Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
AMENIA — The horses stabled at Godspeed Horse Hostel on Route 22 in Amenia have received a little something extra this holiday season, thanks to the generosity of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) out of New York City, one of the biggest animal welfare organizations in the country.
Maria Genovesi has owned and operated Godspeed since 2004, but she has been rescuing horses since the 1980s. She said the $1,000 grant may not sound like much but that it offers great relief to her many expenses; the money goes directly toward feeding the five rescue horses she currently houses at her farm.
“It’s a tremendous help,†Genovesi said. “I keep these horses outside so I keep hay in front of them all the time, although everybody gets a little supplementation with grain. And given that the price of hay went up this year, for me 50 cents a bale, it really helps.â€
The fact the grant came from the ASPCA also means a lot to Genovesi.
“It’s a very important grant because they’re the granddaddy of all animal welfare institutions,†she said, adding she received a similar grant in 2008. “The ASPCA was actually founded because of a carriage horse that was being beaten, and in 1866 Henry Bergh founded the first humane society in New York City. He felt it was important to care for and protect the working horses and livestock.
“He also transformed the dog pounds into adoption centers and then the focus shifted on to smaller animals,†Genovesi added. “But it still recognizes its roots and donates to horse organizations and is responsible for a lot of big adoptions throughout the area. And the ASPCA has been instrumental in pushing legislation through for anticruelty measures for animals.â€
Animal welfare is at the root of Godspeed’s origins, too. Genovesi runs her farm to save horses from slaughter, mainly freeing them from the Premarin industry, primarily in Canada, as well as in the United States. Premarin is a hormone-replacement drug for menopausal women made from female horses’ urine, produced immediately after they give birth; their unwanted foals are then sent to slaughter. It is through intervention, like Godspeed’s, that the foals, called PMU foals, are given a second chance; they are rescued, rehabilitated and then put up for adoption.
“I care for them until they can be adopted,†Genovesi said, adding she’s rescued roughly 60 horses during her career, and they don’t always have to be PMU foals. “I deal with horses of any age, any breed and any position. Eventually the right person comes alone, but it takes time. The longest I held onto a horse was three years, and I’ve had other horses adopted within the same week. It depends what people are looking for. But I’m happy to say that no horses have ever been returned.â€
The process isn’t easy, but it’s clearly Genovesi’s life’s work. She’s designed her days and nights around caring for the horses and doing whatever is necessary to tend to their needs and ultimately find them safe and secure homes.
And while grants like this one from the ASPCA help, they are but a drop in the bucket when it comes to covering the ever-rising costs of caring for the animals at Godspeed. Genovesi estimated that boarding, feeding, providing veterinarian care and other unforeseen expenses amounts to roughly $150 to $175 per horse per month, but acknowledged that figure can jump quickly with the unexpected. Donations make up a big part of her budget, and she’s hopeful those who can afford to will consider making some year-end donations to Godspeed.
To learn more about Godspeed, a not-for-profit 501 (c) (3) organization, or to make a donation, go to godspeedhorse.org or call 845-242-2069.
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.