Eddie Markward

Originally Posted by Lucille

There is no proof that there was any TStat issue. It is clever to divert the fault of such a large loss to an issue that has not been proven.
Those snakes may have been sold, they may have died of starvation and the TStat story made up.

With all due respect Lucille, that is all speculation and really has no place here unless/until those claims are disputed/proven to be false and it does not seem to me that the OP is doing so. I know there are some "behind the scenes" investigations going on but as it stands, the claim is that a great deal of animals were lost due to a TStat failure. My argument is that if in fact that is something the OP is not disputing or making claim that Mr Markward is lying about then this "failure" is something that both "partners should share a loss equally on. Im a little surprised that you would argue so strongly on a position that seems so based on speculation. Maybe I missed something while reading through this or maybe you are "in" on a few more details but I see nothing here that would allow such speculation.

Maybe this was all planned years in advanced so that these snakes could be smuggled out of the country. Maybe they were used to pay off an arms deal gone bad... When would such speculations be called out here. What scenario would be too extreme to be allowed as an argument here? Wouldnt it be best to stick to the information being offered and work with that? At least until there is a question of truth brought forth by the OP or info pointing to another reason for these missing snakes is brought here by another, with some hope that some form of proof backing those claims is also offered.

Based on the information being given, and based on the fact that the OP does not seem to be disputing the TStat failure as being the cause of death of many of these animals, I think that all "partners" should share in the loss that occurred. Lets not forget that the OP appears to have had less then desirable husbandry conditions in her own environment (Mites, RI) and had herself experienced some sort of TStat or heating element failure or improper setting (snake(s) having burns). She also was well aware she was sending her collection into an environment that had mites at the time.

If they had they been in her care, because he was unable to have them at his location, and she had lost all of their collection due to the same type of failure that caused her snake to suffer burns would she have assumed all responsibility and costs to replace the collection? She was not getting the timely responses she had wanted and was not getting pictures when asked for but as long as Mr Markward said "everything is OK, well that was enough for her. Lets also remember that she was unable to hold up her end of the $ multiple times but as long as he said fine then its fine.

Im sorry but I think the OP also failed in her responsibility for the care of these animals. Its very easy and convenient to place full blame elsewhere but she knew things were not right. She knew she was not getting the feedback she wanted but left it at that. She clearly had personal issues (marital, location) that prevented her from acting as Im sure she wished she had. It seems that Mr Markward also was/is experiencing some personal issues that prevented him from acting as Im sure he wishes he had. But yet all the responsibility seems to be being placed solely on one "partner". Yes, he could see them everyday, and yes, she could have done more to see proof of their condition. We have seen this kind of "breakdown" multiple times in this industry.

So, unless other information is offered to show that Mr Markwards story is total BS and that there were other reasons for the missing snakes,such as sales, I think both "partners" are subject to some level of blame here.

Once again, my argument is based solely on the "Failed TStat". I am not in any way disputing the obvious negligence in the lack of food and water conditions expressed in those images.

Originally Posted by BillZ

So, unless other information is offered to show that Mr Markwards story is total BS

That is plain silly.

Photos show starving snakes, suspiciously, there are no pictures of the dead snakes nor any evidence that the alleged malfunctioning TStat was sent to the mfr to show why such an alleged breakdown occurred (that in my opinion would be the FIRST plan of action to take if a piece of equipment was responsible for all these deaths).

This is the BOI, and someone comes along, offers up a couple posts and no proof of a ton of missing snakes, and you believe him? Especially in light of pictures of the rest of the starving snakes, which you are desperately trying to separate from this ( probably nonexistent) 'incident'.

The starving snakes put the ball in his court.

Originally Posted by HerpVenue

Some people are like " oh gee he took responsibility so he is okay with me".
What did he take responsibility for?

I haven't seen anyone say they were "okay" with Mr. Markward in any way, shape or form on Fauna (maybe I missed it?). Compared to most people who sling blame and try to shift responsibility onto others, even to the point of outright lying in many cases (The Pet Gecko incident comes to mind), it is commendable that he has not once denied that this happened while in his care and that this is his fault.

