As one of the persons who helped with the passage of Prop 6, I would like to address the story, Where Did My Horse Go? in the October issue. Written by Caroline Betts, the article recounts the author’s attempts to track down a mare she gave away to what she thought was a good home but came to believe instead was a fast track to the slaughterhouse.
There are several California laws that may be of benefit to Caroline in the search for her horse before Prop 6 is wrongly blamed as not being effective.
The decision to sell or find a new home for a beloved animal is a choice that all horse owners have to make at one time or another. Some faced with this very difficult and occasionally heartbreaking situation decide to entrust or give their animals to the promise of a good home rather than sell them to an unknown fate.
There are a few things owners should do before they decide to make this decision. Please know these are only suggestions and in no way constitute legal advice: It is best to always consult an attorney. First of all, give the situation a lot of thought before you act. These situations can sometimes turn out bad for all involved, especially the horse. Thoroughly check out the person with whom you are considering placing your horse, but most importantly have a real total “meeting of minds” and a very good, well-written iron-clad contract that covers and spells out all conditions under which the horse is being placed. Even if it is a very dear friend or family member, ask them to sign it.
Even if you take all these steps and precautions, there are always those looking for a fast dollar and have no concern whatsoever for the promises they make or the fate and welfare of the animal entrusted to them. However, there are a few things these people should know.
While law enforcement, with their case loads and priorities, tends to dismiss cases involving the placement of an animal as civil disputes, there are several California laws that would benefit Caroline and others who lose their animals through fraud and misrepresentation.

Fighting Fraud
In dealing with law enforcement and the courts it should be pointed out (to them) that Caroline could have sold her horse but relinquished any monetary gain in lieu of a promise of a good home. Those who allegedly lied or misrepresented their intentions and gained the horse under false pretenses could be guilty of grand theft under California law. This California law applies to horses and all animals.
Section 487 (g) of the California Penal Code States the following:
487g. Every person who steals or maliciously takes or carries away any animal of another for purposes of sale, medical research, slaughter, or other commercial use, or who knowingly, by any false representation or pretense, defrauds another person of any animal for purposes of sale, medical research, slaughter, or other commercial use, is guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison.

There is also a California Food & Ag Code that may be of further interest:
Food & Ag Code 24132
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person is civilly liable for four times the value of the animal at the time of taking, possessing, harboring, transporting, or slaughtering of the animal, with interest, at the prime rate from the date of that occurrence, for attorney fees incurred in the recovery of the animal, and for an amount in fair compensation for the time and money properly expended by the owner in pursuit of the animal, as follows:
(1) In any action for the wrongful taking, possessing, harboring, or transporting of an animal for slaughter or for the slaughter of the animal without the consent of the owner or the person lawfully in possession of the animal or any animal whose ownership is still in dispute.
(2) In any action where a person knowingly, by any false representation or pretense, defrauds another person of any animal, which results in the wrongful taking, possessing, harboring, or transporting of the animal for slaughter without the consent of the owner or the person lawfully in possession of the animal or any animal whose ownership is still in dispute.
(b) The commencement of any criminal prosecution for the theft of the animal shall not preclude or prevent any civil action as specified in this section.
The reality of the situation is that if there was an agreement/contract and someone gained Caroline’s mare through fraud and misrepresentation, promising a good home, and promptly disposed of it, then they may be guilty of grand theft according to Section 487 (g) of the California Penal Code, and may be subject to the provisions of the above Food & Ag Code, as well as possibly guilty of a felony depending on the fate of the mare under Prop 6.
However, law enforcement, with their priorities, probably considers Caroline’s complaint as civil. They should be reminded of these codes in making a complaint and asking them to file charges. If they refuse, Caroline should contact the California State Attorney General’s Office and ask what could be done to have her case investigated involving grand theft and a possible felony.
If charges are filed and a criminal investigation is initiated, Caroline should consider filing a suit against the person(s) who allegedly lied to her in small claims court, after the criminal case is settled, no matter what the outcome. She should ask for the real value of the animal (if not returned), and all her other damages, plus compensation for her emotional distress. It will most likely not guarantee the return of her mare, but will make those who took and disposed of her accountable for their actions monetarily, and could set precedence in other cases. Hopefully this will be after they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Saleyard Records
Caroline also stated in her story that she was unable to review any records of saleyards/auctions to determine if her horse was ever offered for sale, and that a particular saleyard stated they did not keep records of individual horses being sold. It is true that sale yards do not have to allow the public to view their records.
However, under California law they have to make them available to law enforcement or an agent of the Bureau of Livestock Identification in the process of making an investigation, California Food & Ag Code 24107.
California law, Food & Ag Codes, Section 24130 states the following.
24130. Any person that is engaged in the business of buying or selling animals on consignment at any public or private salesyard shall keep after each sale, a certificate of consignment which contains all of the following information:
(a) The name and address of the consignor.
(b) A description of each animal which is sold that includes its sex, breed, color, approximate height and weight, approximate age, natural marks and identifying scars, and a description of each brand or tattoo and its location on each animal.
(c) Reasonable proof of the ownership of the animal.
(d) The license number of any vehicle which transports the animal to the salesyard. If the animal is transported in a trailer, the license number of both the trailer and the vehicle which pulls it shall be given.
(e) The signature of the consignor.
Therefore saleyards/auctions are mandated to have a complete description and reasonable proof of ownership of all horses they handle. Please note: any officer making an investigation needs to be familiar with livestock identification and practices in reviewing any saleyard documents. It is assumed that an agent from the Bureau of Livestock Identification would be familiar enough to know what they were looking for in trying to identify a possible stolen horse. We hope all Auctions and Saleyards are currently complying with these regulations. This applies to public and private sale yards, meaning dealers.
Also, California Food & Ag Code 24131 states the following:
24131. Any person subject to Section 24130 shall retain the certificate of consignment on file for a period of at least two years after the sale.
Auctions and saleyards that handle the animals for sale in interstate commerce are governed by the federal Packers & Stockyards Act. Fair play in the marketplace! The Packers and Stockyards Act is a federal law regulating business practices of those engaged in livestock and poultry marketing and meat and poultry packing in interstate and foreign commerce. Auctions and saleyards come under their jurisdiction.
This federal law requires the keeping of records by saleyards. If a market agency claims they have no records and do not keep them, a formal complaint needs to be made to the federal agency enforcing this act along with a complaint to the California Department of Food & Ag.

