Borough to auction horses

MAT-SU -- Three horses are currently being boarded at the Mat-Su Borough Animal Care and Regulation shelter -- the first animals scheduled to be auctioned off by the borough since borough staff began operating the shelter and enforcing animal care codes in 1994.

Borough staff are working to set up the parameters of the auction, but Animal Care and Regulation Chief Officer Dave Allison said information about bidding , along with photos of the horses, should soon be available on the borough's Web site at www.co.mat-su.ak.us.

The auction of the horses is the last step in what has been an ongoing case. The case appeared in the Third District Court in Palmer on March 24, but the horse owner's lawyer was not able to be present at that meeting, so the hearing was rescheduled to April 4. On April 3, horse owner Sharon Simington forfeited her ownership interests in the horses, paying a forfeiture fee of $3 per animal.

Simington, Wednesday, said she had simply reached the end of her rope in dealing with the borough's Animal Care and Regulation. She said she felt she had been harassed and couldn't come up with the fees it would have taken to have her horses returned.

"At some point, you just have to let things go," Simington said.

That $3-per-horse forfeiture fee, borough staff said, is considerably less than the estimated $3,500 in vet fees, boarding costs and medication the borough has reportedly invested in the horses. Borough Animal Care Officer Mark Thomas estimated an additional $8,000 was invested in staff time and attorney fees over the case.

Thomas issued Simington five citations in late August 2002, three for animal cruelty, one for failure to restrain animals and a fifth for failing to provide a sanitary enclosure, charges that were dropped when Simington forfeited her horses.

"We don't have that money to put into them," Simington said.

In a February 2003 affidavit, Thomas said he had been investigating the case since Dec. 1, 2001. In October 2002, after the charges had been filed, Thomas met with Simington and her attorney to draw up an agreement of care for the horses. As part of the agreement, Thomas said, Simington was to allow Thomas to inspect the property on a monthly basis. Just one monthly inspection was held, and changes set out in the agreement had not yet been met. But no second inspection took place.

Simington said she had a clash of personalities with Thomas and had asked her husband to handle the monthly inspections, as the stress was creating health problems. She said after the first meeting, her husband and Thomas set up a tentative date for a second meeting for a period when he would be home from his North Slope job, around Christmas. The time period passed, however, and the two did not meet. Simington said she received a message on her answering machine from Thomas a few days after her husband had left, asking to set up an inspection. She called him back and, she said, told him to "shove it," and that she and her family had been through enough. She alleged she had found Thomas on her property without notice, that she had been called repeatedly at her work and said she felt she was being harassed.

The agreement stipulated that two veterinary checks be conducted during a six-month period, and set out a feeding regimen for the horses and required that a 30-day supply of hay and several bags of grain be purchased to be kept on reserve. It also required that a heating system be established to prevent drinking water from freezing, and that the horses be properly confined and given adequate access to shelter. A cleaning regimen was set out for the sheltered area and also for the corral area.

Thomas, in February, said he had made one inspection of the property in November, after the date by which the changes were to have been put in place. He testified that he did not see a heating system or the reserve grain and hay and the horses' food was being placed on the ground, a violation of the agreement. When he later inquired about the agreed-upon veterinarian inspections, Thomas found no veterinarian inspections had been made.

"It is my opinion that, given the history of this case, that the subject horses' life and health may be endangered because of improper care during the winter months," Thomas testified in February. "As of the time of the last inspection there was no mechanism to keep drinking water from freezing, there was no above-ground feeding arrangement, and there was an inadequate supply of food."

Simington said her horses were never in such danger. They were all in good health, she said, and were well-fed.

"We were taking care of our horses, doing everything we could so they'd have the right type of grain … I don't see where I neglected or abused them," Simington said.

This is not the only horse-related case the borough is working on by far, and Thomas said he generally deals with two or more calls regarding neglect or abuse of horses each week. Thomas said in his experience, many people get a horse not knowing the real cost of care for the animal. Veterinary bills for large animals are proportionately larger than those for small animals, as are the feeding and care costs and requirements.

"Two horses can cost as much as 28 dogs," Thomas said. "All we're trying to do is make sure they're meeting the basics -- food, water and shelter."

Thomas and Allison said the borough is taking a tougher stance on cases of animal cruelty or neglect, and their first auction is a sign of that. It doesn't mean, however, that animals will be seized at every opportunity.

"We're here for the animals' safety and well-being," Allison said. "… we will work with people and will give them resources if they need resources -- but we'll still hold them accountable of they're not taking care of their animals."

Allison said the shelter staff is doing what it can to help people with education. People, he said, often call the shelter looking for advice about their animals. Shelter workers dispense what advice they can, he said, and refer people elsewhere when they don't have the answers. Education, he said, is a better initial approach than issuing citations.

"What we're trying to do is help people come into compliance," Allison said. "It's for the animal's benefit, as well as the community as a whole."