Hold yer horses...literally!

I don't even know where to start on this one...

On Monday, 63 year old Marian Wegiel of Connecticut was arrested and charged with cruelty to animals, sexual assault, criminal trespass and breach of peace for touching his neighbor's horse in a sexual manner. 

When confronted by the police, Wegiel said he was trying to calm the horses after they were spooked by a loud noise, though the horses' owner said there was no reason for him to have been in her pasture. 

According to Shelton, CT police, Wegiel also stated that he may have inadvertently put his fingers inside one of the horses...

BLAAAAARRRRGGH!

(the sound of horse lovers around the world vomiting)

For those non-equestrians that think electric fences in pastures are cruel - this is why we have electric fences. It's not to keep the horses in, but to keep creeps like this guy out! :)

See the full Oakland Press article here!

This month, the ASPCA filed a legal petition with the USDA to strengthen it's enforcement of the HPA (Horse Protection Act), most specifically against the act of horse "soring".

According to the HSUS, horse "soring" is an illegal training method which "involves the intentional infliction of pain to a horse's legs or hooves in order to force the horse to perform an artificial, exaggerated gait." This is most often associated with Tennessee Walking Horses and other gaited breeds.

For more information and to find out how you can

help in the fight against equine cruelty, Click Here.

In last Saturday's post about a local equine liability lawsuit, I included a poll which posed the question "Should a person be held responsible for an injury that another incurs while interacting with their horses?" Here are your responses: 

• 45.45% of you believe that the horse owner SHOULD NOT be liable.
• 4.55% of you believe that the horse owner SHOULD be liable.
• 50.00% of you believe that the liability DEPENDS on the situation.

As a self-proclaimed control freak, it is easy for me to lean toward the SHOULD NOT category, since I know the somewhat obsessive care I take to keep others safe around my animals. But there are always exceptions and I realize that not every horse owner breaks into a sweat each time a stranger's grass-filled hand reaches out to their horse's willing mouth or installs electric fence to keep other people out of their pasture rather than to keep their horses in. There are always exceptions. 
 
For example, in 2000 a Darwin Award (The Human Hitching Post) was awarded to a Nevada woman who tied her skittish Arabian to her waist to prevent it from tossing its head away from the bridle. After being dragged around the pasture and trampled for about 10 minutes, the woman died from the severe internal injuries and head trauma. 

Like I said before, there are ALWAYS exceptions.

Cowboy Logic of the Day

"Trust everybody in the game, but always cut the cards."

In light of the upcoming May 11th hearing for Beattie v Mickalich, I'd like to touch on the topic of equine liability. In this particular case, the exact details of the event seem to vary from witness to witness (big surprise!), but here is a broad summary of the highlights:

  

• Beattie is injured after she falls to the ground when her neighbor's (Mickalich) horse spooks and rears.

• Beattie is suing Mickalich for her injury, alleging that this is an exception to the limitations on liability provided by the EALA based on Mickalich's "negligence".

• According to the Amicus Curiae Brief of Michigan Horse Council, Beattie was not only a previous horse owner herself (proof that she should have been aware of the inherent risks associated with horses), but had also ridden several of Mickalich's horses in the past. Beattie also admitted to having had a "couple" beers before going to Mickalich's house.

It seems the arguments in this case rely upon the interpretation of the Michigan Equine Activity Liability Act  and....the use of crossties??  

Beattie and her supporters argue that it was Mickalich's responsibility to properly secure his horse with crossties and his failure to do so ("negligence") makes Mickalich liable for her injury. 

Really?!

While scanning through the court materials, I got a little giggle out of each mention of "cross-ties", and here is why I have such a problem with this:

1. As a previous horse owner, Beattie should have been aware of the "inherent risks" of any equine activity, and if she really believed that the horse should have been cross-tied, then she shouldn't have accepted the lead rope in the first place or at least voiced her concerns at that point.
2. Cross-ties are not the ultimate answer here. In fact, many horses will have a stronger reaction with the cross ties than being held by a simple lead rope. When a horse that is cross-tied spooks and pulls back, the cross-ties pull back at the horse, causing the natural flight reaction (see above image of a cross-tied horse from eHOW.com) to go into effect. 
3. Cross-ties cannot prevent many of the other horse-related risks, such as biting or kicking. Must we now tie down, muzzle, hobble and sedate our horses every time a visitor wants to approach? Just as with sex and alcohol, there is only one way to ensure your safety around these powerful and sometimes unpredictable animals - ABSTINENCE!

What do you think?  

Should a person be held responsible for an injury that another incurs while interacting with their horses?

• Heck No!
• Absolutely!
• It Depends...

View Results

Create a Blog Poll

 Cowboy Logic of the Day 

"There's more ways to skin a cat than stickin' his head in a boot jack and jerkin' on his tail."