I make no bones about the fact that I would never consider doing business with Mr. Markward after this, and I think what happened is heinous, horribly unfortunate and should have been avoidable. I just think it's respectable that he came here, where he is being clearly crucified, and admitted to what happened.

Below is, in my opinion, an outright admittance that this is completely his fault.

Originally Posted by E_Markward

Through out all this I have made many mistakes. I completely over estimated my rat breeding abilities, I underestimated the cost to feed a collection of that size. I failed to communicate issues and problems. I didn't make their priorities my priorities. I didn't ask for help when I needed it.

At this point all I can do is ask that the Payne's forgive me and work with me as we come to a resolution.

There will be many here that won't give me a second thought or chance. But for those that will all I ask is for the opportunity to earn your trust and respect again. I'm not asking that either be freely given, but that you would allow me to attempt to earn them.

Do I think something shady might be going on behind the scenes? It's possible. Maybe even probable. But I can respect that he isn't making excuses in this particular post. I don't know what he might be doing on other venues as I don't really pay a lot of attention to them.

I believe I saw the OP mention something about a GoFundMe to help get medical treatment for all of the ill snakes. If it wasn't Charlene, I apologize. If it was - would you be so kind as to pass me a link?

Thank you in advance.

I don't see how you can just base an opinion on the tstat failure without taking into the horrifying conditions the animals were in. No tstat failure would cause the months of neglect it would take for those animals to get in that bad of shape. I also don't think you understand that they moved to another state because of military deployment, which is the reason she couldn't check on them personally, and why they were left in his care in the first place. You apparently also missed the fact that she left her entire rat colony with him as well. A colony that had been nearly enough on it's own to sustain her collection, and in which case $200 was more than enough to cover the few small rats she said needed to be purchased to complete the feedings. As far as the condition the snakes were in when he got them, he stated himself that all but a couple were in good health when he got the collection, and she has already explained the reasons for their health, and that they were recovering by the time she left them. I don't know either of these involved party's personally, but I have read everything there is go fead on this situation publicly, both here and on FB. I can't see anywhere that she is in any way to blame for the neglect and animal abuse that happened to her collection. She left them in the care of someone she felt would be responsible for them because she wasn't going to be able to care for them. At that point her collection became the responsibility of the person she left in charge of it, and who she was paying a monthly stipend to help pay for it, which he had agreed was enough.

Originally Posted by BillZ

With all due respect Lucille, that is all speculation and really has no place here unless/until those claims are disputed/proven to be false and it does not seem to me that the OP is doing so. I know there are some "behind the scenes" investigations going on but as it stands, the claim is that a great deal of animals were lost due to a TStat failure. My argument is that if in fact that is something the OP is not disputing or making claim that Mr Markward is lying about then this "failure" is something that both "partners should share a loss equally on. Im a little surprised that you would argue so strongly on a position that seems so based on speculation. Maybe I missed something while reading through this or maybe you are "in" on a few more details but I see nothing here that would allow such speculation.

Maybe this was all planned years in advanced so that these snakes could be smuggled out of the country. Maybe they were used to pay off an arms deal gone bad... When would such speculations be called out here. What scenario would be too extreme to be allowed as an argument here? Wouldnt it be best to stick to the information being offered and work with that? At least until there is a question of truth brought forth by the OP or info pointing to another reason for these missing snakes is brought here by another, with some hope that some form of proof backing those claims is also offered.

Based on the information being given, and based on the fact that the OP does not seem to be disputing the TStat failure as being the cause of death of many of these animals, I think that all "partners" should share in the loss that occurred. Lets not forget that the OP appears to have had less then desirable husbandry conditions in her own environment (Mites, RI) and had herself experienced some sort of TStat or heating element failure or improper setting (snake(s) having burns). She also was well aware she was sending her collection into an environment that had mites at the time.

If they had they been in her care, because he was unable to have them at his location, and she had lost all of their collection due to the same type of failure that caused her snake to suffer burns would she have assumed all responsibility and costs to replace the collection? She was not getting the timely responses she had wanted and was not getting pictures when asked for but as long as Mr Markward said "everything is OK, well that was enough for her. Lets also remember that she was unable to hold up her end of the $ multiple times but as long as he said fine then its fine.

