# Scottish stud sell off...?



## siennamum (31 October 2009)

Why have the threads been deleted - does anyone know?


----------



## luckilotti (31 October 2009)

legal reasons i think?

I've registered to place a phone bid, just REALLY panicing as i cannot get anywhere confirmed to take the horse on a temp basis whilst i arrange transport down to england.  
	
	
		
		
	


	




   and if i dont get anything confirmed before they call me before the lot i am interested in, i wont be able to bid 
	
	
		
		
	


	





there are a few forum members i believe that are at the sale today so they may be able to give more details this evening etc?


----------



## magic104 (31 October 2009)

Who's stud is it?


----------



## siennamum (31 October 2009)

The one due to foreclosure. A few posts about it yesterday, all gone now. Really hope  the news from people who go is good.


----------



## levantosh (31 October 2009)

I have a place in scottish borders if I can be of any assistance to anyone. If you need temporary stabling.


----------



## turpsamd (31 October 2009)

I think it was a happy ending for all from what i could see.  The old ponies were all sold to nice homes and alot of the mares went to local studs from what I could see on the bidding.  The stallions fetched good money and I think one stallion and a mare went down south.  I bought a nice younster but I have been given 'leisure horse' passport so now need to find out how I can get her original one with the breeding etc... anyone got any ideas?


----------



## lozziehumphreys (31 October 2009)

I am now a very proud owner of my mare's mother and sister. 

They are both coming down to Oxfordshire to be reunited with Galaxie as soon as we can arrange it. Some lovely friends are taking very good care of them for us in Scotland. 

I hope all the horses found the very best homes.


----------



## Amymay (31 October 2009)

Have been wondering about the outcome of the sale all day to day.  Glad to hear as though it's a happy ending for the horses.


----------



## Rollin (31 October 2009)

If you know the breeding the Breed Society should be able to revoke your leisure passport for the real thing.  PM Ciss she knows all about it.


----------



## turpsamd (31 October 2009)

well I think the Dam was an Oldenburg and the Sire KWPN, does anyone know which breed society this might have been registered with?


----------



## Ciss (31 October 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
If you know the breeding the Breed Society should be able to revoke your leisure passport for the real thing.  PM Ciss she knows all about it. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, please do PM me and I will try to help as much as I can as there is a definite procedure in existence to sort this sort of thing out.

BTW, what happened to the little Welsh stallion (I think he was 13 years old), what colour was he and what did he sell for?


----------



## pdiplock (31 October 2009)

Anyone know what happened to LOT 23 Willowdale Souvenir (Buttonmoon)? He lived in the field next to our house for a long time with us feeding him over the fence and petting him everyday. My wife wanted  to purchase him but the owners of the stud said no! We have bought the field he used to live in and are having the fencing etc sorted this coming week. Intend to purchase stables/shelter soon. 

We would like to buy him off the successful bidders if possible and are happy to put him to livery until we can house him in our field.

We were at the sale and found it all very upsetting the horses all seemed very bewildered with the noise and all of the people in the arena!

Does anyone on the forum know the successful bidders?


----------



## pdiplock (31 October 2009)

we think he went for under £300!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DarkHorseB (31 October 2009)

Sorry if this is a stupid question but if you were there why did you not buy him?


----------



## Var (31 October 2009)

was it lot 8 you have bought?  Very nice mare and mother also looked rather smart - fabulous breeding too!!  Glad they have a nice home!  

It was sad sale and they all looked exhausted.  The horses got quite upset at the end when they started to take cattle in at the bottom end of the mart.


----------



## pdiplock (31 October 2009)

Its a good question...... we have never owned any horses before. I wanted to ensure we were ready with the field etc etc. However, seeing him at the sale upset my better half but we didn't have the means to transport him never mind keep him in a secure field. We should have bidded and sorted out temorary livery afterwards but we didn't so there is a lesson there for me!


----------



## Var (31 October 2009)

I went to the office to look at the papers - most of them had a standard passport with no breeding info and had an irish issuing authority.  The ones i looked at had all been issued within the last 6mo or so.   Disappointing given the breeding involved.  Assume buyers will need to get blood typing done to confirm pedigrees?


----------



## DarkHorseB (31 October 2009)

Well sales are never the best of places and it sounds like this one had a particularly sad story behind it. Hopefully he will have found a nice home. I doubt the auctioneers would tell you who he went to but it sounds like lots of people on here have knowledge of the sale so you never know you may find him. Although just a word of caution a stallion is maybe a big ask to take on if no previous ownership experience.

Happily sounds like alot have found nice homes it sounds like people rallied round to make sure this happened.


----------



## dingle12 (31 October 2009)

I missed this post can someone tell me which stud it was?


----------



## DarkHorseB (31 October 2009)

Tullynessle Stud, Broadbog Farm

http://www.goanm.co.uk/anmarts/livestock...ses-Amended.pdf


----------



## WelshD (1 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Its a good question...... we have never owned any horses before. I wanted to ensure we were ready with the field etc etc. However, seeing him at the sale upset my better half but we didn't have the means to transport him never mind keep him in a secure field. We should have bidded and sorted out temorary livery afterwards but we didn't so there is a lesson there for me! 

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have never owned a horse before please do think about the responsibility of owning a stallion, thats not an ideal buy, no matter how small and friendly it is


----------



## Ciss (1 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I went to the office to look at the papers - most of them had a standard passport with no breeding info and had an irish issuing authority.  The ones i looked at had all been issued within the last 6mo or so.   Disappointing given the breeding involved.  Assume buyers will need to get blood typing done to confirm pedigrees? 

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, frm checking on NED it would appear that apart from Blackford Dream Wedding (AHS pedigree not updated to new UELN passport format) and Willowdale Souvenir (old style WPCS passport not updated to new UELN passport format) ONLY Tullynessle Sunday Girl, Tullynessle Busilus, Tyllynessle Saturday Boy and Tullynessle Gale Force have UELNs issued by an ID-only PIO (in each case Horse Pssport Agency) and ALL others should have been sold with pasports isued by their original breed society. Even if they had not been mircochipped by the day of the sale it is not an offence to sell an unmicrochipped animal -- whilst it is an offenc eto issue a passport to an animal with an existing EU-recognsied 16-digit UELN as this indicates that a correclty issued passport already exists. The offenc ehere lies with the venodr (the trustees in this case not Tullynessle, the auctioneer and the ID-only PIO concerned with issuing the second passport) and if anyone bought a horse at this auction (espeically one that has a passport beginning 826069) and suspects that it should have / already has a proper pasport from a recognised EU studbook here or abroad) do feel free to PM me with the details and I'll see what I can do to help direct you to the right organisation to resolve the issue.

The purchasers of any foals that they beleive are in the process of having papers isiued to them by a UK or foreging studbook following earlier microchipping are also free to contact me for help if they wish.

The purchasers of Blackford Dream Wedding and Willowdale Souvenir should contact  the Arab Horse Society and the Welsh Pony and Cob Society repsectively to tget their passports updated to the correct format.

This all has the makings of a real mess registration-wise but hope this helps.


----------



## magic104 (1 November 2009)

Well I hope the 30yo mare &amp; gelding found a last home, I think it rather sad that they had to endure the sale ring!


----------



## Amymay (1 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Well I hope the 30yo mare &amp; gelding found a last home, I think it rather sad that they had to endure the sale ring! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Friggin appalling actually.  The welfare agencies involved should feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves.


----------



## lozziehumphreys (1 November 2009)

I have just heard that a friend, who bought our filly from last year, has bought her sire Furst Classico. He will have a fantastic home, and hopefully will get the chance to sire many more champions.

I hope all the horses will now get the love they deserve.


----------



## chris_j (1 November 2009)

Does anyone know where O'Donovan &amp; Passing Cloud went?


----------



## Ingramah (1 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well I hope the 30yo mare &amp; gelding found a last home, I think it rather sad that they had to endure the sale ring! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Friggin appalling actually.  The welfare agencies involved should feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves. 

[/ QUOTE ]

The two eldest have gone to good homes in the local area.       

The welsh stallion went to a very experienced home - I was chatting to the new owners and they were delighted with him.  

There was one older horse (22yrs) who was not presented for sale due to being lame.  He's now in a local yard awaiting the next sale on the 12th December.


----------



## PalominoMare (1 November 2009)

lot 28 (Donovan) looks gorgeous (of course i assume they all are!). 

glad the elderly ponies have found a good home. Is there anywhere I can read the background to this sale without getting the forum into trouble?


----------



## Amymay (1 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well I hope the 30yo mare &amp; gelding found a last home, I think it rather sad that they had to endure the sale ring! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Friggin appalling actually.  The welfare agencies involved should feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves. 

[/ QUOTE ]

The two eldest have gone to good homes in the local area.       

The welsh stallion went to a very experienced home - I was chatting to the new owners and they were delighted with him.  

There was one older horse (22yrs) who was not presented for sale due to being lame.  He's now in a local yard awaiting the next sale on the 12th December. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Myrtle, thankyou.


----------



## Marchell (1 November 2009)

Any ideas where T Fiscal Surprise went?


----------



## brucea (1 November 2009)

I thought some of the mares looked a bit on the unkempt side.


----------



## magic104 (2 November 2009)

What were the prices like?  Glad the older horses found good homes, just a shame they had to endure the sale ring first.


----------



## eventrider23 (2 November 2009)

I think they were average.  I believe the coloured stallion went for the top price of about £7k, a couple broodies made a few grand but the rest were below a grand, with a couple only making £60!


----------



## turpsamd (2 November 2009)

Lot 23 Buttonmoon sold for £200 and I know the man who bought him, very knowledgeable and a great home.  Donovan and his mum (passing cloud) both went to the same home.  I got speaking to the chap afterwards and they were going back south to Sussex I think he said.  Most of the broodmares and the stallions made OK money with the old ponies being the ones that sold for under £100, one rather wild looking exmoor gelding went for £20 but all the older ones went to good homes.  Although they looked unkept with poor feet and very long manes and tails I wouldnt have said it was a welfare case as such.  The only one to look poor was the eldest broodmare but she has gone to a great home I beleive.


----------



## dingle12 (2 November 2009)

Had the stud closed down ? why did all these horses have to be sold? i feel sorry for the older lot but glad they went to good homes when i first read this i thought the knacker man may have been involved


----------



## MagicMelon (2 November 2009)

No way, so why did Tullynessle stud sell up??????  I had inquired about a horse from them a year ago. They're only just over the hill from me.


----------



## lozziehumphreys (2 November 2009)

It sounds like a very complicated situation, but I believe the majority of the 'assets' have been removed from the stud due to bankruptcy or something similar. 

I have been sent some pictures of my new girls in their temporary homes and they look content and relaxed


----------



## auchenblae (2 November 2009)

The stud has been declared bankrupt, so the receivers pushed for this sale to get back money as the horses are viewed as assets.  I went to this sale on Saturday as I heard a lot of "talk" from different people and I was horrified by what these horses had been subjected to.  

Lets look at the situation:

The receivers have been called in and have to recoup assets.  The horses are seen as assets.  From the sale on Saturday I heard that the SSPCA have been involved for months, if not longer, and that the horses have been under THEIR care for months prior to the sale but kept on the owners land.

If the SSPCA had been THAT worried about all these poor horses then why had they not removed them from the farm prior to all this?  Reason - because it looks like they must have been working under the receivers.   Receivers dont like to spend money, they want money.  So they left these horses on the farm under the care of the SSPCA so they did not lose their assets and they were kept as cheap as possible!  If the SSPCA had warranted them "welfare cases" then they would have had the jurisdiction to remove them and re-home them ages ago, just as proper welfare organisations should do.  However, this never happened!

From what I could see the long term welfare of these animals had not been considered at all!!!  What welfare organisation puts apparent welfare cases to a mart to be sold, for them to be picked up and kept overnight at the mart in pens.  For those horses that have been on grazing for goodness knows how long, to all of a sudden have a completely different diet introduced to them one night before a sale????  They are VERY lucky none of the horses took colic!  Not to mention them being poked and prodded by a lot of people, and being in a place completely alien to them.

The horses were knee deep in straw and had hay, but at NO POINT during the day were the horses given water!  I was SHOCKED by this.  Not one person at the mart OR the SSPCA inspector who was in attendance did anything in this regard!  The welfare was obviously not that apparent to them!

If the horses were in the care of the SSPCA why were their feet not done before the sale?  Why were they not vaccinated for at least a minimum of tetanus prior to the sale?  I know this because I looked at the passports after a tip off from people!  None of the young horses have been vaccinated; the older ones had not been done for 4-5 years!  The reason why none of the above being done..COST.NOT WELFARE!  So if none of that had been done, then the likelihood of any of them having been wormed is low!

Why on earth did the SSPCA allow older horses to go to the mart?  Thats not in the best interest of their welfare?

All the horses looked completely shell-shocked and several had been sedated!!!  What auction house sells sedated horses??  That was just barbaric and criminal!  I also heard that some horses had injuries that had not been made known to the buyers.

And whoever purchased the Lingh 4 year old filly should be thankful to a stud owner who was picking up horses to take away.  I was near the loading bays at the time, but when I looked back at the horses I heard her shouting at one of the mart men because the Lingh filly had been sedated and was practically hanging herself!  It looked like she had been given so much sedation after the sale that her head was hanging over the top of the 6ft bar of the pen and drooping over the other side.  If that lady had not seen it then I dont know what the outcome would have been for that poor mare!!  Very lucky that it has been seen, and where was the SSPCA inspector while all the horses were waiting to be collected?????  I wonder!

Whatever the reasons behind the sale I dont know, but what I do know is that what was done to those horses on Saturday was not in the best interest AT ALL for their welfare.  The horses should have either been sold from the property or moved by the SSPCA a considerable time ago and re-homed properly.

Anyone who attended that sale on Saturday and agrees with what those horses were subjected to are a lot harder than I am!!   I hope to hell someone does more about this and that the Receivers, SSPCA, Local Authority and the Mart are held in the low light that has been shown in this case!   After seeing those horses on Saturday I would not give the SSPCA a fish to look after! The above are all facts of what happened on Saturday, pure and simple.  They are not stories but a true picture of what happened by many people who witnessed it.

Edited to say that I am very glad to hear that many of the horses have found new homes with people who will take great care of them.   That is great news after what the poor animals had been subjected to.


----------



## cefyl (2 November 2009)

I hope that following this case and the reported disregard for animal welfare by the SSPCA that someone at the sale has photographic and/or video evidence of the conditions, and of the passport misrepresentations.

In the light of the RSPCA captive bolt / GSD saga now the so called "welfare" organisations are finally being brought to justice after showing their true colours. 

Please all of you who have posted here and know the shocking truth behind this Scottish story go the the newspapers / local radio / tv / anyone who can and will make this a national story and get some justice for these poor animals.

I am glad most seem to have caring homes now.


----------



## Rollin (2 November 2009)

The fact that the SSPCA were present and did not attend to such a basic requirement as WATER is quite shocking.

Is not their charitable status based on 'animal welfare'?  It is no wonder that SOME charities no longer have the good will of the equestrian community.


----------



## Gingernags (2 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I went to the office to look at the papers - most of them had a standard passport with no breeding info and had an irish issuing authority.  The ones i looked at had all been issued within the last 6mo or so.   Disappointing given the breeding involved.  Assume buyers will need to get blood typing done to confirm pedigrees? 

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, frm checking on NED it would appear that apart from Blackford Dream Wedding (AHS pedigree not updated to new UELN passport format) and Willowdale Souvenir (old style WPCS passport not updated to new UELN passport format) ONLY Tullynessle Sunday Girl, Tullynessle Busilus, Tyllynessle Saturday Boy and Tullynessle Gale Force have UELNs issued by an ID-only PIO (in each case Horse Pssport Agency) and ALL others should have been sold with pasports isued by their original breed society. Even if they had not been mircochipped by the day of the sale it is not an offence to sell an unmicrochipped animal -- whilst it is an offenc eto issue a passport to an animal with an existing EU-recognsied 16-digit UELN as this indicates that a correclty issued passport already exists. The offenc ehere lies with the venodr (the trustees in this case not Tullynessle, the auctioneer and the ID-only PIO concerned with issuing the second passport) and if anyone bought a horse at this auction (espeically one that has a passport beginning 826069) and suspects that it should have / already has a proper pasport from a recognised EU studbook here or abroad) do feel free to PM me with the details and I'll see what I can do to help direct you to the right organisation to resolve the issue.

