Var
Member
Sanity at last... i agree.
Scottish stud sell off...?
- Thread starter siennamum
- Start date
jamesmead
Well-Known Member
I'm surprised Var and Twisock are so complacent about the issues detailed here.
Yes, other sales are not without incident and are recognised as being stressful for stock which have not been prepared for the sales ring; which is why shipping to a sales venue was the least appropriate and least humane way to sell these animals. The sale of these animals was entirely in the hands of professionals; the finance company, the SSPCA, the auction house, (and the local council?); it should therefore have been a model of professionalism in the way it was carried out. It was not.
Personally, when I buy at a sale with the advantage of being WHOLLY in the control of professionals and involving a welfare organisation I don't expect to be sold a horse with a falsified passport or description. I don't expect to see aged animals put through the ring, with a commercial value only as meat (and how long a journey to slaughter if bought by the meat man? I don't think there is an abbatoir which pays for horsemeat near Aberdeen). I don't expect to be sold a horse which has been so heavily sedated that it can't stand up; or indeed, sedated at all; or a horse with an unmentioned tendon injury, pulled out of box rest to be transported to the sale....
Do Var and Twisock really think that this is acceptable? A kid from pony club would know better.
I rather liked:
[ QUOTE ]
not any more stressed than a 5yo child at school for the first day. Any horses which had been sedated ( and I think it was only 2 or3 of them) had this stated at point of sale by the auctioneer.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not only is this seriously at variance with other eyewitness accounts but it paints a strange picture of the scene at the school gates; the mums with their syringes...
And yes, the horses DID have pens knee deep in straw with fodder provided. But no water. Does it have to be spelt out here that fodder without water is a colic risk; particularly to hungry horses?
Yes, other sales are not without incident and are recognised as being stressful for stock which have not been prepared for the sales ring; which is why shipping to a sales venue was the least appropriate and least humane way to sell these animals. The sale of these animals was entirely in the hands of professionals; the finance company, the SSPCA, the auction house, (and the local council?); it should therefore have been a model of professionalism in the way it was carried out. It was not.
Personally, when I buy at a sale with the advantage of being WHOLLY in the control of professionals and involving a welfare organisation I don't expect to be sold a horse with a falsified passport or description. I don't expect to see aged animals put through the ring, with a commercial value only as meat (and how long a journey to slaughter if bought by the meat man? I don't think there is an abbatoir which pays for horsemeat near Aberdeen). I don't expect to be sold a horse which has been so heavily sedated that it can't stand up; or indeed, sedated at all; or a horse with an unmentioned tendon injury, pulled out of box rest to be transported to the sale....
Do Var and Twisock really think that this is acceptable? A kid from pony club would know better.
I rather liked:
[ QUOTE ]
not any more stressed than a 5yo child at school for the first day. Any horses which had been sedated ( and I think it was only 2 or3 of them) had this stated at point of sale by the auctioneer.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not only is this seriously at variance with other eyewitness accounts but it paints a strange picture of the scene at the school gates; the mums with their syringes...
And yes, the horses DID have pens knee deep in straw with fodder provided. But no water. Does it have to be spelt out here that fodder without water is a colic risk; particularly to hungry horses?
magic104
Well-Known Member
What a fuss about an auction.......do you object to the sales at Ascot, Doncaster, Ballsbridge etc. etc.
No I dont agree with you where an aged animal in its twilight years should be subjected to stress just to squeeze the last £1 from it. This is what happened to an 18yo mare at Ascot she was there because the stud knew she was coming to the end of her broodmare days. Did the stud not think hey, this mare has won on the track, produced a foal most years since retiring from the track, so lets have this last foal & then put her down, no they shoved her in the sale. In this sale there were two 30yo ponies. In this climate what were the odds they would end up with good homes, (though I wonder if someone who knew them bought them), & why was it necessary to move them & put them through a sale, why could these horses have not been sold fromt he farm? There is nothing wrong with sales, but it is not the way to treat an elderly horse who has been a loyal servant.
No I dont agree with you where an aged animal in its twilight years should be subjected to stress just to squeeze the last £1 from it. This is what happened to an 18yo mare at Ascot she was there because the stud knew she was coming to the end of her broodmare days. Did the stud not think hey, this mare has won on the track, produced a foal most years since retiring from the track, so lets have this last foal & then put her down, no they shoved her in the sale. In this sale there were two 30yo ponies. In this climate what were the odds they would end up with good homes, (though I wonder if someone who knew them bought them), & why was it necessary to move them & put them through a sale, why could these horses have not been sold fromt he farm? There is nothing wrong with sales, but it is not the way to treat an elderly horse who has been a loyal servant.
cutthemustard
New User
I went to the Mart the on Friday afternoon with 2 friends who were looking to buy.
