# Help! Do i need an attorney??



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

I took in Zeus, I guess prematurely without doing enough research. He didn't work out so well, because he tried to attack my cats constantly..so I rehomed him for a small fee to a lady that really wanted him. I showed her ALL the paperwork I had on him and she came out to get him Friday morning before I went in to work, and she stated that she was going to take him into her vet THAT morning she picked him up. I even e-mailed her a few weeks to see how he was doing and she told me everything was great. I GET THIS E-MAIL YESTERDAY!! So I replied, because it seems so fishy..but I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO!! Now I get the impression that she's going to try to SUE me or something! It's been over a MONTH and she's just NOW telling me that she took him to a vet and he's HW positive? What can I do???


_I’m sorry I didn’t receive your e-mail, this is my work address and unfortunately it filters out a lot of incoming mail not within the business. I do not have the $300, I’m sorry. I had no idea that he was HW positive and that it wasn’t a valid certificate. Actually, if you want to SUE someone, really, you should go after the original owner before me. I only had him for a couple of weeks before I had sold him to you, and she never gave me a certificate. Had she given ME one, it would have been dated fine and within the 30 days when he was given to you. I REALLY do apologize! _

_I DID notice however, that you had listed him several times online trying to sell him, why is it that you never mentioned this before then and on your sales listing for him? I do know the listing is down now, probably because you couldn’t sell him. But I do know you didn’t state any of this information on him in that listing and that he just wasn’t good around your small child._

_You also stated that you took him to the vet that morning that you came by and bought him. I’m not a licensed breeder, and had no idea that I was suppose to have a valid certificate, but had you known that as well, I’m sure you wouldn’t have bought him. And I will tell you this. Don’t be discouraged by their estimate for treatments if he really is positive. That is an estimated price over time, not all at once. It’s only because he’d have to come back in for meds/shots, whatever method they’d use._

_I’m still not sure why you waited until this long to take him to a vet or to contact me period, which sounds pretty fishy to me. I do not have your $300. I can barely pay my bills, so if it’s just money you’re after..then I’m sorry, I do not have that. Had you really taken him into the vet that day you bought him, like you said you would, you would have found out then and I would have given you your refund. He had valid shot records and recent visit records in that folder, so I doubt he had HWs before I had given him over to you._

_Again, I am sorry. If you wish to contact me further, please contact me @ __[email protected]__, not here._
_~Robin_

_*From:* X_
_*Sent:* Monday, September 20, 2010 10:11 AM_
_*To:* Robin Harbin_
_*Subject:* RE: Zeus_

_Robin, _

_My husband and I purchased Zeus from you about a month ago. He is doing fine, however after taking him to the vet this past week it was discovered that he is heart worm positive. After a long discussion with the vet, we found out that treatment for this disease will cost nearly $650.00. I then asked the vet if this is a new condition or had he already had it. Dr. Gideon explained that heart worms are actually given to an animal through mosquitoes. It takes about 6-8 weeks for the larvae to hatch and create worms in the animals blood stream which would make it visible under a microscope for testing. Therefore, this would be a condition that Zeus would have had before we purchased him. _

_I then gave Dr. Gideon the file you had given me so that she could exam his previous vet records. It was then noted that Zeus did not have a valid Florida Health Certificate at the time of purchase and that he had not had the required heart worm test that would have been necessary to receive the Health Certificate in the first place. Below you will find information that was found stating that animals sold need to have a Florida Health Certificate or the seller is in violation of the law. _

_(b) The term "official certificate of veterinary inspection" means a legible certificate of veterinary inspection signed by the examining veterinarian licensed by the state of origin and accredited by the United States Department of Agriculture, that shows the age, sex, breed, color, and health record of the dog or cat, the printed or typed names and addresses of the person or business from whom the animal was obtained, the consignor or seller, the consignee or purchaser, and the examining veterinarian, and the veterinarian's license number. The official certificate of veterinary inspection must list all vaccines and deworming medications administered to the dog or cat, including the manufacturer, vaccine, type, lot number, expiration date, and the dates of administration thereof, and must state that the examining veterinarian warrants that, to the best of his or her knowledge, the animal has no sign of contagious or infectious diseases and has no evidence of internal or external parasites, including coccidiosis and ear mites, but excluding fleas and ticks. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall supply the official intrastate certificate of veterinary inspection required by this section at cost._
_(c) The examination of each dog and cat by a veterinarian must take place no more than 30 days before the sale within the state. The examination must include, but not be limited to, a fecal test to determine if the dog or cat is free of internal parasites, including hookworms, roundworms, tapeworms, and whipworms. If the examination warrants, the dog or cat must be treated with a specific anthelmintic. In the absence of a definitive parasitic diagnosis, each dog or cat must be given a broad spectrum anthelmintic. Each dog over 6 months of age must also be tested for heartworms. Each cat must also be tested for feline leukemia before being offered for sale in the state. All of these tests must be performed by or under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian, and the results of the tests must be listed on the official certificate of veterinary inspection._


_http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/ai/main/pet_main.shtml_


_I would like a refund of our money so that we may have Zeus treated to clear him of his heart worms. If this situation is made right that would be great. If not I will need to report this incident since it will be costing us hundreds of dollars to make Zeus well again. _


_Please contact us and let us know if this request is possible. If you would like a copy of the vet records I can fax them to you. We would only like our $300.00 back so that we may begin the treatment on Zeus. Please understand that we are not seeking the whole amount of $650.00. Please respond within 5 business days so that we may figure out what the next step needs to be. _


_Best Regards, _
_XXX_


_P.S. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. _


----------



## Rise (Sep 15, 2010)

How old is Zeus? I'm surprised someone would pay $300 for a dog from a stranger rather than going through a rescue org who can provide the health info (for about the same price.) 

I used to foster dogs..and most were HW positive..if the dog has not had the heartworms for very long then the only thing we had to do is start heartworm prevention...and regularly get checkups to make sure it was working. Heartworms are a very slow process..and while it's easy to prevent..if it's caught early enough it's much easier to treat. The treatment for heartworms I know can be very stressful on an animal.

What really matters here is getting the dog the care he needs..and hopefully a stable home where he won't keep getting passed around. It's very stressful for any animal. Maybe you can offer to take him back to your vet and see how progressed the heartworms are? If all they need to do is start prevention..then they don't have to worry about the $650 and you wouldn't have to worry about the $300 and the dog can get the treatment he needs to stay in good health.

I hope he will be all right! I don't know much about the legal stuff..as i'm sure it varies from state to state but hopefully they don't try to sue you. It seems like the money spent on a lawsuit could be put towards the vet bills instead..unless they really are just jerks.


----------



## BayouBaby (Aug 23, 2010)

Robin,

It's nearly positive that Zeus came to you with HW. Heart worms take a long time to manifest themselves in the heart and show up on a test. One month is not long enough.

I don't think you have much to worry about. If they do in fact try to sue you, it would be in small claims court. It would cost them more to sue you than to just let the matter go. But if you are worried, call a lawyer and set up a consultation. Pay the fee, go in and talk. You'll know all of your options at that time.


----------



## Elaine (Sep 10, 2006)

My understanding is that you have to take your dog to the vet within something like three days of purchase to qualify for the lemon law. She is right though, that if he's testing positive for HW, he was most likely positive when you had him.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Did you have an adoption contract with this person? Were you "selling" the dog? Or was it actually a rehoming/adoption fee?

Second, they are threatening you. maybe they feel as if they were wronged by you but the bottom line is they are saying "if you don't do what we want then we're going to turn you in". I would certainly call a lawyer and go in for a consultation. For $50, or whatever the fee is, it could save you alot of trouble in the long run.

If the HW is not severe then they could do a slow kill method which is nothing more than the monthly preventative. You are not responsible for every vet bill this dog incurs. If they weren't prepared to pay the bills then they shouldn't have bought the dog. 

I would refund the money and take the dog back before I let them keep him. Especially given the knowledge that they were trying to sell him.


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

Rise said:


> How old is Zeus? I'm surprised someone would pay $300 for a dog from a stranger rather than going through a rescue org who can provide the health info (for about the same price.)
> 
> I used to foster dogs..and most were HW positive..if the dog has not had the heartworms for very long then the only thing we had to do is start heartworm prevention...and regularly get checkups to make sure it was working. Heartworms are a very slow process..and while it's easy to prevent..if it's caught early enough it's much easier to treat. The treatment for heartworms I know can be very stressful on an animal.
> 
> ...


I believe he is 4 years now. His vet papers showed all good vet visits and was ON HW preventatives! When I got him, she had just run out of pills, so I would have had to get some more, but I didn't have him long enough to take him to get any, so the new owner SHOULD have 
1. taken him to a vet SOONER than she did and 
2. SHOULD have gotten more pills for him

I also noted that she breeds or was going to breed her current female GSD..I noticed that she had been listing to stud him out. 

She breeds other dogs I believe, because I noticed a few other adds online from her. She has recently taken her ads down now, so I can't pull them up for proof!

I just don't know what to do, because I don't have any money, and I feel like she's doing this because SHE can't afford to take care of him when he PROBABLY got HWs within this past month in her care! If he contracted HWs, then the vet *she* took him to could have told her how long he's had them!


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

Wow, this sounds like a terrible situation for Zeus. He's being shuffled from home to home, everyone has an issue with him and no one's willing to work on his issues, and now he's HW positive. 

Is there a reputable gsd rescue in your area that might be able to take Zack? That would be the best outcome for him. And then perhaps you and the woman who has him could give money towards his HW treatment.

p.s. $300 is not a small rehoming fee, especially for a dog with a major health condition. If I pay $300 for a dog from a rescue that dog is coming to me speutered and HW negative.


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

SoldierofTwilight said:


> I believe he is 4 years now. His vet papers showed all good vet visits and was ON HW preventatives! When I got him, she had just run out of pills, so I would have had to get some more, but I didn't have him long enough to take him to get any, so the new owner SHOULD have
> 1. taken him to a vet SOONER than she did and
> 2. SHOULD have gotten more pills for him
> 
> ...


He can not have a HW positive test within a month of contracting them. It takes longer.

Even dogs on HW preventative can get HW's, although it's supposed to be rare that this happens.

Regarding peoples claims that it would cost more to sue than to just treat - this is not reality. In reality, they can sue you for the cost of the dog (you can call it a "rehoming/adoption" fee if you want, but legally you sold property since cash exchanged hands for the property) AND court fees in most states. So they won't be out any money.

Typically speaking, they can't sue for anything in excess of the cost of the dog.

You need to either return their money, or contact an attorney. IMHO it doesn't matter how long you had the dog. You should never place a dog up for adoption (or sell it) if you haven't fully vetted it. It is your responsibilty to ensure that the animal is healthy once it's in your hands, or disclose fully that you haven't done XYZ medical tests for XYZ reason. At that point, it would be on them to ensure the dog is healthy. You can not tell someone a dog doesn't have "x" condition, and require they double check everything.

Regarding their intentions to breed him - I get that this is a ploy for sympathy for you and the dog and to make her the person the forum will not support, but this won't matter legally and all it really goes to show is that you should have conducted a more thorough placement, home visit, and reference/vet checks. Unfortunately if you found this info out now, you could have found it out before, and the dog has already exchanged hands so it's her legal right to breed him if she wants to.