Im sorry but I think the OP also failed in her responsibility for the care of these animals. Its very easy and convenient to place full blame elsewhere but she knew things were not right. She knew she was not getting the feedback she wanted but left it at that. She clearly had personal issues (marital, location) that prevented her from acting as Im sure she wished she had. It seems that Mr Markward also was/is experiencing some personal issues that prevented him from acting as Im sure he wishes he had. But yet all the responsibility seems to be being placed solely on one "partner". Yes, he could see them everyday, and yes, she could have done more to see proof of their condition. We have seen this kind of "breakdown" multiple times in this industry.

So, unless other information is offered to show that Mr Markwards story is total BS and that there were other reasons for the missing snakes,such as sales, I think both "partners" are subject to some level of blame here.

Once again, my argument is based solely on the "Failed TStat". I am not in any way disputing the obvious negligence in the lack of food and water conditions expressed in those images.

Speculation has no place here? You state that "the claim is that a great deal of animals were lost due to a Tstat failure". Only one person claimed that and provided no proof, thus making your statement nothing more than speculation. Also, saying that the OP "appears to have had less than desirable husbandry conditions" based on two snakes out of her entire collection is a ludicrous cheap shot and, how do you say?...speculation.

Originally Posted by Chris Kennard

Speculation has no place here? You state that "the claim is that a great deal of animals were lost due to a Tstat failure". Only one person claimed that and provided no proof, thus making your statement nothing more than speculation. Also, saying that the OP "appears to have had less than desirable husbandry conditions" based on two snakes out of her entire collection is a ludicrous cheap shot and, how do you say?...speculation.

Chris, I must disagree. I have made zero speculation, I clearly base my argument on a claim being made here, it is not speculation. It is a claim being made here. It may not be true, it may be a complete fabrication, but it is the claim of reason for the deaths of many animals being made here. I have not seen that the OP has called BS on this nor has she offered another reason (that I am aware of so correct me if I missed it) so for anyone else to construct another scenario for this disaster of a situation is none other than speculation. I have not once offered my opinion of whether I believe that claim or not. What would it matter. As far as restitution is concerned, its a business transaction and needs to be treated as one. All I am stating is that, based on that claim, brought to us by the OP with no apparent dispute to that claim and based on the fact that this was a partnership and not, as someone so desperately tried to introduce, an arrangement where Mr Markward was being "payed" to perform a service for someone, that based on a TStat failure all partners should share in the loss. Put aside your feeling that the claim is BS. Based on what is being stated here, and not being disputed by the OP, do you think just one party of a partnership should suffer the losses due to a equipment failure?

As far as the OP's husbandry issues. This is clearly not speculation. Speculation = "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence". Nor is it a "cheap shot" These are facts posted on her own and are you telling me they are desirable? She doesnt think so so Im not sure why you or anyone else would. My purpose of pointing them out, as she herself has done, is to show that no one is above this in this scenario. She herself has experienced "less than desirable" conditions within her collection. Including , and most importantly, some type of heat malfunction which if had gone terribly wrong, may very well have had wiped out her collection, Much like the scenario that Mr Markward is "claiming" happened.

As far as anothers claim that I am trying "desperately" to separate the live snakes from the dead/missing snakes well thats because they are two separate issue at hand here. I am referring to the liability of loss of the snakes due to the TStat failure. If we are talking about making restitution, which we are, then they need to be separated into two points of argument for what the restitution should be. Is Mr Markward solely responsible for animals lost in an "as claimed" equipment failure? Thats where I argue no. Is Mr Markward responsible for the care cost involved in getting the live snakes back to health? I would have to argue yes but would also say that the OP maybe should/could have done more to be more aware of their condition.

Its just an opinion.. it may be a wrong one. It certainly will not be a popular one but it is how I feel. If this had been me I feel I would have gone to a greater length to find out just what the hell was going on. "We had been asking for pictures and weights for months on a few snakes" Im sorry but I would have found some way, within those few months, to get a better handle of what was going on with my live animals. In restitution, there is always a percentage of fault to decide. Be it an injury, an auto accident, regardless of what the loss is, there is a percentage of fault to be determined for proper restitution. Argue that he is solely responsible for the live snakes, Im fine with that. I will only point out what could have been done differently.