The purchasers of any foals that they beleive are in the process of having papers isiued to them by a UK or foreging studbook following earlier microchipping are also free to contact me for help if they wish.

The purchasers of Blackford Dream Wedding and Willowdale Souvenir should contact  the Arab Horse Society and the Welsh Pony and Cob Society repsectively to tget their passports updated to the correct format.

This all has the makings of a real mess registration-wise but hope this helps. 

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I have picked up on, a good number of the horses have now got TWO microchips and TWO passports.

In order to get the sale done "legally" with a passport, the breed society passports and chips were ignored and new chips and cheap passports done.

Makes a mockery of the whole passport law, no wonder when we pay out for legitimate chips and passports, we aren't safe, when this was done with full knowledge of the SSPCA.

That will be a hell of a mess to sort out and the poor horses being subjected to that.


----------



## S_N (2 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I went to the office to look at the papers - most of them had a standard passport with no breeding info and had an irish issuing authority.  The ones i looked at had all been issued within the last 6mo or so.   Disappointing given the breeding involved.  Assume buyers will need to get blood typing done to confirm pedigrees? 

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, frm checking on NED it would appear that apart from Blackford Dream Wedding (AHS pedigree not updated to new UELN passport format) and Willowdale Souvenir (old style WPCS passport not updated to new UELN passport format) ONLY Tullynessle Sunday Girl, Tullynessle Busilus, Tyllynessle Saturday Boy and Tullynessle Gale Force have UELNs issued by an ID-only PIO (in each case Horse Pssport Agency) and ALL others should have been sold with pasports isued by their original breed society. Even if they had not been mircochipped by the day of the sale it is not an offence to sell an unmicrochipped animal -- whilst it is an offenc eto issue a passport to an animal with an existing EU-recognsied 16-digit UELN as this indicates that a correclty issued passport already exists. The offenc ehere lies with the venodr (the trustees in this case not Tullynessle, the auctioneer and the ID-only PIO concerned with issuing the second passport) and if anyone bought a horse at this auction (espeically one that has a passport beginning 826069) and suspects that it should have / already has a proper pasport from a recognised EU studbook here or abroad) do feel free to PM me with the details and I'll see what I can do to help direct you to the right organisation to resolve the issue.

The purchasers of any foals that they beleive are in the process of having papers isiued to them by a UK or foreging studbook following earlier microchipping are also free to contact me for help if they wish.

The purchasers of Blackford Dream Wedding and Willowdale Souvenir should contact  the Arab Horse Society and the Welsh Pony and Cob Society repsectively to tget their passports updated to the correct format.

This all has the makings of a real mess registration-wise but hope this helps. 

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I have picked up on, a good number of the horses have now got TWO microchips and TWO passports.

In order to get the sale done "legally" with a passport, the breed society passports and chips were ignored and new chips and cheap passports done.

Makes a mockery of the whole passport law, no wonder when we pay out for legitimate chips and passports, we aren't safe, when this was done with full knowledge of the SSPCA.

That will be a hell of a mess to sort out and the poor horses being subjected to that. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Which as more than one of us are aware, happens regularly!!


----------



## joeanne (2 November 2009)

Two microchips??
I thought they had to be scanned to check for a chip before implating could take place!
Makes a mockery of the whole system if this has happened.
What a mess!


----------



## S_N (2 November 2009)

I believe that there are 4 different types of chip, requiring 4 different scanners, therefore it's easy to say that a horse was scanned and found not to be chipped!


----------



## magic104 (2 November 2009)

Sorry, but I am at a loss to understand why horses from this sale now have 2 passports??  Are posters stating that due to the nature of the sale of these horses their original passports were unavailable?  If so surely they had enough time to arrange duplicates, especially for any MC'd animals.  Also how legal is it to sedate a horse for selling?  None of this sounds very professional at all.


----------



## S_N (2 November 2009)

You'd be surprised then to hear how many horses are mildly sedated that go through the sales rings around the globe?  As a helluva a lot are!  I am in NO WAY condoning what was done here though!!


----------



## auchenblae (2 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but I am at a loss to understand why horses from this sale now have 2 passports??  Are posters stating that due to the nature of the sale of these horses their original passports were unavailable?  If so surely they had enough time to arrange duplicates, especially for any MC'd animals.  Also how legal is it to sedate a horse for selling?  None of this sounds very professional at all. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Magic, I was informed (rightly or wrongly) that three horses had passport applications in Germany and these are waiting to be paid (500 euros each) and one had all the documentation for a KWPN passport and this was waiting to be sent to Holland.  However "I believe" the receivers were not willing to either wait nor pay for this, therefore applied for ones from the Horse Passport Agency.

This is what I found on the Horse Passport Agency website:

[ QUOTE ]
Breed Societies 

Many horses and ponies will have already been issued with some form of registration document in the past or be eligible for registration from a breed society. In such cases do not apply for an Identity Passport with us until you have contacted the relevant breed society as this document may already be a legal passport (therefore you will be breaking the law if you apply for a second one) or could be updated to become a legal passport (which may be cheaper than applying to us and give you a more complete passport)

[/ QUOTE ] 

And I would like to make comment on the [ QUOTE ]
 (therefore you will be breaking the law if you apply for a second one) 

[/ QUOTE ] 

It would have been interesting to have someone independent there who could scan all the horses to see just how many had two chips in them. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





As for the doping of the horses.......that is just PLAIN WRONG!  It was not even taking the edge off, it was practically putting them to sleep.


----------



## Diggory (2 November 2009)

I know some of us know more than others about the circumstances that brought about the sale, but I am horrified for these poor animals that a welfare authority - the SSPCA -  decided the best way to deal with matters was to send them to market (albeit by very professional transporters, rather than the original cattle floats that were suggested), and deliberately put them in an alien and inevitably stressful environment.  Some of the entries were way older than the ages catalogued, and a few were carrying injuries that were not raised at point of sale, as the terms were sold as seen, but none of them need to have suffered the whole market exercise.  The whole sale could have been dealt with at their home, causing a lot less trauma to the horses.  Because of the physical set up at the market - livestock-orientated, and not very horse-friendly - the stock were all penned side by side on the day of the sale, and as a result, some of the stallions had to be doped, and all the stallions bar the Welshie were sold from the pens.  Many of the mares were very unhappy and completely depressed.  They were strawed and hayed, but water was not in evidence and more than one were displaying signs of impending colic.

It's bad enough that the sale had to happen at all - and the reasons behind it are frankly none of anyone's business, save for a salutary lesson to be learned - but surely the SSPCA could have taken a much stronger hold on this and dictated that exposure of these animals to a market situation was not in the best interests of their welfare.  It is understood that the sale needed to take place, but there was no need to punish the horses in this way, and nothing was gained, save for the animals having been stressed completely unnecessarily.  The whole passport and micro-chipping fiasco is a whole other debacle which I do not envy anyone unravelling.

BTW - Those who have been happily slinging mud about the owners of these horses here and on various other forums should consider their position re. libel and in real life, slander if they wish to continue to provoke antipathy towards said owners.  It is all very well to bustle with outrage about them, but without the full facts, the bluster ultimately only makes the speaker/writer feel better and achieves nothing.  Much of the griping also seems founded on embarrassment at having been seen to be involved with the owners, and is therefore based primarily on selfish motive rather than true compassion for the ultimate victims in all this  the horses.


----------



## Var (2 November 2009)

The passports i looked at were in relation to the horses i was interested in... i was surprised that they were identity docs only and not breeding papers as such as both had in the catalogue details of 1st or 2nd premiums from SSH.  So would have been a fair assumption that these had SSH papers.   I guess now the new owners of all these horses have a bit of sorting out to do!

As to sedation - i agree that quite a few of the horses did look mildly sedated, however, i talked to the vet who was on duty and she said only 1 of the stallions was sedated... Contrary to this my friends husband who is a regular mart goer had been talking to the mart guys who said ALL the horses had been given 2mls.  Personally i dont have an issue with sedation taking place if it helps the horse deal better with the situation in hand.

It was a sad sale and the horses did look unkempt but none were in a total state.  At least all seem to  have found homes - the younger horses now have a chance of fulfilling their potential and the older ones can hopefully get a bit of condition on!


----------



## pinkcatkin (2 November 2009)

I think that the SSPCA's actions re allowing this to go ahead, and in particular, the fact that elderly ponies had to undergo such stress, should be questioned.  Surely common sense would dictate that it was inhumane for some if not all of these animals to face this ordeal.

I hope that such questions will continue to be asked until the full facts of this case are known publicly.  The only reason I can think of is that their hands were in some way tied by the company forcing this sale.  And if that is the case, then that has to be questioned too.


----------



## auchenblae (2 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Contrary to this my friends husband who is a regular mart goer had been talking to the mart guys who said ALL the horses had been given 2mls  

[/ QUOTE ] 

Thats an interesting point you make there because on arrival I heard someone make that comment, i.e. the horses were much too quiet than they should have been!

Also as the auctioneer only stated the stallions had been sedated, I wonder if all the horses passports were updated to say that sedation had taken place.  Including the Lingh filly at the end!

The comment about sedation to make their stress more comfortable is ok, but it should never have been like that to start with IMHO.


----------



## toffeesmarty (2 November 2009)

There are clearly lessons to be learned for local authorities, welfare organisations and everyone who owns horses in this country. it is inevitable given the current economic climate and impending laws such as the horse tax - that others will fall into the same desperate situation. 
I agree with Diggory, now is not the time to sling abuse around. it is time though for local authorities and welfare organisations to sit round the table and work out local strategies so that NO horse or pony has to suffer the same experience ever again.


----------



## Var (2 November 2009)

Which was the Lingh filly?  Lot 19 T Busilus?  At the end we walked back through and the mart were moving cattle at the other side which understandably was rattling the horses.   This particular filly was closest to the cattle and was quite upset - trying to climb out over her pen.   The mart guys were dealing with trying to sort it out but she was pretty worked up so it is possible they sedated her at that point - i dont know i'm jsut thinking outloud here.  

thanks - glad you think my comment about stress is ok 
	
	
		
		
	


	





Again just thinking outloud (yes agree horses were quiet pre-sale) but it is possible they were all just exhausted from the whole experience.  

None of this sale sits comfortably but it is what it is and thankfully a positive ending for all concerned.


----------



## siennamum (2 November 2009)

The owners have my sympathy. I know nothing about the circumstances, but that they had kept their old, much loved ponies is testament to the affection they had for the animals. Sounds like the condition of the animals was out of their hands. It must have been devastating to see their much loved animals go though that.


----------



## jamesmead (2 November 2009)

Sorry to be absent so long from this discussion.

As others have noted, my original post on this subject was removed; I trust Admin will not mind me posting a copy of the explanatory pm.: [ QUOTE ]
 Dear James 

Your bankcrupcy posts have been removed from the forum because the SSPCA have been in touch with us and stated that some of the claims in your post are inaccurate and defamatory. However, the H&amp;H news desk is now aware of this matter and will be investigating the situation for a possible news story. They may wish to speak to you about this so if you could PM us a telephone number where we can contact you that would be extremely helpful. 

Kind regards 

HHO Admin  

[/ QUOTE ] 

I sincerely hope HHO DO run this as a news story. 

My original post was indeed posted in haste and was based in part on rumour; however, as the facts emerge and are clarified, it seems, shockingly, that the original post was largely accurate. 

For those who remember it I would like to correct elements of this post and confirm what we now know as fact.

The horses were transported by a reputable firm - Gillies - and not all the injured animals were moved; the elderly laminitic pony escaped the sale, though seemingly, to judge by an earlier post, only to face the next sale alone. So yet another unsuitable animal; (22 years old and laminitic?) is to go through the ring whilst in the care of a "Welfare" society.

It seems that Gillies themselves queried the orders to shift a horse with a deep flexor tendon injury- and that this horse was OK'd for travel by the SSPCA rep. I am told that the SSPCA employee pre-empted the vet, who was on his way, despite being aware that the horse was carrying a serious injury. If I am incorrect, and the vet appointed made this decision, then I apologise - and would be glad to know the name of that vet so that his / her professionalism can be formally called in question. Clearly SOMEONE cleared the horse for travel and sale, despite full knowledge of this horses' injury. Fortunately the buyer contacted the ex-owner; I think I am right in saying that this animal's injury was not advertised at the sale.

The passport fiasco is, quite simply, massively illegal, as so ably pointed out by Ciss. 

It is worth remembering that the original purpose of passports was to prevent medicated animals from entering the foodchain; animals sold at a sale of this kind are more likely than most to end up in the meat market; so there is also a public health / animal health (petfood) issue here and a quite gross disregard for the original purpose of this law.

The auction house was aware of the illegality of the passport situation before the sale. I can confirm that; a phone call was made on my behalf, and I am aware that others phoned too.

I would suggest that the representation of a 37 year old pony as a 24 year old, for the purposes of sale, amounts to fraud.

I think that the key factor in securing some sort of happy future for these horses, let down by just about every organisation and authority entrusted with their welfare, has been the interest and helpfulness and humanity of other horse owners; I salute you all.


----------



## S_N (3 November 2009)

This post and the continuous editing is getting ridiculous!  Good job I and others have it saved!


----------



## AengusOg (3 November 2009)

Is that why I can't find the post I made a few minutes ago?

I can't understand why it would be edited.............I don't think I said anything inflammatory or wrong, did I?


----------



## jamesmead (3 November 2009)

I have just been pm'd by Admin objecting to my sharing the pms previously sent (giving the reason for the pulling of the original thread as being by request of the SSPCA, the contact number for the SSPCA and the interest by Horse and Hound in running an article, all of which information could usefully have been in the public domain, I would have thought) and informing me that a post had been deleted. 

I feel that information passed to me which is not personal or confidential is mine to pass on if appropriate and I decline to accept that a pm of this kind contains an automatic gagging order.

Moreover I cannot understand why numerous posts by other users have also been deleted; nothing there seemed unreasonable; there was a lot of useful discussion and clarification from Ciss and others on the passport issue, for example.

However, I feel that the fact that these deletions are being made says as much, in some ways, as the posts themselves; the numerous issues that this case has raised are serious and cannot be allowed to be quietly pushed under the carpet.

One of the deleted posts in particular (by AengusOg?) had some really interesting suggestions as what the horse industry needs here; I hope this is re-posted.


----------



## AengusOg (3 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
However, I feel that the fact that these deletions are being made says as much, in some ways, as the posts themselves; the numerous issues that this case has raised are serious and cannot be allowed to be quietly pushed under the carpet.

One of the deleted posts in particular (by AengusOg?) had some really interesting suggestions as what the horse industry needs here; I hope this is re-posted. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you jamesmead........if only for clarifying that I did indeed make that post.


----------



## Maesfen (3 November 2009)

Damn, I missed that one!  Go away for a coffee and look what happens, mayhem breaks out again...........

Any chance of a copy AO please?


----------



## hettie123 (3 November 2009)

How exciting - I have just had my first post removed!! As yet no explanation as to why - I feel very naughty 
	
	
		
		
	


	




!!!!!!!!!!

In my post I mentioned I would be emailing Defra to question the legality of what occurred and why the Vet/LA Inspectors did not seem to act/raise concerns about these infringements.  If anyone else would like to email them here is the email address: horse.passports@defra.gsi.gov.uk


----------



## magic104 (3 November 2009)

This is censorship &amp; has nothing to do with slander etc.  If people post what they have seen or know to be facts why are they being shut down!!


----------



## AengusOg (3 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Any chance of a copy AO please? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid not, I didn't copy it, unfortunately.

I won't repeat it, but I would like for it to be reinstated here, or at least be given an explanation as to why it was deemed unsuitable. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





I'll be sure to copy everything in future.


----------



## Amymay (3 November 2009)

Wow some serious and uncessary editing going on here.

Shame HHO - no need..........


----------



## jamesmead (3 November 2009)

Admin has confirmed that it was my posting of the SSPCA contact no. that was the issue. It was only for my "personal" use. 

Apologies if I have mislead anyone by posting what I assumed to be a public number.

