var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

Pibbs

December 9, 2009 8:10 AM

Moderate | Flag for review

Gotta love my home state. Sometimes I really try and figure out why we are fighting so hard against our enemies abroad, when we have so many here. They're called government officials, company executives, and pretty much anyone in a state of having some sort of power.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 8:10 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Foreclosure isn't an all-of-a-sudden thing, and neither is eviction. I'm glad he's worried about the animals, but wasn't it his duty to do something with them prior to eviction?

7 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 27, 2010 8:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Well sure but seeing as the bank now owns the property have to take care of the animals or let the owner do so. If they don't that is Animal abuse or theft as the owner can no longer get and care for his animals.

$\"user-pic\"$

thisistobehelpful

December 9, 2009 3:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It is INCREDIBLY difficult to find new homes for farm animals. Most shelters are equipped for dogs, cats and will take (if you're lucky) smaller animals such as ferrets and rats. Horses and pigs generally end up in specific rescue centers which he probably was. If there wasn't another specific rescue center that could take them and he couldn't find homes, because most people really can't afford a horse, then it should be the bank's responsibility to care for the critters as they find out firsthand how hard it is to find homes for them.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 11:48 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Not to mention that they took some of the animals. Those animals are not property of Wells Fargo, and the bank had to right to take them, so add theft to that animal neglect.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 9:45 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe he COULDN'T do anything. Nearly all animal shelters I'm familiar with are overwhelmed by the number of animals they have to care for. People are losing their jobs and getting rid of expensive pets; fewer people are making donations. It's entirely possible that there was no room at another inn for these animals.

$\"user-pic\"$

tsukiotoshi

December 9, 2009 8:26 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Well that's all well and good, but sometimes there isn't anything to do with them, other than to have another shelter take them. Most shelters are full up as it is and couldn't handle being inundated with an entire shelter's worth of animals. The article says he had been assured another animal welfare group was going to take care of them on site while the foreclosure thing was worked out, but that group now says Wells-Fargo told them not to help. So regardless of whose fault it was in the first place, Wells-Fargo is now making the situation worse for the animals involved and theoretically could be cited for animal cruelty under some state laws (I'm not familiar with Rhode Island's).

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

December 9, 2009 8:21 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I can understand when it's foreclosure on property, and the people are being evicted...but where do you put horses and pigs? They need special accomodations. You can't just put them up at Motel 6, you know. So with what Wells Fargo did, it's entirely unreasonable to tell the owner he can't at least go in, and take care of the animals.

$\"user-pic\"$

bwcbwc

December 11, 2009 3:49 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Strange story. Who do the animals actually belong to? If they still belong to the shelter, why didn't the bank order them to remove the animals from the property? If they belong to the bank as part of the forfeiture, they really f-ed up.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 8:24 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I hate that if a regular citizen were to do this, the police would come in (with the SPCA), seize all the animals, and arrest the owner. When a big corporation does it, nuttin'.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 11:12 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Actually, you are wrong. The RISPCA will only do something if there is an actual crime committed. You can't establish a pattern of abuse/strong case based on one visit, unless there is visible signs of apparent abuse/neglect.

True Story: About 5 summers ago, we had a visit on our farm from the local SPCA cop. They received a complaint about us, and they are required to investigate EVERY call they get, no matter how stupid it may seem(some people call to tell them a horse is laying down, and horses CAN'T lay down unless they are dead/dying!). Put the officer in touch w/my father, an ex-cop, and they talked and he cleared up why he was there. I toured the property with the officer who found only one problem, which was a horse with an empty water bucket. I filled it right then, put it back in with the horse, who promptly flipped the bucket over, emptying it. Why do I say this? Because sometimes even on a smooth running farm, wires get crossed, and will admit there have been times our horses have had no one feed them for 24 hours because everyone thought someone else was doing the evening feeding. It's not abuse/neglect, it's a \"stutter\". After that officer left, we purchased a large on the ground water tub for that particular paddock, so that no horse could flip it and be without water. About two years later, the SPCA received another complaint/concern, and the same officer came out, and did a quick walk around, petted my dog, and left. He saw we were still doing things ok, and was happy.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 2:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'll add a disclaimer that I'm just basing that on an episode I saw once of SPCA Crime Unit (or something like that). They regularly went to the homes, saw the victimized animals, and were back a couple hours later with the cops and a seizure order (I think they even just called the judge from their car).