It sounds like for as much as you may not like his new home, they are doing right by him and had him tested for HW's and are going to treat him for them. I can't really fault them for being responsible and testing and treating such a serious medical condition. It is their decision and the vets decision as to HOW they treat him. The "slow kill" method is not supported by many vets (including mine), so simply telling them to put him on HW preventative isn't your right to do.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Yes, please help get this dog into a reputable rescue and not with someone who is producing puppies from dogs they get willy-nilly. I think if you both put the dog first, you will find a good solution.


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

BowWowMeow said:


> Wow, this sounds like a terrible situation for Zeus. He's being shuffled from home to home, everyone has an issue with him and no one's willing to work on his issues, and now he's HW positive.


The new owner is treating him, and was responsible enough to test him. I'd say they aren't looking all that bad right now.


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

Rerun said:


> He can not have a HW positive test within a month of contracting them. It takes longer.
> 
> Even dogs on HW preventative can get HW's, although it's supposed to be rare that this happens.
> 
> ...


:thumbup: Agree


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

Did they send you a copy of the vets report so you're positive this is true?


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

Please, folks, let's put our energy into figuring out the best situation for this dog. This is a gsd board--we're presumably here because we love the breed. I personally am interested in what's best for Zeus, not the OP. Sorry but I think it's very important that the best interests of the dog (who cannot hire a lawyer or even an advocate) be front and center. 

If the person who has Zeus now has really tried to rehome him through CL and is a breeder then Zeus needs to get out of there and into a rescue where he can be properly cared for and rehomed.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

BowWowMeow said:


> Please, folks, let's put our energy into figuring out the best situation for this dog. This is a gsd board--we're presumably here because we love the breed. I personally am interested in what's best for Zeus, not the OP. Sorry but I think it's very important that the best interests of the dog (who cannot hire a lawyer or even an advocate) be front and center.
> 
> If the person who has Zeus now has really tried to rehome him through CL and is a breeder then Zeus needs to get out of there and into a rescue where he can be properly cared for and rehomed.


Yes!!!


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

Okay, I'm going to try to spell this out. I'm already having panic attacks while I'm sitting here at work. I understand, I SHOULD have taken him to get checked for a health cert. I can't express how sorry I am. But again, I didn't KNOW whether he was HW positive or NOT. I assumed because he had valid vet visits, pills, etc, that he was fine. Yes, getting him to a good place is important, but so is me not going ballistic because SHE wanted to sell him and realized that she couldn't! It was also more important that I DIDN'T HAVE DEAD CATS too! 

IF I HAD THE MONEY RIGHT NOW, I WOULD GIVE IT TO HER, TAKE HIM BACK..AND SEND HIM TO A BETTER PLACE. But the fact is, I'm barely able to afford gas right now, I can't afford to give her the money back!

No, it's not a "sympathy ploy" for me. I had no idea she was just going to breed him or get rid of him until I saw her place up ads. But no matter how hard you try, sometimes even people with great intentions can turn out bad. It seems like there are certain people on this forum that do nothing but bash and badger people here. I made the mistake of selling him to her, yes. I'm SORRY. You can think what you want of me, you can call me names, you can bash me all you want..but I was only rehoming him because it was bad with my cats being attacked all the time. 

She did not show me any papers to prove what she is stating to be true, I just got into work this morning and got that e-mail. And she also did not say she WAS treating him! She JUST stated that he tested positive and that it would cost that much to treat him.

I've been trying to do as much research as I could while here at work..and I realized this: I got him in JUNE..because I posted on HERE when I had gotten him (June 10th), and she STATED to me that she was taking him to the VET the DAY she picked him up! A few weeks after she had taken him, I sent her an e-mail and asked how he was doing. She said he was just fine and was doing great with her other GSD, Kaluha (sp?). So, NOW she is stating that he has HWs??? How is that MY fault NOW? It's been so long, he could have gotten them while with her! So, whether he had them with me OR her, he WAS on preventatives when I had gotten him, and she should have gotten more pills when she got him (which she stated she would at the vet that day)..and he would have been fine. That makes me think she didn't continue his pills, otherwise, he would have been fine!

"_It is your responsibilty to ensure that the animal is healthy once it's in your hands, or disclose fully that you haven't done XYZ medical tests for XYZ reason. At that point, it would be on them to ensure the dog is healthy. You can not tell someone a dog doesn't have "x" condition, and require they double check everything_."

You are absolutely right, and I feel bad that I didn't, but again..she bought him KNOWING that. I TOLD her that I only had him for a few weeks. Again, I feel VERY bad that I didn't at least take him in for an initial visit, I was just freaking out and trying to rehome him because he was attacking my cats, even when I had pet gates up.

I didn't come here to get bashed continueously, I came here for help and advice, and if that's all you're going to do, then I'll find a different means to deal with this. If I didn't care about him, I wouldn't have come HERE for help!

Thanks ANYWAY.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

> I rehomed him for a small fee to a lady that really wanted him.


No offense, but $300 is not "a small fee". For $300, you can get a dog from a rescue that has been spayed, is up-to-date on all its shots, and has been matched to your level of experience with dogs.



> I then gave Dr. Gideon the file you had given me so that she could exam his previous vet records. It was then noted that Zeus did not have a valid Florida Health Certificate at the time of purchase and that he had not had the required heart worm test that would have been necessary to receive the Health Certificate in the first place. Below you will find information that was found stating that animals sold need to have a Florida Health Certificate or the seller is in violation of the law.


I am confused about the Veterinary Certificate requirement. Are you and the buyer in different states? Are you considered a "pet dealer" under Florida Law?

Looking up Florida's Laws, it appears that the Veterinary Certificate requirement pertains to either dogs transported to the state for sale or to another state, and to dogs sold within the state if they are sold by a pet dealer. Florida defines a pet dealer as anyone who sells more than 2 litters or 20 dogs in a given year. Do you sell more than 20 dogs in a year? If not, I don't believe you qualify as a "pet dealer" and I am pretty sure a private sale between two individuals in the same state does not require a veterinary certificate.

I could be wrong, of course, but there's more available on Florida's animal laws that's easily accessible online than what she linked you to in her email.



> If the person who has Zeus now has really tried to rehome him through CL and is a breeder then Zeus needs to get out of there and into a rescue where he can be properly cared for and rehomed.


Seconded!


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

AbbyK9 said:


> No offense, but $300 is not "a small fee". For $300, you can get a dog from a rescue that has been spayed, is up-to-date on all its shots, and has been matched to your level of experience with dogs.
> 
> I am confused about the Veterinary Certificate requirement. Are you and the buyer in different states? Are you considered a "pet dealer" under Florida Law?
> 
> ...


Yes, it wasn't really a SMALL fee. But, for 1..the places I was looking at before I found him were rescues. However, most people wanted $3-400 for an adoption fee!! Also, he wasn't fixed..and if someone wasn't willing to pay a descent price for him, then more than likely they're the type of people that just get a cheap dog and breed it to death, you know what I mean? I just wanted to make sure he was in a descent home, otherwise I would have said $100 or something.

And, now that I've read up on the legal stuff, you're right. Those laws do only apply for breeders and out of state sales. I'm going to contact an attorney if she still insists on persuing. I did send this to her, as one last contact. I really don't mean to be cruel to her, but I'm trying to keep in tears and maintain my cool while at work..and I know my production looks bad now:

_Also, I’m not sure if you actually understood what the vet certificate IS._

_Looking up Florida's Laws, it appears that the Veterinary Certificate requirement pertains to either dogs transported to the state for sale or to another state, and to dogs sold within the state if they are sold by a *pet dealer*. Florida defines a pet dealer as anyone who sells more than 2 litters or 20 dogs in a given year. I don't believe I qualify as a "pet dealer" and I am pretty sure a private sale between two individuals in the same state does not require a veterinary certificate.
_
_This is directly from the link you sent me. This certificate is *only required* if you buy from a *breeder or from out of state*. I’ve purchased pets over my time, and the only pets I have EVER received a vet certificate for was from the pets I bought from a breeder. I’ll be sure to ask an attorney though for legislative advice on this particular situation. _

_Look, if you don’t want to pay for his treatments, I know plenty of rescue groups that will take him in, or even HELP you get him treated. I’m more concerned with his health and well being, and I know that it is stressful for a dog being constantly rehomed because people don’t want to deal with possible or potential illnesses. Had you taken him into the vet that day you got him and he tested positive, then I honestly would have taken him back and treated him myself. You obviously just care about getting your money and not about seeing he is treated..and I’m sorry for him and for you. _

_The only reasonable thing I will do is tell you I’ll take him back and I’ll get him into a rescue group so he will be treated. I will not give you money, and I can’t give you money that I don’t have._

_I’m very sorry, but there’s nothing else I can do for you._
_Robin_


I really do just want him in a good home..but you can't get blood from a turnip. I just can't afford to give her $300 when I barely make money now! Since this whole ordeal with rehoming him, my boyfriend and I are trying to buy our house, I don't HAVE spare money just rolling in out of nowhere, you know?


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I think Zeus got a bad deal all the way around. 

If you think you need a lawyer then you need to contact one instead of posting on an internet forum asking if you need one.


----------



## BlackPuppy (Mar 29, 2007)

When I'm home during the day (rarely) I watch some of those court shows. A woman was trying to sue the previous owner of her dog because it got sick and died within a month (or less) of purchasing it. Judge Joe Brown threw it out saying, "Buyer Beware". The buyer got nothing, so I'm guessing you're buyer doesn't have a case unless you actually specified that the dog was heartworm negative. 

Also, any time I've brought in a new dog to the vet it gets a heartworm test. It's $20 and very easy to do. And most vets retest yearly or biennially.


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

Jax08 said:


> I think Zeus got a bad deal all the way around.
> 
> If you think you need a lawyer then you need to contact one instead of posting on an internet forum asking if you need one.


 
i agree. And judging by her message, you should get one anyway because she can not only sue for the cost of the dog (if she finds a way around that florida law) but she can now sue you for stress the situation is causing her and anything else she pretty much feels like that she feels you've done to wrong her. If she suddenly has an onset of migranes, she can add that to the list with a doctor stating it was stress related and it can once again, by a lawyer arguing her side, be traced back to the situation with the dog.


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

I'm confused with your timeline. You got the dog June 10 and you sold him when? Sounds like it was very shortly after this date, now, three months later she claims he has heartworm. He would be due for the pills July 1. Did you have any pills that were passed on by the previous owner?

If your dog was on heartworm pills when you acquired him then the dog should have had blood work done before taking the pills. My vet will not give the pills until the bloodwork comes back negative. That is the way it works in my area. 

Not knowing the laws entirely (either in your area or mine), I would say that this would be a case of "buyer beware", unless of course you stated he was heatworm free in the purchase contract. You stated that she looked over the records that you presented to her before the deal was made so you were not hiding anything from her. 

Now this woman owns another GSD and let's assume she is a knowledgeable pet owner. Her dog would be on heartworm prevention pills and she knows the drill. 

I would say that something does look fishy to me, but I tend to be that type of person and not really accept things as presented. Just because she says he is does not mean it is so. Before I refund any money and take the dog back, I would take the dog myself to a totally random vet's office and have him tested with the results going to yourself.