This begs the question as to why I was given a personal link following the hasty closure of the original thread. IMO a personal reassurance under these circumstances would have been no reassurance at all; any assurances and explanations could have been given to better effect on the public forum.


----------



## auchenblae (3 November 2009)

But several other posts have been deleted, not just your one??

All this editing/removal of posts is very suspicious to say the least.  What it shows is that there are people worried about what is being brought to light and trying to put a lid on it all!  I for one will not let that happen because I think there are far too many implications for all horse owners with regards to this whole sorry affair.

Also with the amount of viewings that this thread has had, it shows there there are A LOT of people concerned about what is going on with everything that has been mentioned.


----------



## magic104 (3 November 2009)

Viewings dont indicate a lot of people as there will be many repeat viewings.  This issue of duplicate passports &amp; MC's does need highlighting because like NED it obviously does not work very well.  Why is that most government run departments just come across as a right shambles.  What bloody good is it if a horse can have 2 passports &amp; 2 MC's just because a government body ok'd it, because the receivers could not get the necessary paperwork or shell out the necessary fees, if any.  You see I dont understand why these horses were not sold with their original passports like any other horse sale.  When the horses were seized why were they not taken with their passports &amp; sold from the farm?


----------



## auchenblae (3 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Viewings dont indicate a lot of people as there will be many repeat viewings.  This issue of duplicate passports &amp; MC's does need highlighting because like NED it obviously does not work very well.  Why is that most government run departments just come across as a right shambles.  What bloody good is it if a horse can have 2 passports &amp; 2 MC's just because a government body ok'd it, because the receivers could not get the necessary paperwork or shell out the necessary fees, if any.  You see I dont understand why these horses were not sold with their original passports like any other horse sale.  When the horses were seized why were they not taken with their passports &amp; sold from the farm? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Magic I would like to say that some did have their original passports, but I have no idea whether they were given another chip or not (as most horses imported from Holland over the last 6 years or so would have been chiped in Holland), so this did not affect all the horses.  There were also a couple of Oldenburg passports but again there was "word" that horses had received another chip.  But I would say that 2/3rds of the horses had the Horse Passport Agency passports, even though in the catalogue it said some were graded by the SSH.


----------



## cefyl (3 November 2009)

I cannot see why any posts held a reason for admin to delete from this thread.  Nothing was defamatory, slanderous, in breach of forum T&amp;C, even listing a phone number for the SSPCA is not against the T&amp;C as written out by H&amp;H.

This whole saga should be made public.  Please all of you - jamesmead, AengusOg, Narys, etc who seem to have solid factual evidence of the passport fraud, transport of a horse with a severe pre-existing injury, and neglet while in the "care" of the SSPCA (no water etc) - contact the tv / radio / newspapers.  Don't rely on H&amp;H to write a "story" on it.  Journalists like Simon Barnes who are involved in the general equine world but write for a major national such as The Times may be a starting point?

Finally the RSPCA are under investigation for their captive bolt / GSD fiasco.  Don't let the SSPCA and DEFRA get away with this scot free.


----------



## jamesmead (3 November 2009)

I have to agree; I feel that the horse industry as a whole has to pin down just what went wrong here and why, and make sure that it cannot happen again.


----------



## henryhorn (3 November 2009)

Gosh, my post has been deleted now too, I'm sure I didn't say anything libellous in it at all...
I wonder if we have a new member of Admin who is being a bit over zealous?


----------



## EPRider (3 November 2009)

I too had posted and it has disappeared and not at all contraversial that I know of.


----------



## Kilbricken (3 November 2009)

Clearly asking for an article jointly between Defra and HHO was too hot to explain to normal horse owners why alledged duplicate passports are allowed  
	
	
		
		
	


	




 and therefore had to be removed with no courtesy of a PM to explain why....


----------



## Rollin (3 November 2009)

If anyone who has more personal knowledge than myself and plans to write to DEFRA pm me.  Horse Passports have long been dear to my heart NOT I have an email for someone more senior.


----------



## auchenblae (4 November 2009)

This is the "issues" as I see them:

1.  A lot of issues surround the passports/chipping of some of these horses?? Did the vets check for chips before inserting them?  Did anyone actually phone the breed associations first before giving these horses the cheap passports and basically de valuing some of their worth, and causing major problems for new owners?

2.  DEFRA, The Local Authority (trading standards), SSPCA, ANM Mart all know there are issues with the above and choosing to ignore it, and rather than get conformation of this they still go ahead with the sale (as they have some kind of passport).  What impression does this give all horses owners who abide by the rules!

3.  The receivers money put before the welfare of the horses.  Again if these horses were "at risk" why had they not been removed from the property and re-homed as appropriate?  Why leave them on the property with minimal care by either the owner (that being "the receivers"), or the welfare organisation or vets who were being utilised by them?  Did the vets working on behalf of the receivers say to them at any point that these horses should be re-homed via a welfare organisation, was this backed up by the SSPCA policies?  Where both the Vets and SSPCA just making sure those horses were fit for sale and not putting the welfare first?

4.  None of the above organisations making sure those purchasers are fully aware of the health/injuries of horses being sold.   "Sold as seen" was the comment I believe.

5.  Horses ages being changed from what they were described in the catalogue as to what they are.  Including a query of a horse being aged at 4, when it is actually 3, and posing problems for young horse classes now!  Horses down as being graded by a breed association when they had not?

6.  How many auction houses sell animals that have been heavily sedated?  According to those working at the mart all the horses had been sedated.  According to the auctioneer only "some" have been sedated!  Has all this been recorded in the passports?  If they needed to be heavily sedated does this not tell everyone that the whole thing was wrong??  These horses were so stressed at their situation that they needed sedated!!

7.  The basic welfare of the horses on the day of the mart being ignored.  No horses given water at all throughout the day, even though vets and SSPCA in attendance!  Another horse is heavily sedated and it takes a complete stranger to notice a problem with it?  Another horse looks to have mild colic but again was this picked up by anyone, or was it just sedated to keep it quiet?

8.  The welfare of all the animals being ignored!  How could the vets and/or SSPCA sanction putting these animals into a mart environment with lots of people as being in the best interest of these horses!?  Unless under direct instruction by "the receivers"?

9.  What welfare organisation puts aged horses through a mart environment, where other welfare organisations have gone to purchase these horses to make sure they are given a good retirement home?


----------



## snoopmummy (4 November 2009)

I was at the sale and although I wasn't directly involved with any of the microchip or passport issues, I CAN vouch for the fact that from the time I arrived there at 10a.m. till I left just befor 2p.m. there was absolutely  *no access to any water*  for those horses. They were being prodded and poked by crowds of people including some noisy children and some were clearly stressed. Only one of the stallions was brought into the ring for the sale, the others being kept in their pens - how was anybody supposed to see if there was any lameness?? I also know that there WAS information about any underlying health issues but that that information was  *not to be given out*  and that they were to be sold  *'as seen'*  !! How can that possibly be in the best interests of the animals OR the prospective buyers ??


----------



## Ciss (4 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
If anyone who has more personal knowledge than myself and plans to write to DEFRA pm me.  Horse Passports have long been dear to my heart NOT I have an email for someone more senior. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I have already spoken to them (I see them quite often at meetings -- including the one at which we all agreed what offences were created by transgressing each particular clause in the new legislation) so calls from me are not a major / threatening event  and as a result of what I told them yesterday they asked me to gather together all the information that I could and send it to them -- especially that concerning any PROOF of double microchipping, which they seem almost more concerned about than duplicate passports. This is  becuase checking for microchips is meant to stop any duplicate microchips and passports being issued, which obviously did not happen in this case. 

So, not to step on your toes Rollin, but perhaps the info might be best coming in a co-ordinated format from me, especially as not only are they now expecting it, but I am already involved in helping a couple of people on here sort out their problems anyway. Also, it might help that I actually have quite a postive working relationship with the passport people in Defra (both as a studbook PIO and on an individual basis) as I am currently preparing a set of guidelines for PIOs on ways of working that re-inforce the DEFRA requirements for PIOs to 'operate efficiently' (which might not be the case here if all that has been claimed is substantiated)) so there are aspects of this issue that willl trigger a considerable amount if internal investigation if presented to them in the right way.

Hope that helps. You can all PM me or e-mail me via celia@cwath.demon.co.uk if you feel that is more secure.


----------



## Ciss (4 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot see why any posts held a reason for admin to delete from this thread.  Nothing was defamatory, slanderous, in breach of forum T&amp;C, even listing a phone number for the SSPCA is not against the T&amp;C as written out by H&amp;H.

This whole saga should be made public.  Please all of you - jamesmead, AengusOg, Narys, etc who seem to have solid factual evidence of the passport fraud, transport of a horse with a severe pre-existing injury, and neglet while in the "care" of the SSPCA (no water etc) - contact the tv / radio / newspapers.  Don't rely on H&amp;H to write a "story" on it.  Journalists like Simon Barnes who are involved in the general equine world but write for a major national such as The Times may be a starting point?

Finally the RSPCA are under investigation for their captive bolt / GSD fiasco.  Don't let the SSPCA and DEFRA get away with this scot free. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I did complain to Adnin about my posts being deleted both without warning and without explanation and I got a reply from Carole saying that the reason they were deleted was because they were in a thread that contained someone's private number which was being posted without permission. Apparently my posts -- and others on the same thread -- were not deleted becuase of their contents but just becuase the HHO system does not allow a post in a thread to be deleted without the following ones being taken out as well &lt;sigh&gt;. Personally as I always view my posts flat format (ie by receipt order) it is a pretty irrelevant answer and my comment to HHO on this whole sorry saga would just be 'If that is the case just get another program that is more up to date and user friendly as the present system obviously isn't working properly &lt;sigh&gt.

BTW, Carole did say I could repost all my deleted messages but I think that most of you that want to will have read them so I won't put you all through that again


----------



## S_N (4 November 2009)

Really?  Well then why has exactly that - the deletion of posts within a thread - happened previously, without affecting the remaining posts.  Most odd!


----------



## wendyII (4 November 2009)

I've been speaking with a friend in Scotland about the sale and what went on and he raised a few interesting points that I wasn't aware of. The first thing he mentioned was that people keep rasing the issue of informing DEFRA but they dont have any juristiction in Scotland? Is that right? He say's Scottish Gov have their own regulations, looked into it a bit and I found this on the Scottish Gov website but not very good at deciphering what it all means but it seems to offer guidance as to how to proceed if a previous microchip is detected. Would be interested on others take on it? Does this mean it is not an offense for a vet to administer a microchip when one is already in place?

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/931/0085952.pdf

and it also says:

[ QUOTE ]
 Breaches of the Horse Identification (Scotland) Regulations 2009

5. Anyone who suspects a breach of these Regulations should report their concerns to their Local Authority Inspectors and NOT Scottish Government. It is Local Authorities who are responsible for enforcing the legislation. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

So shouldn't it be the local trading standards office to where the sale took place that investigate and nothing to with DEFRA 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 Has anyone reported it to the local Trading Standards yet?


----------



## S_N (4 November 2009)

Ahhh but doesn't it depend on who the 're'-issuing authority is?  If that PIO is based in England, then they'd fall under English law and therefore DEFRA, no matter if acting in Scotland - correct?


----------



## Cuffey (4 November 2009)

The original Policy was laid out by Defra and devolved to Scottish Gov--so if policy is not working the argument is with them
So yes agree that Trading Standards are responsible for ''policing'' passports--not just in Scotland
TS Depts in local councils were not given a budget for this ''policing'' so it does depend on where you are in the country how involved TS get
They should definitely follow up specific complaints which would have to come from purchasers not observers


----------



## delphie468 (4 November 2009)

which PIO issued the new passports?


----------



## Ciss (4 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I've been speaking with a friend in Scotland about the sale and what went on and he raised a few interesting points that I wasn't aware of. The first thing he mentioned was that people keep rasing the issue of informing DEFRA but they dont have any juristiction in Scotland? Is that right? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually no its completly wrong in this specific case. This is becuase although DEFRA does not normally have any jursdiction in Scotland, the regulations that govern the way a PIO issues passports are governed by the country in which the PIO is based rather than where the horses are based that are issued passports by them, so any complaints about possible duplicate passports issued by (say) HPA must be addressed to Defra not to the Scottish Dept. Defra confirmed this to me yesterday when I spoke to them.


----------



## wendyII (4 November 2009)

that does make sense but surely it would be worth while contacting trading standards as well no? How many passports have been fraudulently applied for and where are the originals? why didn't the trustees have them in the first place? surely its their duty to maximise the return on any sales that's what they are appointed to do, look after the trustees assets, maximise income and payoff creditors.


----------



## fitzby (4 November 2009)

On arriving at the sale, very early, I was completely horrified at the goings on.  I fought with myself the entire time to leave or stay, when the opportunity was being presented to buy a well bred horse at a bargain price. I decided to stay.  I couldn't help but question why was this happening like this, why hadn't they just sold the horses from the farm?

I wonder if the problem of the whole event was the same as of the day.  Everyone at the sale seemed out of their depth.  Apart from one woman from animal welfare who seemed to be running the show.  All the mart staff and SSPCA were looking to her for advice.  Everyone involved seemed to be as stressed as the horses.  They knew what they were doing and what they were involved in was wrong and they didn't know what to do about it.  They all were looking at this woman shouting "Pauline"  at every stressful situation.  On the start of this sale "Pauline" was no where to be seen and had obviously left the sinking ship.

I watched many unfortunate events the most horrific being the stallion Hollyland Donovan receiving too much sedation which meant he went completely over his back and fell against the railings in the small pen. The vet was there and said to shocked on lookers "this sometimes happens".  I viewed Donovans papers where the sedations were noted as well as those he had received the day before.  

At the end of the sale and speaking to mart staff, who were very helpful and efficient, their was a feeling that great wrongs had been bestowed against these horses but at least the meat man wasn't there and they all should have good homes now.  Their ordeal was over.


----------



## Var (4 November 2009)

sigh..... arent you being just a touch melodramatic?  

That doesnt tie up with my experience of the sale at all.  Yes the coloured stallion did over-react to the sedation but would you rather he'd injured himself or someone?   

this is an emotive subject but lets keep it in perspective.


----------



## fitzby (4 November 2009)

Sorry if I sound melodramatic.

If you had a stallion would you have put it in those small pens and sedated it?  I think not.  Don't you think animal welfare or SSPCA would have had something to say if you did?


----------



## Spook (4 November 2009)

Does no one else think that the sale of these horses was the best out come? ........I was at the sale, the horses presented were in better condition than I expected them to be and not any more stressed than a 5yo child at school for the first day. Any horses which had been sedated ( and I think it was only 2 or3 of them) had this stated at point of sale by the auctioneer.

What shocked me most was the constant noise and chatter whilst the auctioneer was declaring the conditions of sale, indicating to me that there were alot of lookers and time wasters, and yes one of the mares was knocked down to me. 

What a fuss about an auction.......do you object to the sales at Ascot, Doncaster, Ballsbridge etc. etc.

It is not the sale that was the problem but the circustances leading to it........If the animal charities want to do something constructive in these circumstances they should be buying the very old, sick and sorry and putting them down themselves.


----------



## Var (4 November 2009)

I dont have a problem with the pens the horses had room to move around - they were knee deep in straw and had nice haylage.

Yes i woudl put a stallion (or any horse) in those pens - in fact they were of a similar size to temporary stables at most competitions,  in fact maybe slightly bigger!

The horse in question was anxious and sedation helped it cope with the situation - he was potentially stirred up by mares being in close proximity. This is far from an issue for animal welfare.  Its not uncommon for stallions at competions to become upset if they are stabled close to mares and attempt to climb - also far from an issue for animal welfare.  

Its an emotive subject i appreciate but its worth trying to break it all down a bit and not get swept along in the mob outrage - it really was far from terrible.


----------



## Var (4 November 2009)

Sanity at last... i agree.


----------



## jamesmead (5 November 2009)

I'm surprised Var and Twisock are so complacent about the issues detailed here.

Yes, other sales are not without incident and are recognised as being stressful for stock which have not been prepared for the sales ring; which is why shipping to a sales venue was the least appropriate and least humane way to sell these animals. The sale of these animals was entirely in the hands of professionals; the finance company, the SSPCA, the auction house, (and the local council?); it should therefore have been a model of professionalism in the way it was carried out. It was not.