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 9:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Unfortunately, most states and localities do not have strong enough criminal animal neglect laws. Those areas on the shows you've seen on TV do. Most SPCA investigators aren't LEOs. At the most, an owner will get an administrative fine. If this particular SPCA has criminal enforcement authority, they should go arrest one of the local bank officers - that would be nice.

@GitemSteveDave - yes, I work for an investigative agency. By law, we have to investigate every complaint. Most come from neighbors, exes (employees and spouses), and competitors. Many are unfounded and waste time and money, but you can't gamble on the one that isn't. I'm glad it turned out okay.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 8:28 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I find it REALLY difficult to believe that this guy was given no notice at all. If he didn't have a plan for moving the animals or having them taken care of, that's pretty much his problem.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 9:18 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

He was given notice. He has known for over a year. Every time the RISCPA has found someone to take some of the animals. The owner refused.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 2:08 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It sure sounds like it's been coming for a while, based on the early 2009 stuff I found. Are you near the situation, or do you have a link to where you found more information?

I've had some bad experiences with shelters that have more than a dash of animal collection involved, so I tend to wonder about that in many cases.

$\"user-pic\"$

Chmeeee

December 9, 2009 8:39 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, it's his problem/mistake, but they shouldn't take that out on the animals. Somebody needs to provide care if they won't allow the owner to.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

December 9, 2009 8:32 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

The thing is, he didn't have a plan, apparently. But Wells Fargo told him it had a plan, but then reneged on that plan and told the Rhode Island SPCA it didn't want help in taking care of the animals - but I guess Wells Fargo's idea of \"taking care\" meant doing nothing.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 8:39 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

It seems like this is all just a publicity stunt to gain sympathy, the only evidence that we have that any mistreatment has occurred is that the horses were thirsty. Of course he's going to try to make Wells Fargo look bad. But he is ultimately responsible.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

December 9, 2009 9:03 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

It wasn't the thirst that was the main issue. It was that Wells Fargo, which has absolutely no expertise on animal care whatsoever, apparently started letting other animal groups take the animals! That in itself is apalling. Not giving them water can be an issue. Animals don't just sit there and take it - they'll eventually try to find water. What if Wells Fargo had left the gate unlatched? Not giving an animal water at the right time is one thing - not giving an animal water at all, for however long, is a problem.

$\"user-pic\"$

witeowl

December 9, 2009 9:41 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

So what is the solution? WF doesn't want the animals. WY can't take care of the animals. The guy abandoned them on the bank's property. Why not let other animal groups take the animals? Way to put the bank in a catch-22.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 11:52 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

He did not abandon them, RTFA. The bank will not let him on the property.

By your logic, the Jews really did abandon their property to the Nazis.

$\"user-pic\"$

witeowl

December 9, 2009 8:51 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I did rta. Where does it say that WF jumped out of the bushes and yelled, \"Surprise! You're foreclosed on! Get out of the house NOW!\"?

Oh, you mean foreclosure is a long, drawn-out process which actually provided plenty of time to find new homes for the animals once foreclosure became clearly inevitable? Yeah, that's what I thought.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 2:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Good job Godwin!

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

December 9, 2009 10:32 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

They should have let him return to the farm to take care of the animals if it was trying to make arrangements with other animal groups.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

johnnya2

December 9, 2009 8:30 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Simple solution. Have the ASPCA come in, take the animals and bill Wells Fargo for the cost of care.

7 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 9:06 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Yes, best thing is to carry out a guerilla PR campaign to embarrass the Hell out of Wells Fargo:

1. Document that these animals weren't taken care of
2. Contact every animal rights organization (not just PETA, but ASPCA, Humane Society & many more) & get them to picket Wells Fargo offices & branches w/TV-friendly signs
3. Hand out leflets at Petsmart, etc. denouncing Wells Fargo & providing contact info

You get the idea.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 11:48 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Denouncement from PETA in 3, 2, 1...

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

December 9, 2009 9:10 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

The very last thing you want is for PETA to get their hands on these animals.

