Postby exvet » Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:26 am
I've copied and pasted from another thread with some edits:
I haven't read all the threads that pertain to this issue; so, I can't speak to the alleged behavior on COTH. What I do want to address is:
Abuse isn't hard to define and every jurisdiction has a legal definition of it. Because I'm certified in animal abuse and neglect investigation and teach others how to investigate crimes of this nature, I am often in a position to describe the type of suffering an animal goes through by relating it to what would be an equivalent experience to a human. When I start to describe the physiologic process that goes on based on forensics and/or medical knowledge it's amazing to see the response and reaction of those listening. I have not seen the video but have read some of the threads that have spun off in reaction to what occurred. My questions during a potential abuse situation/case where I'm called in to investigate or help the prosecution usually start out with - (1) Did the animal suffer unnecessary pain? (2) Did the animal suffer unnecessary fear? (3) Was the animal unable to remove itself from an adverse situation without risking more injury to itself? Now as for welts and blood, yes, people want 'concrete' physical evidence so that there is no question as to the crime and damage; but, in my opinion that is the problem with the system - everyone waits until it's too late. I'll also point out that most of 'my' cases will include in the description of what occurred, the length of time of the suffering/infliction of pain. I then ask the court if they feel that it's reasonable to make an animal or a human go through that pain when all agree the pain was not necessary and was preventable. In this case I would add with the research to back it up that a repeated trauma delivered sequentially does increase the physiological response/reaction to fear and pain that is elicited - it is compounded until a threshold is reached. That threshold does vary with the individual animal to a degree; but, just because one can tolerate more than another or for longer time than another.......does that make it right or tolerable? My point is that just because the horse didn't bleed and as far as anyone knew at the time, welts were not apparent (there can be some delay in these developing) that the animal DID SUFFER pain and it wasn't necessary! That is ABUSE. I'm well aware of more severe examples that occur and are tolerated; but, that still doesn't make this person's behavior or choice in how she displayed her frustration okay and I will again submit that it's still ABUSE.
These situations often occur when rules and regulations are not enforced. Making more rules and regulations seldom will evoke the desired response or make an offending individual suddenly conform. There is no doubt in my mind reading the consensus that this rider should have been eliminated right from the beginning. What is horribly twisted and ironic is that I've seen very nice championship rides that were eliminated because the rider forgot to drop the whip going from warm-up to the show ring (clear cut break in rules) but a person whipping a horse one-handed (clear-cut break in the rules) didn't get eliminated because they failed to draw blood? Even on the race track improper use of the whip (yes, usually viewed via video replay) will and does lead to disqualification. If the dressage officials cannot police this type of thing effectively, other groups will. I'm willing to bet if there was some appetite in the animal control circles where that show occurred, a video and a description of the type of pain and suffering an animal suffers with that type of force applied is all that would be needed to bring charges, even if they are just misdemeanors. I'm not proposing such but it's these type of situations that repeatedly ignored fuel the arguments of those who think all riding is cruel, all showing is cruel, etc............ The dressage officials need to get their heads out of their asses and figure out that if they don't have the balls to stop it when it's happening someone else will eventually step in and change things, and won't necessarily 'be better' for the sport.
Ignorance nor pointing out that others get away with it or worse are appropriate or valid defenses in court, nor should they be accepted as reasons/excuses elsewhere. Disqualification/elimination demonstrates a lack of tolerance for this kind of behavior which is addressed in the rules and also demonstrates that those who hail at the helm of dressage showing do walk the talk. This type of 'punishment' still sends a message and is better than getting a misdemeanor slapped against you.
. This all comes down to how there is much difference in how dressage people view things.
I enjoy reading your updates.