|
Post by halfwayhome on Mar 12, 2008 12:18:34 GMT -5
JMO, but it would do CBER well to allow others in WA that are capable and willing to sign a release and have knowledge and veterinary skills and also vet approval to be allowed to QT their own horses like SOS. They are putting the initial cost of these horses out of sight for the actual market by demanding that QT HAS to be done with them. I know all the excuses why, but QT is not required by any state vet from this feedlot and there are plenty of good horsepeople that can do it. It should be considered a viable option for these horses if conditions are met. You are losing lots of potential adopters and putting a strain on people's good hearts and funds by demanding QT upfront in every single case of adoption. ( and for those of you that do not know, I LIVE in the area and know the feedlot, know the in's and outs, know the vets and know the state requirements, etc., so I have a background for speaking this way.) I know this is not a popular idea and I know lots of you will be telling me all the reasons why this cannot be done, but it can be done and done right by many good horsepeople, so its just a thought as an option. We have lost horses to shipment due to exhorbitant fees that cannot be raised, there should be some working room on this IMO. Local people go to the lot and buy horses from the FLO all the time with no QT, no nothing, just money changing hands, so its not like the state has him under lock and key.
|
|
|
Post by chamiyo on Mar 12, 2008 14:35:21 GMT -5
AMEN!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by agilitygal on Mar 12, 2008 15:31:38 GMT -5
I agree.
|
|
|
Post by MustangAppy on Mar 12, 2008 15:49:45 GMT -5
I have always thought that if you have the physical space and a qualified vet available that QT should be the option of the adopter. To not have that option is to condemn animals to death that may have otherwise had a home. I can see how it could be an issue for an animal that must be transported over state lines, since a vet must sign off on the health certificate. But, again, there are facilities other than the ones CBER uses who are qualified to handle QT, and cost less.
|
|
|
Post by sam on Mar 12, 2008 16:42:16 GMT -5
This is going to be an unpopular response. Great idea in concept but have we not learned from our past?
The problem with this - in the past people said they knew what they were doing and horses that were not even at the lot died of strangles because people did not follow QT protocol. We only had problems with in-state adopters and that is because they did not do QT correctly. I have some notes from the Head of the WA State vet that wrote out protocol as to what we should do maybe I should scan them and post them. Also the lot SOS rescue out of has only stored horses for a year and the feed lot in Toppenish has been in the business of shipping horses to slaughter since 1985. You can not compare the two. It is a different can of worms and even some of the Kennewick horses have come down with strangles.
People did not tell the truth about their abilities and facilities and when the horses died it was CBER's fault, the USDA and WA State vet were trying to figure ways to shut us down. They even considered sanctioning the FL as slaughter-bound horses only. They did not because the knew they could not enforce it.
I have tried not treating horses and they get sick. Every horse that comes into QT is started on oral anti-botics and every horse leaves here without any signs of health issues. They have clean fecal tests and no strangles or upper respiratory issues. The past can not claim that.
Again, why fix the wheel if is not broken. We could possibly let people do their own QT, but sight checks would have to be done before hand so that we could ensure that what people were saying was in fact true. The QT space would have to be the appropriate distance from the rest of the horses, no shared water, no nose to nose contact. Release of liability would also need to be enforced. Cross contamination is a very serious matter. Why bring the FL crud home and contaminate your own facility, your own horses, public facilities....... From the past it is just too much of a risk this policy is placed for a reason.