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

Caledon said:


> I'm confused with your timeline. You got the dog June 10 and you sold him when? Sounds like it was very shortly after this date, now, three months later she claims he has heartworm. He would be due for the pills July 1. Did you have any pills that were passed on by the previous owner?
> 
> If your dog was on heartworm pills when you acquired him then the dog should have had blood work done before taking the pills. My vet will not give the pills until the bloodwork comes back negative. That is the way it works in my area.
> 
> ...


 
this is actually a good idea.


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

Caledon said:


> I'm confused with your timeline. You got the dog June 10 and you sold him when? Sounds like it was very shortly after this date, now, three months later she claims he has heartworm. He would be due for the pills July 1. Did you have any pills that were passed on by the previous owner?
> 
> If your dog was on heartworm pills when you acquired him then the dog should have had blood work done before taking the pills. My vet will not give the pills until the bloodwork comes back negative. That is the way it works in my area.
> 
> ...


I had gotten him around June 10th. I want to say she came out and got him on July 2nd, but I can't remember the exact date. I TOLD her that he had ran out of HW pills and would need more. You can tell that he WAS on pills by the vet bills and receipts. She said okay and that she would be buying some that DAY she picked him up at the same time of the vet visit. So, all was well from what I thought. Like I said, last month I had sent her an e-mail asking if everything was okay, and she said he was great and was fitting in with her female GSD! So, something doesn't seem right then. 

And yes, my vets are the same. Niea is on flea and HW pills since she was old enough to get on them..and I'm glad to say SHE is HW NEGATIVE. So..I'm NOT A BAD OWNER.

"_I would say that this would be a case of "buyer beware_"..

I agree with you on that one. It's always the case with buying any pet. You always run a chance. It's like adopting a child, you can't always know everything. I took care of him while I had him, and I loved him. I had to crate him most of the time because of how aggressive he was with my cats, so that's why I rehomed him. I couldn't stand him crated and wouldn't stand the thought of just throwing him outside. I did the BEST I could for the short time..but I couldn't stand having one of my cats killed.

Say what you want..it's okay. Yes, going from home to home isn't great, but it's better than being left outside, or sent to a shelter.

I'm done here. Thanks for the _help_ that I did get. I do appreciate the advice..but I won't stand to hear the BS accusations and downplay here.


----------



## Stosh (Jun 26, 2010)

It all sounds fishy to me too- how do you know the dog tested positive and once the dog went to her, she's responsible from that instant on. Unless it's like within 24 hrs, but even then if you told her specifically that he needed hw pills, it's up to her from that point on. If I were in her shoes, I wouldn't have the nerve or even consider going back to you for any portion of the money. Sounds like a scam to me. If I were you I would stop all communication. Tell her to sue if she wants and you'll see just how serious she is to recoup $300.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

It's too bad that you are being defensive. No one on this thread is being mean to you. Legally you are in fine shape. Ethically, not so much. Hopefully you might learn something from this experience about adopting and rehoming dogs. Advocating for Zeus instead of for you is not being mean to you. $300 would have more than paid to neuter Zeus and get him HW protected and then there would be no concerns about him being bred. 

I adopted an intact dog once through a shelter who was cat aggressive. I had him tested with tiny dogs at the shelter and he did great so I thought he would be ok. Once he got here it was very clear he wasn't ok and never would be ok, no matter how much I worked with him (I've had enough dogs in and out of my house over the years to know when a dog is truly cat aggressive). So I essentially was in the same situation you were in. 

Here's what I did:

1) Contacted a reputable rescue group in the area and asked if I could rehome him through them. 

2) Kept him on as a foster until I found him the perfect home. This included personal and vet checks as well as a home check and an in person visit with the prospective adopters. I turned down 5 applications before the right home came along. 

3) Kept him and my cat separated 24/7 for several _months_ until I found the perfect home. This was difficult for the entire household but kept everyone safe. 

4) I took him to the vet the day after I got him and had him HW tested and got him a general check up. Then I had him neutered and had his rear dewclaws removed. The rescue paid for the neuter and dew claw removal and they got his adoption fee ($175). 

5) Adopted him out on the rescue's contract which provides for his return under any circumstances. 

The whole process was quite a bit of work for me and was also very stressful because the house was separated for so long but it was worth it in the end because the dog is now in an excellent home.


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

So you had a receipt that indicated that he was on heartworm medicine. So June would have been the last pill and would have been given by the old owners Does the receipt support that? It sounds as if the new purchaser was given all the facts and made her decision to proceed with all the information laid out on the table. She even told you that she was going to look after the refill of the pills immediately. You had no reason to believe otherwise. 

It appears to me that the dog got heartworm because he did not get the pills for July, August and September. These are prime months to have been missed.

Hoepfully you have kept a copy of all his medical records that were passed on to you, expecially the ones regarding the heartworm vet bills and pills.

If these facts are correct then it is very likely that he got heartworm under her care. It appears that she is trying to get compensation for this mess she is in now. 

She quoted the fact that you sold her the dog without health tests and is threatening to turn you in to the authroities if you don't refund her the money. I wonder if she was aware of this when she purchased him. I also wonder if she had the health tests done (as she claims you should have) when she listed him on Craiglist. As someone said this did not even apply to an individual dog owner selling one dog and applies to brokers.

My advisc to you is write down all the facts that you can remember with a clear time line. Email it to yourself and cc a friend. Stop emailing this person. You have already said a lot in your email to her, and all of it was defending yourself.

Only seek legal advice if you receive a letter on legal letterhead.

Good Luck.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

I'm a little confused here. This could be just for the state of Texas - but I can go to any vet and purchase Heartgard. I could give it to any dog I wanted to, but that doesn't mean that the dog is HW negative. I have three dogs on Heartgard. I go in, write a check and they give me the meds. I don't bring in my dogs - I don't get a certificate - I just get a receipt showing I purchased Heartgard. 

My old Golden hasn't been tested for HW for years now. He's been on preventative since he was a pup. I suppose if he came up ill, he'd be tested, and I suppose he could show positive. But if I were to sell him, I'd tell the buyer that he has been on preventative for over 11 years. I don't think that would be same as telling them he was HW free. 
(BTW Tugs, you're not for sale....just in case you're reading this.....)

But in reality - I could pick up a dog off the street, post it on CL - sell it and give a reciept showing I recently purchased Heartgard, lie and say I've been giving it to the dog.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Well..SoldierofTwilight did get this dog from CL, had for a couple of weeks and then sold him. I believe she got him for nothing, if you look through the previous posts, because she said she didn't have the money to buy a dog but had "emergency funds" for medical so it wouldn't be any big deal to neuter a dog...at least that is the way I read it.

Hope things work out for Zeus.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

Completely off topic, but if you don't have enough funds to even buy gas for your car, why did you even get a dog to begin with, if you don't mind me asking?

And if you got the dog for free and couldn't handle the dog around your cats (which is completely understandable), why would you go and sell the dog for $300 several weeks later? Were you not aware of GSD rescues at the time of the sale?


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

Just re-read the letter from the new owners dated Sept 20. They claimed that they purchased the dog just over a month ago. The OP claim it was at the beginning of July.

The OP claimed that the new owners had another GSD, but go to great lenghts to explain about heartworm (like she didn't already know about it).

Now I'm more confussed.

Yup, something is fishy.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

No offense, but when the money thing came up in May/June you claimed that all would be OK. You were even looking into a HW+ dog for crying out loud!!!

This whole thing is just irritating. Obviously that woman sounds shady (per your version of the story), but you were also warned about the issues with getting another dog. 

Has your financial situation changed that much in a couple months? I certainly don't want to make it sound like only people with good jobs and low spending should be getting dogs...but this is exactly the type of thing that can happen. This dog is screwed if this other woman decides she doesn't want to keep it because you say you can't afford the treatment in the event you had to pay for it (say a rescue agreed to take the dog if you paid for treatment). 

As usual, the dog suffers.

I really, really hope this is a learning lesson for you and you give yourself an honest assessment of your situation next time you decide you want another dog.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Getting a lawyer will cost you way more than giving this lady $300. If you do not have $300, good luck on a lawyer.

For $25 (may vary from state to state), this lady can make a claim in small claims court. While she may not win, and you may not need a lawyer, it could go either way, and you will miss work, need a sitter, whatever. Big hassel. 

You do not have her $300. You sold the dog believing it was perfectly fine. When I sold Rush, I had his full vet history, ofa paperwork, took him to the vet as his vaccinations were almost due, for a complete physical, and a heartworm test. We do not need any of that in my state. But I wanted to show the buyer that to the best of my knowledge, he was in good physical condition. All of this would have costed a good chunk of the $300 that you sold this dog for. 

She says treatment will cost $650. You do not have $300, how willl you have $650 to treat the dog? I think she made you a fair offer. Return the purchase price and she will pay twice as much as she intended for a four year old dog. That is fair. Almost split the difference. It would be up to you to go after whoever sold you the dog, if you paid for the dog.

You do not have the money. If you did, you would give it to her. Well, it sounds like you do agree that you have some responsibility in this. I think you should write a short and nice e-mail saying just that. You are struggling, you do not have $300. You would return it to her if you could in one lump sum. Would she be willing to accept $20.00 per week or $50/month. 

I think you should do the right thing here. This lady is out a lot of money for a sick dog she bought from you. You took on that responsibility when you turned the dog around and sold it. You may have taken a free dog off Craig's list as a pet, didn't work out, and found it a home and made a few bucks on the deal. But there is no difference from a person who takes free dogs from craigslist specifically to sell again for profit. Not from the end user's point of view.


----------



## smyke (Sep 24, 2009)

Did the OP get the proof that Zeus is indeed HW+? 
I would get the timeline of the whole ordeal down to a T and use that as your defense. if the dog was in the new owner's care longer than it takes for HW to come up in tests then its all on her. otherwise just cut your losses and come to some sort of payment plan as mentioned earlier. In my non-professional opinion you would probably lose in court (regardless of what Judge Joe Brown says) and incur court fees to boot.
Hope it all works out for you and the poor dog.


----------



## Jgk2383 (Aug 5, 2009)

I just wanted to ask how you are trying to buy a house if you do not have the $300?


----------



## smyke (Sep 24, 2009)

Jgk2383 said:


> I just wanted to ask how you are trying to buy a house if you do not have the $300?


what does that have anything to do with it?

maybe she is trying to pay off all her debt so she can get her house and has no money to spare? whats wrong with that?


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I don't get the timeline nor do I understand why you had the dog for at least a month and never got it to a vet, but blame this lady for doing the same? At this point you can't prove Zeus was HW- while in your care because you did not have him tested while in your care nor did you treat him. The reasonable assumption then becomes he was in fact HW+ in your care without your knowledge- but ignorance is never a good excuse

Legally the lady did buy Zeus knowing he needed HW preventatives and it seems she lapsed in getting them in a timely manner if she in deed has had him longer than a month. IMO a Judge would say that while assumption would lead to him having had HW's in your care because she also did not treat the dog immediately they couldn't prove when the dog actually contracted them. Legally I think your fine unless this lady spends the money to have the worms tested for age which I don't see her doing.