$\"user-pic\"$

Naame

December 9, 2009 10:02 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe not PETA, but ASPCA is a quality organization. I hope they get involved.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 9:13 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Yes, unless you WANT them killed. Well, at least 95% of them.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 8:55 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is probably the most logical thing I've read in the comments today. As a horse person (and eater of tasty pigs), I know it's incredibly important to keep fresh water in front of a horse as a means of maintaining proper health. A horse can easily consume 20g of water a day - so this is really, REALLY unacceptable treatment... and if one of those horses were to die due to dehydration, they'd have a big problem on their hands.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 1:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

You'll probably hit colic before lethal dehydration.

Unfortunately, the best plan here may be euthanasia for all the animals, which would, ironically, be a worse public relations disaster than neglect.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 11:55 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

20 grams doesn't seem like a lot of water - did you mean kg?

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

December 9, 2009 12:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

STUPID METRIC SYSTEM GRRRR

(I'm fairly certain they were going for gallons - but you may have known that!)

$\"user-pic\"$

August 27, 2010 8:47 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The hell are we measuring liquid in weight for any way. Not all fluids have the same weight. I hope it would be liters.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 9:49 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Easily 20g? Maybe if they are performing/exercising during the summer/warmer months or maybe if they still have a foal at their side. I live on a lay-up farm, and have rarely seen our horses drink that much in a day, especially in the winter/colder months. We have 100g Rubbermaids out in the paddocks, and you can fill them halfway and still have water in them 5-7 days later when you dump and scrub them.

$\"user-pic\"$

Kitamura

December 9, 2009 12:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

You know, I thought you guys were making some sort of joke when you were saying a horse can \"easily\" consume 20 grams of water a day and have 100 gram rubbermaid containers, but then I realized you probably meant gallons (gal) lol

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Starfury

December 9, 2009 8:40 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Here I am, in the market to do a re-fi on my house (which is still worth 2x what I paid for it) AND I'm looking at a home equity credit line

Too bad Wells Fargo has just lost any change of me using them for my loans.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

tbax929

December 9, 2009 10:36 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'm sure they'll survive without your business!

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 10:23 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Nice icon and user name.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

corkdork

December 9, 2009 8:42 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

The legal status of the animals is slightly unclear here -- are they still his property, or do they belong to Wells Fargo now? If they're his, and Wells Fargo is preventing him from removing them from the property, I'd call the police and report a theft, in addition to cruelty. If they're Wells Fargo's, I'd be calling the police to report cruelty to animals -- and in RI, it's not exactly a slap-on-the-wrist; a fine of $50-$500 and/or up to 11 months in jail for each offense. Not feeding and not watering can count as separate offences, if I read the law -- http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE4/4-1/INDEX.HTM -- correctly.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Pandare

December 9, 2009 1:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

All animal cruelty charges aside, it seems like there's a really pretty good torts claim here. Theft isn't likely, but conversion is. The tort of conversion is the intentional act of depriving the person with legal possessory interest in a piece of property of that interest. The shelter owner likely has good title as to the animals in comparison to Wells Fargo, since he had actual possession of the animals and it does not appear that he has voluntarily given up the right to possession of them. The only element that would be difficult to prove at this point is damages, since we don't know if the value of the animals has been reduced, and he can't recover for their suffering. But, should one die, or be irrecoverably injured, he can not only get the value of damages, but punitive damages can be assessed. And really, what jury wouldn't want ot stick it to these terrible animal abusers?

IAALS, it's finals, I'm doing this instead of studying, and as such, this is not legal advice.

$\"user-pic\"$

Pandare

December 9, 2009 1:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Durr. I flaked. The mere act of denying him access to the animals can be conversion and the damage to the animals makes the claim stronger. See, this is what I get for trying to think before noon during finals.

$\"user-pic\"$

ludwigk

December 9, 2009 11:13 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I don't think this qualifies as a theft, since in most jurisdictions that requires a trespassory taking with intent to deprive. You can't just leave your stuff somewhere and say that it was stolen.

We do, however, have a bevvy of animal cruelty laws so someone should be on the hook to ensure that our barnyard pals don't suffer.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

lucky929

December 9, 2009 8:46 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Corporations need to learn basic PR.

