6 ms·

Look, I’m an animal lover and what a nightmare for that little girl, but I don’t think that her parents did her any favors by not preparing her mentally for wha

by vogt 4y ago

Look, I’m an animal lover and what a nightmare for that little girl, but I don’t think that her parents did her any favors by not preparing her mentally for what was to come. The animals being sold at auction is part and parcel of the 4H experience, or many families will opt to have the animal slaughtered themselves. It sounds like they brought this goat to auction where it was sold and then tried to re-neg on the sale. If she bonded that closely to the animal they should have kept it on the property and not brought it to the 4H show. They almost tacitly admit this in offering to repay the income brought into 4H by the goat. A number of years ago there was a dog being given up that my wife and I wanted to adopt off Craigslist. It was being given up by a family who - you guessed it - “didn’t have time for her”. This was in Weatherford TX which was over an hour from our place in Dallas. We got halfway there before the woman who placed the ad called us asking us to turn around, because her 8 year old daughter was having a breakdown after the realization that their dog was about to be rehomed. Six months later they emailed us asking if we were still willing to take the dog, otherwise it was going to the shelter. At that point we had already taken on another. I hope it didn’t wind up in a kill shelter all because these parents couldn’t help their child deal with reality. This story reminded me of that.

superchroma 4y ago
I think, in life, sometimes we just don't quite think things through. You're busy, preoccupied, whatever. You don't get all the facts and just assume the best. You get to the auction and realize your daughter loves the goat a lot. You don't spend all day in an analytical mode, anticipating the worst cases, and then things happen and it's then too late to act. It's like being careless where you park your nice car and having it get keyed. We can hunch over a little more, strive to blend in, build taller fences, be more cynical, make a million plans and expect the worst, or we can advocate for change and try to be more patient, kind and accepting, and, I think, I would like to advocate the latter.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > or we can advocate for change and try to be more patient, kind and accepting, and, I think, I would like to advocate the latter 4-H auctions finance the programme. If the auctions become unreliable because parents couldn’t bother to identify an attachment early and message their intent to renegotiate a contract until right before the auction, the programme is threatened. It’s also baffling the parents didn’t try to buy the goat off the purchaser, its lawful owner, instead of asking the venue to void a contract. (EDIT: It appears they did and the buyer said they were fine reversing the contract. Nobody did anything to document this, however, and the family taking the goat home after the auction prejudiced them.) It’s also against the pathos of the programme? Knowing you’re raising livestock is the point.
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    > It’s also baffling the parents didn’t try to buy the goat off the purchaser I think they did? That's how I read "Long offered to “pay back” the fair for the loss of Cedar’s income" anyway.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > Long offered to “pay back” the fair for the loss of Cedar’s income It wasn’t the Fair’s property. It was the purchaser’s. The loss of income wasn’t the point. The property interest was.
      - Beltalowda 4y ago
        Oh okay, I think I don't fully understand how all of this works. Either way, regardless of the legality of the matter, I don't think you should confuse "the legal thing to do" with "the moral thing to do". They are not always identical.
- vogt 4y ago
  I don’t mean to attack you here, but I feel like it isn’t fair to paint my side of the argument as one of non empathy. I wish that the Shasta Farm Association and the dickhead that made the purchase would have said “let’s let it go”. But they didn’t, and I don’t agree that some egregious civil rights violation happened as a result. That is simply my opinion.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - superchroma 4y ago
    No, not an egregious civil rights violation, but an everyday, mundane brand of evil. Rules, contracts and law were duly followed, and empathy didn't come into the picture. Someone with power could have paused and tried to find an alternative path, but they didn't. This reality exists in stark contrast to the one depicted in Hallmark and Disney films, but the sad part is how little effort separated this situation from an alternative outcome.
    - vogt 4y ago
      Fair enough. I agree.
kurupt213 4y ago
Dogs that go to a no kill shelter get transferred to the kill shelter if they aren’t adopted
- bombcar 4y ago
  Yeah there’s not a magical supply of no-kills, and even if they are they fill up darn fast.
  - hshsuzhbs 4y ago
mindslight 4y ago
> If she bonded that closely to the animal they should have kept it on the property and not brought it to the 4H show By my reading, the family did not bring the goat to the 4H auction. Rather it seems 4H loaned them the goat to raise, with the intent that 4H would sell it at auction later. Viewing this through the simplistic lens of property can only lead to a single conclusion. The real question is about the failings of the property model when it comes to pets. Most people consider it abhorrent that the compensation for a pet dog being murdered is anchored around the economic value of "one dog", rather than the dog's life itself plus the pain and suffering of losing a family member. And of course, our society categorically rejects the administration of human relationships in terms of property interests. It's not a stretch to say that by raising the goat, the girl developed a type of interest in it. And to point out there was a straightforward way to respect the girl's interest while also respecting the economic interest - give the family the right of first refusal at the auction, or other appropriate compensation as the family had seemingly offered.
krisoft 4y ago
> If she bonded that closely to the animal they should have kept it on the property and not brought it to the 4H show. What are you talking about? They kept it on property and law enforcement agents turned up (without a warant, inserting themselves into a civil dispute) and stole their goat. This is the contentious point. What business did those law enforcement agents had to enter their private property and steal a goat from them?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > What business did those law enforcement agents had to enter their private property and steal a goat from them? You can’t use property rights to defend the parents. The goat had been auctioned. Arguing for the family is arguing for a compassionate carve-out from regular property rights.
  - krisoft 4y ago
    > The goat had been auctioned. And the family argued that they have backed out of the auction before it started. Thus they haven't sold the goat. Thus they own the goat. Are they right? I don't know. But it is far from as straight forward as you depict it to be.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      There may be a claim against the Fair, though that depends on the auction rules. (I’d be stunned if they permit day-of withdrawal.) As for the cops, they got a warrant [1]. (It’s unclear if they had the right to return the property to the presumptive legal owner.) [1] https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf page 9
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - UncleEntity 4y ago
    > Arguing for the family is arguing for a compassionate carve-out from regular property rights. Not really, the sheriffs traveled outside their county and seized the goat without a warrant. Where I come from this is called “cattle rustling” and is a hanging offense. Well, not really since I’m originally from California but it is definitely an illegal search and seizure. Pretty sure they could’ve just told the sheriffs to fuck off and called the local law enforcement to straighten out that mess but most people won’t do that because they show up with tactical body armor and assault rifles. —edit— Contrary to TFA they did indeed have a warrant to seize Cedar…a dubious warrant maybe but a warrant they did have.
Hizonner 4y ago
> It sounds like they brought this goat to auction where it was sold and then tried to re-neg on the sale. Wrong. You did not read the article closely, or you would not have made that assumption. Frankly you had no reason to make such an assumption even without reading it. Complaint: https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf
- Arcuru 4y ago
  You clearly didn't read the complaint. It states that they tried to back out at the auction, both before and after bidding had concluded, and then taking the goat and sending it to a friends farm hundreds of miles away while continuing to try to negotiate.
  - Hizonner 4y ago
    That's correct. And at the time they first "tried" to back out, the goat had not been sold. At that point, everybody was on notice that the goat was not for sale. No valid sale could have occurred after that first attempt. It's not that they "tried" to back out. They did back out. And the only available remedy for that was money damages, not random extraducial confiscation of property. By the way, on top of that, California law explicitly gives minors the right to back out of major sales even after they are concluded. So in fact they couldn't even have gotten money damages.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > No valid sale could have occurred after that first attempt Auctions have rules. I don’t know this one’s, the complaint [1] omits much of them, but every one I’ve participated in bars backing out on the day of the auction. If you change your mind, you bid for your item. [1] https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf
      - david38 4y ago
david38 4y ago
It’s a goat. It’s a young child. Surely the world won’t stop because a minor doesn’t understand the full ramifications of a contract. Get off your high horse.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