Personally, when I buy at a sale with the advantage of being WHOLLY in the control of professionals and involving a welfare organisation I don't expect to be sold a horse with a falsified passport or description. I don't expect to see aged animals put through the ring, with a commercial value only as meat (and how long a journey to slaughter if bought by the meat man? I don't think there is an abbatoir which pays for horsemeat near Aberdeen). I don't expect to be sold a horse which has been so heavily sedated that it can't stand up; or indeed, sedated at all; or a horse with an unmentioned tendon injury, pulled out of box rest to be transported to the sale....

Do Var and Twisock really think that this is acceptable? A kid from pony club would know better.

I rather liked: 
[ QUOTE ]
not any more stressed than a 5yo child at school for the first day. Any horses which had been sedated ( and I think it was only 2 or3 of them) had this stated at point of sale by the auctioneer.

[/ QUOTE ] 
Not only is this seriously at variance with other eyewitness accounts but it paints a strange picture of the scene at the school gates; the mums with their syringes...

And yes, the horses DID have pens knee deep in straw with fodder provided. But no water. Does it have to be spelt out here that fodder without water is a colic risk; particularly to hungry horses?


----------



## magic104 (5 November 2009)

What a fuss about an auction.......do you object to the sales at Ascot, Doncaster, Ballsbridge etc. etc.

No I dont agree with you where an aged animal in its twilight years should be subjected to stress just to squeeze the last £1 from it.  This is what happened to an 18yo mare at Ascot she was there because the stud knew she was coming to the end of her broodmare days.  Did the stud not think hey, this mare has won on the track, produced a foal most years since retiring from the track, so lets have this last foal &amp; then put her down, no they shoved her in the sale.  In this sale there were two 30yo ponies.  In this climate what were the odds they would end up with good homes, (though I wonder if someone who knew them bought them), &amp; why was it necessary to move them &amp; put them through a sale, why could these horses have not been sold fromt he farm?  There is nothing wrong with sales, but it is not the way to treat an elderly horse who has been a loyal servant.


----------



## cutthemustard (5 November 2009)

I went to the Mart the  on Friday afternoon with 2 friends who were looking  to buy.
The horses were in pens in small groups and seemed reasonably happy. That is except for the stallions . At the end of the pend was a coloured stallion and a dark bay one. They were noses to nose and were very stressed. They were rearing at each other and it was just an accident waiting to happen. At any moment a leg was going to go through the bars and probably break. I told the mart workers who wre frantically sorting passports. Then a lady asked me who I was and what I was doing. I told her my urgent concern pointing out the rearing/fighting horses. She very rudely told me to get out and leave the mart and not to return to the morning. my friend went to office for catalogue(she did buy 1 mare) and was told that the lady concerned was infact the horse welfare officer. Well does not bode well does it.? They should never have been pend like that in the first place. I didn't attend the next day and am glad i didn't judging by Fitzbys comments (not melodramatic I think) and others the welfare officer has got a lot to answer to


----------



## Ponyplanet (5 November 2009)

IMHO the only person at fault in this whole situation, is the one who went out and filled her fields with horses she could not afford to care for, didnt heed advice to sell when times got tough, didnt care enough to get the old ones handed over to charity or PTS before this came to a head. The owner of these horses is the one who let this happen, everyone else - vet/charity/mart were doing what they could under extremely depressing and sad circumstances.

The mart may very well not of been a good demonstration of horse welfare, however what most people seem to be missing is that these horses were sold off as they were classed as "stock" of a liquidated company, what sort of person would allow their old ponies to end up like this?


----------



## Amymay (5 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO the only person at fault in this whole situation, is the one who went out and filled her fields with horses she could not afford to care for, didnt heed advice to sell when times got tough, didnt care enough to get the old ones handed over to charity or PTS before this came to a head. The owner of these horses is the one who let this happen, everyone else - vet/charity/mart were doing what they could under extremely depressing and sad circumstances.  

[/ QUOTE ] 

Have you been privvy to the whole situation regarding the stud owners - or is this just wild conjecture on your part??


----------



## auchenblae (5 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
sigh..... arent you being just a touch melodramatic?  

That doesnt tie up with my experience of the sale at all.  Yes the coloured stallion did over-react to the sedation but would you rather he'd injured himself or someone?   

this is an emotive subject but lets keep it in perspective.     

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not see a horse going over backwards as injuring itself?  Did anyone check the horse for injuries, has it been xrayed to make sure it did no permanent damage?


----------



## auchenblae (5 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
They knew what they were doing and what they were involved in was wrong and they didn't know what to do about it. They all were looking at this woman shouting "Pauline" at every stressful situation. On the start of this sale "Pauline" was no where to be seen and had obviously left the sinking ship.  

[/ QUOTE ] 

I have done some searching on who the Animal Health Inspectors (Local Authority Representatives) are for the Aberdeenshire area and the name of one of the officers does begin with the above forename.


----------



## auchenblae (5 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO the only person at fault in this whole situation, is the one who went out and filled her fields with horses she could not afford to care for, didnt heed advice to sell when times got tough, didnt care enough to get the old ones handed over to charity or PTS before this came to a head. The owner of these horses is the one who let this happen, everyone else - vet/charity/mart were doing what they could under extremely depressing and sad circumstances.  

[/ QUOTE ] 

As someone else has stated, unless you are privvy to all the information then none of us can comment on how the owners got to be in this situation.  

If you have bothered to read any of the beforementioned posts you will understand that the actual owners of these horses have not had anything to do with them for some time now, so they have been in the care of the new owners "aka receivers" along with input from the SSPCA, Local Authority Animal Health Inspectors and Vets.

If the owner wished for this to happen they would have likely sold them at the mart themselves I am guessing.  I also "believe" that offers for these horses had been turned down by the receivers, so there was a big opportunity for these horses not to even go near the mart in the first place and be sold from the farm, which in my view would have been a much kinder way for them to be sold on.


----------



## Ponyplanet (5 November 2009)

It would of course been much better for the horses to of had the sale at the Farm, the location up there is accessable, I didnt fully understand the reasons behind having the Sale at the Mart in the first place?


----------



## Ponyplanet (5 November 2009)

auchenblae - what makes you think I didnt read your posts? I can assure you I read all the posts, but that does not change my opinion that these horses ended up where they did because the owner of these horses did not have the foresight to see what they needed to do when the problems first started to arise.

This situation did not arise over night.


----------



## snoopmummy (5 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
auchenblae - what makes you think I didnt read your posts? I can assure you I read all the posts, but that does not change my opinion that these horses ended up where they did because the owner of these horses did not have the foresight to see what they needed to do when the problems first started to arise.

This situation did not arise over night. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever one's opinion is of the reason the horses were for sale in the first place, the actual issue being raised here was how, once the horses had been taken over by the receivers the horses were treated  *after* that. I.E. what happened at the mart - not what happened before. Some posters seem to now be taking this opportunity to have a go at the owners even though they had had no responsibility for the horses for months.


----------



## snoopmummy (5 November 2009)

Could I also point out that another of the main issues that were originally put forward here was the concern that all horse/pony owners should have as a result of this sale, and that is the issue of passports and micro-chipping. This also seems to be being sidelined.


----------



## auchenblae (5 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
auchenblae - what makes you think I didnt read your posts? I can assure you I read all the posts, but that does not change my opinion that these horses ended up where they did because the owner of these horses did not have the foresight to see what they needed to do when the problems first started to arise.

This situation did not arise over night. 

[/ QUOTE ]

We have no idea what the financial implications are regarding the owners and what happened.  You, nor I know what has gone on before and during all this, or where their finance may or may not been tied up in.  For all you or I know they could have had investments in companies that have gone to the wall in the current economic climate.  For all you or I know they could have tried to get funding from other means and were unsuccessful.  The bottom line is neither of us know.


----------



## Ponyplanet (5 November 2009)

agreed happylugsd the issues of Passports and micro chipping has been side lined, sorry will get back on track,

Auchenbale - I have made my opinion, which I am entitiled to make based on what I know. I have no idea what you know on the subject, you are also entitiled to your own opinions based on what you know.


----------



## Ponyplanet (5 November 2009)

sorry typo - Flappylugs


----------



## no_no_nanette (5 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Could I also point out that another of the main issues that were originally put forward here was the concern that all horse/pony owners should have as a result of this sale, and that is the issue of passports and micro-chipping. This also seems to be being sidelined. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that these are the key issues that we need to keep sight of, as there are some really serious implications for all horse owners, as flappylugs has said.  No point in getting sidelined on what the previous owners should/should not have done - BUT I do think that there should be some very serious investigations by DEFRA and by the RCVS into why many of the horses were double-chipped and issued duplicate passports, seemingly illegally?; and by the welfare organisations themselves into why the decision was taken to sell off-site and to travel elderly and in at least one case injured horses, and why the SSPCA inspector who was at the sales was not more closely observant of the horses' welfare.  (ie no water/over-sedated, etc)  I've mentioned the RCVS, and I think that they also need to find out what the role of the supervising vet(s) was in all of this - both in the micro-chipping, in (allegedly) giving permission for the horses to travel, and in supervising the sedation of the horses once they were at the sale.  There are a lot of questions about some very worrying practices to be answered here, and H&amp;H and other horse magazines should be rigorous in following up this sorry tale, and investigating the facts of the case.


----------



## SFleetwood (5 November 2009)

Hear, hear Rufusbluemoon.


----------



## teuchterman (5 November 2009)

I have been watching these postings with great interest and finally feel forced to make a comment.  First of all, I want to make it clear that I am not one of the Stud owners however I DO KNOW the FULL details of this case.

As this is still very much a "work in progress" I am not prepared to go into any detail as to the background to this case at present.  After all, why would I, it's nobody else's business but the unfortunate people who have had their life shattered by the process.

What I will say however, is that these horses came from a very loving home and were fed and looked after, in my opinion, better than many horses (and some humans).  I am fed up seeing comments posted on what is pure speculation as to the circumstances surrounding the case and the treatment of the animals prior to the sale.  I am quite sure when the whole story behind this comes out (and it will when the time is right) there will be many red faces as to comments which have been posted.

Personally I was shocked at the way the horses looked on Saturday having seen them on the farm during the week.  These animals all had their own traits and were used to being handled accordingly.  To suddenly be transported to unfamiliar surroundings as well as other issues raised on this site it obviously had a dramatic affect on their condition.

All WILL be revealed in due course as there are a lot of lessons to be learned from this and I hope that it never happens to anyone else.  The sad thing is that it possibly will and probably has, we just haven't heard about them.


----------



## snoopmummy (5 November 2009)

Well said JM07  !!


----------



## Ciss (5 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Well said JM07  !! 

[/ QUOTE ]

and teutcherwoman


----------



## jamesmead (5 November 2009)

I would have to agree that those who are intent on blaming the ex-owners here are rather missing the point. By the time the horses were earmarked for sale the matter was out of their hands. 

The important issue here with regard to how the horses came to be sold is the matter of DEBT and REPOSSESSION. Its easy to think something like this will never happen to you; but it can, and when it does, if your biggest moveable asset is your breeding stock, then they will be taken and sold. The law as it stands, in dealing with living animals as inanimate chattels, doesn't seem to give them much protection. I understand that even horses belonging to a third party, at livery in the fields of someone subject to such a seizure can be taken; how this can be, since it is clearly unjust, I don't know.

When your herd includes retired animals commercially worthless except as meat, what do you do? You can't sell them on and whilst you think there is a way out of your financial difficulties its hard to put them down on financial grounds. Then the axe of repossession falls and its too late. 

As for more valuable stock; if you show any signs of getting income from selling them, the finance company is all the more likely, IMO, to seek to gain control itself, to be sure that the money comes into its coffers. 

Of course, the welfare organisations should come between the finance clawback and the horses to ensure humane treatment; yet here it seems that the bankrupted ex-owners were left, without funds, to feed and tend horses which they no longer owned and which they had been forbidden by the new owners (the finance company) to touch, for some time before the sale. I would say the passable but less than ideal condition of the animals at the sale is at the same time a credit to the ex-owners for managing as well as they did, and a reproach to the far better-funded bodies who should, both morally and legally, have been attending to their care.

OK, when we fall down on the care of our animals or of our finances, we have responsibility for it; but once onto the bankruptcy chute we also LOSE that responsinility; it is taken from us and other, supposedly more responsible bodies take over. Don't imagine for one minute that this couldn't happen to any of us; it could; it has happened to others and will happen again. Therefore we need to make sure that the "professionals" concerned in the clearing up process ARE in fact competent, law abiding, humane, responsible and not motivated by financial gain first and foremost; THAT is why this case is such an eye opener and so important.


----------



## Ponyplanet (5 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I would have to agree that those who are intent on blaming the ex-owners here are rather missing the point. By the time the horses were earmarked for sale the matter was out of their hands. 

The important issue here with regard to how the horses came to be sold is the matter of DEBT and REPOSSESSION. Its easy to think something like this will never happen to you; but it can, and when it does, if your biggest moveable asset is your breeding stock, then they will be taken and sold. The law as it stands, in dealing with living animals as inanimate chattels, doesn't seem to give them much protection. I understand that even horses belonging to a third party, at livery in the fields of someone subject to such a seizure can be taken; how this can be, since it is clearly unjust, I don't know.

When your herd includes retired animals commercially worthless except as meat, what do you do? You can't sell them on and whilst you think there is a way out of your financial difficulties its hard to put them down on financial grounds. Then the axe of repossession falls and its too late. 

As for more valuable stock; if you show any signs of getting income from selling them, the finance company is all the more likely, IMO, to seek to gain control itself, to be sure that the money comes into its coffers. 

Of course, the welfare organisations should come between the finance clawback and the horses to ensure humane treatment; yet here it seems that the bankrupted ex-owners were left, without funds, to feed and tend horses which they no longer owned and which they had been forbidden by the new owners (the finance company) to touch, for some time before the sale. I would say the passable but less than ideal condition of the animals at the sale is at the same time a credit to the ex-owners for managing as well as they did, and a reproach to the far better-funded bodies who should, both morally and legally, have been attending to their care.

OK, when we fall down on the care of our animals or of our finances, we have responsibility for it; but once onto the bankruptcy chute we also LOSE that responsinility; it is taken from us and other, supposedly more responsible bodies take over. Don't imagine for one minute that this couldn't happen to any of us; it could; it has happened to others and will happen again. Therefore we need to make sure that the "professionals" concerned in the clearing up process ARE in fact competent, law abiding, humane, responsible and not motivated by financial gain first and foremost; THAT is why this case is such an eye opener and so important. 

[/ QUOTE ]

yes good post


----------



## brucea (5 November 2009)

I know the gentleman who is supervising the liquidation and I understand it was at his insistence the SSPCA were there at the sale - and he has had a strong personal committment to the welfare of the horses and ponies all the way along in as far as it has been possible in the circumstances.


----------



## Blanche (5 November 2009)

and he has had a strong personal committment to the welfare of the horses and ponies all the way along in as far as it has been possible in the circumstances. 

[/ QUOTE ]


"As far as has been possible in the circumstances." Excuse me but what the f*ck is that supposed to mean .


----------



## SFleetwood (5 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I know the gentleman who is supervising the liquidation and I understand it was at his insistence the SSPCA were there at the sale - and he has had a strong personal committment to the welfare of the horses and ponies all the way along in as far as it has been possible in the circumstances. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely the SSPCA would have become involved the minute the animals were seized by the liquidators?  So interested in animal welfare or not, the SSPCA were bound to be involved......


----------



## jamesmead (5 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 I know the gentleman who is supervising the liquidation and I understand it was at his insistence the SSPCA were there at the sale - and he has had a strong personal committment to the welfare of the horses and ponies all the way along in as far as it has been possible in the circumstances.  

[/ QUOTE ] 

SMID, is this gentleman himself experienced with horses? One would not expect the liquidators to be necessarily experienced with livestock; so am I reading in this that the SSPCA were brought in specifically to oversee the welfare issues at the liquidators behest? Or is this gentleman supervising the sale itself, rather than the liquidation as a whole?

If the former, did the SSPCA offer him advice on the inappropriate nature of the sale? The shipment of the horse on box rest? The need to maintain the animals before the sale? The possible fate of the elderly ponies? If so, why did he not take it?

Would this gentleman also be the person responsible for the illegal passport fiasco?