Now morally you know what the right thing to do is. You didn't vet the dog appropriately and sold the dog soon after getting him whether it was a month or two months he was in your care- you did not seek any medical attention for him. Your responsible pet owner vets a dog within 7 days of purchasing the dog health certificate or not. If this were a genetic disease that couldn't have been noticed or prevented without extensive testing I could see your point. However, Zeus is suffering from a completely preventable disease. I agree a payment plan for the $300 after you receive paperwork to prove he is HW+ is the RIGHT thing to do. This woman is not squeaky clean either, but she is willing to pay for more than half of the treatment showing she is taking responsibility for her end of the ignorance that has gone on- now take your half


----------



## Jgk2383 (Aug 5, 2009)

smyke said:


> what does that have anything to do with it?
> 
> maybe she is trying to pay off all her debt so she can get her house and has no money to spare? whats wrong with that?


 
Your right, ill just shut up.


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

this is just to darn sad for Zeus 

I really don't want to be harsh, but it sounds like you got Zeus for nothing, he wasn't going to work out because of the cats, so you SELL him for 300$ WITHOUT neutering him FIRST to a woman who (from what I am getting from your posts) probably was intending on breeding him??? But then SHE has been trying to SELL him or stud him out via CL?? 

She now claims he is HW positive (which I would want to see proof of from a vet), and wants her 300 bucks back to treat him??? 

This dog has gotten a bum deal all the way around 

IF you have an emergency fund, (as you stated in posts prior to Zeus that you could use for medical emergencies) I would REFUND that 300$,,ACTUALLY, what I would do, is ask the name of the vet who will be treating him, and GIVE THEM the money to make sure it will be used for what it is supposedly intended to treat the dog for HW.

As sue mentioned, It will cost a heck of alot more than 300 bucks to get a lawyer. 
I would find it by whatever means necessary, this dog has been let down on so many levels, IF the woman you sold him to, IS in fact trying to sell him or stud him out, or use him for breeding, shame on you for selling him unneutered and not doing a thorough background check on who he was going to


----------



## CaliBoy (Jun 22, 2010)

I watch a lot of Judge Judy reruns. Based on what I see from how she handles disputes in small claims court, I do not think that SoldierofTwilight needs a lawyer. From a legal standpoint, the buyer of Zeus is out $300, whether she is happy about it or not.

First, Judge Judy would say you have to clearly present a price and clearly present the product. The price was set at $300 and did not fluctuate later. Okay, check.

Then, the product was a German Shepherd. Twilight did not offer a German Shepherd and then give the lady some mut. The lady paid for a GSD and got a GSD. Okay, check.

Also, on the Judge Judy show, a contract must specifically spell out what a buyer does and does not accept. Did Twilight sign a contract which stated that $300 would be returned if Heart Worms were found? No, there was no such agreement, which puts the buyer in the "too bad" position legally. Sorry, but that is what I see on Judge Judy. She is always berating the buyers, screaming "buyer beware!"

Now, if there was willful deceit and dishonesty, that would be different. If it could be proven to the court that Twilight knew there were heart worms and dishonestly said nothing than Judge Judy would probably say, "you can't mislead people into thinking they're getting a healthy dog when you know for a fact that they are not healthy." But that is not what happened in Twilight's case. There was sincere lack of knowledge about the heart worms, not deceit.

From a legal standpoint, a buyer would not hire a lawyer for a $300 claim, as the lawyer will cost more than that. In small claims court, also, I see no legal standpoint from which to compel Twilight to return the money when a GSD was sought and a GSD was delivered, according to all outward appearance, in the state of normal health.

Now, from a moral and ethical standpoint, are there things Twilight should have done or should do? Perhaps. But I think the OP is mainly concerned about their legal obligation at this point and from that viewpoint, I don't see the OP as having anything to worry about. You need a lot of paperwork and proof to convince a judge in court to give you your money back, and in this case the buyer simply has no solid leg to stand on.


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

actually small claims court atleast here in CT, is a joke..My BF sued a guy for 800 bucks the he owed her. She even had him sign something, that I witnessed, he would either pay her 100 per wk, or work 5 hours a week and the debt would be paid off by such & such a date.. Well he walked as soon as the money hit his hands.

Anyhow, she sued him in small claims, she WON, BIG DEAL, you then have to give the person 30 days to pay,,he didn't, you then have to hire a sheriff to serve him for non payment, which costs close to a 100 bucks..After that, well not much happens if he still doesn't pay. So basically here, Small Claims costs xxx to do, and even if you win, it can't be enforced.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

It really depends on the laws where they are. If there is a law that states that a dog sold with medical conditions at the time of sale are the liability of the seller up to the purchase price, then there is a possibility. There may be a clause somewhere that if you call within 30 days...

They CAN take you to small claims court and give you a bunch of grief. 

Regardless, you should do what is right. You sold a dog with a serious issue, and it will cost these people twice what they paid for the dog to fix a problem that existed at the time of the transfer if it exists at all. 

If you had the dog tested for heartworm, and it tested negative, and you had it on prevention, then I would not agree. I would say that you provided them a dog that to the best of your ability was free of such problems, that it now tests positive, well stuff happens. 

My question is, what exactly did you do for the three hundred dollars? A dog from the pound would have been examined and heartworm tested and would have costed less probably. Here, $25 for a large dog. If the dog did not have any problems, you would have been ahead by $300. But the dog does have problems. I think you are lucky to not be out $650.


----------



## Kris10 (Aug 26, 2010)

The OP already stated they are done reading this thread...Apparently they were only worried about their liability/money and weren't interested in hearing about what to do to help the poor dog and how they contributed to the problem in the first place. 
1- They sold a dog they got for free for a profit.
2- They didn't bring the dog to the vet themselves to make sure it was healthy.
3- They only posted on this site to get legal advice and didn't care to hear ethical advice from people who actually care about the dog.
By providing a certificate from the vet to the buyer she led them to believe the dog was examined and in good health. Can they successfully sue her to get their money back? Not likely. Too bad. Judging by the resentment in her last post she still feels as if she is the victim here. 
I hope that poor dog gets taken care of.


----------



## Jgk2383 (Aug 5, 2009)

My whole point of brining up her saving to buy a house comment was if you are trying to buy a home you can do something for the dog.


----------



## shannonrae (Sep 9, 2010)

Jgk2383 said:


> My whole point of brining up her saving to buy a house comment was if you are trying to buy a home you can do something for the dog.


Buying a home = Broke
But yes, you acquire and animal, it is your responsibility to pay for it.


----------



## smyke (Sep 24, 2009)

Its actually pretty sad that people who make mistakes and come here for help get torched by other members. Yes they screwed up and they realize it. So now OP is pissed off and she will not come here for help anymore. And she will get another dog most likely. Hopefully she learned her lesson and will not make the same mistake but she will make others and we may not have another chance to help her and her dogs. Is that what this forum is about?
To be honest everytime I stumble upon a thread like that I feel that I would probably be afraid to ask a question should I F-up with Fanta at some point. Because among all the lashing the actual advice may get lost. 
In this case we don't have all the facts and the buyer could be trying to pull a fast one. We just don't know but its not stopping some of us. 

Sorry. I just had to get it off my chest.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I don't think she was flamed at all. She asked a question from a legal and owner's standpoint and was answered honestly- she just didn't like the answer The thing is if she had had her dog vetted properly before reselling it she would not be in this position. She got the dog off of CL- real reputable right? She knew the dog was out of HW preventative and did not take the dog in and have him tested nor buy the preventative. So whether or not the owner is lying is of little consequence in some ways because if she as the dog's owner had taken these measures she could comfortably tell this other nut bag to take a flying leap knowing she was not at fault.


----------



## TitonsDad (Nov 9, 2009)

smyke said:


> Its actually pretty sad that people who make mistakes and come here for help get torched by other members. Yes they screwed up and they realize it. So now OP is pissed off and she will not come here for help anymore. And she will get another dog most likely. Hopefully she learned her lesson and will not make the same mistake but she will make others and we may not have another chance to help her and her dogs. Is that what this forum is about?
> To be honest everytime I stumble upon a thread like that I feel that I would probably be afraid to ask a question should I F-up with Fanta at some point. Because among all the lashing the actual advice may get lost.
> In this case we don't have all the facts and the buyer could be trying to pull a fast one. We just don't know but its not stopping some of us.
> 
> Sorry. I just had to get it off my chest.


This is why I was gone for 6 months from the boards. Couldn't deal with the daily flaming. 

-E


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Who torched her??? She got a lot of advice after ASKING for it. 

Everybody out there, if you don't want advice, Don't ASK for it!!!

People were not torching her but telling her what we think is the right thing to do, excuse us!!! 

Should we all have put on our little robot caps, and decided what she wanted to hear and said that???

She got ticked off because what she KNEW in her heart to be the right thing to do, was said out loud, and she simply does not want to do that. She even said, if she had the money, she would give it to her. If you do not BELIEVE you are right, you would NEVER say that, unless it is to get someone off your case, and you would add that. 

I think this site would be totally worthless if everyone agreed with, commiserated with, catered to the OP and new people.

It would be worse than worthless, someone else might read totally bad advice and act on it.


----------



## FredD (Jul 5, 2009)

smyke said:


> Its actually pretty sad that people who make mistakes and come here for help get torched by other members. Yes they screwed up and they realize it. So now OP is pissed off and she will not come here for help anymore. And she will get another dog most likely. Hopefully she learned her lesson and will not make the same mistake but she will make others and we may not have another chance to help her and her dogs. Is that what this forum is about?
> To be honest everytime I stumble upon a thread like that I feel that I would probably be afraid to ask a question should I F-up with Fanta at some point. Because among all the lashing the actual advice may get lost.
> In this case we don't have all the facts and the buyer could be trying to pull a fast one. We just don't know but its not stopping some of us.
> 
> Sorry. I just had to get it off my chest.


:thumbup:


----------



## smyke (Sep 24, 2009)

I wasn't talking about just this thread. There are many others out there.
And I absolutely don't want all you experienced owners to agree with people asking these questions. And your advice is greatly appreciated. Sometimes there are simply better ways to relay your knowledge to us noobies. 
Many people left because of this kind of thing. And they weren't new either.


----------



## PupperLove (Apr 10, 2010)

Here's what I think.

The dog was free. Then sold for $300 to try and get him into a 'good home.'
Well, he's apparently not in a good home if they are trying ot breed him, so the selling for $300 idea didn't work out and now the money is causing problems. 

So give the money back. It's going to cost alot less than court, lawyer, whatever. If you have money saved for a house, then take it out of the savings. The dog basically made you $300 richer, and he's suffering. Give the $$ to the new owners so they can get him the help he needs. You'll be in the same position financially as you were before you sold him. And a lot less stressed out if it's worth that to you.

Poor doggy I hope he gets the help he needs.  Or you can just forget about it and move on and hope nothing happens legal wise.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Let them go. If they are that unstable. Sorry, but this is the internet, a bunch of anonymous people typing away. We are WALT DISNEY compared to Pedigree Database. 

