This paint pony estimated to be in his 20's was sold at a PA horse auction.

According to the

PA Cruelty Law, Title 18, Section 5511, (d):

It is obvious that this pony is in no condition to be worked. He is at the most a "2" on the Henneke Body Scoring Condition Chart.
 

All of his his ribs are prominent. His tailhead is prominent. His shoulder,withers and neck are more than "faintly discernible. It remains to be seen whether or not charges of animal cruelty  will be filed against the owner of this pony.

This pony went through the auction, not once, but twice! This pony was sold 2 times in one month at the same auction. Where was the PA SPCA?

If this pony is not in "very poor condition", then what is a horse in very poor condition?? Being old is no excuse for being emaciated. This pony is not sick, the results of blood tests haven proven he is not sick.
What this pony needs is food!
Considering the fact that there are several equine feeds on the market specifically formulated for older horses, there is no excuse for this pony's condition.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that this horse is in distress.
This horse is obviously debilitated.
If this is not a debilitated horse, then what is a debilitated horse?
There is an equine vet at this auction.
There was a PA SPCA agent at this sale.
Why was this horse allowed to be offered for sale?
This horse was later euthanised by a veterinarian after a full examination, and after efforts to treat his respiratory problem failed.
This horse never should have been brought to an auction.
The owner of this horse is required under PA law to provide this horse with necessary vet care.
The owner is prohibited under PA law to offer this horse for sale.
This horse should have been humanely euthanised long before he reached an auction.
This horse never should have been allowed to deteriorate to this level.

The EPN contacted the New Holland Police Department, NHPD, regarding these two debiltated horses due to the fact that the PA SPCA agent present at the New Holland Sale was not recorded in Lancaster County, PA on the date these horses were sold at the New Holland Sales Stables.

The EPN was present at Double D Rescue, Bethel, PA when the veterinarian was the examining the horses. The EPN instructed the vet regarding the evidence that needed to be collected to successfully prosecute a horse cruelty case. The EPN also made the vet aware of the wording of the PA Anti-Cruelty Law, Title 18, Section 5511(d), as he was unaware that a possible crime had been committed. The EPN also asked the vet if he would be willing to testify in court to the condition of these horses. The vet confirmed to the EPN and later to the NHPD that he was indeed willing to testify in court.

The New Holland Police Department filed charges against Rick Sterling, Wellsboro, PA for transporting the palomino gelding to the sale in New Holland, PA.

Mr. Sterling pled guilty to one count of cruelty to animals, Title 18, 5511(d). New Holland District Justice Hartman fined Mr. Sterling $50.00 plus costs, for a total of $125.00.

In June 2001 Debbie Polasek, of Double D Equine Rescue in Bethel, PA, who purchased the palomino gelding defended the actions of the PA SPCA agent in a message posted on the Carpe Diem Message Board:

" I'm sorry but I know for a fact that Pennell was going to file charges for Cheyenne and Apache but someone jumped in, before researching or collecting evidence, and went and called the police and bugged them until (according to an officer I talked to) they got sick of hearing her and pressed the charges to shut her up."

Questions

• How can an officer who is not recorded in the county where the crime took place file charges?



• Does the New Holland Police Department file charges to "shut people up" or do they file charges due to the fact that after investigating the complaint, the evidence supports the complaint?



• If the SPCA agent was going to file charges, then why didn't the agent properly take control of the evidence, the horse(s), and proceed to collect the evidence needed to present the case in court?



• Do law enforcement agencies routinely allow other individuals and organizations who are not trained in the Rules of Evidence and the Chain of Evidence to collect, hold and present their evidence?



• On what basis is Ms. Polasek basing her confidence that charges would have been filed?



• Is this confidence based on the PA SPCA's track record for filing charges against owners, dealers, and haulers who have transported and/or offered disabled, debilitated, lame and diseased horses in the period from May 2000 through May 2001?



• From May 2000 through May 2001 the PA SPCA has been present at the New Holland Sales Stables on a weekly basis. One charge was filed. The New Holland Police Department, NHPD, filed 2 charges in a 2 month period when responding to specific complaints. During this time frame horses have been offered for sale or transported to the sale that have had broken legs, severe injuries, been sick and or severely emaciated. Where are the charges?



• The PA State Police, PSP, filed 2 charges in one day, on a day that the PSP were conducting a detail in the vicinity of the sale.

The EPN filed a complaint with the New Holland Police Department, NHPD. The NHPD discharged their duty as they are sworn to do. The defendant was convicted. How much more proof is needed to demonstrate that a crime was committed and that the NHPD filed charges due to the fact that a CRIME was committed, not because the officer needed to "shut her up."

On what basis is Ms. Polasek basing her confidence that charges would have been filed?