually physiologically and psychologically need to live with other horses. As for paddock size etc that is another issue.

 

[Ditchjumper2]

Should we be keeping horses in paddocks at all? After all their wild ancestors roamed the plains with no fencing, how big is big enough, should no field be smaller than fifty square miles? , should we ever put a horse in a stable? That's a very unnatural thing for it, should we be riding them? That's unnatural for them too.

Which is exactly what I was getting at....how far do you take it? Or should we all be running round naked aka Fred Flintstone. Things change and evolve not only for us vut for the animals we "keep" too. If we didn't the majority would cease to exist. There needs to be a common sense approach!

 

[Sandstone1]

Should we be keeping horses in paddocks at all? After all their wild ancestors roamed the plains with no fencing, how big is big enough, should no field be smaller than fifty square miles? , should we ever put a horse in a stable? That's a very unnatural thing for it, should we be riding them? That's unnatural for them too.

Should we be using horses to carry us across country following packs of hounds in pursuit of a animal that its illegal to hunt with hounds in this country? Should we force them to carry us over fences and hedges. Should we keep them in stables and clip off their hair for our convenience? Should we force them to travel in horseboxes to get to meets? Should we canter and gallop them on roads to keep up with hounds? Should we ride them along busy roads with the danger of traffic so we can enjoy our "Sport" Lots of questions to answer if you are going down that road!

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

My retired Dolly lives solely with two donkeys and has done since I had to sell my other horse after my accident. Until a few years back she had almost always lived in a small herd with my other horses and 4 donkeys.
I remember at one point when she was younger and my then retired old gelding was being bullied by one of the alpha donkeys (just making him move on from his pile of hay that sort of thing) I seperated her and him from the four donekys. Both horses and donkeys were distraught and fence walked alongside each other for days until I put them all back together.

She showed no interest whatsoever when my last riding horse was picked up and taken away, she just continued quietly grazing with the 2 donkeys as we loaded him up and they drove out the yard. So maybe it doesn't have to be another horse or pony, perhaps a donkey or two is sufficient to fulfill their needs. They do all three play together, mutually groom etc. and she is definitely alpha in their little herlet, so perhaps the odd story of a lone horse living happily with his pet sheep etc. isn't to be derided as insufficient company for a horse or pony. But I would never, under any circumstances keep her in a field without any company that she was happy with.

I guess basically we just don't know enough. And certainly not as much as some claim to know for fact.

 

[SadKen]

My mare is turned out individually as she does not, in my opinion, the YO’s opinion, and other owners’ opinions, have the right to inflict injuries on other horses in her quest to be unchallenged queen of the herd. In the wild this wouldn’t matter to anyone except the injured horse. In the wild, there would be so much terrain and probably some stallions, so she might not be such a witch. But domesticated, in a big field with very few horses in it, at 15h she was a complete tyrant. It’s natural herd hierarchy behaviour, but living in a domestic setting is in no way natural no matter how much we try to mimic that.

The questions asked in this thread re welfare are valid. Is it fair in animal welfare terms to keep horses on individual turnout? To jump them? To clip them? To subject them to medical treatment so they can work? To hunt? To travel them?

To insist that we are in charge and they must do what we ask?

To ride them?

To *own* them?

These questions will come more and more to the front of the general public’s mind. If we want to keep horses we need to consider these things, and how we should respond.

If it wasn’t for the fact that extremely rich influential people want to ride, I’d be betting on horse ownership ending in under 50 years.

Edit to say, SM was both hunting and abusive to her horse. The defence implied this is regular behaviour and acceptable in the equine world. This amplifies the speed at which these welfare questions are flagging in the public consciousness.

 

[CorvusCorax]

Edit to say, SM was both hunting and abusive to her horse. The defence implied this is regular behaviour and acceptable in the equine world. This amplifies the speed at which these welfare questions are flagging in the public consciousness.

I don't comment much in this section, but it has struck me that in attaining a successful outcome for this one individual in this one case, the defence team has thrown sports and leisure equestrianism under the bus.
Super job

 

[YorksG]

I don't comment much in this section, but it has struck me that in attaining a successful outcome for this one individual in this one case, the defence team has thrown sports and leisure equestrianism under the bus.
Super job

To be fair to the defence team, their job and responsibility was to their client and only to her. Any "incidental" influence is really not their concern