If people cannot hear opinions and a few heated topics, 
1, no body is holding a gun to their heads to make them read the thread. 
2, they could notify and if it is truly out of line, someone will get barked at. 
3, maybe the internet is not the best place for them to get their support and friendship, maybe sunday school or a support group would be better. 

I think a lot more people left because of all the whining and closing threads and banning people that was going on a while back. Be Kinder! Slap Slap Slap Be gentler! KaPow!!! 

People could say the absolute rottenest stuff to people if they preceeded it with People are leaving because, or I came on here for help and... And then the goodbye cruel world threads. 

Don't get me wrong, I do not think we should tolerate rule violations, name calling, swearing, calling people or their ideas stupid or any of its many synonyms. But often the newbies or ops would not like what they are hearing, come back with some name calling or foul language, and then the whine, I was coming here for help....

Then as they are now, the kinder and gentler posse comes out and uses the opportunity to whip those with differing opinions into shape. 

Please don't flame me, but I think that my eight month old bitch was in heat when I let her roam the neighborhood last week and I think maybe she is pregnant, and well she also bit a child that she used to go down the street and play with all the time on her own, and now I am not sure what the kids father is going to do, but it was really his fault anyway because he should not have let his kid play outside by himself (kid is probably going to be a serial killer). Anyhow, what is done is done so don't flame me. --- WELL, sometimes people who care about GSDs cannot be expected to hold it all in. 

If this site is without passion, how good is it really?


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

selzer said:


> Let them go. If they are that unstable. Sorry, but this is the internet, a bunch of anonymous people typing away. We are WALT DISNEY compared to Pedigree Database.
> 
> If people cannot hear opinions and a few heated topics,
> 1, no body is holding a gun to their heads to make them read the thread.
> ...


----------



## Jgk2383 (Aug 5, 2009)

KZoppa said:


> selzer said:
> 
> 
> > Let them go. If they are that unstable. Sorry, but this is the internet, a bunch of anonymous people typing away. We are WALT DISNEY compared to Pedigree Database.
> ...


----------



## Miikkas mom (Dec 21, 2009)

selzer said:


> Please don't flame me, but I think that my eight month old bitch was in heat when I let her roam the neighborhood last week and I think maybe she is pregnant, and well she also bit a child that she used to go down the street and play with all the time on her own, and now I am not sure what the kids father is going to do, but it was really his fault anyway because he should not have let his kid play outside by himself (kid is probably going to be a serial killer). Anyhow, what is done is done so don't flame me.


 :spittingcoffee:


----------



## Mac's Mom (Jun 7, 2010)

Yeah people have a lot of courage to speak their minds hiding behind a screen. If people actually spoke to each other in person this way..there would be a lot of bar fights


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

Mac's Mom said:


> Yeah people have a lot of courage to speak their minds hiding behind a screen. If people actually spoke to each other in person this way..there would be a lot of bar fights


 
i could deal with a bar fight.


----------



## CaliBoy (Jun 22, 2010)

Selzer, I don't think people are saying we can never dish out tough love, especially for the sake of the dogs. But just because it is the internet or other sites have little class and manners doesn't mean we all have to abandon the road of constructive advice that is realistic.

What will help the OP to reach out and help Zeus? That is what is constructive, I believe. It is not a question of punishing the OP or rubbing their past mistakes in their face. It doesn't work with puppies and their poo; it certainly won't help humans to deal with the present problem. The present problem is the reality. For example, there was some good advice about checking with Zeus' new vet to verify his problems. That was helpful. The advice to establish a payment plan to help with his treatment was also constructive, IMO. Advice about heart worms and possible treatment for both the OP and the new owners would also be relevant to the problem. 

What is not constructive? I think the following ideas are really, really unhelpful: 1) telling the OP, "Soldier" that they are painting the new owners in a bad light because they want our sympathy (really? Isn't that reading their mind and intentions?) 2) berating them for not getting Zeus more carefully checked out (she only had him for a month, the cat situation made it urgent for her to rehome, and the certificate from the previous owners led her to believe that Zeus had been recently checked out) 3) Telling the OP that they should just go get a lawyer and not post asking for advice (I think they stated clearly that money is an issue and were hoping that compassion for Zeus would elicit suggestions for his well being) 4) Implying that they really could come up with the money if they wanted to (that implies they are lying about finances or just don't care about Zeus. Again, thanks Miss Cleo for the judgmental psychic reading of their moral character) 5) We need to say harsh things to you because Zeus has been wronged, and we have to take his side more than yours (that is just stupid. If the poster is not helped with constructive advice, Zeus is certainly not being done any favors, as no one here besides the OP has access to Zeus).

Let's be honest and sincere with posters seeking advice. But let's also stick to the present, not the past, and what we know as the facts, not what we can guess and make up. Most of all, if that poster is helped by our answers and not driven away, then that means the dog is also helped


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

sadly all the mud slinging drove the OP off so we will most likely never know what happens with Zeus. All we can do is pray it works out for everyone and leave it alone now.


----------



## BayouBaby (Aug 23, 2010)

Caliboy, your post was very well written and I thank you for writing it. We all could use a does of humility. Sometimes we forget that people have feelings. Even digital people. It's very easy to type something, but the problem is - what is typed can be interpreted ten different ways. Text is cold, harsh, unmoving. No emotions are present, no facial expressions. Just black text. Thank you again, Caliboy. You've made me decide to try and be a better forum member.


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

KZoppa said:


> i could deal with a bar fight.


I'm in!

Let me at em, let me at em!

:wild:

Kung Pow!


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

well for me personally, every thread I post to, depends on the thread. And I think it pays to go back and read previous posts to get an idea on background.

No I don't agree with name calling, bashing someone for an 'accident', mistake, something they are truly remorseful for and are genuine about looking for help. 

Sorry but this posting just grates my nerve, and it could be the internet, what's interperated by one, may be not what's meant to convey. 

There is absolutely no excuse for not taking a dog you know nothing about, just adopted, to a vet for a thorough check up and put on meds (in this case HW) . I don't care if you've (general you) only had the dog a week. 

If it's a case of not having the money to vet care, then you (again general you) should not have taken on the dog in the first place. 

I also think, there is absolutely no excuse for not thoroughly checking out where that dog is going, whether it's sold or given away. And I totally concur , mistakes can happen with this, people lie, info slips thru the cracks. 

And again, it could be the internet, but, the way I was reading the OP's posts, gave me the impression she was more worried about the money/legal end of things than the dog. 

EVERYONE failed this dog. The original owner who handed him over for FREE to someone who sold him within a month who never even vetted him, and now this person who has him probably with the intention of making some money off him to.

No we may never know what happens to Zeus, and sorry the OP doesn't like the advice/comments/suggestions she was given. I just hope she doesn't go out and get another dog.


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

JakodaCD OA said:


> well for me personally, every thread I post to, depends on the thread. And I think it pays to go back and read previous posts to get an idea on background.
> 
> No I don't agree with name calling, bashing someone for an 'accident', mistake, something they are truly remorseful for and are genuine about looking for help.
> 
> ...


Diane

Your post is excellent.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Oh my word. I'm sorry, there were sooo many red flags here that people deserved to be called out on them. 

1. She came here in May posting about wanting a dog AND money problems. When people polietly suggested getting a dog is not the best idea right now, she claims that "oh, that's not really what I meant, I have the money and can save no problem." NOW she comes back here saying she can't even afford to get a tank of gas filled. Then maybe you should have listened to the original people. People just don't say those things to be mean...oh...could it be that they have seen this situation unfold a million times. Why is brining this up relevant??? Because if she actually had the money she pretended to herself back in May that she had, she could EASILY (I'm sure) take the dog back, treat the heartworms, and find a rescue to take the dog. ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT. Now, because she has no money and got the dog after being warned about this is May....the dog is stuck at this allegedly crappy home, with heartworms, and she can't do anything about it. WOW. 

2. She is completely bashing this woman who didn't take the dog to the vet for a month. Yet she had the dog for a month and didn't take the dog to the vet. The dog 90% had heartworms when she had him (although if he actually would have tested positive, we'll never know), but she didn't know because she didn't vet him. It's ok for HER to not vet a dog for a month, but it's not OK for someone to not vet a dog for a month? Again, WOW. If only she had tested him, he could have gotten on treatment. Who knows how bad the heatworms are now? Oh, and again....she was going to previously adopt a dog that was HW+!

3. Sending a dog not fixed to a new home when you are charging $300. WOW. Again. WOW. I'm sorry, that's what rescues charge for adoptions and includes pull fees from shelters, fixing the dog, and microchipping! I can completely understand charging $300 to weed out the bad guys...but charging $300 and not fixing the dog, sending it with a couple months heartworm and flea meds, oh, and maybe a heartworm test? I can completely understand the dog needing to be out of the house. What I cannot completely understand is charging 100% profit for the dog and not responsibly sending it ons its way. Oh, and we won't even get into the fact that this woman had an unfixed female and an unfixed male in the house together....

This woman got LOTS of constructive advice and even copied one poster's post almost word for word to include in an email. 

I'm sorry, an adult human being is NOT like a puppy having its nose rubbed in poo. They know right from wrong (assuming you're not a sociopath); retain thoughts; complete a series of purposful, thought out actions' and most importantly can come to a message board for advice. Actually, I think comparing this poster to a dog is probably the most offensive thing that's been said in this thread :smirk:.

There is no way that people should come here, see the glaring WRONGS and not say anything. What, pretend like this situation is sunshine and roses so the OP can go do this exact same thing again in 6 months? No, she needs to know that the new owner isn't the only one who screwed up. She made just as many horrible choices and acted very poorly. GOOD people will be pissed off and mad for a month...but then actually consider what people are saying and NOT DO IT AGAIN. BAD people will think that we were all wrong til the day they die, and do carp like this for just as long. No amout of coddling or being snarky will change that.

Oh, and just so everyone is clear, I'd be more than happy to tell someone face to face all these things. I've done it before, and I'll do it again.


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

GSDElsa said:


> Oh my word. I'm sorry, there were sooo many red flags here that people deserved to be called out on them.
> 
> 1. She came here in May posting about wanting a dog AND money problems. When people polietly suggested getting a dog is not the best idea right now, she claims that "oh, that's not really what I meant, I have the money and can save no problem." NOW she comes back here saying she can't even afford to get a tank of gas filled. Then maybe you should have listened to the original people. People just don't say those things to be mean...oh...could it be that they have seen this situation unfold a million times. Why is brining this up relevant??? Because if she actually had the money she pretended to herself back in May that she had, she could EASILY (I'm sure) take the dog back, treat the heartworms, and find a rescue to take the dog. ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT. Now, because she has no money and got the dog after being warned about this is May....the dog is stuck at this allegedly crappy home, with heartworms, and she can't do anything about it. WOW.
> 
> ...


:thumbup:


----------



## DogGone (Nov 28, 2009)

GSDElsa said:


> Oh my word. I'm sorry, there were sooo many red flags here that people deserved to be called out on them.
> 
> 1. She came here in May posting about wanting a dog AND money problems. When people polietly suggested getting a dog is not the best idea right now, she claims that "oh, that's not really what I meant, I have the money and can save no problem." NOW she comes back here saying she can't even afford to get a tank of gas filled. Then maybe you should have listened to the original people. People just don't say those things to be mean...oh...could it be that they have seen this situation unfold a million times. Why is brining this up relevant??? Because if she actually had the money she pretended to herself back in May that she had, she could EASILY (I'm sure) take the dog back, treat the heartworms, and find a rescue to take the dog. ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT. Now, because she has no money and got the dog after being warned about this is May....the dog is stuck at this allegedly crappy home, with heartworms, and she can't do anything about it. WOW.
> 
> ...


