Thursday, April 29, 2004
My Letter to Judge Gromacki
This is the letter that I sent to Judge Gromacki, please do not copy it verbatim, the letters will have much more impact if they are written individually.
Judge Gromacki
Wawayanda Town Court
74 Ridgebury Hill Road
Slate Hill, NY
10973
April 29, 2004
Dear Judge Gromacki,
It is with great regret and not a little anger that I read about the 61 Spaniels that Mr. and Mrs. Stolz had on their property. It is deplorable that animals, through no choice of their own, are forced to live in horrendous conditions. The care of these animals was entrusted to Mr. and Mrs. Stolz and they have failed miserably in their charge. The Stoltz's are very clearly unable to care for their dogs as the abominable living conditions that the dogs were found in clearly demonstrate. The winter creating "difficulty" for Mr. Stolz in cleaning the dog's sheds is not a legitimate excuse. Are the dogs expected to live in disgusting sheds for the entire winter? Are the Stolz’s responsibilities to these animals merely fair weather?
Additionally, the way in which the Stolz’s arrived at the present situation of owning 61 dogs demonstrates a clear lack of an understanding of what responsible pet ownership entails as evidenced by information reported in the Times-Herald Record, "Later, he [Mr. Stolz] said the couple got one dog. Then they bought her a mate. Then there was a litter. 'Unfortunately, we didn't get rid of them fast enough, and it just went on,' Stoltz said."
This stuns me in its ignorance, there are very simple and inexpensive options to neuter or fix a dog, which make this statement all the more indicative of the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Stolz are unable or unwilling to care for these animals properly. There would have been ample opportunity to turn this situation around well before the current situation arose.
Further, the things that Mr. and Mrs. Stolz hold up as excuses are simply no consolation to these dogs. As an example of their "care" for these dogs, Mrs. Stolz is quoted as saying that she spent over $15,000.00 in vet bills (which I am sure she took to show her "love" for these dogs). I would like to point out that this works out to slightly less than $250 per dog, a number, which falls short of the amount of money that I spend on routine (not to mention emergency) veterinary care for my dogs each year. This number would be significantly higher if the dogs were truly receiving adequate veterinary care.
It is not the number of Spaniels that the Stolz couple own that bothers me, if someone is capable of caring for 61 dogs, then by all means, they should be able to keep their dogs, but therein lies the essence of the problem here. The careless and callous disregard for the animal's safety and well being and clear demonstration of the couple's inability to care for this number of dogs makes it imperative that you not allow these dogs to stay with Mr. and Mrs. Stolz. At this point, promising to "rectify" the situation seems small consolation for these animals which have been living, sleeping and eating in their own urine and feces. Mr. and Mrs. Stolz have made no effort to "rectify" the situation before threatened with criminal action and left to their own, I have no doubt that these animals would remain in deplorable living conditions.
I urge you to enforce the counts of animal cruelty to the full extent of the law and to take these dogs away from Mr. and Mrs. Stolz. It would be reprehensible to allow these people to keep their dogs. The proposal by the Springer Spaniel Rescue League is a good one and is one which I have no doubt that can be executed. I myself have an adopted Spaniel that I found through the volunteers at the English Springer Spaniel Club of Long Island Rescue and I have witnessed the dedication of this group of volunteers and have been continually impressed by their professionalism and dedication to the welfare of all of the dogs that they rescue each year.
Sincerely,
Jon F. M. Webster
New York City, NY
Judge Gromacki
Wawayanda Town Court
74 Ridgebury Hill Road
Slate Hill, NY
10973
April 29, 2004
Dear Judge Gromacki,
It is with great regret and not a little anger that I read about the 61 Spaniels that Mr. and Mrs. Stolz had on their property. It is deplorable that animals, through no choice of their own, are forced to live in horrendous conditions. The care of these animals was entrusted to Mr. and Mrs. Stolz and they have failed miserably in their charge. The Stoltz's are very clearly unable to care for their dogs as the abominable living conditions that the dogs were found in clearly demonstrate. The winter creating "difficulty" for Mr. Stolz in cleaning the dog's sheds is not a legitimate excuse. Are the dogs expected to live in disgusting sheds for the entire winter? Are the Stolz’s responsibilities to these animals merely fair weather?
Additionally, the way in which the Stolz’s arrived at the present situation of owning 61 dogs demonstrates a clear lack of an understanding of what responsible pet ownership entails as evidenced by information reported in the Times-Herald Record, "Later, he [Mr. Stolz] said the couple got one dog. Then they bought her a mate. Then there was a litter. 'Unfortunately, we didn't get rid of them fast enough, and it just went on,' Stoltz said."
This stuns me in its ignorance, there are very simple and inexpensive options to neuter or fix a dog, which make this statement all the more indicative of the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Stolz are unable or unwilling to care for these animals properly. There would have been ample opportunity to turn this situation around well before the current situation arose.
Further, the things that Mr. and Mrs. Stolz hold up as excuses are simply no consolation to these dogs. As an example of their "care" for these dogs, Mrs. Stolz is quoted as saying that she spent over $15,000.00 in vet bills (which I am sure she took to show her "love" for these dogs). I would like to point out that this works out to slightly less than $250 per dog, a number, which falls short of the amount of money that I spend on routine (not to mention emergency) veterinary care for my dogs each year. This number would be significantly higher if the dogs were truly receiving adequate veterinary care.
It is not the number of Spaniels that the Stolz couple own that bothers me, if someone is capable of caring for 61 dogs, then by all means, they should be able to keep their dogs, but therein lies the essence of the problem here. The careless and callous disregard for the animal's safety and well being and clear demonstration of the couple's inability to care for this number of dogs makes it imperative that you not allow these dogs to stay with Mr. and Mrs. Stolz. At this point, promising to "rectify" the situation seems small consolation for these animals which have been living, sleeping and eating in their own urine and feces. Mr. and Mrs. Stolz have made no effort to "rectify" the situation before threatened with criminal action and left to their own, I have no doubt that these animals would remain in deplorable living conditions.
I urge you to enforce the counts of animal cruelty to the full extent of the law and to take these dogs away from Mr. and Mrs. Stolz. It would be reprehensible to allow these people to keep their dogs. The proposal by the Springer Spaniel Rescue League is a good one and is one which I have no doubt that can be executed. I myself have an adopted Spaniel that I found through the volunteers at the English Springer Spaniel Club of Long Island Rescue and I have witnessed the dedication of this group of volunteers and have been continually impressed by their professionalism and dedication to the welfare of all of the dogs that they rescue each year.
Sincerely,
Jon F. M. Webster
New York City, NY
Comments:
Post a Comment