The horses were in pens in small groups and seemed reasonably happy. That is except for the stallions . At the end of the pend was a coloured stallion and a dark bay one. They were noses to nose and were very stressed. They were rearing at each other and it was just an accident waiting to happen. At any moment a leg was going to go through the bars and probably break. I told the mart workers who wre frantically sorting passports. Then a lady asked me who I was and what I was doing. I told her my urgent concern pointing out the rearing/fighting horses. She very rudely told me to get out and leave the mart and not to return to the morning. my friend went to office for catalogue(she did buy 1 mare) and was told that the lady concerned was infact the horse welfare officer. Well does not bode well does it.? They should never have been pend like that in the first place. I didn't attend the next day and am glad i didn't judging by Fitzbys comments (not melodramatic I think) and others the welfare officer has got a lot to answer to
The horses were in pens in small groups and seemed reasonably happy. That is except for the stallions . At the end of the pend was a coloured stallion and a dark bay one. They were noses to nose and were very stressed. They were rearing at each other and it was just an accident waiting to happen. At any moment a leg was going to go through the bars and probably break. I told the mart workers who wre frantically sorting passports. Then a lady asked me who I was and what I was doing. I told her my urgent concern pointing out the rearing/fighting horses. She very rudely told me to get out and leave the mart and not to return to the morning. my friend went to office for catalogue(she did buy 1 mare) and was told that the lady concerned was infact the horse welfare officer. Well does not bode well does it.? They should never have been pend like that in the first place. I didn't attend the next day and am glad i didn't judging by Fitzbys comments (not melodramatic I think) and others the welfare officer has got a lot to answer to
Ponyplanet
Well-Known Member
IMHO the only person at fault in this whole situation, is the one who went out and filled her fields with horses she could not afford to care for, didnt heed advice to sell when times got tough, didnt care enough to get the old ones handed over to charity or PTS before this came to a head. The owner of these horses is the one who let this happen, everyone else - vet/charity/mart were doing what they could under extremely depressing and sad circumstances.
The mart may very well not of been a good demonstration of horse welfare, however what most people seem to be missing is that these horses were sold off as they were classed as "stock" of a liquidated company, what sort of person would allow their old ponies to end up like this?
The mart may very well not of been a good demonstration of horse welfare, however what most people seem to be missing is that these horses were sold off as they were classed as "stock" of a liquidated company, what sort of person would allow their old ponies to end up like this?
AmyMay
Situation normal
[ QUOTE ]
IMHO the only person at fault in this whole situation, is the one who went out and filled her fields with horses she could not afford to care for, didnt heed advice to sell when times got tough, didnt care enough to get the old ones handed over to charity or PTS before this came to a head. The owner of these horses is the one who let this happen, everyone else - vet/charity/mart were doing what they could under extremely depressing and sad circumstances.
[/ QUOTE ]
Have you been privvy to the whole situation regarding the stud owners - or is this just wild conjecture on your part??
IMHO the only person at fault in this whole situation, is the one who went out and filled her fields with horses she could not afford to care for, didnt heed advice to sell when times got tough, didnt care enough to get the old ones handed over to charity or PTS before this came to a head. The owner of these horses is the one who let this happen, everyone else - vet/charity/mart were doing what they could under extremely depressing and sad circumstances.
[/ QUOTE ]
Have you been privvy to the whole situation regarding the stud owners - or is this just wild conjecture on your part??
auchenblae
Member
[ QUOTE ]
sigh..... arent you being just a touch melodramatic?
That doesnt tie up with my experience of the sale at all. Yes the coloured stallion did over-react to the sedation but would you rather he'd injured himself or someone?
this is an emotive subject but lets keep it in perspective.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you not see a horse going over backwards as injuring itself? Did anyone check the horse for injuries, has it been xrayed to make sure it did no permanent damage?
sigh..... arent you being just a touch melodramatic?
