Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Poll Results

Can Horses Be Healthy, stalled without exercise for long periods without any social contact or adequate food/water/sanitation?

The correct answers are A, C & D, and not one voter selected any of the politically & legally correct choices.

Which are:
Yes, Of Course. Correct.
No, Not Possible  Incorrect.
Who Cares? Correct.
Horses are animals, and they can be caged forever.Correct.
Our laws mandate food/water/shelter/sanitation, but not all at the same time. The standards of care are entirely at the discretion of the animal owner.

If living indoors, that animal never has to leave his "stall". By law, that animal does not have to be exercised. Everything is acceptable as long as the animal is not "in acute distress." Acute distress can only be reported/believed/accepted as a diagnosis by a licensed veterinarian.

Therefore, this horse, checked by two OSPCA-ordered veterinarians, was never "in acute distress". All animal welfare is based upon this veterinary opinion. Was the horse ever in acute distress? Chronic neglect does not often show itself as acute distress. (Until the animal dies of starvation.)

One must assume the people who knew the correct answers didn't feel comfortable selecting them.

Here's a great comment from a FHOTD reader.
Domdaisy says:
I’m Canadian and live in Ontario and I did not know about this until I saw this today. I can attest that the OSPCA in my area (not sure if it is the same one dealing with Chief) is extremely unhelpful when it comes to horses. They really do look at food, shelter, water at that is IT. And no, they don’t consider the quality of food, shelter or water either.
I’m also in law school and while I am certain that Ontario’s animal cruelty laws are both inadequate and vague, I think that the OSPCA could have still made a difference here. Yes, perhaps legally they may not be able to remove the horse due to our crappy animal rights laws. HOWEVER, if they had loudly and firmly proclaimed that their experts decreed Chief’s living situation to be deplorable it would have made a huge difference. If they contacted the media or even released a statement saying that they wish they could help Chief, but their hands were tied, that the laws suck, etc, it would have at least made it it clear that they stand for humane treatment of animals. Instead, I see them as sanctioning this abuse by ruling that Chief’s “care” doesn’t violate their standards. Maybe the OSPCA could have done nothing “legally” for Chief (which I am still not clear on if that was the case) but they certainly didn’t have to try to make it appear acceptable. If they had said “we hate this, but there is nothing we can do, please write to your MP to get our laws changed” then maybe I would still have respect for them. But. . . no."