----------



## Var (5 November 2009)

I woudl seem to be in the minority in terms of being ok with the auction - there are more people upset by the auction than not.  However, i stand by what i have written earlier in this thread.   I would add that everyones individual view is subjective but what i have reported above is my take on it - and i'm far from being hard hearted! 

I am a neutral bystander with no axe to grind - i have no knowledge of the stud and the circumstances leading up to this nor have i any connection with any of the agents running or overseeing the auction.

I do feel from reading the reports that there is another agenda going on (i AM speculating now) where people are using this situation to stir up either the backstory to the auction, professionalism of mart/vets/sspca agents and the passport issue for other ends. 

I dont wish to add to the speculation on the stud and why this happened nor their financial situation as it really is none of my or anyones business.  I posted originally because i did want to express that the views of those disturbed by the auction was not a unamimous one.

Jamesmead your post is interesting and well written and should serve as a warning to everyone (as regards how a financial crisis impacts on our animals).   I am not complacent about the auction I'm just not getting carried away in a tide of emotion.  This auction was not Verden but it was a long way from being a welfare situation.  

I can see that mistakes were made with passports and as i have said before its clear new owners have some work to do in resolving their paperwork.


----------



## AengusOg (5 November 2009)

I think it's also important to point out that the mart in question is very well versed in the running of auctions at which horses are sold. They have several rare breed (including horses and ponies) sales in the course of a year, and are also very heavily involved in the auction sales of cattle and sheep.

They will have been very sure to have conducted this sale in a professional manner and, I'm sure, will have met any legal requirements necessary to ensure that professionalism.

The mart are under no obligation to provide sustenance for any animal tendered for sale through them, unless those animals are held on mart premises for a day or more prior to the sale taking place. Animals delivered to, and sold through the mart on the same day are generally tended by the vendors, and are not the responsibility of the mart. Any failing, on that score, on the part of the vendor should have been addressed by the SSPCA.

I reiterate that I doubt the mart would wish to fall foul of the law regarding the sale of a horse without a passport, but that their only concern would be that any horse they sold should have a current passport pertaining to that animal. 

That only leaves the vet(s) out in the cold on the (alleged) duplicate passport issue, as this is not part of the SSPCA remit, and should be none of their concern.


----------



## magic104 (5 November 2009)

"I woudl seem to be in the minority in terms of being ok with the auction - there are more people upset by the auction than not. However, i stand by what i have written earlier in this thread." - I think you are missing the point.  1)  Most people are concerned that horses were sold with having a duplicate passport issued &amp; a 2nd MC inserted,  2) That the receivers or whoever was in charge of the horses failed to ensure they had access to water, what seems to be a whole day in the pens &amp; 3 Why these horses could not be sold from the farm as it included Stallions &amp; elderly animals.  I have no issue with sales, what I hate is to see elderly animals going through possible stress of a sale when they may struggle to find a good home &amp; really should be PTS.  There are not many people that attend sales that are looking for a cheap companion, so where is the market for a 30yo pony/horse?  I stand by my statement that it is disgusting to treat an elderly animal in this way.  You have no control over who buys the animals &amp; I feel you owe them more.  Others can state this is the fault of the stud, but I am not so sure they realised that their horses would be seized in this way.  Anyway the main concern here is what happened with this issuing of duplicate passports.


----------



## Ponyplanet (5 November 2009)

as stated to me by several persons who attended IN PERSON at the sale that the horses only stood without water from 10am to noon, well I am sorry but my horses go this long without water when transporting them or at a show &amp; as yet to have one keel over.

I believe there are valid reasons which will come to light eventually as to why some horses did not have their original passports and therefore new passports had to be applied for to be able to get them in new homes.


----------



## Amymay (5 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 without water when transporting them or at a show &amp; as yet to have one keel over. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

I think that we would all agree that what we may do in private, and what is done at a professionaly run and SSPCA monitored sales are two different things.

You may not offer your horse water for two hours when travelling.  However, I expect it's the first thing you do when you arrive at your destination.  As for being at a show all day - again, I would most certainly hope that your horse is offered water.  But if you choose to withold it - that is your perogative.

You seem not to fully grasp the welfare issues that the management of this sale have raised.


----------



## Ponyplanet (5 November 2009)

well fill me in Sally, I get that it was a poor decision to cart old scared ponies to a Mart to sell off to raise money to pay off the depts, I get that Sally, I really do.. however as the vet in attendance was a top equine vet, as the decision to cart them to the mart was not made by the vet or I doupt the sspca then I am struggling to see why ppl are trying to call them into question?


----------



## Cuffey (5 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
well fill me in Sally, I get that it was a poor decision to cart old scared ponies to a Mart to sell off to raise money to pay off the depts, I get that Sally, I really do.. however as the vet in attendance was a top equine vet, as the decision to cart them to the mart was not made by the vet or I doupt the sspca then I am struggling to see why ppl are trying to call them into question? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely the point is that no one took a stand, the vet, the SSPCA,  the Animal Health Officer, and said NO to these elderly ponies and horses being sold in this manner.  Without their co-operation the sale could not have gone ahead.

If The Shetland Pony Society can say and I quote from their rules for sales at mart
''ponies over 18years have to have vet cert and nothing over age 20 allowed at the sale''  
Thainstone have regular SPS sales so would be well used to these guidelines

This is unlikely to be the last of this kind of sale in the current economic climate
Please let us learn lessons from this and make our opinions known to prevent more elderly horses and ponies having to go through this.


----------



## LynneB (6 November 2009)

I think you will find it was all day they were without water and not 2 hours


----------



## jamesmead (6 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's also important to point out that the mart in question is very well versed in the running of auctions at which horses are sold. They have several rare breed (including horses and ponies) sales in the course of a year, and are also very heavily involved in the auction sales of cattle and sheep.

They will have been very sure to have conducted this sale in a professional manner and, I'm sure, will have met any legal requirements necessary to ensure that professionalism.

The mart are under no obligation to provide sustenance for any animal tendered for sale through them, unless those animals are held on mart premises for a day or more prior to the sale taking place. 

[/ QUOTE ]   

[ QUOTE ]
  I reiterate that I doubt the mart would wish to fall foul of the law regarding the sale of a horse without a passport, but that their only concern would be that any horse they sold should have a current passport pertaining to that animal. 


[/ QUOTE ]

I too would expect a responsible and professional attitude from a mart for whom livestock sales are routine. 

However, my representative's attempt simply to find out the mart's policy on animals being presented and known to have false or illegal documentation or on unfit animals being presented for sale, met with what seemed to be a lot of hot potato passing  as soon as it was realised that this sale was the one of interest.  

The livestock section couldn't say; as far as they were concerned it was all down to the SSPCA, but she could try calling someone in another department; but the person to whom the call was directed was not available until next week.

Another call produced another responsible person, who remained resolutely on other calls but passed on via his secretary that he didn't know the answers; he was only the organiser; he didn't do the livestock stuff. The seriousness of the passport issue and its wider significance was clearly described to the mart, but the overall impression was one of ducking any responsibility, despite an awareness that things were not as they should be.

I'm sorry but I do not think the mart can be held blameless. With its lack of clear guidelines and its present attitude, comprising a willingness to sell coupled with an apparent unwillingness to shoulder any responsibility for what is being sold, you have the perfect loophole for the passing on of unfit or stolen stock.

Lastly, re. the water; I believe the stock were transported to the sales venue THE PREVIOUS DAY. Can anyone confirm this? If so, and what AengusOg says is correct, would the mart be responsible for watering them? Were they, in fact, watered at all? Out of interest, who had provided the fodder and bedding? 

One experienced buyer has confirmed that their new horse proved desperately thirsty when offered water; more than one could have expected. I would be interested to know whether others also found this. The trouble is, we don't know how long these horses went without; the duration of the sale may only have been part of it.

I think the post by Cuffey (?) suggesting that the real problem was a mass denial of responsibility really hits the mark. No doubt there was pressure by the finance company, based on purely financial considerations; yet vets, the SSPCA and an experienced livestock mart were involved and IMO allowed themselves to be the tools by which this sale was steamrollered through.


----------



## snoopmummy (6 November 2009)

The horses were indeed taken to the Mart the previous day and held in back pens as there was a cattle sale the previous day as well. A relative of mine was on the phone to the owners as the horses were being loaded at the farm, and she herself was very upset when she heard what could only be described as distressed horses in the background.  I repeat again what I said in a previous post, that there was no water available for the horses from the time we arrived at 10a.m. till we left after 2p.m. Neither was there any sign that there had been any water in those pens prior to our arrival as there would have been signs of water on the floor.


----------



## Cuffey (6 November 2009)

Water

Jamesmead
I have it on good authority that the horses stayed overnight in a ''different building'' and were indeed hayed and watered and on good beds
So water was withdrawn during the sale only
My concerns with this practice (and it happens at many marts) is that horses are transported on without watering possibly for many hours and then may drink rather too much.
Up to point of sale hay and water are the responsibilty of the seller--bedding down to the mart


----------



## jamesmead (6 November 2009)

Cuffey, thanks for that. I am very relieved at that!


----------



## no_no_nanette (6 November 2009)

I am surprised that there currently seems to be a resounding silence from all those involved with this sale - are they all hoping that there will be a brief flurry of concern and then it will go away, do you think?  That often seems to be the approach from DEFRA, for instance.  Ciss is obviously pursuing the passport issues, which is great - but in terms of the lessons learnt on the welfare front,  I wonder if anyone from the mart, SSPCA or DEFRA will ever bother to respond publically, let alone change their policy as a result of this experience?


----------



## Ciss (6 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

I believe there are valid reasons which will come to light eventually as to why some horses did not have their original passports and therefore new passports had to be applied for to be able to get them in new homes. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Passport law makes it an offence to issue a second passport when an original one is known to exist, even if that passport is currently with the PIO for updating * rather than in the possession of the keeper*. This law is specifically in place in order to prevent duplicate passports being issued for horses offered for sale, as the original passports must provide full medication history for meat standards reasons (sorry to raise this aspect of the legislation but it is why the whole area of passports comes under the aegis of DEFRA). Any duplicate passport issued in haste before such a sale is not likely to have this information and will almost certainly not have had section X completed to indicate that they were not for human consumption as this would have limited the potential purchaser base (ie cut out the meat men) which I doubt the Receivers would have wanted. 

The fact that a considerable number of the horses sold at the sale had catalogue entries citing valid UELNs issued by registered studbooks (including those issued by studbook PIOs abroad) proves that the animals concerned had valid passports and that if any others were issued -- especially if original microchips were found and a second still inserted -- they would be duplicates. Also presumably these original passports (or photocopies, valid documentation etc relating to them) must have been in the possession of the Tullynessle Stud (or whoever was acting as as the official keeper) up until the time the animals were removed from the farm as otherwise these UELNs and registration details could not have been included in the catalogue. So if any duplicates were issued they will have been issued after the catalogue was compiled and one does wonder where the originals have gone.

Furthermore, in the case of the animals with passports currently with a PIO for updating (even if abroad) it is possible that an offence could have taken place in even removing them from the farm in the first place, let alone in selling them with a duplicate passort, as legally no equine is not allowed to travel except when accompanied by its original passport.

IOW, if the situation is as described above there are therefor no 'valid reasons' for these illegal actions of issuing of a duplicate passport and knowingly transporting and selling a horse with an illegally issued duplcate passport took place or any way any meaningful justification can 'come to light eventually' to explain how ittook place within the law.


----------



## greymare1 (6 November 2009)

Tovee, He has gone to an experienced home that will look after him well, indeed he looks different already. The dreadlock are gone, and he is now a little grey welsh pony again.
He is going to be used as a stallion, but also as a teaser, and he is certainly not a beginners pony,cute as he may look, he is all stallion!
I worked with him years ago when I was at the stud, one of many grooms that did not last.
Please be assured that he will be well looked after, and is not up for re-sale, sorry.


----------



## Kilbricken (7 November 2009)

Thankyou Ciss for putting the passport issue firmly back into the discussion.

Whilst I was/am very concerned about the welfare issues arising out of the day, it's the passport issue that I find most concerning.

I think passport issues like this and headlines in Horse and Hound about things like the TB with multiple MC are a wider concern for both horse owners (with and without passports) and wider ramifications for horses that do not have full medication history for meat if they can then have duplicate passports in order to circumvent existing drug history in a horse.

I'm rather concerned by this Defra lapse and the precedent it could set.


----------



## brucea (7 November 2009)

Thank you for your articulate reply Blanche...

 [ QUOTE ]
 "As far as has been possible in the circumstances."  

[/ QUOTE ] 

Means just that. In as far as it has been possible welfare of the horses has been top priority. SSPCA have been involved in a supervisory role all along - not just at the mart which is, by any measure, not a horse friendly environment

I know this gentleman - his kids sometimes ride my ponies - and he is non horsey, is very much aware of this - and has engaged the people who do know.


----------



## brucea (7 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I do feel from reading the reports that there is another agenda going on (i AM speculating now) where people are using this situation to stir up either the backstory to the auction, professionalism of mart/vets/sspca agents and the passport issue for other ends. 


[/ QUOTE ] 

Yes - I am sensing that too.


----------



## jamesmead (7 November 2009)

SMID, thankyou for answering the first part of my previous question, to confirm that your gentleman is non-horsey and that he was relying on the expertise of the SSPCA who were involved well in advance of the sale. 

I went on to ask:

[ QUOTE ]
 did the SSPCA offer him advice on the inappropriate nature of the sale? The shipment of the horse on box rest? The need to maintain the animals before the sale? The possible fate of the elderly ponies? If so, why did he not take it?

Would this gentleman also be the person responsible for the illegal passport fiasco? 


[/ QUOTE ] 

I do not feel that it is either helpful or necessary to look for ulterior motives in the response to the handling of this case. It is, quite simply, unacceptable in its own right. To say that the gentleman in charge of the sale is a nice chap whose kids ride your pony, is actually an irrelevance; the sale for which you suggest he was responsible was still badly mishandled, with instances of real disregard for welfare and serious disregard for the law.

I for one want to know what went wrong here. My "ulterior motive" is the protection of my own horses; I want to know that if they are stolen they are not illegally re-passported and passed on unquestioningly by people who are aware that things are not quite right, but are not prepared to stand up and say so. I want to know that if, God forbid, my horses ever fall into the receivers hands, they won't get the treatment that THESE horses got. 

Unless we figure out how the system failed and how the parties involved were able to act as they did with no brake upon them, it WILL happen again. 

I would say the character of the individuals concerned is actually irrelevant; it is how they functioned within the system that matters. Otherwise, how could a nice guy whose kids like ponies mastermind such an abomination of a sale?


----------



## brucea (7 November 2009)

I was at the sale jamesmead - were you?? 

It was no worse, and actually a lot better if the truth be told, than any other pony sale I have seen at the mart. In fact I have seen an awful lot worse, without the hew and outcry that this seems to have produced. 

I am sory you have taken such heated exception to my coments about his character or that his kids sometimes ride my ponies - it was simply a comment and should have been taken at face value for what it was.

But you cannot blame the receiver for the mart environment, passport irregularities, or that the ponies themselves had to be disposed of in this manner. This is all a situation that he inherited, and has had to do the best with.

The elderly ponies, I understand, all went to good homes.

However, I wonder if the receiver should be perhaps informed of your intemperate accusations? I think I'll print this thread out and head up with it. It may be of considerable interest to him.


----------



## Amymay (7 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'll print this thread out and head up with it. It may be of considerable interest to him.  

[/ QUOTE ] 

Brilliant idea - or just point him in the direction of the forum.  He may welcome the opportunity of attempting to address some of the concerns.


----------



## Blanche (7 November 2009)

SMID 

   My reply re " As much as was possible etc " was implying that it was a complete cop out . Welfare issues don't allow for someone doing what is possible for a receiver , the animal is either has his or her needs met or they don't . It appears that in this case they didn't . By sticking your head up your a*se and trying to make out everyone has no idea what they are doing doesn't help your case . If you have this receiver person at your elbow now ( or are indeed him) ask him whether he would stick a Picasso and Van Gogh that he had seized in a damp , leaking garage . I think not . They would be treated with the respect they deserve . So why not these animals ? I await , with baited breath , your reply !!