They could have taken this and made themselves good PR: They could have come in and made it like a program for their employees to volunteer there, take care of the animals, maybe made a small donation to the SPCA, and come out of this looking great.

Neutral PR: Letting the SPCA take care of the animals, as originally planned.

Terrible PR: what they actually did.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 11:58 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Taking the property was a bad idea. When you own a property, you own its obligations, and caring for animals, particularly horses, is an expensive obligation. The banks, like a lot of corporations, follow a procedure book, and are completely incapable of deviating even if it's not in their interest. This foreclosure served the best interest of nobody, not even Wells Fargo.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 10:39 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I work in PR and I completely agree with you. There was a huge opportunity here for Wells Fargo to come off looking good - I would say it's too much of a liability to let employees volunteer, but they could have made a small donation to the RISPCA or University of RI veterinary and had them take care of the animals, snapped a few photos, etc. Instead, this is going to be a fiasco for them because bad news travels fast.
Seriously, as a pr person the best reason to read Consumerist is to learn to avoid all the dumb avoidable messes that corporations get themselves into.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 11:14 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Just a question. How long would a campaign like that take. Could it be done in 7 hours?

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 12:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Absolutely. Had somehow the people on the ground communicated with the PR team, I guarantee you they could have reached an agreement with some sort of humane organization within a few hours.
Furthermore, if they're any good at their job, they have Google Alerts set up to tell them whenever Wells Fargo is mentioned anywhere...had they caught this in the RI paper, a good PR team would have immediately contacted ground staff and advised them to reverse policy, coordinated with any execs to fix the situation and allow the humane org. to takeover and then recontacted the paper with the resolution and hope that the paper writes an article and posts it online asap. Good crisis communication has to be immediate to be effective - the problem (as I've seen and heard about from colleagues) is that PR people at big companies run into execs and members of their own staff who forget the internet exists and think they have a few days to fix things as with trad. media, not a few hours.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 9:02 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

It's a bank they will never have good PR. Because nobody cares.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

colorisnteverything

December 9, 2009 8:56 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I am hoping none of the horses colicked. Leaving them without water for that long is almost a sure fire way to get them to colic.

This is terrible.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 9:31 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Since they weren't hayed either, your chances of colic drop. If they were hayed or fed a dry feed, and not watered, then I'd worry about colic.

$\"user-pic\"$

colorisnteverything

December 9, 2009 8:57 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Meanwhile, though, I am not sure how legit the rescue was. A rescue that was this bad off is a recipe for disaster. You have to know your limits. Otherwise, you are simply a hoarder who is NOT doing right by the animals.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

December 9, 2009 9:07 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

A lot of rescue groups are struggling. A lot of them are simply people who have the expertise in animal care, and saw a need. Not all of them have donations set up, and not all of them have money in a trust. I think this guy made his living off farming, but saw a need in abandoned horses. What was he supposed to do, even if he was in financial trouble? If no one was able to take them in (keeping in mind most rescue groups are struggling as it is, and are dealing with a lot of people abandoning their pets due to foreclosure, or financial problems), was he just supposed to let them loose?

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 9:42 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Exactly. I volunteer with a local shelter, and not only are our donations down, there are more abandoned pets at the same time that fewer people are financially able to adopt and some of our very reliable foster homes are running into financial or other issues that are forcing them to return animals they agreed to care for.

Saying \"have a plan\" is all well and good, but it's hard to have a plan when you have little or no resources to work with.

$\"user-pic\"$

catastrophegirl chooses not to fly

December 9, 2009 3:11 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

yep, the group i volunteer with is normally barn cat relocation, feral cat trap/neuter/release and trying to rehab feral kittens who are caught young enough to make them good pets...
but we've had a lot of 'foreclosure turn ins' this year - people who are having to give up their houses, go live somewhere they can't bring their cats and desperate to get the animal at least food and shelter while they live in their car or their friend's sofa.
we're desperate for donations or at least for people to adopt some of the cats

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

witeowl

December 9, 2009 9:02 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Where does it say in the original article that this is a shelter? All I see is that this is a farm. If it were a shelter, I suppose that he'd be happy (not distressed) to see strangers walking off with some of the animals.

