Add new comment

The proposal is badly flawed in the second category in particular. Since very many (most?) of the properties on the Bench that have horses are in that size range, the proposal is encouraging people to have only one horse. This is inhumane. In addition, the RDOS's wish that the horse owners who use the ring form an organization makes no sense if the regulations will effectively make it impossible for most property owners to have horses.

At the meeting we had with you and Chris Garrish, your commitment was that the bylaw would not be more restrictive than at present. While I can see cutting out horses on the very small properties makes sense as a horse alone isn't appropriate and it's hard to suitably manage a large animal in that small a space, the restriction on the next size category is against the current practice AND makes no sense; two horses on anything over 1 acre, depending on how the place is set up, is perfectly feasible. A couple of complaints isn't sufficient reason to change the status quo for everyone.

A simple solution is to change the second category so that 2 horses are allowed. The jump from 1 to 3 animals also makes no sense.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Registered users of this site do not have to do this.