That doesnt tie up with my experience of the sale at all. Yes the coloured stallion did over-react to the sedation but would you rather he'd injured himself or someone?
this is an emotive subject but lets keep it in perspective.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you not see a horse going over backwards as injuring itself? Did anyone check the horse for injuries, has it been xrayed to make sure it did no permanent damage?
auchenblae
Member
[ QUOTE ]
They knew what they were doing and what they were involved in was wrong and they didn't know what to do about it. They all were looking at this woman shouting "Pauline" at every stressful situation. On the start of this sale "Pauline" was no where to be seen and had obviously left the sinking ship.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have done some searching on who the Animal Health Inspectors (Local Authority Representatives) are for the Aberdeenshire area and the name of one of the officers does begin with the above forename.
They knew what they were doing and what they were involved in was wrong and they didn't know what to do about it. They all were looking at this woman shouting "Pauline" at every stressful situation. On the start of this sale "Pauline" was no where to be seen and had obviously left the sinking ship.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have done some searching on who the Animal Health Inspectors (Local Authority Representatives) are for the Aberdeenshire area and the name of one of the officers does begin with the above forename.
auchenblae
Member
[ QUOTE ]
IMHO the only person at fault in this whole situation, is the one who went out and filled her fields with horses she could not afford to care for, didnt heed advice to sell when times got tough, didnt care enough to get the old ones handed over to charity or PTS before this came to a head. The owner of these horses is the one who let this happen, everyone else - vet/charity/mart were doing what they could under extremely depressing and sad circumstances.
[/ QUOTE ]
As someone else has stated, unless you are privvy to all the information then none of us can comment on how the owners got to be in this situation.
If you have bothered to read any of the beforementioned posts you will understand that the actual owners of these horses have not had anything to do with them for some time now, so they have been in the care of the new owners "aka receivers" along with input from the SSPCA, Local Authority Animal Health Inspectors and Vets.
If the owner wished for this to happen they would have likely sold them at the mart themselves I am guessing. I also "believe" that offers for these horses had been turned down by the receivers, so there was a big opportunity for these horses not to even go near the mart in the first place and be sold from the farm, which in my view would have been a much kinder way for them to be sold on.
IMHO the only person at fault in this whole situation, is the one who went out and filled her fields with horses she could not afford to care for, didnt heed advice to sell when times got tough, didnt care enough to get the old ones handed over to charity or PTS before this came to a head. The owner of these horses is the one who let this happen, everyone else - vet/charity/mart were doing what they could under extremely depressing and sad circumstances.
[/ QUOTE ]
As someone else has stated, unless you are privvy to all the information then none of us can comment on how the owners got to be in this situation.
If you have bothered to read any of the beforementioned posts you will understand that the actual owners of these horses have not had anything to do with them for some time now, so they have been in the care of the new owners "aka receivers" along with input from the SSPCA, Local Authority Animal Health Inspectors and Vets.
If the owner wished for this to happen they would have likely sold them at the mart themselves I am guessing. I also "believe" that offers for these horses had been turned down by the receivers, so there was a big opportunity for these horses not to even go near the mart in the first place and be sold from the farm, which in my view would have been a much kinder way for them to be sold on.
Ponyplanet
Well-Known Member
It would of course been much better for the horses to of had the sale at the Farm, the location up there is accessable, I didnt fully understand the reasons behind having the Sale at the Mart in the first place?
Ponyplanet
Well-Known Member
auchenblae - what makes you think I didnt read your posts? I can assure you I read all the posts, but that does not change my opinion that these horses ended up where they did because the owner of these horses did not have the foresight to see what they needed to do when the problems first started to arise.
This situation did not arise over night.
This situation did not arise over night.
snoopmummy
Member
[ QUOTE ]
auchenblae - what makes you think I didnt read your posts? I can assure you I read all the posts, but that does not change my opinion that these horses ended up where they did because the owner of these horses did not have the foresight to see what they needed to do when the problems first started to arise.
This situation did not arise over night.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever one's opinion is of the reason the horses were for sale in the first place, the actual issue being raised here was how, once the horses had been taken over by the receivers the horses were treated after that. I.E. what happened at the mart - not what happened before. Some posters seem to now be taking this opportunity to have a go at the owners even though they had had no responsibility for the horses for months.
auchenblae - what makes you think I didnt read your posts? I can assure you I read all the posts, but that does not change my opinion that these horses ended up where they did because the owner of these horses did not have the foresight to see what they needed to do when the problems first started to arise.
