"Eileen Morgan" <egm12@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:q5-dncfGGLO2EO7VnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> But this animal is not a found emergency . . . and the broker has been
> out, inspected the animal, and declined to pursue medical care further.
But the broker is not the owner right? He/she is just refusing to contact
the owner?
> This is a lot like that suffering horse on the boarding barn property we
> had happen earlier this year. If my neighbor thinks my horse needs the
vet
> and I don't, my neighbor can't just medicate the horse and do treatments
> and have the vet out.
No, but they can call someone on you who will come out and determine if
the
critter needs care. If they think it does, then...yada yada yada...they
take the animal or what have you. Nasty business for sure.
>> Isn't there a good Samaritan law or something like this for helping
>> animals? If not, there should be one.
>
> Well, what happens when we have different definitions of 'horse in
need'?
> This is a slippery slope of rights and control of our own property.
I guess what we have now (calling HS, or SPCA, etc.) will have to suffice
anyway.
> Giving medication, even a common one, sure is more than wrapping to stop
> emergency bleeding. Cold hosing and soaking, sure. Bute and an
> unauthorized vet visit when the horse's connections have declined? NOT
ok.
I didn't get that the owner(s) actually was/were contacted and refused
treatment. I must have missed that. Sorry. In that case, then I guess
they should be told to come get the horse immediately or the authorities
will be called? <sigh> The whole thing just sux don't it!
Take care, JJ
|