So, the animals look to be sellable property that the farmer abandoned on the property. What would happen, say, if he left furniture on the property? Would that become Wells Fargo's, or would he still be entitled to come and pick it up after the property had been foreclosed on? I'm forced to also question why plans weren't made before the foreclosure was complete.

I wonder if he intentionally failed to re-home the animals in the hope that it would delay the inevitable.

(Note that Wells Fargo is still wrong. I'm just saying that it looks as if the farmer is wrong too.)

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

December 9, 2009 9:16 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Why would he be happy to see random strangers walk off with the animals? Cause everyone who stops to pick up a dog or a cat must love them and want to give them a new home? If I were him, I'd be upset to see people taking animals from my farm as well.

$\"user-pic\"$

witeowl

December 9, 2009 9:34 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Sure, he should have screened potential adopters long ago, when the foreclosure became inevitable. But he blew that opportunity, didn't he? At this point, he should be happier that the animals are finding homes compared to dying of starvation or dehydration at the hands of WF, no?

$\"user-pic\"$

Naame

December 9, 2009 11:36 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

How do you know he \"blew that opportunity\"? Apparently there were offers made to take in the animals and he refused. Now, I do not know for certain why he refused but could it be because he did screen the \"adopters\" and they were not wise choices?

Also, do we know that none of the animals were adopted before the foreclosure? Maybe some were and he was unable to find suitable candidates for others?

My main point here is that both you and I don't know for certain so stop being so closed minded towards other potential possibilities. What we do know is large amounts of evidence that this guy is primarily concerned for the well being of his animals or else he would not go through the trouble of seeking a restraining order with the Supreme Court over the matter. Such an order would not make this guy a single cent richer. It would only ensure that the animals are taken care of. In other words, there is no underlying reason for him to put in the effort other than the fact that he cares for the animals.

If he is willing to put in that effort, then why do you think that he didn't care to try and find suitable homes for the animals before his eviction?

$\"user-pic\"$

witeowl

December 9, 2009 8:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Already answered in my first post: \"I wonder if he intentionally failed to re-home the animals in the hope that it would delay the inevitable.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

December 11, 2009 2:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If \"I wonder\"s and \"I wish\"es were hugs and kisses...

So, first off, I didn't RTFA because it has pictures and I don't need that today if any of those animals look the least bit bad.

BUT: It sure sounds like there is a lot of questionable behavior going on on both sides of the table, and that there are a lot of unknowns.

Either way, however, the animals in no way deserve to have the failure of their humans taken out on them. Even if the farmer messed up, Wells Fargo continuing/exacerbating the situation is still not good.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 9:08 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Apparently if one does a little digging. The owner of the animals Dan Mackenzies has known about the foreclosure for over a year. Every time the RISPCA has found someone to take some of the animals Dan has refused. So after a year of him not caring about the animals welfare. He starts caring when it is the banks responsibility.

While i feel for the animals. This is all the owners fault.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Naame

December 9, 2009 11:28 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Source of your findings?

Also, were any of the offers made by others to take in the animals wise choices if one's concern is the welfare of those animals? The offers made could very well have been from people/organizations which do not take good care of animals. Perhaps the information you found goes into that as well and you would like to share those links with us?

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 12:11 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Are there agencies who adopt animals solely to mistreat/neglect them?

$\"user-pic\"$

Naame

December 9, 2009 3:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

In addition to what the previous poster already told you, we are unaware of whether or not his options were professional agencies or just random joes.

$\"user-pic\"$

catastrophegirl chooses not to fly

December 9, 2009 3:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

yes. i had to rehome some cats that my ex roommate abandoned with me a few years ago in florida and i got a lot of calls like this:
\"hi, i'm calling about the kittens?\" - \"i don't have kittens\" - \"um, the puppies?\" - \"nope, not puppies\" - \"oh, what kind of animals do you have? i'll take them all and give them a good home, i promise\"

it was a bad area for dogfighting and in fact the two people who adopted the cats had lost indoor/outdoor pets in the past to pet theft for dogfighting bait animals. i had indoor only cats who wouldn't be at the same risk

$\"user-pic\"$

tbax929

December 9, 2009 10:37 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Agreed. I'm not a fan of big banks, but this one falls on the owner, not on WF.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