This situation did not arise over night.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever one's opinion is of the reason the horses were for sale in the first place, the actual issue being raised here was how, once the horses had been taken over by the receivers the horses were treated after that. I.E. what happened at the mart - not what happened before. Some posters seem to now be taking this opportunity to have a go at the owners even though they had had no responsibility for the horses for months.
snoopmummy
Member
Could I also point out that another of the main issues that were originally put forward here was the concern that all horse/pony owners should have as a result of this sale, and that is the issue of passports and micro-chipping. This also seems to be being sidelined.
auchenblae
Member
[ QUOTE ]
auchenblae - what makes you think I didnt read your posts? I can assure you I read all the posts, but that does not change my opinion that these horses ended up where they did because the owner of these horses did not have the foresight to see what they needed to do when the problems first started to arise.
This situation did not arise over night.
[/ QUOTE ]
We have no idea what the financial implications are regarding the owners and what happened. You, nor I know what has gone on before and during all this, or where their finance may or may not been tied up in. For all you or I know they could have had investments in companies that have gone to the wall in the current economic climate. For all you or I know they could have tried to get funding from other means and were unsuccessful. The bottom line is neither of us know.
auchenblae - what makes you think I didnt read your posts? I can assure you I read all the posts, but that does not change my opinion that these horses ended up where they did because the owner of these horses did not have the foresight to see what they needed to do when the problems first started to arise.
This situation did not arise over night.
[/ QUOTE ]
We have no idea what the financial implications are regarding the owners and what happened. You, nor I know what has gone on before and during all this, or where their finance may or may not been tied up in. For all you or I know they could have had investments in companies that have gone to the wall in the current economic climate. For all you or I know they could have tried to get funding from other means and were unsuccessful. The bottom line is neither of us know.
Ponyplanet
Well-Known Member
agreed happylugsd the issues of Passports and micro chipping has been side lined, sorry will get back on track,
Auchenbale - I have made my opinion, which I am entitiled to make based on what I know. I have no idea what you know on the subject, you are also entitiled to your own opinions based on what you know.
Auchenbale - I have made my opinion, which I am entitiled to make based on what I know. I have no idea what you know on the subject, you are also entitiled to your own opinions based on what you know.
Ponyplanet
Well-Known Member
sorry typo - Flappylugs
no_no_nanette
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Could I also point out that another of the main issues that were originally put forward here was the concern that all horse/pony owners should have as a result of this sale, and that is the issue of passports and micro-chipping. This also seems to be being sidelined.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that these are the key issues that we need to keep sight of, as there are some really serious implications for all horse owners, as flappylugs has said. No point in getting sidelined on what the previous owners should/should not have done - BUT I do think that there should be some very serious investigations by DEFRA and by the RCVS into why many of the horses were double-chipped and issued duplicate passports, seemingly illegally?; and by the welfare organisations themselves into why the decision was taken to sell off-site and to travel elderly and in at least one case injured horses, and why the SSPCA inspector who was at the sales was not more closely observant of the horses' welfare. (ie no water/over-sedated, etc) I've mentioned the RCVS, and I think that they also need to find out what the role of the supervising vet(s) was in all of this - both in the micro-chipping, in (allegedly) giving permission for the horses to travel, and in supervising the sedation of the horses once they were at the sale. There are a lot of questions about some very worrying practices to be answered here, and H&H and other horse magazines should be rigorous in following up this sorry tale, and investigating the facts of the case.
Could I also point out that another of the main issues that were originally put forward here was the concern that all horse/pony owners should have as a result of this sale, and that is the issue of passports and micro-chipping. This also seems to be being sidelined.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that these are the key issues that we need to keep sight of, as there are some really serious implications for all horse owners, as flappylugs has said. No point in getting sidelined on what the previous owners should/should not have done - BUT I do think that there should be some very serious investigations by DEFRA and by the RCVS into why many of the horses were double-chipped and issued duplicate passports, seemingly illegally?; and by the welfare organisations themselves into why the decision was taken to sell off-site and to travel elderly and in at least one case injured horses, and why the SSPCA inspector who was at the sales was not more closely observant of the horses' welfare. (ie no water/over-sedated, etc) I've mentioned the RCVS, and I think that they also need to find out what the role of the supervising vet(s) was in all of this - both in the micro-chipping, in (allegedly) giving permission for the horses to travel, and in supervising the sedation of the horses once they were at the sale. There are a lot of questions about some very worrying practices to be answered here, and H&H and other horse magazines should be rigorous in following up this sorry tale, and investigating the facts of the case.
SFleetwood
Well-Known Member
Hear, hear Rufusbluemoon.
teuchterman
New User
I have been watching these postings with great interest and finally feel forced to make a comment. First of all, I want to make it clear that I am not one of the Stud owners however I DO KNOW the FULL details of this case.
