This is just a quick post about the uproar beginning to occur about the gelding taking place at Calico of stallions under 4. (BLM update page here)
My inbox is beginning to receive a flood of mail. So I decided to post a response on the blog.
In order to actually understand this process the language within the lawsuits must be looked at. I have stated several times that terminology and definition will become increasingly important.
It is my understanding that the IDA (In Defense of Animals) suit deals with the issue of long-term holding.
An adoption event would not be in contradiction to any issue that deals with older horses heading to long-term holding.
Calico horses 4 and under are heading to an adoption event in July (rescheduled from May 15&16) regardless of the outcome of the suit.
In an email today from William Spriggs, Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney PC, he confirmed my understanding.
I am not privy to the specifics of the “no geld” conversation.
Something else to think about…
If the suit wins on long-term holding? The next step is not necessarily freedom.
IDA will need to first argue that long term holding violates current law. Then they will have to argue that returning the horses is not a violation of law. Then they will have to prove that it can be done and dispute the arguments from BLM that it was a necessary action to remove them (horses). So even if they win on long term as illegal, they may not win on the second part of the argument.
Language (specific, concise) is going to become very important.