Chief Stipe Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 Thanks to the 3,000 bureaucrats at MPI the fines have gone up for "Striking a horse on the head".. 20Persons must not strike horse on its head (1) A person must not strike a horse on its head. (2) A person who fails to comply with this regulation commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,500. (3) The offence in subclause (2) is an infringement offence with an infringement fee of $500. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted November 25, 2020 Author Share Posted November 25, 2020 But tell me how this works with a harness horse..... 19Use of equipment that may injure horses (1) The owner of, and every person in charge of, a horse must ensure that— (a) any halter, lead rope, or other equipment on the horse’s head or neck does not— (i) cause a cut that bleeds or discharges; or (ii) cause a skin abrasion that bleeds or discharges; or (iii) cause a swelling; or (iv) prevent the animal from breathing normally or drinking; and (b) any other equipment used on the rest of the horse’s body does not— (i) cause a cut that bleeds or discharges; or (ii) cause a skin abrasion that bleeds or discharges; or (iii) prevent the animal from breathing normally or drinking. (2) A person who fails to comply with this regulation commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $900. (3) The offence in subclause (2) is an infringement offence with an infringement fee of $300. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted November 25, 2020 Author Share Posted November 25, 2020 I know it has been a long time since I worked with young harness horses BUT can you actually break in young horses now and hopple them WITHOUT breaking the skin? Don't you need hopple chafe anymore? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 These regulations are to aid in the prosecution a person when they abuse a horse, not to prosecute people in the every day training of them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted November 26, 2020 Author Share Posted November 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Happy Sunrise said: These regulations are to aid in the prosecution a person when they abuse a horse, not to prosecute people in the every day training of them. Really? Then why don't they say that? We have seen numerous instances of where laws such as these have been abused in their application. It is a poorly written Act that is administered NOT by the racing codes but by MPI. I mean FFS did you read the section about how to kill a crayfish? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 23 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: about how to kill a crayfish? No I didn't. 5 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: A person must not strike a horse on its head. Pretty good rule don't you think? After watching some of the treatment of horses and animals that is caught on camera I think they can up the fine to whatever they want. When Gavin Smith whacked his other runner in a Rangiora trial awhile back with his whip it barely caused a ripple. An action like this is why they have rules like these. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted November 26, 2020 Author Share Posted November 26, 2020 7 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said: No I didn't. Pretty good rule don't you think? After watching some of the treatment of horses and animals that is caught on camera I think they can up the fine to whatever they want. When Gavin Smith whacked his other runner in a Rangiora trial awhile back with his whip it barely caused a ripple. An action like this is why they have rules like these. You miss the point. If you read section 19 that I posted above theoretically someone could complain that the hopples placed on most young horses cause the issue as described. Essentially, unless there are new methods, the hoppling of a young horse inevitably causes issues with broken skin and often resulting in bleeding or discharge. Here is what MPI can do about it: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/animals/animal-welfare/regulations/guide-to-the-animal-welfare-care-and-procedures-regulations/ What you need to do Most of the regulations are based on current practice or existing minimum standards in the codes of welfare, so if you're already doing it right you won't see a lot of change. But some people may need to: change their practices provide additional staff training make other changes to the way they care for their animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: You miss the point. Ok. I am not concerned about rules like this as they are essentially unenforceable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: Really? Then why don't they say that? We have seen numerous instances of where laws such as these have been abused in their application. If MPI is responsible, you’ve nothing to worry about. In the last month alone, they’ve been caught with their pants down twice. In one case they declined to prosecute a serious animal welfare breach and in another recommended that provisions of the 2018 Animal Welfare Act be ignored. Both cases were subsequently taken up by private complainants who prevailed in court. MPI won’t even know these regulations exist, let alone enforce them. At very best, they’ll be used, as Happy suggests, as padding in more serious cases. The far greater concern, as always, is that those more serious cases will simply be brushed under the carpet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted November 26, 2020 Author Share Posted November 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Happy Sunrise said: Ok. I am not concerned about rules like this as they are essentially unenforceable. Until some animal rights anti-racing activist starts making complaints. Did you know the latest MPI protocol for killing live crabs or crayfish in a restaurant is to electrocute them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterthepunter Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 34 minutes ago, Basil said: If MPI is responsible, you’ve nothing to worry about. In the last month alone, they’ve been caught with their pants down twice. In one case they declined to prosecute a serious animal welfare breach and in another recommended that provisions of the 2018 Animal Welfare Act be ignored. Both cases were subsequently taken up by private complainants who prevailed in court. MPI won’t even know these regulations exist, let alone enforce them. At very best, they’ll be used, as Happy suggests, as padding in more serious cases. The far greater concern, as always, is that those more serious cases will simply be brushed under the carpet. keep live exports of cattle going MPI doing great job there 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted November 28, 2020 Share Posted November 28, 2020 On 26/11/2020 at 8:12 PM, Chief Stipe said: Until some animal rights anti-racing activist starts making complaints. Did you know the latest MPI protocol for killing live crabs or crayfish in a restaurant is to electrocute them? How do I, then, kill a crayfish [ legally] ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted November 28, 2020 Author Share Posted November 28, 2020 5 minutes ago, Freda said: How do I, then, kill a crayfish [ legally] ? I dont know - start the tractor up and use some jumper leads? Only applies to commercial businesses. Seems that the crayfish you catch have less feelings than the ones in the upmarket city restaurant. The mind boggles. They actually funded an expensive study to work out what a crayfish feels during different kill methods. Meanwhile the fish caught on a commercial fishing boat just suffocate. It's all woke nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted November 28, 2020 Share Posted November 28, 2020 28 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: I dont know - start the tractor up and use some jumper leads? Only applies to commercial businesses. Seems that the crayfish you catch have less feelings than the ones in the upmarket city restaurant. The mind boggles. They actually funded an expensive study to work out what a crayfish feels during different kill methods. Meanwhile the fish caught on a commercial fishing boat just suffocate. It's all woke nonsense. Hardly. Apart from animal welfare concerns having been around a lot longer than the woke movement (particularly its current manifestation), that movement has precisely nothing to say about animal welfare. They're completely separate positions. As for the difference in treatment of crayfish according to whether they're in a restaurant or a fishing boat, surely the solution is to fix the latter rather than decry the former. Or are you suggesting that two wrongs make a right and that policy should be guided by the lowest common denominator? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted November 28, 2020 Author Share Posted November 28, 2020 1 minute ago, Basil said: As for the difference in treatment of crayfish according to whether they're in a restaurant or a fishing boat, surely the solution is to fix the latter rather than decry the former. Or are you suggesting that two wrongs make a right and that policy should be guided by the lowest common denominator? You missed my point which was in response to Freda's question on how does she kill her crayfish. It appears that a cray in a restaurant has more important feelings because it is commercial. The law only applies to the commercial killing of crays. Presumably amongst the 3,000 MPI employees each earning $115,000 a year we now have commercial cray killing inspectors. No doubt they regularly check the electric stun guns they recommend to use. The reference to the commercial fishing boat was asking how is a crayfish anymore of a sentinel being than a schnapper? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.