As this is still very much a "work in progress" I am not prepared to go into any detail as to the background to this case at present. After all, why would I, it's nobody else's business but the unfortunate people who have had their life shattered by the process.
What I will say however, is that these horses came from a very loving home and were fed and looked after, in my opinion, better than many horses (and some humans). I am fed up seeing comments posted on what is pure speculation as to the circumstances surrounding the case and the treatment of the animals prior to the sale. I am quite sure when the whole story behind this comes out (and it will when the time is right) there will be many red faces as to comments which have been posted.
Personally I was shocked at the way the horses looked on Saturday having seen them on the farm during the week. These animals all had their own traits and were used to being handled accordingly. To suddenly be transported to unfamiliar surroundings as well as other issues raised on this site it obviously had a dramatic affect on their condition.
All WILL be revealed in due course as there are a lot of lessons to be learned from this and I hope that it never happens to anyone else. The sad thing is that it possibly will and probably has, we just haven't heard about them.
As this is still very much a "work in progress" I am not prepared to go into any detail as to the background to this case at present. After all, why would I, it's nobody else's business but the unfortunate people who have had their life shattered by the process.
What I will say however, is that these horses came from a very loving home and were fed and looked after, in my opinion, better than many horses (and some humans). I am fed up seeing comments posted on what is pure speculation as to the circumstances surrounding the case and the treatment of the animals prior to the sale. I am quite sure when the whole story behind this comes out (and it will when the time is right) there will be many red faces as to comments which have been posted.
Personally I was shocked at the way the horses looked on Saturday having seen them on the farm during the week. These animals all had their own traits and were used to being handled accordingly. To suddenly be transported to unfamiliar surroundings as well as other issues raised on this site it obviously had a dramatic affect on their condition.
All WILL be revealed in due course as there are a lot of lessons to be learned from this and I hope that it never happens to anyone else. The sad thing is that it possibly will and probably has, we just haven't heard about them.
snoopmummy
Member
Well said JM07 !!
Ciss
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Well said JM07 !!
[/ QUOTE ]
and teutcherwoman
Well said JM07 !!
[/ QUOTE ]
and teutcherwoman
jamesmead
Well-Known Member
I would have to agree that those who are intent on blaming the ex-owners here are rather missing the point. By the time the horses were earmarked for sale the matter was out of their hands.
The important issue here with regard to how the horses came to be sold is the matter of DEBT and REPOSSESSION. Its easy to think something like this will never happen to you; but it can, and when it does, if your biggest moveable asset is your breeding stock, then they will be taken and sold. The law as it stands, in dealing with living animals as inanimate chattels, doesn't seem to give them much protection. I understand that even horses belonging to a third party, at livery in the fields of someone subject to such a seizure can be taken; how this can be, since it is clearly unjust, I don't know.
When your herd includes retired animals commercially worthless except as meat, what do you do? You can't sell them on and whilst you think there is a way out of your financial difficulties its hard to put them down on financial grounds. Then the axe of repossession falls and its too late.
As for more valuable stock; if you show any signs of getting income from selling them, the finance company is all the more likely, IMO, to seek to gain control itself, to be sure that the money comes into its coffers.
Of course, the welfare organisations should come between the finance clawback and the horses to ensure humane treatment; yet here it seems that the bankrupted ex-owners were left, without funds, to feed and tend horses which they no longer owned and which they had been forbidden by the new owners (the finance company) to touch, for some time before the sale. I would say the passable but less than ideal condition of the animals at the sale is at the same time a credit to the ex-owners for managing as well as they did, and a reproach to the far better-funded bodies who should, both morally and legally, have been attending to their care.
OK, when we fall down on the care of our animals or of our finances, we have responsibility for it; but once onto the bankruptcy chute we also LOSE that responsinility; it is taken from us and other, supposedly more responsible bodies take over. Don't imagine for one minute that this couldn't happen to any of us; it could; it has happened to others and will happen again. Therefore we need to make sure that the "professionals" concerned in the clearing up process ARE in fact competent, law abiding, humane, responsible and not motivated by financial gain first and foremost; THAT is why this case is such an eye opener and so important.
The important issue here with regard to how the horses came to be sold is the matter of DEBT and REPOSSESSION. Its easy to think something like this will never happen to you; but it can, and when it does, if your biggest moveable asset is your breeding stock, then they will be taken and sold. The law as it stands, in dealing with living animals as inanimate chattels, doesn't seem to give them much protection. I understand that even horses belonging to a third party, at livery in the fields of someone subject to such a seizure can be taken; how this can be, since it is clearly unjust, I don't know.