No one would argue the tragedy being shown here, or that the condition of the snakes shown in those images is deplorable. I am simply saying that based on this being what was in fact a "partnership" as described by the Op I do not think one partner should be held fully and solely accountable for the cost of replacement of inventory due to an equipment malfunction.

Originally Posted by BillZ

Chris, I must disagree. I have made zero speculation, I clearly base my argument on a claim being made here, it is not speculation. It is a claim being made here. It may not be true, it may be a complete fabrication, but it is the claim of reason for the deaths of many animals being made here. I have not seen that the OP has called BS on this nor has she offered another reason (that I am aware of so correct me if I missed it) so for anyone else to construct another scenario for this disaster of a situation is none other than speculation. I have not once offered my opinion of whether I believe that claim or not. What would it matter. As far as restitution is concerned, its a business transaction and needs to be treated as one. All I am stating is that, based on that claim, brought to us by the OP with no apparent dispute to that claim and based on the fact that this was a partnership and not, as someone so desperately tried to introduce, an arrangement where Mr Markward was being "payed" to perform a service for someone, that based on a TStat failure all partners should share in the loss. Put aside your feeling that the claim is BS. Based on what is being stated here, and not being disputed by the OP, do you think just one party of a partnership should suffer the losses due to a equipment failure?

As far as the OP's husbandry issues. This is clearly not speculation. Speculation = "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence". Nor is it a "cheap shot" These are facts posted on her own and are you telling me they are desirable? She doesnt think so so Im not sure why you or anyone else would. My purpose of pointing them out, as she herself has done, is to show that no one is above this in this scenario. She herself has experienced "less than desirable" conditions within her collection. Including , and most importantly, some type of heat malfunction which if had gone terribly wrong, may very well have had wiped out her collection, Much like the scenario that Mr Markward is "claiming" happened.

As far as anothers claim that I am trying "desperately" to separate the live snakes from the dead/missing snakes well thats because they are two separate issue at hand here. I am referring to the liability of loss of the snakes due to the TStat failure. If we are talking about making restitution, which we are, then they need to be separated into two points of argument for what the restitution should be. Is Mr Markward solely responsible for animals lost in an "as claimed" equipment failure? Thats where I argue no. Is Mr Markward responsible for the care cost involved in getting the live snakes back to health? I would have to argue yes but would also say that the OP maybe should/could have done more to be more aware of their condition.

Its just an opinion.. it may be a wrong one. It certainly will not be a popular one but it is how I feel. If this had been me I feel I would have gone to a greater length to find out just what the hell was going on. "We had been asking for pictures and weights for months on a few snakes" Im sorry but I would have found some way, within those few months, to get a better handle of what was going on with my live animals. In restitution, there is always a percentage of fault to decide. Be it an injury, an auto accident, regardless of what the loss is, there is a percentage of fault to be determined for proper restitution. Argue that he is solely responsible for the live snakes, Im fine with that. I will only point out what could have been done differently.

No one would argue the tragedy being shown here, or that the condition of the snakes shown in those images is deplorable. I am simply saying that based on this being what was in fact a "partnership" as described by the Op I do not think one partner should be held fully and solely accountable for the cost of replacement of inventory due to an equipment malfunction.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree Bill. I'm not sold on the Tstat tale.

Let's just let Charlene and Eddie figure this out, I'm sure this is all stessing her out. I'm sure she'll make the right calls for her predicament. After a while so many opinions start filling your brain and you can't think straight.

Well the Tstat just compunded the problem. What is the problem? Well there were mites and neglected animals. Who knows what else may have been in there. I won't speculate. I just won't touch anything from that part of the country with a ten foot pole. At least not for a while. And the people who get animals from him. Well I wont consider them either. At least not for a while.

This ends my contact with this predicament at this point in time.

Originally Posted by HerpVenue

Well the Tstat just compunded the problem. What is the problem? Well there were mites and neglected animals. Who knows what else may have been in there.

Bingo. The animals were infested, neglected, dehydrated, and if it is indeed a factor, finally overheated. 'Nuff said. I wonder if they were even quarantined properly.