I will not be on the computer for the rest of the day work is calling -
Thanks,
Sam
|
|
|
Post by chamiyo on Mar 12, 2008 17:28:25 GMT -5
I know of one place where that was happening but that woman was also starving her horses and very emotionally unstable and had been allowed to adopt many horses from CBER. That would be wph. I am sure you all remember..... Oh and CCG's place. Don't forget her. I understand what you are saying but I think the vast majority of people are not doing that. If needed you could send home an info sheet on the proper ways of quarantining animals. I have friends who just picked up a horse from your place. They said that you had about 50 horses there. At $300 each, that is alot of $$$$$$$$$$$$..... Plus hauling at $30each a pop for just down the road , a load at a time. Seems like fees could be reduced somehow... My understanding is that everyone pays their own vet fees and everything so there is no extra expense. And that you have a hired person to take care of the horses. I'm not saying the horses don't leave healthy but that it is at extreme cost. I live not 1 hour from Yakima and I know I pay max $180.00 a ton for hay. I read the craigslist for Yakima and there is always hay for sale for that or less. I think it is really hard for people to keep giving and giving and giving. I still don't understand why if anyone can just go and buy horses from Chuck at any old time why we can't just go and buy the horses directly from him that are listed on CBER if we are close. I would have loved to go and buy HART or Savannah. This will probably be an unpopular post for some but I honestly don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by pnp4kidz on Mar 12, 2008 17:52:27 GMT -5
Agreed that we need to figure out a new way... this way is failing... the horses are losing.
|
|
|
Post by janet on Mar 12, 2008 18:05:50 GMT -5
I have to agree. We have QT horses ourselves and are fully capable. If people are educated by CBER and sign a waiver, then it's their problem if horses get sick at their place-not CBER's. The option needs to be with the adopter. When I see unbroke (or broke) older horses for over $1000, it's crazy. There's areas of the country where people are just about giving horses away and the general public looking to adopt may not be as commited as some of us about "saving" these horses. Because of the prices, we have also lost the support of the AB Board- a HUGE loss for the horses. Their the ones suffering because of this. I strongly recommend that the CBER board (who ever that is) take a member vote and see what we would like to have happen. After all, we're the ones supporting CBER and the horses.
|
|
|
Post by marcia on Mar 12, 2008 18:21:25 GMT -5
I have to agree with halfwayhome also, in fact the two horses that we adopted from CBER two years ago we QT are self with no problems. We also need to get the support of the members of the ABR board back that don't have a problem helping out CBER for they know that saving horses is what it's all about. ABR board for saving TB right, well there are six on the feed lot right now that need help any of you members know any ABR members that you can PM? Maybe it shoud be done ASP.
|
|
|
Post by leosolis on Mar 12, 2008 18:53:58 GMT -5
I know of one place where that was happening but that woman was also starving her horses and very emotionally unstable and had been allowed to adopt many horses from CBER. That would be wph. I am sure you all remember..... Oh and CCG's place. Don't forget her. I understand what you are saying but I think the vast majority of people are not doing that. If needed you could send home an info sheet on the proper ways of quarantining animals. I have friends who just picked up a horse from your place. They said that you had about 50 horses there. At $300 each, that is alot of $$$$$$$$$$$$..... Plus hauling at $30each a pop for just down the road , a load at a time. Seems like fees could be reduced somehow... My understanding is that everyone pays their own vet fees and everything so there is no extra expense. And that you have a hired person to take care of the horses. I'm not saying the horses don't leave healthy but that it is at extreme cost. I live not 1 hour from Yakima and I know I pay max $180.00 a ton for hay. I read the craigslist for Yakima and there is always hay for sale for that or less. I think it is really hard for people to keep giving and giving and giving. I still don't understand why if anyone can just go and buy horses from Chuck at any old time why we can't just go and buy the horses directly from him that are listed on CBER if we are close. I would have loved to go and buy HART or Savannah. This will probably be an unpopular post for some but I honestly don't get it. I'm going to chime in since SOS was mentioned. Sam is correct you really can't compare the two lots. The one that SOS lists horses out of is just in the beginning stages & I am still having horses break out with Strangles, The horses from Chucks lot scare the crap out of me..I had SAM QT the horses that I adopted from that lot because I didn't want his "lot crud" here. As far as keeping fee's down on the hauling..I took great offense to your comment. For me the feedlot is 60 miles round trip, my truck gets about 10 miles to the gallon, Diesel is d**n near $4 a gallon, so it costs me out of pocket about $24 just to drive to the lot wether I am pulling a trailer or not. I am putting wear & tear on both my truck & horse trailer and many more miles that I would of because of the feedlot. So I don't feel even the slightest bit guilty about charging $30 to haul a horse from the lot even if I have 5 in the trailer...that simply helps to make up for all the times I have gone & hauled a horse to my house for someone to try and then not adopt..or what about all the times I drive to the lot to assess horses. I guess the alternative would be to charge the adopter for every ding & dent the horse puts in my trailer. I actuall think $30 bucks is pretty d**n cheap for someone to take 2 hours of there time, there truck & trailer to load up a horse for the adopter.
