Regarding the unfortunate ’spoilage’ of the merchandise
By Gina Spadafori
October 12, 2009
I guess it’s a pretty good bet that any attorney who’d take on the case of someone who had about a thousand — yes, you read that right, a thousand — animals on his property, many sick, dying or dead, is probably not the world’s biggest animal-lover, but this quote from said attorney is really astonishing:
“The credibility of his business was in being able to provide healthy animals. Unfortunately, not much different than a grocery store, you have a certain amount of spoilage, and that’s a whole lot of what we’re faced with here.”
That’s attorney Brian Storts, speaking on behalf of his client, who made his living selling animals at flea markets in Texas.
Story here. The “spoilage” guy’s client has given ownership of the animals to the local humane authorities. Oh, and he’s also “honest, law-abiding citizen” according to Storts.
OK, then! If only those animals had been considerate enough not to go and spoil on him, everything would be fine. Just fine.
OK, I read maybe one or two of the examples of what the animals were eating and drinking and I am fairly sick now.
Won’t be reading any more.
Comment by Mary Mary — October 12, 2009 @ 8:12 am
sick. It’s people like that who drive breeder limitation laws
Comment by EmilyS — October 12, 2009 @ 8:13 am
that’s one of the worst comments i’ve read in a long time
Comment by Sarah — October 12, 2009 @ 9:26 am
IMO Storts and Boada deserve to be “spoiled” just like those animals were.
Comment by Janeen — October 12, 2009 @ 9:39 am
Dear God, how can people be so ignorant/cruel/greedy/stupid . . . or all of the above? “spoilage”???
Comment by catmom5 — October 12, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
“Boado’s attorney, Brian Storts, said his client recognizes some responsibility for his actions”
I’d just love to hear exactly how he was only responsible for *some* of his actions - who was responsible for the actions he wasn’t responsible for ? What a cop out !
As for the attorney, what sort of mind could come up with the phrase ‘spoilage’ to describe what was going on ? my mind boggles.
Anyway,I’m glad he’s lost his home, and has to pay costs towards the rehabilitation of the animals, so many cases of animal cruely/neglect just get a slap on the hand. At least in this case it does seem to have been considered seriously.
Comment by Alison — October 12, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
Gawd. In what world is any of this OK?
I remember when the story broke and thought that the newscaster meant to say a hundred, or even hundreds. When I actually verified that it was a thousand, I almost gagged.
And. Then. This????
Comment by Linda Kaim — October 12, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
He’s really not doing his client any favours by trying to convince the court that this is a legitimate “business” that went wrong, is he? The guy HAS to be a hoarder and I would guess he’ll just start accumulating animals again if he’s not required to get any kind of psychological treatment or continuing supervision.
Comment by Rosemary Rodd — October 13, 2009 @ 3:22 am
How about a civil attorney who advises a criminal defendant charged with felony animal cruelty, against the counsel of her public defender, to fight the criminal prosecution so that the county will be bled dry by the cost of caring for the 200+ victims and “make a deal?” (Didn’t work.)
Who, after the conviction, sues the county and the tiny rescue group that took on the responsibility of placing 240 formerly abused dogs into homes that were appropriate for their needs — on behalf of an associate of the convicted felon who was denied one of the dogs she wanted and feels “entitled.” Because the indigent convicted felon was forbidden to sue as a condition of her suspended sentence, and a lawyer gotta make some lucre somehows. Why not try to extract it from the meager funds meant to care for all the dogs?
Who (the lawyer) is the president of the local humane society.
Could I make this up? I could not. It would make implausible fiction.
Comment by H. Houlahan — October 13, 2009 @ 6:02 am
I just read the story. While a thousand animals of any kind is, you know, A LOT, the discussion doesn’t acknowledge that the majority of them seem to have been poultry, rodents, and small “cage” pets.
You can get to a thousand animals of those kinds fairly easily — AND it is possible for one disciplined person to care for them adequately, at least adequately in terms of food, water, cleanliness, attention to injuries and illness — basic husbandry that keeps one within the law and out of the realm of atrocity.
Obviously this guy did NOT provide that basic husbandry, but this is fundamentally less daunting in its scope from neglectful hoarders/millers of 300 cats, 60 horses, 200 dogs, even though the raw numbers seem so shocking.
At peak this summer, I was caring for around 180 poultry — and they were being treated extremely well, had the kind of lives that conscientious omnivores want to provide to the animals that provide their food. Once I got the protocols for hauling food down and automated the water supply to the 106 free-range meat birds, it was very little work for a very high standard of animal welfare.
Were I to do it full-time, 1000 would not be difficult to manage. Full-time, 1000 rodents and small birds and poultry combined would be easy, assuming well-designed housing and adequate facilities.
Obviously this guy provided none of the above, most particularly the self-discipline to care for the animals.
Comment by H. Houlahan — October 13, 2009 @ 6:25 am