GaryHill said...
I can't remember if Turk went on the road with us? If so this is him?
07 January, 2009 08:38
I sent this comment below to farrier Gary Hill, which was censored, so I will post it here and he may see it. It might also help folks understand why breed associations have a standard, that breeders strive for. (I was going to mention the cable tie down, normally used for roping horses or barrel horse as being an unusual piece of tack for a saddle horse, but didn't because I figured it would get the comment axed. LOL)
Gary,
Buddy you must have been lazy that week, Turk's feet look way long. That happens with a genetic defect like he has, called club footed or clubby, usually only occurring with one foot. It was more prevalent back in the early 80's when Arabians were mistakingly breed with a small foot in an effort to retain other desirable characteristics. It has been just about eliminated in the breed now that they are breeding for a bigger foot. I also note he has very short, straight pastern's(should be medium and match the slope of the shoulder) which could lead to a pre disposition of tendon issues, osteoarthritis, and a "choppy" ride.
Wade Burck
Ryan, I started this conversation on the "history channel", so it could be shifted here for your sanctuary discussion. This horse was donated/retired to the Sheriff's Boy's Ranch in upstate Florida. Is the Sheriffs Boys Ranch an acceptable sanctuary? Is the place where they took Michael Vick's dogs an acceptable sanctuary? Are elephant sanctuaries acceptable? Are feline sanctuaries acceptable? If breeding and using the animal is a requirement for a "valid" sanctuary, as you have stated, should the dog sanctuary, the feline sanctuary, and the horse sanctuary be held to the same standard to be valid?
Posts
10 comments:
Oh no, the sanctuary issue... We frequently lament a lack of uniformity in standards for animal care in circus and elsewhere. That lack of uniformity in "sanctuaries" is much, much worse. In point of fact I'd like to see the term tossed out entirely.
A Sheriff's Boys Home isn't a sanctuary or a retirement farm, but it's certainly a great place to send a horse where the kids learn responsibility through animal care, and where the horse can still be used. It's different than a retirement farm, where an animal is "put out to pasture" for its last years. In my area there's a local "horse sanctuary" that takes animals of all ages in varying degrees of wellness and health. They do an excellent job when it comes to care -- but it strikes me as sad that say a five year old horse with no "issues" will spend his entire life in a paddock and barn, never ridden or used because theh philosophy of that particular sanctuary doesn't allow for adoptions.
I hate to admit that I with Pat Derby on much -- but if you call yourself a "sanctuary" you shouldn't be in the business of breeding and selling animals, running a picture operation, etc. I have no problem with breeding programs per se, but a breeding program is different than a rescue operation. If you breed, call yourself a preserve, or call yourself a farm. If you breed indiscriminately producing generation after generation of animals with health and behavioral problems... call yourself a "mill."
What I find disturbing about many sanctuaries, including several with "big names" and celebrity endorsers is that the operators seem to function a lot like "collectors." Psychologists are well versed in the habits of people who suffer from this particular compulsion, but most of us only hear about when a "CRAZY CAT LADY" gets busted with 100 felines in a tiny house; or a 'rescue operation" is found to have dozens of dead tigers in a freezer. Many collectors really believe they love animals. They really believe that only they can properly care for the animals they collect. And they generally believe they are morally above the law. Ultimately problems arise when there isn't enough money, or enough space, or whatever. And of course if you collect potentially dangerous animals, and you convince enough well meaning volunteers that your way is the only way to "handle" those animals, somebody gets hurt or killed.
Wade, funny that you brought up Vick. I ran in to one of his dogs two days ago. Several of his animals were sent to the Humane Society here in Monterey County and were fostered and ultimately adopted. The little bitch I saw on the beach was a really sweet dog who had great fun playing with my blue lacy. Owner said she's been a real joy.
Ben,
A large number of those horses at the Sheriffs Boys ranch are only used for a short time, as they don't have much use left, and it is a fell good, get them off of my hands solution.
The point about Michal Vicks dog's of which you reverence "one" case, was should his dogs have been "seized" and moved to other locations. I have found the biggest beef with "sanctuaries", of which there are thousands of them for all kinds of animals, from guinea pigs to elephants, is if the animals are donated, they are fine, but if they are seized they are not.
That is what I am trying to address this time around.
Wade
Wade, you make a good point when it comes to seizure. And there may be some interesting side issues depending on what agency handles a seizure. For example, animals seized by US Fish & Wildlife may be treated differently than animals seized by USDA. Animals seized by Humane Society or SPCA in areas where they hold contracts to handle animal welfare end up in still another system. Why USDA would rather automatically send an animal to a sanctuary rather than a facility where it might ultimately be rehomed, or to a zoo (in the case of certain exotics) is a legit question. In the past at least Fish & Wildlife tended to place animals in zoos initially after seizure, or in some cases immediately euthanized seized animals holding carcasses as evidence. Virtually all enforcement agencies seem to euthanize fighting birds immediately after seizure. There doesn't appear to be a clear cut set of guidelines. Eighteen years ago Fish & Wildlife seized a large number of venomous snakes from a tropical fish importer in San Francisco, who was bringing drugs in with animals. The court that agreed to the seizure for whatever reason did not agree to euthanizing the snakes, so they went to a Humane Society for holding, and I was hired for a couple months to care for them. (Ultimately they were euthanized.) The seeming lack of planning that went into the whole thing was a bit confusing. Because of the criminal case -- nobody, not me, not Humane Society -- knew in advance that the seizure was coming. So nobody was ready for the animals. Unfortunately that limits the options afforded the agency caring out the seizure, and when your options are limited the placement may not be ideal.