Amen


----------



## smyke (Sep 24, 2009)

I guess I'm just too sensitive for this forum.:teary:


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

smyke said:


> I guess I'm just too sensitive for this forum.:teary:


You're just a big ol' softay.....


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

CaliBoy said:


> What will help the OP to reach out and help Zeus? That is what is constructive, I believe.


the OP is not *interested* in helping the dog. She only posted asking what to do about her getting sued or having the give the $300 back that she made on the dog.

This business of "rehoming fees" (selling) to ensure they get a good home is complete crap. Kodi was free and we spent over 6 grand (yes, SIX GRAND) on him within months of adoption to give him a new hip. The real kicker is that we still have to do the other in a year or so. All for a "free dog off Craigslist."

We also adopted Micah off craiglist (who luckily is not going to end up being a twelve thousand dollar dog).

We must be terrible people. 

In all serousness though, the unfortuante reality is that this poster didn't come here asking for advice about how to reach out to the owner to help the dog get treatment or get into a good rescue who will treat. The OP doesn't want to help the dog.


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

SoldierofTwilight said:


> I had gotten him around June 10th. I want to say she came out and got him on July 2nd, but I can't remember the exact date. I TOLD her that he had ran out of HW pills and would need more. You can tell that he WAS on pills by the vet bills and receipts. She said okay and that she would be buying some that DAY she picked him up at the same time of the vet visit. So, all was well from what I thought. Like I said, last month I had sent her an e-mail asking if everything was okay, and she said he was great and was fitting in with her female GSD! So, something doesn't seem right then.
> 
> And yes, my vets are the same. Niea is on flea and HW pills since she was old enough to get on them..and I'm glad to say SHE is HW NEGATIVE. So..I'm NOT A BAD OWNER.
> 
> ...


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

Caledon said:


> SoldierofTwilight said:
> 
> 
> > I had gotten him around June 10th. I want to say she came out and got him on July 2nd, but I can't remember the exact date. I TOLD her that he had ran out of HW pills and would need more. You can tell that he WAS on pills by the vet bills and receipts. She said okay and that she would be buying some that DAY she picked him up at the same time of the vet visit. So, all was well from what I thought. Like I said, last month I had sent her an e-mail asking if everything was okay, and she said he was great and was fitting in with her female GSD! So, something doesn't seem right then.
> ...


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Yes - click on the user's name, and there is a list - a really good way to find out more. 

Caledon 
View Public Profile 
Send a private message to Caledon 
Find More Posts by Caledon 
Add Caledon to Your Contacts http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/misc.php?do=spamcleanconfirm&u=42016


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

Thank you. So simple too!

Knowing the background of some posters help to paint a different picture.


----------



## smyke (Sep 24, 2009)

GSDElsa said:


> You're just a big ol' softay.....


yes, there are other words that come to mind but they would be censored. LOL

I think it bothered me because I am a noob myself and right up to the day I joined this fine forum I was pretty ignorant about a lot of the issues, so I can relate. 
I learned the great deal and I'm very greatful I found you guys and I love the fact we are all so passionate about our dogs. I can dish it out at times too so its not just "you" that can be harsh at times, its "us" (me included).


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I don't really get this story....but I guess if the new owner is unhappy with the dog and is a bad owner, why not return the $300 and take the dog back? Take proper care of the dog and/or find it a better home (hopefully with the help of a reputable rescue). IMO, whenever a new dog is adopted or purchase the dog should see a vet within two days. I always do this with my new dogs and the breeders sometimes even require it. When the OP got the dog, it should have been taken to the vet so the heartworm would have been discovered right away and dealt with. Giving the preventative to a HW+ dog can cause more harm than good. I'm surprised the vet would sell pills for a new dog without testing it first.


----------



## smyke (Sep 24, 2009)

from what I gather OP never purchased any pills for the dog but knew that he was on HW preventive up until she got him.


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

Well I did the search, that was easy.

On June 8 she posted this:

"Lol, it's okay. This group doesn't know about my kitties anyway. My issue is now about getting my Husky fixed. I don't have another $300 to get her fixed!!!  "

Is this why she sold her GSD for $300.00.

If this ever went to small claims court I don't know how they would ever gather information. My head is spinning. Too many red flags now for me to favour one side over the other.


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

Caledon said:


> Well I did the search, that was easy.
> 
> On June 8 she posted this:
> 
> ...


Well, I never!


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Caledon said:


> Well I did the search, that was easy.
> 
> On June 8 she posted this:
> 
> ...


Sometimes that's because no one is doing right by the dog. 

Too judgey? aranoid:


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

Yup, poor dog. 

Hopefully the new owners will get him the treatment that he needs.


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

Caledon said:


> Well I did the search, that was easy.
> 
> On June 8 she posted this:
> 
> ...


I'm going to lol at this..and move on..because here, I never said I got Zeus for FREE. Thanks for the false accusations. AND, I never once said I got him off of CL. 
1. I paid $300 for him and 
2. It was off of EbayClassifieds

I'll address my "financial situations" with everyone when I get home. No, I didn't USE the money just to get Niea fixed. So, you can shove your accusations where the nice sun doesn't shine. I'll address individual postings later..again when I get home from work.

But I will say this. I've spoken with the buyer, and I'm pretty sure she was just typing fluff to get money from me, but it's been settled as far as I know. Zeus has been started on treatments and HE WILL BE FINE. But for some of you..you need to realize that human life is just as important as dogs. Thanks again for the concern..because I do know what it is like to lose a loved dog to HWs...


----------



## Stosh (Jun 26, 2010)

That's what it sounded like to me, that they were just trying to get some money out of you. Glad to hear he's receiving treatment and is going to be fine. Best outcome all the way around.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

No, the OP does not care about the dog. She sees ads on Craig's list according to her that they are trying to stud the dog, that they are trying to rehome the dog -- doesn't get along with her child. 

But she is not asking what to do about that, No. Just can they sue me for this $300?

So if we are to believe EVERYTHING this person is saying, about Craig's list or ebay, neither of which I think can be used to sell animals. Not sure about ebay classifieds though, so maybe that is ok. But anyhow, she gets the dog on June 10 and has it a few weeks and does NO vetting. The new person On September 21 had it for a month. For three weeks in July, this dog was living on its own and contracted heartworms. Hmmmmmm. 

Just interesting. Many newbies have been around long enough to know what gets our buttons going. Saying that the lady intended to use him for breeding, and well she did not want anyone to get a dog cheap for breeding, so since he was not alterred she charged $300. Hmmmmm.

I know we should be caring for the dogs, and the vast majority of my posts on this thread were constructive and have not attacked at all. The last couple of posts were directed at the Kinder and Gentler Posse that shows up whenever the whining begins regardless as to whether people are whining because they are not hearing what they want to hear, or because they have been seriously and unjustly flamed.

And suddenly the dog cost her, guess how much, yeah $300. Wow, just wow. I guess because she paid $300 for the dog, not vetting the dog and selling the dog, not following through when she sees the dog listed again, not taking responsibility when the dog comes down sick with something that had to have been contracted while in her care -- that is now alright. Because now we all believe she hasn't made any money on the deal. 

Oh and she has lost a beloved dog to heartworm disease -- wouldn't that make you rather anal about testing and medicating dogs in your possession. 

I just don't know.


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

ebay doesn't allow the selling of animals as far as I know. 

I apologize if I was wrong / in that you PAID for Zeus and the CL thing, Ebay, CL same thing diff sites. I will not apologize however, for my thoughts on you not taking responsibility and vetting him as in NEUTERING & HW, etc, as soon as you got him, OR for not thoroughly checking out where he was going and what they had in mind for him. 

I personally could care less about your financial situation, board members tried to be helpful and suggestive when you first 'had to have' a german shepherd but couldn't afford to have your husky spayed which I guess still hasn't happened. 

The email you posted from the new owner, didn't sound like "fluff" to me, if she can produce documentation that he is HW + I admit, that would be much more believable. If she can't, well then I certainly would not believe her. 

To end, I don't see anyone telling YOU to 'shove' anything. You came on here, asked for opinions and you got them. 

and what sue^^ said ..maybe it's the full moon


----------



## Miikkas mom (Dec 21, 2009)

JakodaCD OA said:


> ebay doesn't allow the selling of animals as far as I know.


There is a section on eBay called “classifieds” that does have different rules than what’s allowed in the actions. I be surprised, though, if the classifies allowed one to advertized live animals. I’m too lazy to investigate it, but I suppose it’s possible.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I am the one that thought you got Zeus for nothing. I found that to be a logical conclusion given the things posted in that thread. You can be insulted if you want but my opinion is...

1) You could be sued but the person probably wouldn't win, which was your only concern in this thread.
2) You did a pretty shitty job of making sure Zeus went to a good home.
3) You lied about the reasoning behind your "rehoming" fee. You were just getting your money back.
4) I am allowing you to waste my time and it's really irritating me.

Sue really stated my thoughts best and it's time to walk away from this thread.


----------



## Miikkas mom (Dec 21, 2009)

Jax08 said:


> 4) I am allowing you to waste my time and it's really irritating me.


:spittingcoffee:


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

Jax, I like your #4 to


----------



## Myamom (Oct 10, 2005)

"Thanks again for the concern..because I do know what it is like to lose a loved dog to HWs... "

? you posted this in the past...

"I've never had to deal with a HW positive pet though. If I were to take him, how often would I have to medicate him, and what kind of price am I looking at? Money isn't much of a problem for me, as it would be like giving a sick child medication.  "


----------



## Miikkas mom (Dec 21, 2009)

Myamom said:


> "Thanks again for the concern..because I do know what it is like to lose a loved dog to HWs... "
> 
> ? you posted this in the past...
> 
> "I've never had to deal with a HW positive pet though. If I were to take him, how often would I have to medicate him, and what kind of price am I looking at? Money isn't much of a problem for me, as it would be like giving a sick child medication.  "


I think the op was referring to a different dog, named Sam, she was trying to adopt.


----------



## smyke (Sep 24, 2009)

the Kinder and Gentler Posse 

I guess that's me. LOL

Shame on me


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

smyke said:


> the Kinder and Gentler Posse
> 
> I guess that's me. LOL
> 
> Shame on me


 
I wanna get on a posse...wait, I don't have to do any drive by(s) or anything, right?


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

Regarding the ebay classifieds - they bought out a site formerly called www.kijiji.com

If you go to kijiji.com, it will redirect you to the new ebay classifieds site. It's most excellent if you're a BYB or puppymill, although shelters do use it as do some private people.


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

Mike there's no shame being on the kinder/gentler posse)) Your just TO NICE!))))


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Miikkas mom said:


> I think the op was referring to a different dog, named Sam, she was trying to adopt.


Yes, and I think her point was the in May the OP said she's never dealt with HW, and now suddenly she's lost a dog to it.