----------



## brucea (7 November 2009)

I assume that you were there..you haven't cleared that one up yet. Were you there Blanche or SallySmith? Who was actually there? Hm..let me guess...maybe neither of you?

Sally - this has been done now.

Blanche - the unfortunate way that you express yourself speaks far louder than any message you are trying to communicate. 

I am not trying to make out that "everyone has no idea what they are doing" - just that those who inherited this situation were doing the best they could do, in the circumstances, which were less than ideal.

Enough is enough. Moderator please close this thread before there is a legal issue with the opinions being expressed and the allegations being made.


----------



## pdiplock (7 November 2009)

greymare1, thanks for the update on the Welsh Stallion. We are relieved to know he has found a good home. I would like to comment on the situation but given the threads thus far it is probably best not to. Suffice to say it would appear that all of the horses have gone to good homes where they will be looked after and tended to as they deserve! The fuss over the technicalities of the sale is missplaced in my view. I for one, from a position of knowledge and not conjecture, am very pleased that all of the horses in question have found new homes and do not have to suffer yet another winter without the necessary care and attention!


----------



## Maesfen (7 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]

 - just that those who inherited this situation were doing the best they could do, in the circumstances, which were less than ideal.

Enough is enough.  

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite right too IMO.  Enough was enough and whoever was responsible for this sale going through as it did, has only themselves to blame for this discussion.

Everyone accepts marts are not the friendliest of places for any animal, that is without question.  What is questioned is the decision to send these horses, particularly the elderly and infirm, away from the farm when the sale could just as easily - and with far less costs involved, be held at that premises.  Whoever decided the mart it had to be obviously has no heart towards animals; the same job could have been done far more humanely than it was done, of that, there is no doubt.  The good things as far as we are aware is that the horses seem to have gone to good homes for which we can only be thankful.

What the majority are up in arms about is the duplication of passports and micro chips which is against the law and gives us fellow horse owners little confidence in the future safety of our own animals because this  duplication was done for convenience and who's to say it will not happen again with possibly a stolen horse, if this is allowed to to go unchallenged.  Whoever was responsible for the duplications has set back the confidence of the general horse owning public that the laws of this land will be adhered to by everybody without fail and as such, they should be brought to book, whether that be the SSPCA, the vet involved or your friend himself.  There was absolutely no excuse for that to happen and that is why people have been so cross because we all, to some extent feel threatened for the safety of our own horses knowing this was possible somehow, apparently with full co operation from the very authorities that are meant to uphold the law.


----------



## Kilbricken (8 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
What the majority are up in arms about is the duplication of passports and micro chips which is against the law and gives us fellow horse owners little confidence in the future safety of our own animals because this duplication was done for convenience and who's to say it will not happen again with possibly a stolen horse

[/ QUOTE ] 

This is the crux of things for me (and thankyou for MFH09 for re-establishing it). I am really perplexed by those people who think this is a trivial issue or one that is being blown out of proportion. It's certainly going to make a mockery out of the point of NED or even tracking where horses are going in the food chain if it's simple enough to get a replacement passport and microchip.

Perhaps it's time for a freedom of information request to Defra on how many cases of duplicate microchipping have been found....it may unearth more of this issue going on than just the alledged events at this scottish sale.

Defra assured the general horse owning population that the above would not happen when passports were first introduced. And because of this many people gained faith in both passporting and NED...


----------



## jamesmead (8 November 2009)

SMID, I think you are misunderstanding me. I will deal with your comments in turn.

[ QUOTE ]
I was at the sale jamesmead - were you?? It was no worse, and actually a lot better if the truth be told, than any other pony sale I have seen at the mart. In fact I have seen an awful lot worse, without the hew and outcry that this seems to have produced.  

[/ QUOTE ] 

I was not at the sale; but this is irrelevant. The issues that I find most worrying (need I list them again?) are well documented; attending the sale would not alter my views on whether a horse should be unnecessarily transported with an injury or given an illegal passport. That you have seen worse than this and consider it acceptable IMO undermines the credibility both of the mart and of your own judgement.

What HAVE you seen, exactly?...





 [ QUOTE ]
I am sory you have taken such heated exception to my coments about his character or that his kids sometimes ride my ponies - it was simply a comment and should have been taken at face value for what it was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nowhere have I taken "heated exception" to your comments about this man's character; in fact I believe I accepted your judgement of his character, calling him a "nice guy"- but pointing out that this was irrelevant; his being a nice guy did not prevent the passport and welfare issues previously detailed. I reiterate; I am looking at this chiefly as a failure of systems and procedures; the faults need to be found and the systems and procedures need to be addressed.   

[ QUOTE ]
  But you cannot blame the receiver for the mart environment, passport irregularities, or that the ponies themselves had to be disposed of in this manner. This is all a situation that he inherited, and has had to do the best with.

[/ QUOTE ] 

I have not blamed the receiver. Since YOU have credited him with responsibility for this sale, I have asked you to confirm, given the irregularities, whether the SSPCA whom you say he involved in the proceedings to deal with the welfare aspect, advised him appropriately or whether responsibility is truly his; and if so, why he chose the course he did. All fair questions, I think. 

 [ QUOTE ]
   The elderly ponies, I understand, all went to good homes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fortunately. However, I don't think the receiver was responsible for this.

[ QUOTE ]
 However, I wonder if the receiver should be perhaps informed of your intemperate accusations? I think I'll print this thread out and head up with it. It may be of considerable interest to him.  

[/ QUOTE ] 

Far from making any intemperate accusations, I have simply asked for information. You yourself detailed the receiver's position in this; I feel it needs further clarification. 

The problems are real; something went very wrong here; so why? What happened? 

As others have noted, I feel from the emotional tone of your post and your final threatening stance, that you know this man as a friend and are seeing him in this light; effectively that the hidden agenda is one of friendship and is your own. Please note that I do not know him, so have no axe to grind with the man as a person; I am more interested in his professional involvement here, as detailed by yourself.


----------



## brucea (8 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 As others have noted, I feel from the emotional tone of your post and your final threatening stance, that you know this man as a friend and are seeing him in this light; effectively that the hidden agenda is one of friendship and is your own.  

[/ QUOTE ] 

Not at all emotional about this, and I am not misunderstanding you - your posts and those of others (who also seem not to have been there) are perfectly clear.

However I  know a bit more about the circumstances than you obviously do, and have the common sense and discretion not to sound off in a public forum in a way that is open to be interpreted as allegations of misconduct and potentially illegal activity. 

I was also at the sale, which you were not, and saw the animals and the way they were handled first hand, which you did not - thank you for confirming that.

Also, comments made such as "should have been sold from the farm" do not take into consideration a) whether the farm has the required parking, public safety measures, insurance, facilities etc., for such a sale to take place, and that the horse that wa on box rest would have had to travel anyway when sold. 

There were about 250 people in that auction room - not that many equestrian premises up here can park that number.  Also it has rained up here for the last 5 weeks and much of the ground is waterlogged - which would have made parking in fields and lanes entirely unsuitable. 

On the passports - yes, the system is lax, loose, open to misuse, not thought through, easy to manipulate and lots of other things. It's been like that since it was introduced. But in this case there were dicrepancies between the schedule and the horses reported ages, and there were passport issues. 

But take a reality check please - there was compliance with the law as far as was possible, this is a liquidation and the receivers are not equesterian specialists, the mart is primarily for agricultural animals and probably the lead auctioneer (in common with many horse owners themselves!) may be unclear about the detail regulations surounding passports.

All that I have been trying to articulate, obviously badly since it's not being heard, is that there are many aspects of this whole situation that are less than ideal, and these were inherited by the team responsible for the sale. I know these people individually, and they were doing the best they could with what they had. 

SSPCA are not equestrian specialists so passport issues would probably be lost on them, there was a equestrian vet in attendance - and this is generally not the case in regular horse and pony sales.

So - please step off your soapbox before you make further indiscrete accusations. A public forum like this is not the place to make allegations of misconduct! 

P.S&gt;

 [ QUOTE ]
 That you have seen worse than this and consider it acceptable  

[/ QUOTE ] 

Is entirely an entirely unnecessary and petulant comment - I *have* seen a lot worse than this, and in common with everyone else on this forum , I don't consider any mistreatment of, or illegal activity around, horses or any other animal "acceptable".


----------



## magic104 (8 November 2009)

So - please step off your soapbox before you make further indiscrete accusations. A public forum like this is not the place to make allegations of misconduct!  - OH so the reports of duplicate passports/MC's is untrue?  If not then it is misconduct, surley because the law has been broken, reasons already highlighted.  

P.S&gt;


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That you have seen worse than this and consider it acceptable 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Is entirely an entirely unnecessary and petulant comment - I have seen a lot worse than this, and in common with everyone else on this forum , I don't consider any mistreatment of, or illegal activity around, horses or any other animal "acceptable".  - So why is it wrong for people to question horses having no access to water for hours, or the selling of very aged animals?  This has been confirmed by people who attended the sale &amp; the catalogue which clearly stated two 30yo ponies.  Just because there are/have been worse sales, this makes it alright, I dont think so.  Moving forward ignorance will no longer be an excuse.  If these receivers ever have to conduct a sale of animals like this again they will be better informed which can only be a benefit to the animals concerned.

If people took the attitude of SMID &amp; swept things under the carpet (which for years took place) then the scandle of MPs expenses would have stayed hidden.  Bringing issues out into the open can only be a good thing.  If any of the observations made here on this thread are incorrect then they should be addressed by the appropriate bodies whether it be here on in an interview with an equestrian magazine.  Though as it is public money that funds DEFRA it is in the general publics interest, so why confine to an equestrian magazine!.  Whether the guy was santa claus is irrelavant.  What is relavant is if the law was broken, why &amp; how to stop it ever happening again.  I along with 1000's of others have my horses passported &amp; MC'd, I am going to be extreamly pissed off if someone could just take one of them &amp; sell it because they have been able to obtain a passport with no questions asked.  And there should be, because unless this animal is a foal, why are people trying to obtain original passports past the deadline?

"The Horse Passports (Scotland) Regulations 2005

  Made 21st April 2005   
  Laid before the Scottish Parliament 22nd April 2005   
  Coming into force 16th May 2005"

Citation, application and commencement
     1.  - (1) These Regulations may be cited as the Horse Passports (Scotland) Regulations 2005 and shall come into force on 16th May 2005.

 Interpretation
     2. In these Regulations-

"horse" means a domestic animal of the equine or asinine species or a crossbreed of those species;

"keeper" means a person appointed by the owner to have day to day charge of the horse;

"local authority" means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994[2];

"passport" means-

(a) an identification document for a horse issued by a passport-issuing organisation containing all the information required by regulation 9(3) or 1(3); or

(b) in the case of such an identification document issued before the coming into force of these Regulations but which does not contain the pages in Section IX of the passport, that document with the Section IX pages attached in accordance with regulation 10,

"sell" includes any transfer of ownership, and "sale" shall be construed accordingly.
Organisations authorised to issue passports
     3. The following organisations are authorised to issue passports (and any such organisation is referred to in these Regulations as a "passport issuing organisation")-

(a) organisations which maintain or establish stud-books for registered horses and which are recognised by the Scottish Ministers or by any other authority in the United Kingdom competent to recognise such organisations under regulation 3 of the Horses (Zootechnical Standards) Regulations 1992[3];

(b) organisations recognised in another part of the United Kingdom or another Member State under legislation which implements either-

(i) Commission Decision 92/353/EC (laying down the criteria for approval or recognition of organisations and associations which maintain or establish stud-books for registered equidae[4]); or

(ii) Commission Decision 2000/68/EC (amending Commission Decision 93/623/EEC and establishing the identification of equidae for breeding and production[5]); and

(c) international associations or organisations which manage or regulate horses for competition or racing and which are registered with the Scottish Ministers under regulation 4.

International associations or organisations
     4.  - (1) Any international association or organisation which intends to manage or regulate horses for competition or racing in Scotland shall register with the Scottish Ministers under these Regulations before it does so.

    (2) Any international association or organisation which manages or regulates horses for competition or racing in Scotland and which immediately prior to the date of these Regulations coming into force was registered under article 4 of the Horse Passports Order 1997[6] shall be deemed to be registered for the purposes of paragraph (1).

    (3) Any international association or organisation registered under an equivalent statutory provision in force in any part of the United Kingdom other than Scotland immediately prior to the date of these Regulations shall be deemed to be registered with the Scottish Ministers in terms of paragraph (1).

    (4) The Scottish Ministers may refuse to register any international association or organisation which seeks registration under paragraph (1), or may withdraw registration from an international association or organisation registered or deemed to be registered under paragraph (2) or (3), and if the Scottish Ministers so refuse or withdraw registration the refusal or withdrawal, and the reasons for it, shall be given in writing.

Powers and duties of passport-issuing organisation
     5.  - (1) The passport-issuing organisation is "the competent authority" for the purposes of the passport.

    (2) A passport-issuing organisation may cancel a passport issued by it if it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that-

(a) the provisions of these Regulations have not been or are not being complied with; or

(b) the owner has left the passport incomplete or it has been falsified in any way.

 (3) When a passport is returned because a horse has died, the passport issuing organisation shall mark the passport accordingly but may then return it to the owner if permitted by its rules.

Records
     6.  - (1) A passport-issuing organisation shall maintain records of-

(a) information contained in applications for passports and for Section IX pages;

(b) any change of ownership of a horse; and

(c) the death of a horse.

    (2) It shall keep these records until three years after the death of the horse.

    (3) A passport-issuing organisation shall supply to the Scottish Ministers information from its records in such form and at such intervals as they may require by notice in writing.

Application for a passport
     7.  - (1) An application for a passport shall-

(a) be made by the owner of the horse;

(b) be made in writing to a passport-issuing organisation; and

(c) be in the format specified by that organisation.

    (2) No person shall apply for more than one passport for a horse except-

(a) for a replacement passport in terms of regulation 16; or

(b) for another passport in terms of regulation 22.


Time limits for obtaining a passport
     8.  - (1) The owner of a horse which was born before 16th May 2005 who does not already have a passport for that horse shall apply for a passport for it before 16th June 2005.

    (2) The owner of a horse born on or after 16th May 2005 shall obtain a passport for it on or before 31st December of the year of its birth, or by six months after its birth, whichever is the later.

Issue of a passport
     9.  - (1) On an application for a passport, and provided all its requirements are complied with, the passport-issuing organisation shall issue a passport.

    (2) A passport issued in terms of paragraph (1) shall be completed, to such extent as may be required by these Regulations, in the format set out in Schedule 2.

    (3) In the case of a horse either registered or eligible for entry in a stud-book of a registered organisation in accordance with Article 2(c) of Council Directive 90/426/EEC (on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae[7]), the passport shall contain all the Sections specified in Part II of Schedule 1.

    (4) In any other case the passport shall contain at least Sections I to IV and IX but may contain more Sections or all the Sections specified in Part II of Schedule 1.

Section IX pages for existing passports
     10.  - (1) In the case of a horse born before 16th May 2005 which already has an identification document issued by a passport-issuing organisation containing all the information required by regulation 9(3) or 9(4) except for the Section IX pages, a passport may consist of that identification document together with the Section IX pages obtained by the owner from a passport-issuing organisation, provided that the owner-

(a) applies for those Section IX pages before 16th June 2005; and

(b) attaches them to the identification document.


    (2) Regulation 7 applies to an application for Section IX pages as it applies to an application for a passport.

    (3) The Section IX pages issued by a passport-issuing organisation shall contain the same number or alphanumeric code as in Section II of the original identification document.

Identification
     11.  - (1) The passport-issuing organisation when issuing a passport shall identify the horse with a number or alphanumeric code not previously used by that organisation.

    (2) It shall record the number or alphanumeric code in Section II of the passport.

Language of passports
     12.  - (1) All passports issued in Scotland shall be in English and French, except that Section IX may be in English only.

    (2) A passport or any part of it may notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (1) incorporate a translation into such other language or languages as the organisation or association thinks fit.

Horses entering Scotland
     13.  - (1) The owner (or, in the case of an owner living outside Scotland, the keeper) of a horse brought into Scotland without a passport (or with a document which would be a passport but for the fact that it does not contain Section IX pages) shall apply for a passport or Section IX pages within 30 days of the horse being brought into Scotland.

