Reader comments
Man to serve up to 5 years for animal cruelty, drugs

Anonymous | 10:05 a.m. July 8, 2008

Poor Puppies

Oh Please... | 10:07 a.m. July 8, 2008

If he has been in a methamphetamine induced haze for eight to ten years then he canï¿½t be that good of a man. I have a close relative that has been off meth for just over a year now, so I know what that drug does to their personalities. Meth makes people mean, spiteful, angry, and violent.

Maybe this sentence will save his life and his loved ones ability to function, because he cannot get his meth inside.

Meth kills, not only the user but every person who remotely cares for them.

gdog3gtb | 10:13 a.m. July 8, 2008

5 years? 55 years would be a more suitable sentence. This guy needs to be quarantined from society and animals above all else. A society that doesn't protect animals from inhumane cruelty is doomed for the same. We reap what we sow.

Comments continue below

Wow! | 10:20 a.m. July 8, 2008

Killing puppies is deplorable. But up to 5 years jail time? Killing kids by leaving them to die in hot cars is OK (as long as you belong to a certain religious group) but kill a puppy & get locked up.

this is silly | 10:30 a.m. July 8, 2008

What would the sentence be if they were lizards? Skunks? Chickens? Just because puppies are cute and snuggly the guy goes to jail? Give me a break.

Anonymous | 10:57 a.m. July 8, 2008

Animal cruelty carries a harsher sentence then child abuse. Go Figureï¿½

RE:WOW! | 10:57 a.m. July 8, 2008

I agree, although I believe that there should be stiff penalties for animal cruelty, it needs to be balanced. This is a great example of getting off your butt and making sure the legislature knows how you feel about issues that are important to you. That's what they did to get the animal cruelty bill passed, now we need to do the same for child abuse, negligence etc.

Janice | 11:44 a.m. July 8, 2008

I believe that cruelty to animals is wrong... but prison? There are better ways to punish this man by community service. He would make a great pooper scooper.

SLC gal | 11:51 a.m. July 8, 2008

"He's such a good guy" - oh brother. I'm sorry but this lady is a VERY poor judge of character. A "good guy" does not do what he did to those puppies.

Bigger picture | 12:09 p.m. July 8, 2008

He was given one-year sentences for each of the dead puppies, and 5 years for the drug charge, to be served at the same time. The maximum he could serve is 13 years and 6 months. With reductions for good behavior, time served, etc. etc., it could be much less than that. Plus, he will be getting treatment for his drug problem.

Although he killed these puppies while under the influence of the drugs, it could easily have been a human being. People need to understand that animal cruelty is part of a much bigger picture. It often progresses to cruelty against humans, especially when it is children or young people who do it at those young ages. It desensitizes them.

Joe Moe | 12:13 p.m. July 8, 2008

At least this headline was more accurate than yesterday's. Helps to get all the facts in, eh?

I am curious to see how many "years" he actually ends up in prison. Most likely, not too long, and then they can leverage a long probation over him and hopefully get him some help.

fred | 12:51 p.m. July 8, 2008

He didn't kill the puppies, he stupidly left them in a dumpster, which isn't exactly the same thing. The difference is his level of criminal intent. Rather than sending him to prison where we all have to pay to support him, they should make him get a job, stay clean and do community service at the animal shelter.

This whole animal rights sceen is nothing more than a sop to the PETA criminals and their ilk that somehow see the horror of a senseless killing of an animal, but for them it is ok to kill an an unborn child in its mothers womb. The 45 million kids aborted to date probably would have a different opinion if they had a voice to speak.

Craig | 12:52 p.m. July 8, 2008

So this guy has a bunch of puppies that he tries to give away but nobody wants them. He can't give them away, he can't take care of them, so he decides to smother them in a plastic bag and dispose of them. If he would have taken the dogs to the pound like he should have what would they have done to the dogs when nobody came forward to adopt them? Where were the Woodwards and all the smacktards commenting here when he was trying to give the puppies away? A man goes to prison for five years and their comment is that's the best we can get. You people are sick.

something is wrong | 12:50 p.m. July 8, 2008

In this very day's paper(Utah section) the DN is reporting that a man who killed a three year old was up for parole and told that he could expect to serve his "full sentence" of five years. PLEASE! In what sane universe should killing puppies hold a punitive consequence equivallent to Homicide?

Something is decidedly horrific here. I don't think we can give a man that pitches puppies into a dumpster a five year sentence and then tell the mother of that little three year old that she recieved justice for her son. Do you?

If the overly excitable animal rights crowd were equally as outraged by the death of small children as puppies; and as compasionate to humans as they are to pets, then the outrage posted on the blog for that horrific story would be far, far lengthier than for this pitiable tale.

Possibilty that... | 1:13 p.m. July 8, 2008

Maybe the guy lost it emotionally with the puppies because he had just enough of the mom and dad dogs pooping in his yard. So this made him darn mad and he committed an evil crime and put an end to no more dog poop in his yard- Just a thought.

