Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- blog:2019:0208_goat_case [02/14/2019 18:30] – Alisssandra
+++ blog:2019:0208_goat_case [06/11/2019 01:44] (current) – removed Alisssandra
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-====== goat case ======
-goats seized taken due to hoof rot disease. 2 yrs prior Complaints that goats suffered hoof rot, but particular breed of goat naturally suffer hoof rot. Hoof rot can not be cured, but treated with zinc oxide greatly reduces inflammation. When goats have dry condition hooves are fine, and in wet condition hooves become inflamed with level of wetness increase hooves sensitivity. I don't know full detail of story.
-. During 2 yr complaint period did owner ask for prior building permit to build safe enclosure for goats?
-. Why wasn't vet able to examine goats day of seizure, and why was defendant denied right and transparency to be present at goat examination?
-. Why was gag order set on defendant?
-. Owner claims housing developments want owner out of business b/c they don't pay taxes for farmland?, Who else experienced seizure of land? Correlation needed to be proven.
-. How long were employees fired from date of seizure?
-owner's first offense goat seized, treated, and sold? Owner paid 5,000 fine, medical/care/shelter totalled 4,875, and legal fees. The Statement owner gave by admission. "When I found out goats were not kept treated I fired employees." Meaning owner was not aware of problem by not checking goats feet created a environment
-for neglect. My assertion could be wrong. a vet examined goats day of seizure without owner present creates lack of transparency and honesty. Punishment far exceeded crime.
-{{tag>critical}}