    (2) A horse brought into Scotland in terms of paragraph (1) must remain on the premises within Scotland onto which it has been brought until a passport has been issued for it.

    (3) This regulation shall not apply in relation to a horse which remains in Scotland for less than 30 days.

Declaration concerning slaughter
     14. Where a passport has been issued for a horse, the owner of the horse shall sign the declaration in Section IX of the passport concerning whether or not a horse is intended for slaughter for human consumption-



(a) if the horse was located in Scotland on the date when the passport was issued, before the first movement of the horse from the premises on which it was located as at that date;

(b) if the horse has been brought into Scotland on or after 16th May 2005 in terms of regulation 13, before the first movement of the horse from the premises within Scotland on which it is located on the date when the passport was issued (in which case the declaration must state that the horse is not intended for human consumption);

(c) before the horse is consigned for human consumption (in which case the declaration must state that the horse is intended for slaughter for human consumption); and

(d) before any veterinary medicinal product containing a substance specified in Annex IV to Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2377/90 (laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin[8]) is administered to a horse (in which case the declaration must state that the horse is not intended for human consumption).


Prohibitions
     15. 

    (1) No person other than a passport issuing organisation acting in the course of its duties shall without lawful authority-

(a) destroy or deface a passport;

(b) alter any entry made in Section I of the passport;

(c) alter any of the details in Sections II or III of the passport unless authorised in writing to do so by a passport-issuing organisation;

(d) make an entry in Section IV of the passport except in accordance with the rules and regulations of a passport-issuing organisation, and no person shall alter any entry; or

(e) alter any details in Sections V, VI, VII, VIII or IX of the passport.

    (2) No person shall without lawful authority possess a passport which that person knows to be false.

Replacement of a lost or damaged passport
     16.  - (1) Where a passport has been lost or damaged the owner of the horse shall apply for a replacement passport for that horse-

(a) where the passport-issuing organisation of issue is known to the owner, to that organisation; or

(b) where the passport-issuing organisation of issue is not known, to any passport-issuing organisation.

    (2) Where the passport-issuing organisation applied to in accordance with paragraph (1) issues a replacement passport, it shall be marked with the word "Duplicate".

    (3) Where a passport is damaged the owner shall send it with the application for a replacement to the appropriate passport-issuing organisation in terms of paragraph (1) and-

(a) if all the original information in the Section IX of the passport is legible the replacement passport shall repeat that information;

(b) if any information in Section IX of the passport is illegible the owner shall indicate in the replacement passport that the horse is not intended for slaughter for human consumption by completing Part II of that Section.

Restrictions on the movement of horses without passports
     17. On or after 16th August 2005, no person shall move a horse-

(a) for the purposes of competition or breeding;

(b) out of Scotland;

(c) on to the premises of a new keeper; or

(d) for the purpose of receiving veterinary treatment,

unless the horse is accompanied by its passport.


----------



## brucea (8 November 2009)

OK - I've said my piece, trying to bring some balanced perceptions to the discussion. 

I simply don't have time in my life to make 23000+ posts like SallySmith, and it's pointless engaging in any further discussion here where threads start sensible and just disolve into harangue.


----------



## magic104 (8 November 2009)

You are on a hiding to nothing because you are coming across as trying to justify what took place.  Most people do not have a problem with horse sales in general, that was not the issue.  You have come across as defending these people who organised &amp; arranged this sale, that is fine, except we are being told the law was broken, not acceptable.  We are being told that very aged ponies were sold, again not really acceptable especially if these ponies were then deprived of water for hours.  There are lessons to be learnt &amp; these would only have come about because people stood up &amp; made them known.  Like it or not, people who should of questioned the proceedures of this sale, appear not to have done.  If this was down to ignorance, as I stated before, this wont be the case in the future.  I think this is a good thread which has bought to light many loop holes which need addressing.


----------



## Cuffey (8 November 2009)

Please note the 2005 legislation has been replaced by
The Horse Identification (Scotland) Regulations 2009


----------



## Maesfen (8 November 2009)

Thank you Magic; eloquently put.


----------



## Anon2 (8 November 2009)

Has anyone really thought about the fact that it should have been and was THE OWNERS responsibility to have these horses passports in the 1st place, none of the horses are foals or were under 4 year old hence the passports should have been with the owners.  Obviously they were not so technically they have commited an offence. I am sure that the authorities did everything in their power to locate these passports which have been missing for some time. 

I am also NOT hearing any confirmation that anyone has actually got a horse with 2 microchips (which i doubted in the first place), as a vet would not chip an already chipped horse again.  Scanners DO read all chips (foreign or not).

On the issue of the elderly horses, I agree it is horrible that they had to go through this sale but hey what was the option - leave them at the stud to lose weight and condition over another winter - i think not.  I have it on good authority that the owners were being advised since last spring to sell or cut down the amount of horses over the summer - but did they do anything - NO.  I also know that they were not banned from touching the horses and if it was your horse, would you not have put the elderly ones to sleep before all this.  Its all very good to blame everyone else but take on your own responsibilities.

On the last point the horses had water up until people came to mart for viewing and the sale was over by lunchtime, if water HAD been put in stalls, I bet people would then be complaining that the horses were standing in wet bedding.  I think the mart and other organisations involved did the best for these horses that they could in the situation.  As someone else said they are better of being sold (even if it was to the meat man) than standing in a field with no grazing or feeding as has happened.  As it turns out they are very fortunate to have found new homes which i am sure delights everyone involved.

To iterate my main point "What is best for the horses?".  To be sold through a well organised sale? or to be left and taken out as welfare cases at a later date.....

And i - like SMID will not be sitting here replying to nonsense replies from people who were not at or have the details of the actual facts.


----------



## Mithras (8 November 2009)

No-one likes this sort of situation occurring.  But in view of the large scale involved, was it not the best way of dealing with it?  All the horses involved seem to have been rehomed, probably satisfactorally.  What would have been better?  To have let the situation deteriorate until it became a notorious welfare case?  We are talking about Aberdeenshire going into winter, not a mild climate, but the north of Scotland.  Can you imagine what would have happened if the reciever had not acted going into winter but had waited until the spring???

I was not present at the sale, though I wish I had been as there might have been something worth buying.  However I do know someone who was made bankrupt and was permitted to keep all his horses plus the land on which they grazed.  He successfully pleaded that the horses were too old and unsound to sell (which wasn't true, as one of them was my old pony, not old at that stage!).  That was more than 10 years ago, and he still has them to this day, and they are well looked after and happy.  However he was not running a commercial business and the reciever in that case obviously decided that was the best outcome.  In such cases, the receiver has discretion to act in what he/she sees is the best interests of the case, taking all factors into account.

I find it overly emotive to suggest that horses cannot be taken to a sale.  Given, for the older ones it is a shame.  But the others can cope with it.  To suggest otherwise would be akin to suggesting it is cruel to ever sell a horse, move yards, take it to a show, etc..

I can't see anything which suggests that this unfortunate situation was handled in a satisfactory way.  

The passports are another issue.  I'm not a fan of the passport legislation anyway.


----------



## snoopmummy (8 November 2009)

I WAS there, and although the sale was over by lunchtime many of the horses were not collected till much later and were still left standing with no water. I'm also aware that there was information on health issues for some of the horses which was witheld.And when animals are sold without being brought into the ring how can anyone see if there is any lameness? I know they were stallions and safety had to be an issue, but surely that's wrong. 
I was also there when the youngster who had been so sedated due to stress almost asphyxiated herself with her neck over the bar. We were the ones who managed to sort that out. 
As regards those who reckoned this was no different from the average horse sale,I  feel there is a difference between a sale comprising horses/ponies individually entered, as opposed to a whole group suddenly removed from their environment.


----------



## magic104 (8 November 2009)

No-one likes this sort of situation occurring. But in view of the large scale involved, was it not the best way of dealing with it? All the horses involved seem to have been rehomed, probably satisfactorally. What would have been better? To have let the situation deteriorate until it became a notorious welfare case? We are talking about Aberdeenshire going into winter, not a mild climate, but the north of Scotland. Can you imagine what would have happened if the reciever had not acted going into winter but had waited until the spring??? - No one has stated there was a problem with the sale as such.  The issue lays with selling 30yo ponies, &amp; if it could not have been done from the farm.  There are plenty of questions, another one being why if there was an issue earlier in the year the horses were not advertised &amp; private sales sought?  I ask this because it is quiet rare to achieve a higher price via an auction, well this type of sale anyway.  Yes the receivers have to get the best possible price but surely this has been going on for months, therefore horses could of been sold long before now.

I was not present at the sale, though I wish I had been as there might have been something worth buying. However I do know someone who was made bankrupt and was permitted to keep all his horses plus the land on which they grazed. He 

I find it overly emotive to suggest that horses cannot be taken to a sale. Given, for the older ones it is a shame. But the others can cope with it. To suggest otherwise would be akin to suggesting it is cruel to ever sell a horse, move yards, take it to a show, etc..

I can't see anything which suggests that this unfortunate situation was handled in a satisfactory way. - No it does not sound as if it was satisfactory you are correct there.

The passports are another issue. I'm not a fan of the passport legislation anyway - Perhaps but they are here &amp; we have to work with them.


----------



## Ciss (8 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 On the passports - yes, the system is lax, loose, open to misuse, not thought through, easy to manipulate and lots of other things. It's been like that since it was introduced. But in this case there were dicrepancies between the schedule and the horses reported ages, and there were passport issues. 

[/ QUOTE ]

An interesting statement as it does imply that those issuing the passports knew that there were issues regarding some of them. But if they did do this knowing that and some of the passports were duplicates then claiming that there are faults in the system that monitors this is no defence in law (but perhaps expresses a worrying attitude that we know that some ID-only PIOs have that it is all right to do it as long as you don't get caught &lt;sigh&gt; and the lack of extra funding for the TSOs means that the risk is worth taking).

[ QUOTE ]
 But take a reality check please - there was compliance with the law as far as was possible, this is a liquidation and the receivers are not equesterian specialists, the mart is primarily for agricultural animals and probably the lead auctioneer (in common with many horse owners themselves!) may be unclear about the detail regulations surounding passports. 

[/ QUOTE ]

A debateble point, especially as the legislation in effect since 1 July this year specifically identifies the validity of passports issued by recognised PIOs in other member states and the Defra rules for PIOs for efficient operation requires them that where there is any evidence of an exisiting passport (eg reg nos, UELNs, microchips, numbered brands) the PIO asked to issue another passport must check with the original issuing body concerned as to the validity and last known whereabouts of that passport. IOW even if the passports are with a studbook in another country awaiting updating (for whatever reason) then those passports are valid and must not be duplicated. A specialist animal auctioneer is expected to be aware of all the current legislation in areas such as this and specifically they -- and the PIO issuing the passports -- will be aware that ignorance of the law is no defence. So although 'compliance with the law as far as possible' is presumably meant as a reason why passports (possibly duplicate) were issued to so many of the animals so near to the date of the sale -- as after all no equine can be moved or offered for sale without a passport and that was one way of making sure that the passport legislation at least appeared to have been complied with -- this again is surely an inadequate defence, especially as the passport legislation was specifically franed to stop this happening. The problems caused by this (now admitted) partial compliance is what is really worrying many of the people on this forum as they know that only complete compliance makes the issuing of duplicate passports (for whatever reason) impossible within any section of the law.

[ QUOTE ]
 All that I have been trying to articulate, obviously badly since it's not being heard, is that there are many aspects of this whole situation that are less than ideal, and these were inherited by the team responsible for the sale. I know these people individually, and they were doing the best they could with what they had. 

SSPCA are not equestrian specialists so passport issues would probably be lost on them, there was a equestrian vet in attendance - and this is generally not the case in regular horse and pony sales.

[/ QUOTE ]

There were a large number of workshops nationwide -- including ones specifically for animal charities and vets -- to explain the working of the revised legislation so again their ignorance is no defence.

[ QUOTE ]
 So - please step off your soapbox before you make further indiscrete accusations. A public forum like this is not the place to make allegations of misconduct! 

[/ QUOTE ]

No allegations of misconduct on my part. I am just highlighting the legislation and the that are offences committed when specific points of it are broken. I have never said that they were broken in the case of this sale, just that X would apply if Y section of the law was infringed. I do hope that nothing untoward did happen leading up to and during the sale but those concerned must already be aware of the consequences if anything did happen as I know that the passport section of DEFRA will have made both the PIO and the auctioneers concerned aware many times of all of this both before and since 1 July.


----------



## Alec Swan (8 November 2009)

To quote the inimitable, and horrible,  Michael Winner,  "Calm Down Dear"!  I have,  I must admit,  only picked up on this since the initial offerings were struck off.

Whilst I may well have locked horns with some of you in the past,  I would,  none the less,  applaud all of you for your level of care.  You may well have squabbled,  a trifle,  but the intention I am certain was the same,  that the right thing be done by the animal.

I would have but one small offering,  and it's this, "Who,  in their right minds would offer a 30 year old horse through a sale ring?  Better the hunt kennels,  surely"

Alec.


----------



## wendyII (8 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
  Has anyone really thought about the fact that it should have been and was THE OWNERS responsibility to have these horses passports in the 1st place, none of the horses are foals or were under 4 year old hence the passports should have been with the owners. Obviously they were not so technically they have commited an offence. I am sure that the authorities did everything in their power to locate these passports which have been missing for some time.

I am also NOT hearing any confirmation that anyone has actually got a horse with 2 microchips (which i doubted in the first place), as a vet would not chip an already chipped horse again. Scanners DO read all chips (foreign or not). 

[/ QUOTE ] 

Local I feel you have made some valuable comments which does cast a different perspective on this affair and I can only hope that the accusations made on this forum by its members are proven to be factual and not based on information being drip fed to support an alterior motive.

It has been noted that a number of the horses had UELN numbers, so ask is this is sufficient evidence that passports had been previously ISSUED? Judging by what has been reported they were evidently not in the owners nor the Trustees possession at the time passport applications were made. The horses have been in the care of the trustees for many months prior to the sale providing ample time for both the stud and the Trustees to resolve the passport issues.

It has been stated some of the horses did not have breed society passports some of which were four years old, and a number of persons have reported that these horses were sold with basic ID passports, despite some valuable breeding history being known. The report on H&amp;C claims that a number of the animals were "Graded" but that the breed society has yet to receive any documentation from the stud. Some drew the conclusion as I first did prior to the press release, that these animals had therefore been passported previously with the breed society in question but it has now been revealed that this is not the case. 
Therefore one does have to ask why so much laxity surrounds the correct registration of the animals in the first instance. It does indeed seem that the Trustees inherited a great deal of abnomalities, not that this is an excuse for choosing not to rectify the situation. However it was most defintely the Studs responsibility first and forremost to have their horses correctly documented as this their legal obligation and no excuse can be made for a four year old not having a passport, even if difficulties arose with registering the horse with a Breed society the horses should at least have had a passport by the age of four. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





It is my undertsanding that some of the horses were sold with their original breed society passports, some have been sold with id passports that did not have any previous passport issued and a few have been claimed as having been issued with id passports when Bred Society passports had been previously issued, so ask how many? and for which horses / ponies? Not that I wish to undermine the severity of the offense (if indeed any offense has been committed) as even ONE secondary passport application made when it was known that a previous passport was in existance is already one too many and exposes failure in the system but I would like to know the FACTS regarding these allegations.

I too feel very strongly that if the allegations made on this forum are true they should not be brushed aside lightly, passport fraud is a serious offense and could have detrimental affects to all horse owners as the system has been put in place to protect the fair trade of horses and prevent animals from entering the food chain if previously adminstered harmful drugs

However like Local, I am awaiting confirmation that the allegations made against the Trustees are FACTUAL. If it turns  out as heresay, anyone that has contributed to those allegations publicly could be opening themselves to litigation. The same can be said about accusations made against the vets involved, claims have been made that horses were issued with second microchips. I still have not been able to establish if this is an offense? nor, like Local, been able to establish which horses/ponies were actually administered with a second microchip if asny at all?

I am assuming that the press office of H&amp;H will be speaking with all parties involved, including the PIO's that "allegedly"  issued the initial passports, the vets that adminstered the "second" microchips, the Trustees and the Stud,  prior to publishing an article regarding the sale in order that the truth be established and that any crimes IF any will be investigated.