|
|
|
Post by lisam on Mar 12, 2008 19:02:33 GMT -5
I agree about the waiver--once it's signed it's not CBER's responsibility.
Site checks should be done anyway. Find responsible volunteers to check out the place and see if there is an appropriate area to quarantine.
If you can save a horse from slaughter for mere hundreds (or even free) instead of paying the higher prices asked by CBER, which would you choose? Because we all know that the purchase price of a horse is the least expensive part of horse ownership--most rescued horses are needing vet care, groceries, training, etc.
|
|
|
Post by lucy1994 on Mar 12, 2008 19:06:50 GMT -5
I agree with the hauling fee, I dont think its to high. As for QT i would not bring that crud to my house eather and i can guarantee you i am totally capeable of my QT. No way should we allow others to QT at there own place. Maybe Sam can lower the fees a little. Dont forget if you offer it to one you have to offer it to all. That is not going to work!
|
|
|
Post by penny/pals on Mar 12, 2008 19:25:44 GMT -5
I QT Aphrodite after I got her from CBER She was sick for a very long time with meds given I think she went through 3 courses of antibiotics and shots of pennicillin. she was great in the beginning but after a while she didn't like me so much because having to give shots regularly and there were the abcesses that had to be drained YUCK. It was probably 3 months before she was better. I have a QT area that is very separate from my other horses but I was alway worried about my others getting something. You have to remember to wash your hands constantly and not to share containers wash everything with bleach The crud at the CBER feed lot was pretty dam bad. I know that I am careful but it only takes one time exposure to your own horses to get them sick.
|
|
|
Post by cberwendy on Mar 12, 2008 19:34:26 GMT -5
There are a lot of valid points brought up, but as Sam said, why fix something that's not broken? Two years or so ago, we (meaning CBER) were on the state vet's and the USDA's radar. Sam was receiving almost daily phone calls from one or both reps of each organization, and had at least once a month meetings with them to try to come up with a solution.
Heidi is also right to point out that it is not REQUIRED by a state vet to do mandatory QT, however, it was highly recommended by the head state vet of WA to do that. Both the reps (vet and USDA) worked with Sam to come up with a protocol to follow, which CBER has been following diligently since it was put in place, and we have not received one call or complaint from the vet or USDA office about us spreading diseases across the state. Remember, emails were sent to state vets across the U.S. and some state vets were watching for any horse coming to their state that had the words CBER related to them, and they were going to automatically deny the horse coming into the state. I know that this damage can be placed on a certain group of people who's intentions are not to support CBER, but to shut us down that were spreading these emails and calls around. I truly believe if we open up QT in state this will only refuel that fire and we will again have these problems. I honestly don't think the vet and USDA will be as cooperative if their phones start ringing again about CBER and strangles being spread across the state.
Someone mentioned a couple of instances of QT not being done properly. It happened more than we know. I ran into someone last month who adopted a horse from us in 2005/2006 and she was telling me that she was depending on a friend of hers for advice on how to QT the horse, as she's never dealt with strangles. It ended up spreading to her other horses, and she almost lost one of her horses to the strangles. It's a risky business whether you get a horse from an auction, or from Chuck directly, but CBER is choosing to take responsibility and make sure it is done properly. I am not saying that all in state adopters are irresponsible, but we have had too many problems in the past that it's something we don't see needing to be changed when it's working.