When your herd includes retired animals commercially worthless except as meat, what do you do? You can't sell them on and whilst you think there is a way out of your financial difficulties its hard to put them down on financial grounds. Then the axe of repossession falls and its too late.
As for more valuable stock; if you show any signs of getting income from selling them, the finance company is all the more likely, IMO, to seek to gain control itself, to be sure that the money comes into its coffers.
Of course, the welfare organisations should come between the finance clawback and the horses to ensure humane treatment; yet here it seems that the bankrupted ex-owners were left, without funds, to feed and tend horses which they no longer owned and which they had been forbidden by the new owners (the finance company) to touch, for some time before the sale. I would say the passable but less than ideal condition of the animals at the sale is at the same time a credit to the ex-owners for managing as well as they did, and a reproach to the far better-funded bodies who should, both morally and legally, have been attending to their care.
OK, when we fall down on the care of our animals or of our finances, we have responsibility for it; but once onto the bankruptcy chute we also LOSE that responsinility; it is taken from us and other, supposedly more responsible bodies take over. Don't imagine for one minute that this couldn't happen to any of us; it could; it has happened to others and will happen again. Therefore we need to make sure that the "professionals" concerned in the clearing up process ARE in fact competent, law abiding, humane, responsible and not motivated by financial gain first and foremost; THAT is why this case is such an eye opener and so important.
Ponyplanet
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I would have to agree that those who are intent on blaming the ex-owners here are rather missing the point. By the time the horses were earmarked for sale the matter was out of their hands.
The important issue here with regard to how the horses came to be sold is the matter of DEBT and REPOSSESSION. Its easy to think something like this will never happen to you; but it can, and when it does, if your biggest moveable asset is your breeding stock, then they will be taken and sold. The law as it stands, in dealing with living animals as inanimate chattels, doesn't seem to give them much protection. I understand that even horses belonging to a third party, at livery in the fields of someone subject to such a seizure can be taken; how this can be, since it is clearly unjust, I don't know.
When your herd includes retired animals commercially worthless except as meat, what do you do? You can't sell them on and whilst you think there is a way out of your financial difficulties its hard to put them down on financial grounds. Then the axe of repossession falls and its too late.
As for more valuable stock; if you show any signs of getting income from selling them, the finance company is all the more likely, IMO, to seek to gain control itself, to be sure that the money comes into its coffers.
Of course, the welfare organisations should come between the finance clawback and the horses to ensure humane treatment; yet here it seems that the bankrupted ex-owners were left, without funds, to feed and tend horses which they no longer owned and which they had been forbidden by the new owners (the finance company) to touch, for some time before the sale. I would say the passable but less than ideal condition of the animals at the sale is at the same time a credit to the ex-owners for managing as well as they did, and a reproach to the far better-funded bodies who should, both morally and legally, have been attending to their care.
OK, when we fall down on the care of our animals or of our finances, we have responsibility for it; but once onto the bankruptcy chute we also LOSE that responsinility; it is taken from us and other, supposedly more responsible bodies take over. Don't imagine for one minute that this couldn't happen to any of us; it could; it has happened to others and will happen again. Therefore we need to make sure that the "professionals" concerned in the clearing up process ARE in fact competent, law abiding, humane, responsible and not motivated by financial gain first and foremost; THAT is why this case is such an eye opener and so important.
[/ QUOTE ]
yes good post
I would have to agree that those who are intent on blaming the ex-owners here are rather missing the point. By the time the horses were earmarked for sale the matter was out of their hands.
The important issue here with regard to how the horses came to be sold is the matter of DEBT and REPOSSESSION. Its easy to think something like this will never happen to you; but it can, and when it does, if your biggest moveable asset is your breeding stock, then they will be taken and sold. The law as it stands, in dealing with living animals as inanimate chattels, doesn't seem to give them much protection. I understand that even horses belonging to a third party, at livery in the fields of someone subject to such a seizure can be taken; how this can be, since it is clearly unjust, I don't know.
When your herd includes retired animals commercially worthless except as meat, what do you do? You can't sell them on and whilst you think there is a way out of your financial difficulties its hard to put them down on financial grounds. Then the axe of repossession falls and its too late.
As for more valuable stock; if you show any signs of getting income from selling them, the finance company is all the more likely, IMO, to seek to gain control itself, to be sure that the money comes into its coffers.