Deseret Dawg | 1:52 p.m. July 8, 2008

Under the circumstances, five year is just about right. He not only deliberately killed vulnerable, trusting baby animals, but he also possessed meth, one of the most dangerous recreational drugs in existence. To paraphrase the Surgeon General, there is NO safe level of exposure to meth.

In addition, Howard no-showed his first hearing on March 10th, prompting the issuance of a bench warrant. Judges don't appreciate it when you fail to show up in their courts.

RE: Bigger Picture | 1:53 p.m. July 8, 2008

When animal abuse turns to human abuse the punishment isnï¿½t as harsh.

I do believe that animal abuse is wrong. But I do not understand how you can get a year per puppy that died and 90 days for beating a child and killing their innocence. Where is the justice in that?

Our laws need to be revaluated and harsher punishment for human abuse put into place.

You get 25 to life for having a gun and enough drugs to be considered a dealer in the same place.

Finally, a good judge! | 2:25 p.m. July 8, 2008

It would be great if the people of Glendalae had this judge. Perhaps after they arrest the people that killed the seven-year-old girl in a drive-by shooting, they could hold the trial in this judge's jurisdiction. I can dream can't I?

RE: Re: Bigger Picture | 2:23 p.m. July 8, 2008

I agree with you. Laws need to be changed so that people who hurt, abuse, or kill babies, toddlers, children, or any human being, are sentenced to much more appropriate sentences than they presently are. The recent case of the man killing a 2 year old and receiving 5 years is appalling, plus he still doesn't accept that he abused the poor little boy.

Recognizing that animal abuse is a serious thing is also important. As a human being I would be afraid of someone who feels no remorse or responsibility for hurting/killing a defenseless animal. So - don't do away with these penalties, because an animal abuser cannot be trusted to respect human life either.

The next step is to work toward change in the criminal justice system to make the punishment match the crime more than it does now. Violence against people is a serious problem in society now, and needs to be subject to more severe penalties.

Just don't throw out the baby with the bath water!

Ronald A. Young | 3:19 p.m. July 8, 2008

I think this is a good idea in extreme cases, this being one. The Jail time will help him deal with any other problems he may have.

Odd? | 3:30 p.m. July 8, 2008

Maybe the guy was stoned on meth when he killed the puppies?

m | 4:32 p.m. July 8, 2008

Did any of you this is too harsh a sentence even read the article. The man got one year for each of the dead puppies (which he will be able do in one year) and the rest of the sentence is because of the drug charge. He is NOT, as some of you believe, getting 5 years for the animal abuse - he is only doing one year for that. That said, I do believe there should be harsher consequences for human abuse.

To: Odd? | 4:34 p.m. July 8, 2008

If he was stoned on meth then hopefully he will get help for the addiction. However, his behavior was a result of a choice he made, and is no excuse. He needs to deal with the consequences and learn that being high on meth (or anything else) is not an acceptable excuse, and will not give him a 'get out of jail' card.

So many people and animals are hurt, abused or killed by people on drugs, or people drinking. If we give them all a pep talk, or a nothing sentence, and send them on their way we will just see more and more terrible headlines.

If he is a good guy off the drugs - good for him. The problem is he goes back to drugs and then everybody (and every animal) needs to look out!

Anonymous | 4:41 p.m. July 8, 2008

The funny thing is if left them at an animal shelter, they would been killed by asphyxiation.

And nothing would happened to him.

Clearly he should have gotten much less time, if any at all.

There just dogs.

NO one at the animal shelter is going to jail killing unwanted dogs!

We have dominion over animals, that includes getting rid unwanted animals.

ski | 9:48 p.m. July 8, 2008

He was a habitual user of meth. To use it one has to possess it. Posession of meth is a felony. And he was in possession of that stuff for years. Add up the days of possession (use) and impose the maximum sentence for each - to run consecutively.
Alternatively if this society were to use ancient biblical justice (an eye for an eye) you could lock him in a box and dump the box in the southern Utah desert. A lot cheaper than incarceration and an effective deterrent to others.

katie | 11:51 p.m. July 8, 2008

i personally believe the sentence he got was not enough. If he can serve each year sentence at the same time, then the number of dead bodies means nothing. Whether it was 1 or 20. There were 13 dead puppies. People say "they were just puppies", but there is a bigger picture here. Life is life. How a person can just take away the life of ANY living thing is beyond me. And when a person can be so mindless as to take the lives of innocent puppies, who's to say he won't do the same to a human being? Yes, it's sad that murderers get away with the same length sentences. But change those sentences to longer. We shouldn't shorten jail sentences for animal cruelty. As the pledge says...JUSTICE FOR ALL!

RE: Katie | 4:49 p.m. July 9, 2008

Life is not Life.

Animal life is NOT equal to human life, nor should it be.

We were given dominion over animals.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.

1 photo

Photo courtesy of Aaron and Rita Woodward

Precious is the only puppy that survived after being dumped in a trash bin behind a Riverdale fabric store with 13 other puppies. No formal reason has been given for why the puppies were left to die.