Want to take a moment to address several things today.
First is that I have stated repeatedly that my blog is a blog. It is a place I express thoughts, info and feelings. On this blog I have an account written in a narrative form “general’s saga.” I have artwork under the “Expressions” tab. I have dialogue that expresses my impressions.
I also have written news articles for Horseback and the Examiner. Those are articles, a few are editorial, but easily identified. (example)
These are different formats.
There is a reason this is printed as a preface today.
Now back to the “True” Issue.
The BLM transported 82 horses last Wed. to the PVC center.
Wild horses, a good percentage of which are intact stallions, were moved for the adoption event earlier than expected. During sorting and shipping a higher probability for injury would exist within the “inventory.” This inventory represents the “items” identified as having a high probability toward adoption. Many because of interest already expressed by the public.
With a higher probability of injury (and at least one witnessed “putting up a fight” and injured) it is unclear to me why a vet visit was not scheduled until six days after such an operation. It is not as if we have a horse owner here concerned about the additional expense of a house call, we have an on staff vet.
Again keep in mind that the population that was moved is considered “highly adoptable” inventory. That population, from a management perspective, has the highest probability of return. It was also a visible opportunity to demonstrate the pro-active care given… instead of the reactive approach to crisis so often witnessed. (From top to bottom in this program).
When a prospective adopter expressed concern over the wounds witnessed in the horses they were following they were not met with any reassuring dialogue toward the animals that would require considerable expense to obtain and maintain. Again… from a management perspective … why would that adopter want to adopt? “Rescue” perhaps… but “adopt?” And then recommend the facility as a place to obtain a sound healthy horse? A large opportunity, not only missed, but turned into a negative experience.
Driving into PVC I expected to find an opportunity to address a more “pro-active” organized facility. An opportunity to look for “positives.” Didn’t find it.
I often approach these issues looking for the “bright side.” Continually I find areas where an understaffed, under funded, reactionary protocol is demonstrated.
In conversation the BLM tries to separate the facilities from the policy makers. It is not what I see. I see the same thought process at work.
Salazar created a “plan.” The plan is based on fear of ROAM (expressed publically at the SRM conference last fall). The plan is based on crisis intervention to an overwhelming inventory created by a protocol that doesn’t work. It is reactionary management. It does not address the root in a proactive form.
We can use many examples of this same strategy in the facilities.
A very basic example would be the stallions at PVC are now in a pen 25% smaller or less than at the Broken Arrow. Feeders are placed on two rails that run at a 90 degree angle to each other. Instead of placing hay down both rows to allow for easier access we have intact mature stallions biting each other at the feeders because the hay was placed only in the feeders on one rail. Stallions recently transported and now under the stress of vehicles, in view of training pens and fillies should have an attempt made to reduce stress. This pen also has the horses injured during transport. This situation can easily create a “crisis” type situation that could manifest by fighting in the pen and tension that will create a more difficult dynamic for the humans that will need to treat and eventually handle these animals.
Proactive measures can create less crisis management.
Back to True boy….
This injury occurred last Wed. I received conflicting information. “Discussions” occurred that were not conducive to an environment of trust and seemed based on a more personal agenda than anything related to promoting an adoption event.
His injury occurred on Wed. I viewed it Sat. The blood trail went over his hoof. I was not viewing the wound as it occurred or even in 24 hours after it was inflicted. If there were still “profuse” bleeding the horse would have been down from blood loss. I saw a wound that had debris in it. I saw a wound that had the skin that was peeled off the front of his leg beginning to harden leaving the wound itself open. This horse had wounds on three legs.
Another horse was not bearing weight on all fours.
If I managed this facility that adopts/sells horses to the public, a vet would have been on site asap.
The concept. to me, that these horses were not scheduled a vet visit simply related to shipment in a proactive manner toward probability, sits in bad taste. That the vet visit was not rescheduled after injuries were observed? With the animals deemed to have the highest probability of return? To the point that sale authority animals that would normally have slipped off with no recognition have a public recognition that now makes them worthy of a bidding process?
What is the common phrase?
Of yeah… head, desk… head, desk.
