Saturday, April 4, 2009

The best defense is...a really lame offense?

Remember the sad tale of the Dreamchaser's rescue, which looked like a dumping ground for old horses with serious conditions that no one could afford to obtain proper care for?

Well, Dreamchasers, like most faux rescues, is really good at one thing - conning people into believing their side of the story. With that in mind, it's no surprise they got a newspaper to print this ludicrous story defending them.

Internet Smears Hurt Horses

"The woman said Dream Chaser needed donations of supplies like halters, lead ropes and feed.

"That lead some people to assume we couldn't feed our horses," said Davis."

No, Diane, your internet sites showing that horses LOST WEIGHT while in your care led us to assume you couldn't (or wouldn't) feed your horses. They don't just all start dropping weight violently while in the care of a rescue for no reason. You're not in, like, the Bermuda Triangle of horse weight.

""Our horse, Tenacity, had unexplained weakness in one leg," said Davis. "How do you help a horse when you don't know what's wrong with it?"

Call a VET? Shiloh got that mare looked at by a vet immediately. It's amazing how well that works when you don't know what's wrong with it.

And yes, some vets are incompetent (another story on that to come). Not everybody was at the top of their class or is ethical. In every town, I can point to a vet who will overlook abuse and neglect or just doesn't have a clue how to recognize it. Dean Solomon had Dr. Emig who swore all the while that she was taking great care of the horses, even on TV! (Clearly not even Dean thought Dr. Emig was believable enough, as she gave up and pled guilty to animal cruelty before the case even went to trial). Dreamchasers has Dr. Hensler. Finding a professional who will say whatever serves your purposes is not that hard to do. (We often refer to them as "expert witnesses.")

The newspaper goes so far as to accuse Shiloh of photoshopping pictures of former Dreamchasers horses to show improvement that doesn't exist. It's an amazing example of one-sided reporting, given that they never once contacted Shiloh to actually SEE the horses. (And before you say that's exactly what I do every day, this is an opinion blog as I frequently remind people. Writing for a newspaper, unless you are writing editorials that are labeled as such, is totally different and is supposed to be unbiased and involve research into both sides of an issue. It's like the difference between talk radio and the evening news.) No one was standing at the door with a machine gun keeping you out, Gina B. Good. Why didn't you go look at the horses if you thought the improvement in their condition was faked? Maybe take some non-photoshopped pictures, if you are so convinced the existing pictures aren't unaltered?

Why not? Well, it's pretty obvious to me. You got snowed - or you're already buddies with - Ms. Davis the faux rescuer. You didn't want to hear the other side. You wanted to bash Shiloh Rescue and make them pay for having the nerve to call Dreamchasers out for their poor care.

Here's my question. Do you think they also photoshopped every frame of the running mini - the mini who could hardly walk from his untrimmed hooves when they picked him up?

No, I've got it! Shiloh hacked into Dreamchaser's web site and photoshopped long feet and roached backs and ribs onto the horses in my original post! It's all a grand conspiracy! Get out your tinfoil hats, and it will all make sense.


Let's hope another, better newspaper picks up the true story here and tells the world. In the meantime, I'm just happy those 5 horses are at Shiloh, receiving the care they need and deserve.