Proposition 6
The main goal behind Prop 6 was to ban the slaughter of California’s horses and to be a springboard for national legislation: It was not to protect horse owners from fraud. P.C. 487 (g) of the Penal Code was passed to do that.
Prop 6 became Section 598 (c) of the Penal Code and bans the sale and transportation of horses to slaughter for human consumption only. It has nothing to do with the condition or horses at saleyards. There are other P.C. 597 codes that should be used to prosecute those who abuse horses or allow them to deteriorate inhumanely with no help or care, and then attempt to sell them.
Because some saleyards provide an outlet for abused, starving, sick, injured, or dying horses, some feel no one will buy them but killer buyers, so it is a violation of Prop 6, and law enforcement should step in. However, private bidders, caring people and rescue organizations do purchase some of these horses as well as others that fall into the price range a killer buyer is willing to pay, so this is not evidence that Prop 6 is being violated. Saleyards should do themselves a favor and not accept these horses for sale for the little or no profit, very bad will and publicity they get.

Owners’ Responsibility
There are those that ask, “What are you going to do with these horses?” Owners or agents for owners (sometimes race horses) wanting a quick, cheap, and no-questions way to dispose of these animals should accept the responsibility for their horses instead of poking them off on the public through saleyards, and the wonderful people (rescuers) who help these unwanted/suffering animals out.
Those who are still illegally purchasing horses and shipping them out of the state to slaughter, disguised as saddle horses, should know that one of these times a case such as Caroline’s will produce the paperwork that will lead right to them. They should ask themselves if they really want to face charges and a possible felony conviction for their actions.
I’m so very sorry for Caroline, but I am going to be a little honest and truthful here. Just because the mare disappeared or may have sold for a low end or killer price is not evidence she went to slaughter. For law enforcement to start an investigation there needs to be more evidence than just, “Well it sold for a killer price so that is where it went, and Prop 6 is not working.”
If there is an investigation for theft and law enforcement can find documentation through that investigation showing where the mare went, and if she is traced to a slaughterhouse, then there should be prosecution under P.C. 589 c. as well as 487 (g) of the Penal Code for all involved.
In closing, law enforcement may not always know what they are looking for in investigating a violation of Prop 6 as far as livestock practices/marketing and documentation/records are concerned, but Prop 6-Section 589 (c) of the Penal Code, is the law passed by an overwhelming majority of California voters. If a possible felony is being committed, and if there is a violation, it has to be investigated by law enforcement, but they have to have probable cause or some evidence more than, “I think the horse may have gone to slaughter.”
Law enforcement is required by law to protect the public interests. Section 589 (c)/Prop 6 is paid for, as all other investigations of the Penal Codes would be, by taxpayers. The analysis on Prop 6 stated at the time it was passed that very little funding would be required to enforce this law. If law enforcement refuses to help then contact the California Attorney General’s Office, but be sure you are making a complaint regarding the shipment of horses out of state for slaughter, not the violation of a contract or conditions of horses at saleyards.
There are a few that need to be thanked for their efforts in helping to end the suffering and cruel and inhumane treatment of California’s horses transported out of the state to slaughter: the California Equine Council, lobbyist John Lovell, Sherry De Boer, and Sidne J. Long, who generously provided the funding for Prop 6. They had the courage, tenacity, and true caring that took this issue to California’s voters, who overwhelmingly supported the measure.
Author Gini Richardson is the president of the California Horsemen’s Alliance, current Legislative Chairman for the California State Horsemen’s Association, and was a member of the California Equine Council. She also wrote or worked for the passage of most of the laws mentioned above. She can be reached at shagpony@psnw.com.