|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 5, 2009 0:47:46 GMT -5
 Do you feel it would have a negative impact on the horses when people are afraid of prosecution to ask for help? Do you feel it's right for a rescue to not disclose they may contact Animal Control when a horse is surrendered if they feel it is needed? Poll will be open for viewing after the results are in.
|
|
|
|
Post by calypso on Jan 18, 2009 12:09:11 GMT -5
I think you should add "Depends on the circumstances", because in my experience, it does.
|
|
|
|
Post by wanderlust on Jan 24, 2009 13:40:34 GMT -5
I think if the person turns the animals over to a rescue then they have proven they are trying to do the right thing and should not be turned in. If they still keep one or two for themselves i think it should be watched. Maybe they were over-whelmed financially and realized they needed to cut back and can handle one or two but couldn't handle 5 or 6. With the ecomomy being what it is none of us know what the future holds.
|
|
|
|
Post by penny/pals on Jan 29, 2009 17:37:06 GMT -5
Sorry but if their horses are neglected or in poor care definately turn it in with pictures. If you can't feed or care for your animals then before you run out of food take them to a rescue not after they have been abused.
|
|
|
|
Post by TashGaia on Jan 29, 2009 17:52:45 GMT -5
I don't think the options above are good enough to simply pick yes or no. A lot depends on what the exact condition of the horses are and if there are more horses left behind or if the person surrendering them gives indication that they will be getting horses again in the future.
If someone's horses are in bad shape and they realize that they cannot adequately care for horses and give them to a rescue intending to just plain get out of horses... then no, I probably wouldn't recommend turning them in. But if the person has more horses that they are not surrendering or if the person is simply clearing out these horses in order to get more... then yeah, I probably would say that they should be turned in.
|
|