Of course, the welfare organisations should come between the finance clawback and the horses to ensure humane treatment; yet here it seems that the bankrupted ex-owners were left, without funds, to feed and tend horses which they no longer owned and which they had been forbidden by the new owners (the finance company) to touch, for some time before the sale. I would say the passable but less than ideal condition of the animals at the sale is at the same time a credit to the ex-owners for managing as well as they did, and a reproach to the far better-funded bodies who should, both morally and legally, have been attending to their care.
OK, when we fall down on the care of our animals or of our finances, we have responsibility for it; but once onto the bankruptcy chute we also LOSE that responsinility; it is taken from us and other, supposedly more responsible bodies take over. Don't imagine for one minute that this couldn't happen to any of us; it could; it has happened to others and will happen again. Therefore we need to make sure that the "professionals" concerned in the clearing up process ARE in fact competent, law abiding, humane, responsible and not motivated by financial gain first and foremost; THAT is why this case is such an eye opener and so important.
[/ QUOTE ]
yes good post
brucea
Well-Known Member
I know the gentleman who is supervising the liquidation and I understand it was at his insistence the SSPCA were there at the sale - and he has had a strong personal committment to the welfare of the horses and ponies all the way along in as far as it has been possible in the circumstances.
Blanche
Well-Known Member
and he has had a strong personal committment to the welfare of the horses and ponies all the way along in as far as it has been possible in the circumstances.
[/ QUOTE ]
"As far as has been possible in the circumstances." Excuse me but what the f*ck is that supposed to mean .
[/ QUOTE ]
"As far as has been possible in the circumstances." Excuse me but what the f*ck is that supposed to mean .
SFleetwood
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I know the gentleman who is supervising the liquidation and I understand it was at his insistence the SSPCA were there at the sale - and he has had a strong personal committment to the welfare of the horses and ponies all the way along in as far as it has been possible in the circumstances.
[/ QUOTE ]
Surely the SSPCA would have become involved the minute the animals were seized by the liquidators? So interested in animal welfare or not, the SSPCA were bound to be involved......
I know the gentleman who is supervising the liquidation and I understand it was at his insistence the SSPCA were there at the sale - and he has had a strong personal committment to the welfare of the horses and ponies all the way along in as far as it has been possible in the circumstances.
[/ QUOTE ]
Surely the SSPCA would have become involved the minute the animals were seized by the liquidators? So interested in animal welfare or not, the SSPCA were bound to be involved......
jamesmead
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I know the gentleman who is supervising the liquidation and I understand it was at his insistence the SSPCA were there at the sale - and he has had a strong personal committment to the welfare of the horses and ponies all the way along in as far as it has been possible in the circumstances.
[/ QUOTE ]
SMID, is this gentleman himself experienced with horses? One would not expect the liquidators to be necessarily experienced with livestock; so am I reading in this that the SSPCA were brought in specifically to oversee the welfare issues at the liquidators behest? Or is this gentleman supervising the sale itself, rather than the liquidation as a whole?
If the former, did the SSPCA offer him advice on the inappropriate nature of the sale? The shipment of the horse on box rest? The need to maintain the animals before the sale? The possible fate of the elderly ponies? If so, why did he not take it?
Would this gentleman also be the person responsible for the illegal passport fiasco?
I know the gentleman who is supervising the liquidation and I understand it was at his insistence the SSPCA were there at the sale - and he has had a strong personal committment to the welfare of the horses and ponies all the way along in as far as it has been possible in the circumstances.
[/ QUOTE ]
SMID, is this gentleman himself experienced with horses? One would not expect the liquidators to be necessarily experienced with livestock; so am I reading in this that the SSPCA were brought in specifically to oversee the welfare issues at the liquidators behest? Or is this gentleman supervising the sale itself, rather than the liquidation as a whole?
If the former, did the SSPCA offer him advice on the inappropriate nature of the sale? The shipment of the horse on box rest? The need to maintain the animals before the sale? The possible fate of the elderly ponies? If so, why did he not take it?
Would this gentleman also be the person responsible for the illegal passport fiasco?
Var
Member
I woudl seem to be in the minority in terms of being ok with the auction - there are more people upset by the auction than not. However, i stand by what i have written earlier in this thread. I would add that everyones individual view is subjective but what i have reported above is my take on it - and i'm far from being hard hearted!
I am a neutral bystander with no axe to grind - i have no knowledge of the stud and the circumstances leading up to this nor have i any connection with any of the agents running or overseeing the auction.