DAK

December 9, 2009 9:12 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Whoever is at fault, if one of those animals dies, I hope someone ends up in prison for it. Who cares about PR? This is just fundamentally wrong.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 9:17 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

It sounds like they got some college kids to care for the animals

This guys probably waited till the last minute - thinking he would work something out, maybe even tried to use the animals as leverage to stay.

either way - If something isnt worked out - wont the state just take the animals away and charge to owner with cruelty ( not sure how that works with a bank ) ? Here is Chicago whenever they find dog fighting or crazy cat ladies they take all the animals and charge the owner.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 9:28 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Before we all bash Wells Fargo, lets look at the timeline. Guy is forced off his farm after legal notices had been provided to him, presumebly with the local law enforcement, on Monday. He knew about this, but made apparently NO effort/plans for care of the animals when the enevitable happened. On Tuesday(yesterday) the RISPCA comes out and speaks to the sub contractor who is handling this, NOT Wells Fargo, but an agent of Wells Fargo. Also on Tuesday, after speaking with the sub-contractor in Texas,

Donald Cummings, of Field Asset Services, wanted to know if there were any “local people” who could provide care.

As of late Tuesday,

\"Marshall arranged for students from the University of Rhode Island’s veterinary care program to call Cummings directly to negotiate a “daily rate and what the limits would be.”

So within essentially 24 hours of becoming aware of the situation, the person in charge of this was making efforts to feed/care the animals. I think that is pretty good for people who don't know how to care for a variety of farm animals and are NOT local to the area. I myself live on a farm, and can tell you people's knowledge of livestock care is often horrible. You can actually OVER feed a horse very quickly, which can lead to colic, which can be deadly and very painful way for a horse to die. That's just my opinion.

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Rectilinear Propagation

December 9, 2009 10:21 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

but made apparently NO effort/plans

How is that apparent? He apparently didn't contact the University of Rhode Island but that doesn't mean he did nothing.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 10:46 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

If I leave my house for more than a day, I make plans for all my animals. Mostly for the cats it's leaving them a big bowl of food, but for my dog it's arranging for someone to stop in and spoil him. If I knew I was being evicted, I would make more extensive plans, if I couldn't take all of them with me. The least of those plans would be for someone to stop by and feed/water them.

$\"user-pic\"$

Naame

December 9, 2009 11:00 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

When you have as many animals as he does, you go into foreclosure and get evicted with notice, get told by the bank that they promise to care for the animals so you do not have to(yes, according to the article that was the case, the bank fails to live up to that promise and you catch strangers walking away with the animals, then maybe...just MAYBE you can relate to this guy's situation. Until then, how can you possible assume that he truly did have an option which involved permanently placing proper care of the animals into the hands of others?

Hell, I can't even find one place to put one cat that my wife's mother is no longer capable of caring for and believe me...we have tried.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 10:15 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Good point. I learn something new about you everyday from this site. when is the book coming out?

$\"user-pic\"$

Naame

December 9, 2009 10:12 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Regardless, there is no excuse for just leaving the animals to fend for themselves no matter how you slice it. One way or another, they should be either cared for or released from captivity.

We can play the blame game or the \"could have/should have\" game till the end of time, but none of that matters in comparison. Put the animals first then deal with that petty crap later.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 11:44 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

You say \"released from captivity\" as if these were wild animals that could fend forthemselves if left to their own devices. Releasing any domestic animal is cruel and may result in a feral animal (or death), but it will never result in a wild animal.

The ONLY option is to find someone to care for the animals.

$\"user-pic\"$

Naame

December 9, 2009 3:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I considered what you are saying before posting my comment and for the most part I agree with you. However, I figured that releasing them into the wild where they have a shot at fending for themselves is better than being caged without proper resources. That would be a last resort though imo. I would very much prefer what you are saying.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 10:19 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

How does arranging for people to take care of the animals leaving them to fend for themselves? If anything, Wells Fargo and their agent have done a better job in a shorter period of time than the man who was evicted. He had a year to plan, and didn't do squat. Heck, if I am going to be away from my house for more than 12 hours, I make sure someone stops by my house to let my dog out. I have 2 nearby neighbors and an old neighbor who will let my Huckle-pup out and lavish him with attention(the way he explains it, I keep him locked in a dark closet 24/7) with barely any notice.

