Owner charged; animals double of earlier reportsBy Noah Haglund (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Friday, June 13, 2008
Wade Spees Seventy-three live animals, including these ducks were removed from behind a house in Hollywood on Wednesday. Video
Charleston County authorities removed 73 living animals and 27 carcasses Wednesday afternoon from backyard pens at 7295 S.C. Highway 162. Property owner Richard Gilliard, 64, is facing charges of ill treatment to animals, the sheriff's office said. Watch » A collection of fowl, rabbits and other creatures seized from a Hollywood home Wednesday — some 150 — was almost twice what was originally reported, the Charleston Animal Society said. The shelter started receiving calls Thursday morning from people wanting to adopt them, said Kay Hyman, the society's director of outreach and communications. Animals already in foster care included 74 chickens with severe lice, six pheasants, four guinea hens, 11 quail, 11 pigeons and six geese. The shelter was housing 11 rabbits, three goats, one pheasant, two dogs, one cat, 15 mallard ducks, 13 Muscovy ducks and one domestic duck. "They're really not in bad shape other than lice, parasites," Hyman said. "They're not emaciated. It looks like they were fed." But, she added: "They were really dirty, especially the dogs. ... We had to bathe them several times." Authorities acting on a tip found animals behind 7295 S. S.C. Highway 162. They also recovered 27 animal carcasses. The society had to euthanize one elderly duck, Hyman said. Charleston County sheriff's deputies cited the property owner, 64-year-old Richard Gilliard Sr., with ill treatment of animals. Family at the home declined to comment Wednesday. Sheriff's Maj. John Clark said Gilliard was scheduled to appear in Charleston County Magistrate's Court at 10 a.m. Monday. Reach Noah Haglund at 937-5550 or nhaglund@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools
|
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 7 comment(s)
|
Posted by Perspective on June 13, 2008 at 4:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How much money are we wasting now? All these animals and only one needed to be put down?
Posted by moonpie on June 13, 2008 at 6:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"They're really not in bad shape other than lice, parasites," Hyman said. "They're not emaciated"
THEN WHY DID YOU TAKE THEM? DID HE LIVE SOMEWHERE ZONING DIDN'T ALLOW HIM TO HAVE THIS MANY? SOMETIMES I THINK THE SPCA HAS TO MUCH AUTHORITY.
Posted by captivated on June 13, 2008 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think they forgot the partridge in the pear tree.
Posted by RTC on June 13, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I haven't seen any pictures yet that have shown any animals that looked in poor condition.
They claim to have recovered 27 carcasses, so did they dig them up, or were they just lying around?
If the latter were the case, then it would be a health hazard.
Weird situation here.
Posted by JohnS on June 13, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the animals were being abused how come the ones in the pictures look ok? The goat looks fine. Leave the man alone.
Posted by beth1070 on June 13, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So what exactly is this man being charged with? If the animals were well fed, and did not look abused, I'm not sure I understand what the crime is. I support the ASPCA, but sometimes I wonder if they step in from time to time when it's really not necessary. Maybe there's more to this story that we are not being told. But if what we know is pretty much the whole story, then I just don't see what the problem is. Maybe they could have just told that man to get the lice taken care of, then checked back to make sure he did that, and be on their merry way. There are too many cases of REAL animal abuse in the area to be wasting time on this case.
Posted by shoebaby77 on June 13, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
From what News 2 reported last night, some of the carcasses (maybe all, not sure) were sharing cages with the live animals. That would pose a hazard, IMO.