Some of the long time followers will also remember that if a horse died in someone else's care that it was still CBER's fault. We even had one person report us to the BBB to demand her money back because the horse she was getting died from strangles. The horse was not in our care, and she did not pay the full adoption fee - it was a group adoption type thing, but that's not my point, the point is that she held CBER 100% responsible, not the person who was boarding the horse for her.
To me, the silence of the complaints and hearing how it's our fault spreading diseases across the state makes the $300 QT money well spent. I know it's hard to justify this on the other end, but when you've been on the receiving end of accusations, blames, and were close to being denied the ability to rescue horses from the feedlot, you'd view it a different way.
I haven't been on the BB much, but do not feel that the impact of the mandatory QT is hurting the horses enough that we'd need to change the process. I feel that this is actually helping the horses as we are able to continue to rescue from Chuck's place - there has been so many nice horses that went through the lot that we wouldn't have been able to rescue if the vet/USDA followed through on making it where we couldn't rescue from Chuck anymore.
It is not CBER's intention to upset anyone or enter into a battle with anyone, nor is it our goal to make loads of money on these horses, and as it may seem that all we have is money coming in, we have the same amount of money going right back out for expenses related to the horses or other expenses, just as Sam does with Camelot Farm.
As always, thank you for all your support and anyone with questions or concerns, please feel free to contact any one of us. :0)
Thank you, Wendy
|
|
|
Post by chatty on Mar 12, 2008 21:07:43 GMT -5
The key word is "we've been lucky" None of my CBER (Askhim and Native Skywalker) horses got sick..And any horse coming on the property is QT 30 day at less...
Vet sees them with in 2 working day, if not waiting for us as we pull in... I don't care where they come from, QT, QT, QT...The only answer to help (just help) stop spreading of illness... Some people (where we're getting the PG mare) still just throws them in with the others and think nothing about it... You don't know where the people who have looked at them been and what could be tracking in... Not always animal to animal...But also people being the bridge for animal to animal...
chatty
|
|
|
Post by chamiyo on Mar 12, 2008 22:05:51 GMT -5
I want to Clarify that what I was saying was not about the SOS lot at all. I think their fees and prices are fair. Obviously the distance is farther also. That was not what I was talking about. I was talking about Sam's place which is maybe 15 minutes at the most and charging $30.00 each horse for a load of horses. NOT SOS. As for the quarantine i think if you are adopting one of these horses you are taking many risks not just with health and it is our responsibility as adopters to know the risks and decide if that is what we want to do. If you want to quarantine somewhere else than most definately that should be available. However if you feel competent to quarantine on your own then you should also have that option. That is what I am saying! So please SOS group I am not talking about you! I think you are great! i would not have adopted from you if I thought you were trying to rip people off! i think you truly have the horses interest in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 12, 2008 22:32:06 GMT -5
"Why fix something that's not broken?"
When horses are lost something IS broken.
|
|
|
Post by cberwendy on Mar 12, 2008 22:44:41 GMT -5
Chamiyo, just wanted to clarify - it's a minimum 45 minute drive from Sam's place to Chuck's, not 15.
And per Dean's post - when horses are lost.... what horses were lost specifically only because of QT? I'm not on the BB so maybe there was a post made by some people that said this horse was shipped because only the QT was an issue.