Years before that I was on teh other side of the equation, working in a place when it was raided by Fish & Wildlife. They didn't end up seizing anything, and there were no charges -- their informant was wrong about the origins of some imported birds -- but as far as I could tell if they had seized animals they ill-prepared to capture or cage anything or carry it away. Did have lots of guns though.
Can I ask for some clarification on your statement "if the animals are donated, they are fine, but if they are seized they are not." Mr. Trumble seems to understand what you mean by that, but I don't. Fine in what way?
There have been attempts to unify standards for sanctuaries, and there are accreditation organizations. One used to be called The Association of Sanctuaries and they had pretty rigid standards; they have merged with another org and I can't remember the name of that one. But of course, as with zoos, the standards only apply to those that want to be accredited by the organization. Plenty of non-AZA zoos without much in the way of standards, and plenty of Sanctuaries in the same situation - some good, some bad. Of course, depending on who is judging, the "good" and the "bad" might be different.
Anonymous # 2
Anonymous #2,
I was just asking for clarification to what I have come to understand. If it is a sanctuary that animals have been "donated" to it seems to be all right with folks. But if it is a sanctuary where animals that have been "seized" are taken the sanctuary is abjected to.
Ben made some good points, but I can see a situation where one zoo is given an elephant and the next one says "why cant we have one, if the they can".
Your points are taken also. I think it becomes a one up deal, and the goal which is the animals well being gets lost. That goes for both sides, as they both have some serious issues. If each on cleaned up their own house, instead of being like children and policing each other it would be better for the animals.
I didn't respond to Ben, because I was thinking he wanted me to do a "tree hug Bambi" for his snakes and that isn't going to happen. Unless I can't get a good pair of Larry Mahan Python boots any more, snakes can bit it. LOL
Wade
So many thoughts... it's hard for me to write them coherently. lol
First, we must distinguish the definitions between 'sanctuary' and other locations. It is a safe assumption (pains me as it may to say it) that Buckley's and Derby's places are the only sanctuaries, in the strictest sense. Riddle's is both a sanctuary and a breeding location. One of their proper names included the term 'Breeding Farm.' In addition, they are not a 'permanent haven' as stated on their website (we have seen that with the transfers out in the last two years). This is not to downplay the cooperation with other circuses/zoos/institutions, research, conservation work, etc that has been achieved.
Are elephant sanctuaries acceptable? How can we say no without sounding like the animal rights groups, saying zoos and circuses are unacceptable? As aggravating and selfish as it may be that many of these places are not cooperating with breeding and research, that is their perogative. It is these reasons, however, that they should not be the catch-all for confiscated animals.
So much more but dunno what else to say right now, lol.
Ryan,
The name sanctuary I have always felt people had a problem with. Yet when I raise the issue of "circus" being under one blanket and all lumped together, the s*** hits the fan.
I just don't know if you could get any professionals "working together" if they were sent to a zoo, or if "no fair, no fair, I am important too" would end up being an issue. I don't know either if breeding should be an issue, when an animal is confiscated because of husbandry/regulation violation. Maybe it would be wise for the zoo/circus elephant industry to have a governing self policing standard themselves, and step in before the animal is removed from the genetic pool?
Wade
Not my job back then Wade. I didn't ever take care of Tuck. I do agree the feet are long on him. I do remember that the goof that did take care of him used to paint his feet with "gowitter" he was saying gold glitter.
We have a Fund for Animals ranch here in E.Texas that has hundreds of supposedly rescued horses and some elephants. The horses male and female are all in one large pasture eating out of one large trough. Survival of the fittest. They called me years ago to help them with their elephants feet,but when I had my bullhook with me he kindly asked me to put it away and I kindly left!
I don't know about PAWS but I know that TES does cooperate with research. There is an organization called, i think, Elephant Care International that they donate space and resources to, and ECI works with zoo and circus elephants here and in other countries. And to the extent that they DON"T cooperate, I'm not sure whether that is their choice, or that other people might not want to have anything to do with them. Maybe both. I know they both work with some zoos, but you are probably right that there isn't much "togetherness" with circuses.
Is the big issue with these two sanctuaries the fact that they don't believe in breeding? Is there some other problem with the care that their elephants (and in PAWS's case, other animals) get, that you know of?
Anon #2
Anon #2,
Although I have never had any issues/dealings with Dr. Mikota, I have "heard things" and I am an open minded enough person, I need to know for sure, in my mind, before a judgement is passed. I think Susan Mikota DVM and her associate Hank Hammatt, would make the agenda of ECI suspect. During the "transfer" of the elephants debacle when on elephant developed capture myopthy, I know she was invaluable long distance to the effort at saving/reviving Sue. But with Wilbur B. Amand V.M.D on the same board, it appears to be more legitimate and less self serving then the International Elephant Foundation.
Post a Comment