$\"user-pic\"$

Naame

December 9, 2009 10:51 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Where in my comment did you read me saying that it was one entity's fault more so than another? I thought I made it clear that I don't care about that part. All I care about is that these animals were taken care of properly which was obviously not the case during a particular window of time BEFORE Marshall was informed and got involved.

However, if your primary interest in this story revolves around blame rather than the animals themselves then you should read this quote from the article again:

\"But the lawyer said his main concern was for the animals — including cats, dogs, chickens, pigs, horses, sheep, goats and others — that he said had been left to fend for themselves despite assurances by Wells Fargo that it had arranged to have the Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals take care of them.\"

Wells Fargo assured they would be taken care of. They failed to live up to that promise. That doesn't excuse the original owner from any faults which may have occurred as a result of his actions or lack there of, but WF appears to be in the wrong as well.

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Gateau

December 9, 2009 9:54 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Regardless of whether this man did or did not know about the pending foreclosure, there are still animals suffering.
Wellsfargo should be ashamed for making animals suffer and not finding a humane solution.
Bad PR indeed.

And now I'm looking for the Wells Fargo contact information.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 10:31 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

How are they \"making animals suffer and not finding a humane solution.\" when, within 24 hours of being on scene, they have made contact with the state veterinarian who put the property handling company in contact with student vets to arrange a care schedule?

The property handling company is in Texas, and I would highly doubt they have local feedstore and livestock sitter contacts in their rolo-dex for RI. Taking care of livestock isn't easy, or something you just make one call for to be done. Your feedstore isn't going to take care of your animals. They deliver feed. You then need someone familiar/competent to feed that feed to the animals. You also have to \"muck\" stalls. Most people are scared/frightened to get into a stall with an animal that can crush your skull with one kick or send you flying by waving their head and neck. I don't expect the average moving guy to accept that risk or know what to do.

$\"user-pic\"$

Gateau

December 9, 2009 10:46 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I have taken care of farm animals before and majored in animal science. Caring for any animal isn't easy.

Putting someone \"in contact\" with another agency or group is NOT caring for the animals, but rather handing someone a phone number.

I stand by my original view, Wells Fargo could have handled this situation better than what they've done.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 9:56 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

You may wish to read the post above yours first.

$\"user-pic\"$

Gateau

December 9, 2009 10:10 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I've read that one and it is still a poor stance for a bank to take with a foreclosure.
Many people who face foreclosure, especially now, don't have the funds to pay for care.
Let an animal services agency take over and they can bill the guy for the care of these animals.
No matter how you slice it, this looks bad for Wells Fargo. I understand foreclosing on the property for non-payment. I don't understand having those animals suffer - what if the owner is unable to pay for services?

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 10:30 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

What proof do we have that bank is not taking care of them. Other than the person who has not taken care of them for the last year.

$\"user-pic\"$

Naame

December 9, 2009 11:45 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

We don't have \"proof\" so to speak. It is one person's word over another, but there is evidence which suggests that the original owner and his lawyer are more credible. The reason is due to the original owners current course of action to seek a restraining order for the animals to be taken care of. That order won't make the owner a dime richer, but it will ensure that the animals will be fine after WF supposedly failed to deliver on their promise. That means the owner's only incentive is the well being of his animals.

If that is his only motivation at this point then why would he bother going through the trouble of seeking a restraining order if his animals actually were being appropriately taken care of? It's not the proof you are asking for, but since we do not have proof one way or the other I would say that this reasoning should be enough to at least convince people of which side to lean towards.

$\"user-pic\"$

Gateau

December 9, 2009 10:43 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

What proof do we have that the bank is taking care of them?

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 10:04 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Ah... the asymetries. Homeowners get demonized for walking away from underwater homes, but you know, banks(corporations) can be cruel to animals, no problem!