by vogt 4y ago

superchroma 4y ago

I think, in life, sometimes we just don't quite think things through. You're busy, preoccupied, whatever. You don't get all the facts and just assume the best. You get to the auction and realize your daughter loves the goat a lot. You don't spend all day in an analytical mode, anticipating the worst cases, and then things happen and it's then too late to act. It's like being careless where you park your nice car and having it get keyed. We can hunch over a little more, strive to blend in, build taller fences, be more cynical, make a million plans and expect the worst, or we can advocate for change and try to be more patient, kind and accepting, and, I think, I would like to advocate the latter.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> or we can advocate for change and try to be more patient, kind and accepting, and, I think, I would like to advocate the latter 4-H auctions finance the programme. If the auctions become unreliable because parents couldn’t bother to identify an attachment early and message their intent to renegotiate a contract until right before the auction, the programme is threatened. It’s also baffling the parents didn’t try to buy the goat off the purchaser, its lawful owner, instead of asking the venue to void a contract. (EDIT: It appears they did and the buyer said they were fine reversing the contract. Nobody did anything to document this, however, and the family taking the goat home after the auction prejudiced them.) It’s also against the pathos of the programme? Knowing you’re raising livestock is the point.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  > It’s also baffling the parents didn’t try to buy the goat off the purchaser I think they did? That's how I read "Long offered to “pay back” the fair for the loss of Cedar’s income" anyway.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > Long offered to “pay back” the fair for the loss of Cedar’s income It wasn’t the Fair’s property. It was the purchaser’s. The loss of income wasn’t the point. The property interest was.
    - Beltalowda 4y ago
      Oh okay, I think I don't fully understand how all of this works. Either way, regardless of the legality of the matter, I don't think you should confuse "the legal thing to do" with "the moral thing to do". They are not always identical.
vogt 4y ago
I don’t mean to attack you here, but I feel like it isn’t fair to paint my side of the argument as one of non empathy. I wish that the Shasta Farm Association and the dickhead that made the purchase would have said “let’s let it go”. But they didn’t, and I don’t agree that some egregious civil rights violation happened as a result. That is simply my opinion.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- superchroma 4y ago
  No, not an egregious civil rights violation, but an everyday, mundane brand of evil. Rules, contracts and law were duly followed, and empathy didn't come into the picture. Someone with power could have paused and tried to find an alternative path, but they didn't. This reality exists in stark contrast to the one depicted in Hallmark and Disney films, but the sad part is how little effort separated this situation from an alternative outcome.
  - vogt 4y ago
    Fair enough. I agree.