----------



## wendyII (8 November 2009)

@ Ciss you make repeated reference to "Duplicate" passports, correct me if I'm wrong but a Duplicate is a copy of an existing document and from what I undertstand PIO's can issue Duplicate passports when the existing passport has been lost, one of our hunters has "Duplicate" stamped on every page of his passport. To state that providing a "Duplicate" passport is an offense is IMO  misleading. 
The allegations made in this discussion are that secondary passports were issued by a secondary PIO when it was known to the applicant that a passport was already in existance or have I got it all wrong?? 
It is my undertsanding that when an application is submitted to a PIO it is the applicant that signs the declaration that in the best of his/her knowledge no previous passport application has been made, or something along those lines.
I assume therefore under these circumstances that the PIO cannot be held responsible for issuing a passport UNLESS additional information such as a UELN is provided on the passport application?? 
In which case it would be very worrying indeed that the PIO did not follow up their own investigations as to whether a passport had indeed been previously issued. 
If the PIO involved had issued a passport willingly, knowing that a passport had already been issued  then they would be breaking the law, so I seriously hope that this is not the case and trust that DEFRA's enquiry will be able to reveal the facts behind this event.


----------



## Ciss (8 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 Ciss you make repeated reference to "Duplicate" passports, correct me if I'm wrong but a Duplicate is a copy of an existing document and from what I undertstand PIO's can issue Duplicate passports when the existing passport has been lost, one of our hunters has "Duplicate" stamped on every page of his passport. To state that providing a "Duplicate" passport is an offense is IMO  misleading. 

[/ QUOTE ]

That sort of duplicate passport is of course allowable (and I don't think anyone here is likely to be confusing the two). Also you will find in your duplicate passport that section X has been marked 'not for human  consumption' even if you (or a previous owner) had not designated it as such. This is done becuase the medicinal career of any animal with a duplicate passport cannot be closely accounted for so legislation requires that duplicates issued in this way (ie by the original issuing PIO as a replacement for a document that has been proven lost, destroyed etc) have Section X marked in this way.

[ QUOTE ]
 The allegations made in this discussion 

[/ QUOTE ]

I must point out that I have made no allegations, and have just pointed out where the irregularities that others have contended have occured would be infringements upon the legislation currently in force if they are proven to have occurred.

[ QUOTE ]
 are that secondary passports were issued by a secondary PIO when it was known to the applicant that a passport was already in existance or have I got it all wrong?? 

[/ QUOTE ]. 

That is correct, but using the word secondary in reference to the passport is not the usual phraseology or term used by either PIOs or DEFRA for such documentst, whereas 'duplicate' is. 

[ QUOTE ]
 It is my understanding that when an application is submitted to a PIO it is the applicant that signs the declaration that in the best of his/her knowledge no previous passport application has been made, or something along those lines.
I assume therefore under these circumstances that the PIO cannot be held responsible for issuing a passport UNLESS additional information such as a UELN is provided on the passport application?? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Not entirely, as especially if there are triggers that indicate that a passport exists (as I said in a earlier post these include UELNs being quoted in related documents, microchips already being in place, brands being evident etc) then if operating efficiently the PIO must make sure that they confirm that no existing passport exists. Also, as the offence is not only issuing a duplicate passport but also issuing a duplicate unique life number (since 1 July no horse is allowed to have two if the second one is knowlingly issued after 1 July 2009, in the same way as it is an offence since the same date to insert a second microchip when one is already scanned in place) then the existence of a UELN number is in itself regarded as indicative that the responsibility for the registration process and the issuing of the passport is the responsibility of the PIO that issued that UELN, regardless of the location of the member state in which that PIO is based.

[ QUOTE ]
 In which case it would be very worrying indeed that the PIO did not follow up their own investigations as to whether a passport had indeed been previously issued. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree.

[ QUOTE ]
 If the PIO involved had issued a passport willingly, knowing that a passport had already been issued  then they would be breaking the law, so I seriously hope that this is not the case and trust that DEFRA's enquiry will be able to reveal the facts behind this event. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is what we all hope that DEFRA's investigations will reveal. Sadly, it has happened before, but not -- to my knowledge -- on this scale since the new legislation was introduced, but time will tell.


----------



## wendyII (8 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
 That sort of duplicate passport is of course allowable (and I don't think anyone here is likely to be confusing the two). Also you will find in your duplicate passport that section X has been marked 'not for human consumption' even if you (or a previous owner) had not designated it as such. This is done becuase the medicinal career of any animal with a duplicate passport cannot be closely accounted for so legislation requires that duplicates issued in this way (ie by the original issuing PIO as a replacement for a document that has been proven lost, destroyed etc) have Section X marked in this way. 

[/ QUOTE ] 
Thats good to know,will have a look tomorow, still think the term duplicate is misleading though. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[ QUOTE ]
Not entirely, as especially if there are triggers that indicate that a passport exists (as I said in a earlier post these include UELNs being quoted in related documents, microchips already being in place, brands being evident etc  

[/ QUOTE ] 

Older foreign horses branded may not have been issued with a passport, that could be one explantion I guess, as Passports have only been brought in since when 2001?  can't remember. If branded after that then yes we would expect a passport to having been issued. We have an older Grade A mare branded mare that was purchased without a passport many moons ago, and we had to apply to the KWPN when the passport legislation came into effect for a breed society passport the only documents we had for her was her breeding papers.

The main question remains for the time being, were any of the horses actually sold with new passports which were actually in posession of any of the latter. This is the only concern that I have in this affair as it raises questions into the whole passporting system. I guess there will always be people who go out of there way to commit fraud for their own benefit and no system is infalable so am really hoping for everyones sake that none of the offenses took place and that most of what has been said is speculation.


----------



## sywell (9 November 2009)

The problem of ID only PIOs issueing passports to horses that already have passports must be stopped and is quite clearly covered by the legislation. It is to stop horses at livery or stolen getting new passports and being sold. I checked the German National Database and it records one  passport as having been issued and the name of the last recorded owner in the UK. All the people concerned will have liability under the legislation from the keeper, to the person who falsely applied for a new passport having most likely signed on the application that the horse had no passport.


----------



## sywell (10 November 2009)

Hopefully there will be reprecussions on the contravention of the Horse Passport Order legislation for the keeper,owner and passport issuer for horses that had second passports issued. It is clear that if a horse is quoted as having a UELN no ID organisation should issue a passport as there are indications that it already had a passport and all horses with German UELN born since 2000 will have passports with Section IX. The keeper is responsible to see the horse has a passport and do the liquidators become the owners during a bankruptcy? A PIO is responsible to check that a horse does not have a passport it may not be on NED but the UELN would indicate its PIO and this is an EU regulation not a UK one and the PIO should check.


----------



## tweedette (12 November 2009)

Hi, all, I went to the sale, the welsh stallion brought £200 , I had a look at him as I used to own Halwyn, and remember the mare being brought to him, she belonged to a friend of ours Mr and Mrs Pygott, from Wakefield. He was very similar to his sire an old fashioned sort of welsh, but he was in fairly good condition.

I was told the sale happened becuase the owner - a forner lottery winner -  had gone bankrupt. The auctioneers were only told the previous friday that the sale was going ahead. I did buy a horse with a spurious passport, so it would be good to hear from others who did the same, plus what they are doing about it. I contacted the oldenburg rep in england, gave her to horses breeding, as i know he was inspected last year, just the paperwork had never been paid for but shes looking into it, my thoughts are if I have to pay for the papers its no big deal the horse was cheap enough, still if a number of us could prove its the trustees who should pay to reinstate the horses to how they were advertised, then lets go for it.


----------



## Ciss (12 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
. I did buy a horse with a spurious passport, so it would be good to hear from others who did the same, plus what they are doing about it. I contacted the oldenburg rep in england, gave her to horses breeding, as i know he was inspected last year, just the paperwork had never been paid for but shes looking into it,

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the right thing to do -- contact the studbook PIO (or the studbook PIO's UK rep if the studbook is based abroad)  and ask them to help you sort it out. I have put a number of people in touch with the Oldenburg rep already (PM me for her contact details if this is your situation and you didn't know what to do until now) and one or two are also due to be sorted out by WBSUK so we are getting their slowly.

[ QUOTE ]
 My thoughts are if I have to pay for the papers its no big deal the horse was cheap enough, still if a number of us could prove its the trustees who should pay to reinstate the horses to how they were advertised, then lets go for it. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree and the more evidence we can get together the better it will be, especioally as yesterday -- when this whole issue was discussed at a major inter-breed society meeting  -- I heard someoen who has had several encounters with such operations (not in realtion to their own property of course) describe Receivers as 'always thinking themselves above the law' :-(.

Let's show them that as far as passport law and animal welfare they are certainly not. 

BTW, I have been in touch with DEFRA and they are 'investingating'. I have decided to wait until Friday and then pursue them as a matter of urgency to find out what the outcome of their preliminary investigations are. This is mainly becuase many studbook PIOs are concerned that such apparent flouting of the regulations must mean that the ID-only PIO concerned -- and its vets and agents --are not 'operating efficiently' which is the phrase used to identify the criteria by which DEFRA monitors the performance of all PIOs, both stud book and ID-only.


----------



## tweedette (12 November 2009)

The thing is , you would see a horse with a painted 7 on it have a 11 auction number, how do we really know what we have bought until the true paperwork comes through with all the horses markings and true age?. I too contacted defra and left a message but did speak to the passport people, who kindly gave me the contact name for the defra man  he is simon elliot 0207 2384422. The oldenburg rep in england is louis allard 0152 524 0094, I have rang twice now leaving a message the second time, asking what the situation is with the society,.
The passport people did say that it was illegal to issue a second passport , and it could bring about a fine of 5k per horse, hope the trustees appreciate this , as it could pose a costly rushed exercise.


----------



## bombproof (12 November 2009)

Things just seem to get worse.Having read the posts of a horrendous situation for the past owners , new owners and officials one of the worst things we all seem to have forgotten about is the horses . In care of the SSPCA - trustees ? A joke ! I have been informed that one of the horses had live maggots on it , unbelievable but true  . How could vets , 
DEFRA etc allow an animal in this condition to be passed as fit for sale ??

Impossible to imagine what this horse was going through for a number of months in the care of our supposed Scottish rescue society . Why were the ILPH not requested to help here ? The have far more experience of horses and how they should be handled and cared for - The SSPCA were obviously well out of thier depth .


----------



## auchenblae (13 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
The auctioneers were only told the previous friday that the sale was going ahead  

[/ QUOTE ] 

This is inaccurate.  I have been reliably informed that the auctioneers were trying to get passports several weeks before the sale (this came from the auctioneer himself), so they had been involved for some time.


----------



## tweedette (13 November 2009)

True, they said they had been aware of the horses for some months and last winter the SSPCA were brought in, but the auctioneer said , although they had been aware of the horses they were not issued with instructions to sell them until the friday preceeding the sale - I'm only passing on what Iwas told. 
One of the ponies was scouring quite badly, and the poor exmoor which made £20 was hyperventilating all during viewing and the sale, I did point this out to the sspca who was chatting with pals, who told me she already knew, the thing I was concerned with was that this kind of stress can bring on travel tetany, so lets hope all the animals got home safely.


----------



## delphie468 (13 November 2009)

tweedette if the horses passport hadn't been paid for nor the passport issued then technically the passport that was paid and processed start to finish  would have been the horses first passport, did the receivers have a legal obligation to complete the initial unpaid for passport application???


----------



## tweedette (13 November 2009)

Thats what the passport agency and DEFRA(rang him yesterday - left a message) are looking into, plus I'm waiting to hear from the oldenburg uk rep(rang her yesterday - left a message) to see if I pay can I get my horse's oldenburg papers released in my own name?

Until I hear something concrete from either, I dont know whats going on, but, if I do manage to get the original papers from germany then its casts doubt on the validity and aquisition of the passport obtained by the trustees which I was given wihen I bought the horse.

A real can of worms, still the more who get involved the better, to me the trustees were way out of line, had very little knowledge of the value nor true welfare or future of the goods - in this case horses and ponies) they were instucting to be sold, a sad day indeed.

On a better note, the horse we bought is doing really well, putting condition on nicely, accepting work , had its teeth done plus some shoes on , I'm well pleased.


----------



## Ciss (14 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
tweedette if the horses passport hadn't been paid for nor the passport issued then technically the passport that was paid and processed start to finish  would have been the horses first passport, did the receivers have a legal obligation to complete the initial unpaid for passport application??? 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

To clarify: 
Whilst there is no requirement by DEFRA for UK ID-only PIOs to check with studbook PIOs that a passport has not been issued by any of them for a horse (even a mature horse, not just a foal) :-( this does not mean that the following regulations might not almost certainly be broached when such a 'duplicate' passport is issued:

(i) the requirement that no horse as more than one UELN, so that any UELN issued before 1 July 2009 will always be the legal one that must not be replaced by any other one issued later than 1 July 2009, regardless of whether the 'original' passport and UELN is available for inspection or not. In this case. as a number of the German and Dutch passports already appear to have legitimate UELNs any duplicate passports with new second UELNs (which they will have) that are knowingly / deliberately issued to such horses (eg to any of the German ones cited with German UELNs in the catalogue and the ones with KWPN numbers that are automatically converted into 15-digit format by the KWPN upon updating) would appear to be issued in direct contradiction to this regulation. 
(ii) with reagrd to those animals whose original passports are still in Germany awaiting issue after payment, as many German studbooks issue UELNs for prospective foals upon covering, all animals awaiting completion of their registration documents in Germany (for whatever reason) will already have had their German UELN issued to them so again passports containing a new UELN for these animals would also appear to be issued in contradiction of the law.
(iii) Since 1 July 2009 it is in direct contradiction of the passport regulations to re-microchip an already microchipped equine. Vets are now required by law to check for a microchip before inserting one and almost all the foriegn passported animals with UELNs issued by a studbook PIO abroad will have been microchipped before registration / issue of passport and this info probably included in the passport when issued. Any animal with a passport issued with a new UELN leading up the sale will therefore have been microchipped at some point and if any of those animals received a second microchip as part of the process of issuing it with a new / duplicate passport then this would appear to be in direct contradiction of the new regulations too. 
(iv) Evidence of a brand of a recognsied studbook (which almost all of the Oldenburg horses will have had but not the KWPN ones) should also act as a trigger for research into the current microchip / passport status of the animal concerned and a knowledgeable vet working within the law will always do this.

It would therfore appear that if any of what is being reported as having happened actually did, then -- regardless of whether or not the passports were in the UK and accessible to the vet, Receiver or auctioneer --  at least TWO of the other regulations that form part of the passport lawas were being flouted anyway. 

The penalities for such breaches are the same as those for breaching any other part of the passport legislations, ie (at top) £5000 per offence and/or 2 years in prison (but this is usually suspended to encourage future compliance), which few if any seem to be aware of. Perhaps this incident might wake some of them up to that.

As a point of interest, according to BEVA the failure / loss rate of correctly inserted equine muicrochips is almost zero (except in minature shetlands who have much smaller crests), so the possibility of not being able to find them in such a large group of horses, if they were already microchipped, is extremely unlikely and therefor actually statistically impossible for all the animals that it could be contended that it might have happened to.


----------



## tweedette (14 November 2009)

We have a microchip reader, so will take it over when next I go to see the horse as it reads all microchips not just uk ones, it will be interesting to see if the horse has two microchips , its a real can of worms and so unfair to the horses really. 
thanks for the info though all we can do as purchasers is wait until someone gets back to us, though I will be cage rattling come monday lol.


----------



## scotia2k7 (25 November 2009)

Dreadfully sad to read this.  My yard boss went to the sale (home empty handed) &amp; we had Classico &amp; Donavan with us last year to get ready for gradings.  Im pleased to hear these guys went on to good homes, both were nice boys.

scotia


----------



## GORDON11 (24 January 2010)

hi does anyone have info on a black n white cob mare . name carousel .dob 1995 came from tullynessle she had a couple of foals i think  cheers


----------



## Cuffey (24 January 2010)

She was Lot 20 in the sale
Think she sold for around £450 no idea who bought her and very much doubt auctioneers would tell you--data protection etc


----------



## RA4 (8 January 2014)

http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/local/woman-caused-horses-to-suffer-1.173754


----------