I'm not picking on anyone in particular, just wanting to know what may have happened that I/CBER may not be aware of, and if there's something we need to look into, then we will. We're not on the BB much, so emails to any of us are greatly appreciated. :0)
Wendy
|
|
|
Post by chamiyo on Mar 12, 2008 22:58:36 GMT -5
I was going by what someone who has been to both places told me. So I may be wrong as to the time. I do trust that person.
|
|
|
Post by halfwayhome on Mar 12, 2008 23:10:35 GMT -5
Well, I am glad this has opened a discussion anyway. Communicaton can open the way for improvement in any situation. In the state of Washington, places cannot be shut down for the disease of Strangles. If that was the case, many of the auction yards, sale yards, dealer lots, shows, stables and other events would not be able to continue. Many of the horses at the feedlot came from sale yards already sick. OF COURSE horses coming from any sale yard should be quarantined. To the best of my knowledge, nobody here is suggesting that horses not be quarantined, not medicated or treated, and not handled per acceptible protocols and practice. Also noone is suggesting that it would not be both prudent and wise to provide a written liabilty note and written instructions on proper quarantine procedures to potential adopters. Since I was there during the sickness we saw at the lot, and have been in contact with many responsible and respectible adopters, I know it can be done right by other people. I personally took in, boarded, and hauled feedlot horses for several years. In one year I put in 10,000 miles on my truck and trailer alone hauling horses off the lot. I always disinfected my trailer and followed stringent procedures at my house. NOT ONE of my personal horses got sick and at no time was the illness spread on my property, horses looked and felt exceptional when they left. There are other qualified and competent people here in Washington able to work under a vet's guidelines to properly QT an animal. As we all know the state vets have their ideas and other vets have their own ideas. At the time the state vets did not wish to give CBER a written statement saying QT was mandatory by them only. They could not legally do so! THAT is why Chuck could sell to outside people himself during the thick of the strangles outbreak, horses left there frequently, even out of state!!!! Of course the state vets wanted to make sure disease was contained as much as humanly possible and made suggestions as to how to handle it. The purpose of this thread is to open the door for possibilites that competent and honest people willing to do their own QT or have someone else in the state of WA do it for them be allowed to do so if it saves more horses. Of course anyone that wishes CBER to do it and can pay, then more power to them, but to continue in the face of high numbers of horses to be placed,to demand that as criteria of adoption,is ill-founded. As I said, just a thought...
|
|
|
Post by jenm on Mar 12, 2008 23:17:30 GMT -5
halfwayhome,
Your posts are very thoughtful. They make a lot of sense.
PEC made a good statement "when horses are lost, something IS broken".
It's not too late to fix it.
|
|
|
Post by lucy1994 on Mar 12, 2008 23:24:50 GMT -5
Instead of beating it to DEATH, lets get back to the horses that need help now.
|
|
|
Post by chamiyo on Mar 12, 2008 23:55:32 GMT -5
Well, I think this could help those horses NOW because I bet some of them would have a home if the fee was not so great. I know one pregnant mare in particular who has a home offer and in state quarantine offer that if accepted would lower her fee by $300 which then could be used to help another horse or few. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by djrepp on Mar 13, 2008 0:09:02 GMT -5
Horses are not lost because of the cost of QT. Horses are lost because of supply and demand.
|
|
|
Post by halfwayhome on Mar 13, 2008 1:19:20 GMT -5
Horses are not lost because of the cost of QT. Horses are lost because of supply and demand. When the cost of QT is added to the purchase price upfront as a mandatory fee without flexiblity, it decreases the demand by price alone. When people are being begged to help save horses and help pay the fees and send in their last dime, then something has got to give. Many of the horses would have excellent homes, not because the adopter NEEDS them now, but because they have the ability to fit one more animal in to keep it from going to slaughter and to give it a chance for life. Your own logic here says that the higher supply brings higher prices. This is faulty logic: in real life marketing, higher QUANTITY DECREASES prices due to competition for the dollars available, but that is not happening in the artificial marketing of the feedlot horses. If the same amount of dollars available is a given, it is obvious that more horses will be adopted if the price is lower per individual animal. Real supply and demand economics indicate that prices rise when quantity falls in times of high demand. Here we have the opposite...