kurupt213 4y ago

Dogs that go to a no kill shelter get transferred to the kill shelter if they aren’t adopted

bombcar 4y ago
Yeah there’s not a magical supply of no-kills, and even if they are they fill up darn fast.
- hshsuzhbs 4y ago

mindslight 4y ago

> If she bonded that closely to the animal they should have kept it on the property and not brought it to the 4H show By my reading, the family did not bring the goat to the 4H auction. Rather it seems 4H loaned them the goat to raise, with the intent that 4H would sell it at auction later. Viewing this through the simplistic lens of property can only lead to a single conclusion. The real question is about the failings of the property model when it comes to pets. Most people consider it abhorrent that the compensation for a pet dog being murdered is anchored around the economic value of "one dog", rather than the dog's life itself plus the pain and suffering of losing a family member. And of course, our society categorically rejects the administration of human relationships in terms of property interests. It's not a stretch to say that by raising the goat, the girl developed a type of interest in it. And to point out there was a straightforward way to respect the girl's interest while also respecting the economic interest - give the family the right of first refusal at the auction, or other appropriate compensation as the family had seemingly offered.

krisoft 4y ago

> If she bonded that closely to the animal they should have kept it on the property and not brought it to the 4H show. What are you talking about? They kept it on property and law enforcement agents turned up (without a warant, inserting themselves into a civil dispute) and stole their goat. This is the contentious point. What business did those law enforcement agents had to enter their private property and steal a goat from them?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> What business did those law enforcement agents had to enter their private property and steal a goat from them? You can’t use property rights to defend the parents. The goat had been auctioned. Arguing for the family is arguing for a compassionate carve-out from regular property rights.
- krisoft 4y ago
  > The goat had been auctioned. And the family argued that they have backed out of the auction before it started. Thus they haven't sold the goat. Thus they own the goat. Are they right? I don't know. But it is far from as straight forward as you depict it to be.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    There may be a claim against the Fair, though that depends on the auction rules. (I’d be stunned if they permit day-of withdrawal.) As for the cops, they got a warrant [1]. (It’s unclear if they had the right to return the property to the presumptive legal owner.) [1] https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf page 9
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  > Arguing for the family is arguing for a compassionate carve-out from regular property rights. Not really, the sheriffs traveled outside their county and seized the goat without a warrant. Where I come from this is called “cattle rustling” and is a hanging offense. Well, not really since I’m originally from California but it is definitely an illegal search and seizure. Pretty sure they could’ve just told the sheriffs to fuck off and called the local law enforcement to straighten out that mess but most people won’t do that because they show up with tactical body armor and assault rifles. —edit— Contrary to TFA they did indeed have a warrant to seize Cedar…a dubious warrant maybe but a warrant they did have.

Hizonner 4y ago

> It sounds like they brought this goat to auction where it was sold and then tried to re-neg on the sale. Wrong. You did not read the article closely, or you would not have made that assumption. Frankly you had no reason to make such an assumption even without reading it. Complaint: https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf

Arcuru 4y ago
You clearly didn't read the complaint. It states that they tried to back out at the auction, both before and after bidding had concluded, and then taking the goat and sending it to a friends farm hundreds of miles away while continuing to try to negotiate.
- Hizonner 4y ago
  That's correct. And at the time they first "tried" to back out, the goat had not been sold. At that point, everybody was on notice that the goat was not for sale. No valid sale could have occurred after that first attempt. It's not that they "tried" to back out. They did back out. And the only available remedy for that was money damages, not random extraducial confiscation of property. By the way, on top of that, California law explicitly gives minors the right to back out of major sales even after they are concluded. So in fact they couldn't even have gotten money damages.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > No valid sale could have occurred after that first attempt Auctions have rules. I don’t know this one’s, the complaint [1] omits much of them, but every one I’ve participated in bars backing out on the day of the auction. If you change your mind, you bid for your item. [1] https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf
    - david38 4y ago

david38 4y ago

It’s a goat. It’s a young child. Surely the world won’t stop because a minor doesn’t understand the full ramifications of a contract. Get off your high horse.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]