Subscriber Comments for
The charges against a Santa Barbara County woman accused of ...

Comments in order of when they were received | (reverse order)

COMMENT 316637	2012-09-05 07:19 PM
Of course , the charges were dropped. So predictable, to those of us who know Sandy. She was overloaded and overworked, a victim of other peoples' "throw-away" mentality. The only reason she had so many animals is because people dumped them on her. Let this be a hard lesson for us all. DO NOT buy animals you cannot hope to provide for in a decent and caring way. All of the turkeys and chickens and doves . . . County Animal Control should have been helping Sandy, instead of prosecuting her. What a shame.
COMMENT 316670P	2012-09-05 09:42 PM
Thank you Robert for defending this woman on the over zealous and misdirected charges brought by Joyce Dudley. I appreciate your efforts to defend her and our Constitution. This is an unsung victory. God bless you, man!
COMMENT 316706	2012-09-06 07:22 AM
The issue is even bigger than Sandy's story. Jan Glick and Michael Pennan at Animal Control have proven once again how vindictive and inept they are. $60,000 later and most of the animals dead or sick, they can only claim victory for nothing. Many human and nonhuman animals have suffered at their hands. Would like to see those two bullies done away with, permanently! Action is greatly needed!
COMMENT 316719	2012-09-06 07:49 AM
Jan Glick is the Animal Services Director and Michael Pennon is the SB Shelter Supervisor. They are currently trying to rehome the last of the 110 roosters that Ms Coupal had and if they can't then they will probably have to euthanize them. Roosters aren't allowed in City limits so it is a tough sell. In some islands of Hawaii they just let the roosters run around and when someone is starving they can take one of them for dinner. Maybe that would be a better way to deal with them than forcing some poor animal control officer to kill 100 healthy social birds.
COMMENT 316726P	2012-09-06 07:59 AM
They wouldn't need to kill the 100 roosters if they had just left them alone. Sandy would still be taking care of them and they could lead out their natural lives. Another example of incompetent government employees making life miserable for the rest of us.
COMMENT 316734P	2012-09-06 08:16 AM
This was outrageous! Those (and those abetting the taking) should be penalized. Perhaps a fair way of doing that would be to require them, rather than well-intentioned Animal Control workers, to do the euthanizing of these unfortunate creatures — and to repay Sandy Coupal's attorney fees. Fat chance, though, that Jan Glick and Michael Pennon will take hands-on responsibility. If all the money put into this had gone instead to upgrading her facilities the animals would have had a better life and Sandy's reputation would not have been ruined. That would have truly been restorative justice. To accuse a kind-hearted person of "hoarding", charges now dropped, was outrageous. Thank you to her attorney for helping her. I hope that in the future the County will think twice (and then some) before choosing to listen to busybodies and accuse without attempting to improve a situation. Would have saved a lot of human hours ($ of County salaries) and animal lives and welfare.
CAPTAIN HALEY	2012-09-06 08:26 AM
I am not familiar with this case, but why in the world would anyone think it appropriate for the County to come into someone's place and spend taxpayer money to fix it up for her? Is there something I am missing here?
COMMENT 316762	2012-09-06 09:17 AM
Quite the catch-22, isn't it? The overwhelming majority of Santa Barbarans want bigger government to take care of us, and yet we are surprised when the government steps into a situation where a woman is "overloaded and overworked"? That's the overbearing government we've allowed to be created. So if you think poor Sandy has been harassed mercilessly, and had every ability to take care of 445 animals on her own, we've only ourselves to blame for her troubles.
COMMENT 316734P	2012-09-06 09:38 AM
The point was/is, if the County is going to spend the money and then find there was not sufficient reason to follow through, wouldn't it have made more sense to have attempted to correct the situation positively rather than negatively, as they did? There's been a substantial waste of County time and money in District Attorney time, in Animal Control time, in money for the care of the seized animals; a substantial harassment against Sandy Coupal plus mistreatment of the animals, many of which apparently will now be euthanized. The bottom line fault is with those who carelessly buy (and carelessly sell) birds at pet stores and agriculture stores to people who can not or will not care for them (roosters are not allowed in SB city and in the County neighbors complain...) --- and then the buyers, wanting to be nice, gave them to Sandy Coupal who was put in a no-win at all position, caring for animals, wanting to help and tried the best she could. Rather than coming down hard against her, the County would have done much better to put in the money they were willing to put in for enforcement into caring. That, Captain Haley, is perhaps what you were missing. For background, here's the Dec. 13 Independent story, complete with 28 comments, pro and con.
COMMENT 316795	2012-09-06 10:13 AM
I wonder how much taxpayer money was spent, and is still being spent. These were vindictive allegations and charges.
COMMENT 316838	2012-09-06 11:26 AM
I wish that the $$$ spent could have gone to animals or humans in need
COMMENT 317551	2012-09-08 11:15 AM
This is why I DO NOT recommend buying chicks from La Cumbre Feed or Island Seed and Feed. At least 10 percent of them will be roosters. If you get your chicks from Mark in Lompoc, he will take back any that turn out to be roosters, and replace it with a hen of the same breed. he can be found on Craigs List.
COMMENT 317708	2012-09-08 03:49 PM
551 is full of it and just a shill. I bought 10 chicks from La Cumbre Feed. 10 Hens. 0 Roosters.

38% of comments on this page were made by Edhat Community Members.

EDHAT COMMENTS POLICY