----------



## smyke (Sep 24, 2009)

Lillie, you may have to bust a cap once in a while. But it would be a cap with a pink bow and a cherry on top.
 
Yes, Diane even my wife tells me I am too nice. Go figure. 

On a more serious note: I wasn't trying to justify what the OP did by any means. And my rant was not only regarding this particular instance. It just happened to be here but it could have happened way sooner. Maybe my timing was a bit off


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Sometimes threads turn sour because of differences of opinions, unsolicited advice, people typing their thoughts and not beating around the bush about it. 

Often times, people are defensive and take well meaning and appropriate asked for advice badly.

When they then lash out, some people try to justify themselves and others, and others get mad back and point out how the individual is in the wrong. 

Then well-meaning individuals start bashing the bashers for this thread and all past threads that in their opinions have caused people to leave. 

And then the Justifiers, who were trying to explain that we weren't hating or trying to blast the OP, get their dander up. 

And now all that is lacking are the let's-shut-this-thread-down groupies.


----------



## smyke (Sep 24, 2009)

No sweat selzer, I will keep my mouth shut now. 

PS
I had no idea we had "let's-shut-this-thread-down groupies". I thought it was the moderators.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Na, the moderators will shut it down, but usually around about now, people start getting on and saying that we should shut the thread down. Actually it usually happens when people are diagreeing and one or more start stretching various rules, and there seems no chance that either of the people are going to cave. 

The livliest threads, in other words will usually have one, then two more, then another person post how we should shut it down. Personally I feel that that happens when the opposite side of the argument scores too many telling points. So in desperation people say: I think this thread should be closed now.

ETA: I really think this thread has run its course and should be closed now. I think the OP is done with it, and if she wants, she could start another. Or people will get disinterested and it will sink down in the pile and be forgotten anyway. Doesn't matter, so long as it doesn't continue to beat the dead horse.


----------



## smyke (Sep 24, 2009)

You're right. And I apologize for derailing the thread off topic.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

This is a bit hard to follow but if the dog wasn't on HW prevention from at least June (maybe before?) through Sept, he certainly could've gotten HW in that time frame. 

For the OP, if you ever find yourself in a position of rehoming a dog again (from a APBT site but good info for anyone):
Pit Bull Rescue Central


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think the point is that in order for the dog to test positive, the life cycle of a heartworm is such that it takes six to eight weeks after the infected bite for the heartworms to have matured enough.

So, if the person has a dog that tested positive on 9/21, and has had the dog 1 month, the dog must have already been infested at that time. If the OP had tested the dog within 1 month of the purchase date, say, 7/21, and the dog tested clear, the dog could have already been infested, but the larvae not at a proper stage to be detected. 

But, the seller would have done everything in her power to deliver a healthy dog. But not producing a test for heart worm, the seller either did not do everything in her power to disclose properly the dogs physical condition, or the seller deliberately decieved the buyer by pretending they did not know of the condition. 

The sellers now states that she has lost a dog to HW in the past, so, living in Florida, one would think she would have tested this dog and assured that it was up to date on prevention.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Probably just should ignore the Flames!


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

Well, so I'm not late for work, I will try to explain things to the best of my knowledge in a short amount of time. Yes, I've never technically "dealt" with a HW positive dog. For f-cks sake, I was a child! My parents were taking care of him, but he was "my dog". He was a Rottie and died a few days before Christmas.. again, thanks for jumping the gun.

I apologize for getting my "dander up" for being constantly bashed by 90% of the people here. I wasn't looking for pity or reassurance..and I could careless whether I get it now or not. Funny, how people seem to miss points and only select certain things to bash on.

Here's my timeline, because I was able to find this nice little e-mail saved at work. 

Here's an e-mail I received shortly before she picked him up:
_From: Victoria 
_
_Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 10:31 AM_
_To: Robin 
_

_Hi Robin, _

_I finally got the chance to talk to my husband this morning and we would like to give your German Shepherd a home if he is still available. We think he will fit right in and get along well with our Kaluha. I was wondering though if he has an updated health certificate and whether or not he is updated on his shots. I have an appointment with the vet on Friday and just wanted to make sure so that I can see if I need to schedule him in as well. _

_Another question I have is how is his temperament around children. I have an 8 month old so I just want to make sure he is good around kids. Also what is his name?_

_If you don't mind it would be better for me to pick him up on Friday so that I can get him to the vet and also that is my payday. Please let me know if you would be willing to hold onto him until Friday for me. We definitely want him and I promise I will not back out since I know exactly what that's like (since Apollo's owners fell through). Just let me know either way and I can assure you that he will have a wonderful loving home. _

_Best Regards, _
_Victoria _

I had actually had someone wanting him shortly before her, and I had to take him out there. The guy was god awful. For one, it had rained earlier that day, and he brought out his other GSD to see if they'd get along..and it was SOAKED..so I got the impression that it was left outside. Then, he kept saying that Zeus was "so old" and nobody would want him, so he'd only offer me $100. That made me believe he wasn't a great person, so I drove off with Zeus in hand. Anyway, after she sent that e-mail, she came out. I told her everything I knew about him. I also told her about NOT vetting him, and the only paperwork I had was what the PO gave me. She knew EVERYTHING that I did.

About a MONTH later, I checked in with her to see how he was doing:
_From: Robin 
_
_Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:02:59 _
_To: 
_

_Good morning Victoria! _
_I was just checking in to see how Zeus is doing. Hope all is well. _

Here is her reply:
-----Original Message-----
_From: Victoria 
_
_Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 9:55 AM_
_To: Robin 
_

_ Hi Robin,_

_Zues is doing wonderful and he fits into our family quite well. Kaluha my other shepherd loves to follow him around a play chase all day. He is also quite the guard dog and is very protective of the family. Just the other day one of my brother in laws friends just walked right in the house and zues stopped him in his tracks until we gave him the ok. _

_Thanks again so much for such a wonderful dog! My husband's jaw dropped the minute I walked in the house with Zues. It was love at first sight. Now he proudly takes Zues on walks to show off his big beautiful boy. _

_Best Regards,_
_Victoria _

And here she is contacting me August 20th..another month later.

Again, you can do ALL of the checks you want, and try the best you can to get them into a "proper home", but sometimes the people you really think are good, just don't turn out that way.

Also, to back myself up and to get proper knowledge, I stopped by my vet's office Wednesday. They told me that it takes 6-8 MONTHS for HWs to show up in the heart. I told them the situation, and they told me that even if I would have taken him in to get tested, there was an even chance that it still wouldn't have shown up!

Yet again, most of you aren't seeing all of the facts here, you're only seeing what you want. I'm not omitting any facts, I'm giving you everything I know.

Unfortunately, pets are nothing but property to the state. Those Judge Judy cases that a few of you have cited, you're absolutely right. My boyfriend has been helping me as much as possible and even pulled up real cases with pets. They are "property" and selling them is just like selling a personal car. I figure most of you are smart enough to do that research yourself.

She said he wasn't good with her kid? I also don't believe that, because my boyfriend's nieces and nephew came over for a few days while their Mom was on a cruise and they were great with him. Again, believe what you want. And for my finances..yes, we're buying a house and I can barely afford gas. How does that not add up? Not my fault you're oblivious. My paychecks go to feeding the pets I have NOW first and foremost, then bills (my car bills, house bills, food, etc), then I also have vet bills to add in there as well because I have two dogs that get their shots and are always on HW and flea prevention, and of course I have to eat at work and occasionally pitch in for birthdays on my team. Taking care of the pets I have now are MORE important than giving someone money for a dog that they SAY has HWs now.

But, now I'm really going to be late for work..so I'm leaving. And no, personal advice isn't always great help, it's just you being enflamed and emotional and just pissing people off. Thanks.

If the thread isn't closed, I'll post more later.


----------



## shannonrae (Sep 9, 2010)

The American Heartworm Society’s 2005 treatment guidelines encourage annual testing, testing in between prevention product changes, and year-round prevention to manage heartworm disease in dogs and cats. “Annual retesting is an integral part of ensuring that [prevention] is achieved and maintained.”1







http://www.idexx.com/view/xhtml/en_us/smallanimal/inhouse/snap/4dx.jsf?selectedTab=FAQ

This is what I know to be fact;
-The most commonly used test in shelters and veterinary clinics for HW is he IDEXX SNAP test.
-The SNAP tests only show positive results when there are microfilariae (baby heartworms) present in the blood stream.
-It takes 6-8 months for the HW to reach maturity and produce the microfilariae. See above, manufacturer reccomends yearly/between poduct change testing. As long as proof can be produced that he was tested and negative w/in the past YEAR I think OP is in the clear. So, the OP could have tested and retested Zeus for HW until she/he was blue in the face and even if the dog was positive would not have known.
-HW "prevention" is not so much a prevention as a treament. The dog can be bitten by an infected mosquito and STILL contract HW. The "prevention" means prevents microfilariae from reaching maturity. 

Hope the info was helpful.


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

shannonrae said:


> The American Heartworm Society’s 2005 treatment guidelines encourage annual testing, testing in between prevention product changes, and year-round prevention to manage heartworm disease in dogs and cats. “Annual retesting is an integral part of ensuring that [prevention] is achieved and maintained.”1
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, it really was! Thank you very much. 

I'm at work now, and I'm just so tired of trying to defend myself now. It went from me trying to explain the situation and how I was being told this information, when I wasn't fully aware of what was going on, to me being lambasted and now defending myself, and honestly this place isn't worth my time and energy. I already have sleep deprivation issues, and I don't need it made worse.

I was going to explain more today, but I won't. I'm stopping now, and I hope this thread is closed soon, because I know there will be people that have to get their last word in.

Know this though, I "rescued" Hewie, my new male White GSD..and although I didn't take him right away (because the mobile vet isn't in my area EVERY weekend), I did take him in to get shots and prevention as SOON as they were in my area. Hewie is actually CKC full blood, but I intend on having him fixed asap and have his rear extra dewclaws removed. He has two on one foot. It's so weird. 

He's a loyal, sweet, wiley dog..and I couldn't be happier with him. Zeus was an amazing dog as well, minus the cat thing. 

I also rescued two completely blind 8 week old Catahoula puppies last night and transported them to RUFF rescue, and I'm quite happy about it, that is why I couldn't post last night (for those that seem to be quite concerned with my personal life). The owners had no shot, paperwork, nothing on them. And I took them FULLY aware of it. Had I not gotten them to the rescue, I had every intention on getting them shots this weekend if the vet was in my area. They are now dewormed, and with a trainer that has worked with blind/deaf dogs instead of being put down or in the wrong hands (Pit bait).

I know I'm not a bad mommy, so if you still think I am..then good for you. I feel sorry for you though.

Thank you (to the certain people that DID help me) for the support as a fellow GSD owner.


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

Sorry, I meant completely DEAF pups..and one is a little blind from far away. >.<


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

Now I've learned something more about heartworm and why annual tests are so important, which I always do I didn't realize that you can get a negative reading and the dog could still have heartworm, just in the early stages.

Would the heartworm still develope if the new owners had given him his July, August and Sept. pills? It sounds as if it were possible that if they tested him early in July, the test could have came back negative.