I do feel from reading the reports that there is another agenda going on (i AM speculating now) where people are using this situation to stir up either the backstory to the auction, professionalism of mart/vets/sspca agents and the passport issue for other ends.
I dont wish to add to the speculation on the stud and why this happened nor their financial situation as it really is none of my or anyones business. I posted originally because i did want to express that the views of those disturbed by the auction was not a unamimous one.
Jamesmead your post is interesting and well written and should serve as a warning to everyone (as regards how a financial crisis impacts on our animals). I am not complacent about the auction I'm just not getting carried away in a tide of emotion. This auction was not Verden but it was a long way from being a welfare situation.
I can see that mistakes were made with passports and as i have said before its clear new owners have some work to do in resolving their paperwork.
I am a neutral bystander with no axe to grind - i have no knowledge of the stud and the circumstances leading up to this nor have i any connection with any of the agents running or overseeing the auction.
I do feel from reading the reports that there is another agenda going on (i AM speculating now) where people are using this situation to stir up either the backstory to the auction, professionalism of mart/vets/sspca agents and the passport issue for other ends.
I dont wish to add to the speculation on the stud and why this happened nor their financial situation as it really is none of my or anyones business. I posted originally because i did want to express that the views of those disturbed by the auction was not a unamimous one.
Jamesmead your post is interesting and well written and should serve as a warning to everyone (as regards how a financial crisis impacts on our animals). I am not complacent about the auction I'm just not getting carried away in a tide of emotion. This auction was not Verden but it was a long way from being a welfare situation.
I can see that mistakes were made with passports and as i have said before its clear new owners have some work to do in resolving their paperwork.
AengusOg
Well-Known Member
I think it's also important to point out that the mart in question is very well versed in the running of auctions at which horses are sold. They have several rare breed (including horses and ponies) sales in the course of a year, and are also very heavily involved in the auction sales of cattle and sheep.
They will have been very sure to have conducted this sale in a professional manner and, I'm sure, will have met any legal requirements necessary to ensure that professionalism.
The mart are under no obligation to provide sustenance for any animal tendered for sale through them, unless those animals are held on mart premises for a day or more prior to the sale taking place. Animals delivered to, and sold through the mart on the same day are generally tended by the vendors, and are not the responsibility of the mart. Any failing, on that score, on the part of the vendor should have been addressed by the SSPCA.
I reiterate that I doubt the mart would wish to fall foul of the law regarding the sale of a horse without a passport, but that their only concern would be that any horse they sold should have a current passport pertaining to that animal.
That only leaves the vet(s) out in the cold on the (alleged) duplicate passport issue, as this is not part of the SSPCA remit, and should be none of their concern.
They will have been very sure to have conducted this sale in a professional manner and, I'm sure, will have met any legal requirements necessary to ensure that professionalism.
The mart are under no obligation to provide sustenance for any animal tendered for sale through them, unless those animals are held on mart premises for a day or more prior to the sale taking place. Animals delivered to, and sold through the mart on the same day are generally tended by the vendors, and are not the responsibility of the mart. Any failing, on that score, on the part of the vendor should have been addressed by the SSPCA.
I reiterate that I doubt the mart would wish to fall foul of the law regarding the sale of a horse without a passport, but that their only concern would be that any horse they sold should have a current passport pertaining to that animal.
That only leaves the vet(s) out in the cold on the (alleged) duplicate passport issue, as this is not part of the SSPCA remit, and should be none of their concern.
magic104
Well-Known Member
"I woudl seem to be in the minority in terms of being ok with the auction - there are more people upset by the auction than not. However, i stand by what i have written earlier in this thread." - I think you are missing the point. 1) Most people are concerned that horses were sold with having a duplicate passport issued & a 2nd MC inserted, 2) That the receivers or whoever was in charge of the horses failed to ensure they had access to water, what seems to be a whole day in the pens & 3 Why these horses could not be sold from the farm as it included Stallions & elderly animals. I have no issue with sales, what I hate is to see elderly animals going through possible stress of a sale when they may struggle to find a good home & really should be PTS. There are not many people that attend sales that are looking for a cheap companion, so where is the market for a 30yo pony/horse? I stand by my statement that it is disgusting to treat an elderly animal in this way. You have no control over who buys the animals & I feel you owe them more. Others can state this is the fault of the stud, but I am not so sure they realised that their horses would be seized in this way. Anyway the main concern here is what happened with this issuing of duplicate passports.