","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 10:38 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

you know i hate peta... but maybe we should let them loose on wells fargo. maybe they can destroy each other?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 10:59 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Except that rather than killing the animals like PETA does because it's cheaper than caring for them, this company is making plans to have them cared for.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Loias calls you out if you can't RTFA

December 9, 2009 10:59 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I can see the headline now: \"Wells Fargo Kills Defenseless Animals, Public Image\"

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

ecvogel

December 9, 2009 11:27 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I just filed a complaint to the RISCPA! I hope you go down Wells Fargo! I never used you, but you are now on my companies not to do business with.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 12:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

So you filed a false complaint stating you KNOW no one has taken care of these animals since they(the RISPCA) were there less than 24 hours ago? Way to go!

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 9:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Per my previous comment to you, your tax dollars at work! (RISPCA probably doesn't get much government funding, but you get the point.) If they are funded by donations, the requirement to send out an investigator just cost shelter animals food for a week.

We've got some new agencies that will be charging the responsible party for the investigation if they find violations. Or perhaps we should start charging complainants for false reports? It could save the state a bundle!
/soapbox

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 11:45 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I honestly can't believe this. I'm someone who believes there should be a special circle in Hell for people who mistreat animals, so this makes me mad. Seriously, what's wrong with making arrangements with the property owner to let him on the property to take care of the animals or move them to new locations?

Dude, WF. Be a bunch of f****ng humans.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 11:55 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Addendum (Since I literally couldn't read any comments before I posted my reply):

It's really hard to say who's in the wrong here. But I wonder if the owner was trying to make arrangements to have his animals cared for when the property was finally foreclosed on. The economy hasn't been kind to any of us, and taking large animals like horses requires a lot of work. You can't just drop them off at a ranch or a stable and be done with it. Maybe he couldn't find anyone trustworthy to take them in; or maybe he had found help, but WF vetoed it for some reason.

I think there's more going on backstage here than the article states.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 1:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

He knew that he was verging on foreclosure way back in March:

Oddly enough, the RI State Senate seems to have been involved in trying to bail them out at that point:

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Semuanya

December 9, 2009 11:56 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

So, once again The Communist shows its true colors by picking on defenseless banks. Those lazy animals can fend for themselves unlike our banks, who are in desperate need of your donations. There are yachts in desperate need of water and the porsches are crying out for fuel. Why is everyone deaf to their suffering?

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

njschurk

December 9, 2009 12:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Does anyone know a corporate e-mail address for Wells Fargo? I'd like to personally send them my thoughts on this matter

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 1:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Public Image? Why would WF give a crap about that. Only naive consumers maintain accounts at WF. There are thousands of better products/services out there with Credit Unions.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 1:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I saw let ALF (Animal Liberation Front) take care of this situation. That will make them think twice on this course of action.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 1:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I say*

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

West Coast Secessionist

December 9, 2009 2:08 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Ha ha! Wells Fargo! Truly the worst bank in the world. Of course, Citi keeps trying to beat them. Maybe someday they will tie up the score.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 2:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

if owners of animals can be charges with animal cruelty.. then Wells Fargo can as well. They hold the title right?? that makes them the owners! And they are choosing to neglect their animals. Why has noone called the cops on them?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 2:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

boycotting Wells Fargo now. Is there a bank that you can trust?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 9:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

now? You must be new here. Welcome. :-)

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 3:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Ugh, poor animals.

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Rhyss

December 9, 2009 11:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Regardless of the OP's responsibility or irresponsibility - none of it is the animals fault. Please keep us updated on this one Consumerist.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

December 9, 2009 11:29 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Predictably, WF landed themselves on Fark, and none of the comments were good. I have also noted it to Care2.com If there's one thing I like, it's spreading the word about the bad guys so that other people can avoid them. Anybody else care to pass this thing around?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

nodaybuttoday

December 10, 2009 10:53 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

After looking at the article on the website in this report, I am not sure what people expect the farmer to do with his animals. Many of these animals were large, expensive animals that in this economy, few people can afford, It's not like giving away a cat. I have a lot of sympathy for the farmer, many people are having to foreclose on their homes and shelters are no exception. Shelters rely heavily on donations and people are giving less with things the way they were. The fact that Wells Fargo was refusing help also makes you wonder what they were thinking. Perhaps they wanted the animals to die so that they wouldn't be their problem anymore...

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

January 1, 2010 9:47 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

But, but, on the mortgage contract, the fine print says nothing about we have to care for the animals. Where's the Money?

","","");