|
|
|
Post by djrepp on Mar 13, 2008 4:06:05 GMT -5
Heidi, I did graduate college 400 years ago and take economics along the way. There are too many TB's listed and no interest. No one even raising their hand except for the mare in foal. I don't think the $300 QT is the only reason. My inn is full or I would take on one of them. Horses have always been lost to the slaughter truck and will continue to be so, but very few have been lost to sickness. I have 3 free TB's and can't give the suckers away. Of course, in light of all the problems with horses in dire straights lately, the owners are being very careful and will euthanize the horses if the appropriate homes can not be found.
|
|
|
Post by lorsadoon on Mar 13, 2008 7:30:48 GMT -5
I also agree it should be the buyers choice wheather or not to use CBER quarentine. If they do not want to qt for themselves it is good that CBER offers that alternative for them. BUT if they want to do it themselves, they should be allowed to do so. As long as they are made fully aware of the risks that go along with doing it on their own. CBER could send them a fact sheet on qt for them to follow, also they should have to sign a waiver that they understand the risks and are willing to do the qt themselves.
The added expense puts the CBER horses at a higher risk to be lost.
I also think anyone in any state should have the right to do their own qt. Of course they should have to pay an appropriate amount for board and vet checks until the health certificate is availabe to transport the horse home. Quarantine is not mandatory to bring a horse into Oregon, just a health certificate and an import number. This is per Ginger Lancaster, from the Ag Dept in Oregon.
|
|
|
Post by cberwendy on Mar 13, 2008 8:52:55 GMT -5
Heidi, I know that the state vet/USDA can't just close the feedlot down because there's strangles there, however, we were told by them that they could change it to where Chuck's bond (or license or whatever it's called) can be changed so he's like Wayne, he can't sell to the public. THAT is what we want to avoid.
All it takes is one thing to go wrong for this to turn into a big mess and we're starting it all over again. WPH had a horse in QT that somehow figured out how to open the gate and wandered around her property, thus spreading the strangles all over her place. That wasn't her fault, nor anyone else's, she just had a Houdini on her hands and didn't know it! That turned into a huge mess and claims were made that about 2 or 3 other horses who were not sick ended up dying. I'm not saying this could never happen at Sam's, but the point is, this raises the risk a lot higher than it already is.
When QT was being done by in state adopters, horses were being lost, including ones that were not rescues when they got sick with strangles. This is a d**med if you do, d**med if you don't situation, and I really don't see a win-win situation right now.
Let's focus on rescuing horses, and I will be sure to discuss this further with Sam. Please remember there was a reason why the mandatory QT was put in place, it wasn't like we were sitting around wondering how we can make more money and be rich.... trust me.... We made this decision in the best interest of the horses.
Wendy (NOTE: I will be at work all day in case anyone posts a question and wonders why I haven't responded... I will check back tonight when I get home. :0) Thank you!)
|
|
|
Post by rescuestoribbons on Mar 13, 2008 9:06:31 GMT -5
I agree with CBERwendy, I sure dont want my horse coming home with strangles and giving it to my other horses. I think if you look at it QT isnt expensive. Well it is in the fact that it makes us pay more to get the horse BUT if you go to a boarding stable for full care since that is what they are getting you pay way more then that. Plus, when chia was at Sams she would go in and brush her and work with her. The 30 days also gave me the time I needed to re setup my shelter for her and plan for our trip to get her. I know that it is a lot of money to save a horse but I think that is more on the lot owners side..... the next horse I get is going to QT no matter what, I know I couldnt bear to lose another one...
|
|
|
Post by lisam on Mar 13, 2008 9:43:02 GMT -5
Rescuetoribbons, that's fine that you would have your horse quarantined at Sam's. It's wonderful that you have that option. People here aren't suggesting to take away that option, just to give another option, that of doing quarantine at their own place, or at a place of their own choosing.
I agree with PEC. If horses are being lost, then someone needs to take another look and figure out why. Maybe it's not just the QT, but I bet it's a large part of it. $300 could buy a ton of hay.
|
|