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

SoldierofTwilight said:


> Actually, it really was! Thank you very much.
> 
> I'm at work now, and I'm just so tired of trying to defend myself now. It went from me trying to explain the situation and how I was being told this information, when I wasn't fully aware of what was going on, to me being lambasted and now defending myself, and honestly this place isn't worth my time and energy. I already have sleep deprivation issues, and I don't need it made worse.
> 
> ...


Just FYI - unless he happens to be registered with the canadian kennel club, the continental kennel club is basically as close to a false registry as one can get. You can pull a dog out of a shelter or a stray off the street, take a picture of it, get your buddy to agree with you that it's purebred, and the CKC will register it. Then, you do it with a second dog, mate the two, and the entire litter can be registered with the CKC.


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

Caledon said:


> Now I've learned something more about heartworm and why annual tests are so important, which I always do I didn't realize that you can get a negative reading and the dog could still have heartworm, just in the early stages.
> 
> Would the heartworm still develope if the new owners had given him his July, August and Sept. pills? It sounds as if it were possible that if they tested him early in July, the test could have came back negative.


See, from what it sounds like from Shannon:
_"-HW "prevention" is not so much a prevention as a treament. The dog can be bitten by an infected mosquito and STILL contract HW. The "prevention" means prevents microfilariae from reaching maturity."_

They can still get it whether they're on the meds or not. I think I read someone post about it being a slow kill method if they do have HWs, if I'm not mistaken. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So, this pretty much guarantees that he had them before I had gotten the poor guy. You're right, even if I had tested him, it still could have shown up negative. The vet bills the PO had given me were really recent too, so he was UTD on shots. It would have been sort of silly to overdose him and get him more unnecessary shots. :/

So, this is probably why she didn't take him into the vet like she said she was going to that day, because he was UTD on the shots. But, had she tested for HWs that day too, it may not have shown up then either. Buying an older dog always runs that possibility though, and seeing as she has a dog, she should have known that.

On a positive note, I'm having my current dog, Hewie fixed next week! I found a low cost hospital in my area, and they do it for less than $100. I have to get his dewclaws removed at another time, but one thing at a time for me right now. I wanted to make sure I got him fixed, since that's more important. What can I expect after his prodecure? Will he be in pain??


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

Rerun said:


> Just FYI - unless he happens to be registered with the canadian kennel club, the continental kennel club is basically as close to a false registry as one can get. You can pull a dog out of a shelter or a stray off the street, take a picture of it, get your buddy to agree with you that it's purebred, and the CKC will register it. Then, you do it with a second dog, mate the two, and the entire litter can be registered with the CKC.


 
Huh..I didn't know that either. I didn't care to register him though. I didn't take him in for a pedigree or anything. 

Thanks for that info though. Learn something new everyday!


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

Yes, they can get them.

But what her statment means is that the HW prevention doesn't actually prevent the dog from getting HW's. In order to "prevent" HW's, they would have to actually prevent the mosquito from biting or transmitting in the first place. Since the meds can't do that, what they are essentially doing is offering a mini treatment each month to kill the ones your dog may have had contracted within the last 30 days. Although most sources say it's actually good for 45 days.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Oh. My. Gawd. You just got ANOTHER dog and can't afford to fill your gas tank? SERIOUSLY? What in christ's name are you going to do if THIS dog gets sick???


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

GSDElsa said:


> Oh. My. Gawd. You just got ANOTHER dog and can't afford to fill your gas tank? SERIOUSLY? What in christ's name are you going to do if THIS dog gets sick???


 
See, there you go again..didn't even read my posts, did you? I take care of my bills and pets first..

You know what..**** it. I'm sick of people like you. Like I said, I'm tired of explaining myself and my financial situations. Let's just pretend I didn't even say I'm spending $100 next week to get him fixed. 

Oh..and btw, I've had him for quite some time actually.

I'm off..thanks. I'll be getting further advise elsewhere.


----------



## Mac's Mom (Jun 7, 2010)

I cannot believe I'm saying this but with what my friend Indy is going through right now...I am starting to understand why people get "passionate" when there's a dog at risk and focus on the dog instead of whatever the original question was.


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

GSDElsa said:


> Oh. My. Gawd. You just got ANOTHER dog and can't afford to fill your gas tank? SERIOUSLY? What in christ's name are you going to do if THIS dog gets sick???


----------



## shannonrae (Sep 9, 2010)

Caledon said:


> Now I've learned something more about heartworm and why annual tests are so important, which I always do I didn't realize that you can get a negative reading and the dog could still have heartworm, just in the early stages.
> 
> Would the heartworm still develope if the new owners had given him his July, August and Sept. pills? It sounds as if it were possible that if they tested him early in July, the test could have came back negative.


Yes, they can (though uncommon, no preventative is 100% effective) any heartworm preventative you purchase at a veterinary clinic (NOT online pet pharmacies) comes with a guarantee. I am not sure on the specifics of all the products guarantees but I am very familiar with the ones my clinic uses. Interceptor and Revolution, whose guarentee states that if your dog contracts HW and you can prove that you have purchased their product at a veterinary clinic (with a receipt) they will take financial responsibility for the HW treatment. But this means you also need to have proof that your dog has had a dose available every month ie. you get the test in June and your dog has HW in September then you need to prove you have purchased 4 doses of preventative from a clinic in June.
Another thing people should be aware of. . . it is possible to get a false positive for HW on these tests as well. So, things like x-rays and ultrasound may be used to back up poitive results on a test. Just wanted to throw that out there.


----------



## shannonrae (Sep 9, 2010)

Rerun said:


> Yes, they can get them.
> 
> But what her statment means is that the HW prevention doesn't actually prevent the dog from getting HW's. In order to "prevent" HW's, they would have to actually prevent the mosquito from biting or transmitting in the first place. Since the meds can't do that, what they are essentially doing is offering a mini treatment each month to kill the ones your dog may have had contracted within the last 30 days.



Right on!


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

SoldierofTwilight said:


> See, there you go again..didn't even read my posts, did you? I take care of my bills and pets first..
> 
> You know what..**** it. I'm sick of people like you. Like I said, I'm tired of explaining myself and my financial situations. Let's just pretend I didn't even say I'm spending $100 next week to get him fixed.
> 
> ...


Sounds good.


----------



## shannonrae (Sep 9, 2010)

SoldierofTwilight said:


> See, there you go again..didn't even read my posts, did you? I take care of my bills and pets first..
> 
> You know what..**** it. I'm sick of people like you. Like I said, I'm tired of explaining myself and my financial situations. Let's just pretend I didn't even say I'm spending $100 next week to get him fixed.
> 
> ...


Please don't let the negative attitudes of some ruin your opinion of the rest of us. I think you have gotten some useful info throughout this thread. There are some who are genuinely trying to help. Some people do not realize that if they do not have anything constructive to say it is better for everyone (including the dogs) to keep it to themselves. 

To those people who should keep it to themselves. It is O.K. to disapprove of anthers actions/choices. It is NOT O.k. to to bash someone for having less knowledge of animal welfare than you. By making someone feel bad about what they have done with/to/for their dog because of ignorance (I mean ignorance in true sense of the word) you;
a) Make them feel defensive, which in turn makes them focus on the negative posts and info instead of the useful ones.
b) May put current and future dogs at risk because said person is now afraid of asking for help because of negative responses in the past when she/he came to US for help.
Unfortunately I have seen lots of this kind of thin going on in the GS forum. It is disheartening. 
I am positive there are worse dog owners out their than the OP. Trust me I see the horrors every day. As dog owners/lovers our first defense against pet owner ignorance is EDUCATION! People will learn and accept constructive advice more readily if they are not treated like fools.
I understand the anger, I really do but in the end it helps nobody. Least of all the dogs.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

> We represent the Lollypop Guild, The Lollypop Guild, The Lollypop Guild
> And in the name of the Lollypop Guild,
> We wish to welcome you to Muchkinland.
> 
> ...


 :headbang:

Give me a break. So this person comes on here stating how she doesn't have any money, oh my! Can I be sued?!, sold this dog without knowing where he was going and it turns out to be basically a BYB shyster, gets another dog who suddenly she can afford while not caring one bit about the dog she sold that is in what sounds like a bad situation only whether she legally responsible for a lousy $300...and we are all supposed to sing songs, eat cake and sing her praises?

I really don't give a **** about the OP. I do care about the dog..*AND SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE A VOICE FOR THE DOG!* So if her feelings are hurt or you are offended because you think by us stating facts from her previous posts that we are "bashing" her..well...:shrug:


----------



## smyke (Sep 24, 2009)

Here I go again LOL

my original point in criticizing some responses here was that by coming at the OP with guns blazing we are failing any other dogs she may have in the future (sounds like there is one already lined up). 
Zeus is out of her hands now and its up to the "buyer" to care for him and we cant help him in any way, shape or form. I hope he is OK.
But now that she is out of here because we _"dont give a **** about the OP. I do care about the dog" _she will not learn anything else and will continue doing it her way.
Is that a good trade off for some of you?

I dig the passion with which you respond and I feel bad for the poor dogs but we have to look at the bigger picture.

PS
Jax08, please dont take it as a personal attack on you. I simply quoted you because it pretty much summed up the majority of responses here.


----------



## shannonrae (Sep 9, 2010)

Jax08 said:


> I really don't give a **** about the OP. I do care about the dog..*AND SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE A VOICE FOR THE DOG!* So if her feelings are hurt or you are offended because you think by us stating facts from her previous posts that we are "bashing" her..well...:shrug:


You know that old saying, "You attract more bees with honey"? This thread is a perfect example of where that applies. I don't care so much about feelings, but, do tell me how being rude is going to help anyone? 
It is my job to educate people on pet care, I do it all day almost every day. Believe me the being demeaning method always backfires!


----------



## PupperLove (Apr 10, 2010)

smyke said:


> Here I go again LOL
> 
> my original point in criticizing some responses here was that by coming at the OP with guns blazing we are failing any other dogs she may have in the future (sounds like there is one already lined up).
> Zeus is out of her hands now and its up to the "buyer" to care for him and we cant help him in any way, shape or form. I hope he is OK.
> ...


I agree with you.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

shannonrae said:


> You know that old saying, "You attract more bees with honey"? This thread is a perfect example of where that applies. I don't care so much about feelings, but, do tell me how being rude is going to help anyone?
> It is my job to educate people on pet care, I do it all day almost every day. Believe me the being demeaning method always backfires!


Did you read the other threads by the OP? People tried to "educate" her, tried to be nice. Some people don't want to be educated. At some point, enough is enough. Nobody was rude until she started telling ppl to "shove" it.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Mike - I'm not offended.  Did you read the previous posts by the OP? You must have more patience than me. I don't believe this person actually came for help. I think she came to feel vindicated in her decision to resell this dog. I formed that opinion by her previous posts and her responses in this one. My original answer to her was actually on her side until more and more of the story came out.

The bottom line was that she, the previous owners, and possibly the current owners have failed this dog. While people are defending her, who is speaking for the dog? Seems that everyone who disagreed with her has been told to "shove" it and accused of bashing her. She is going to "do it her way" regardless of any other input. She already has.


----------



## CaliBoy (Jun 22, 2010)

Mike, shannonrae, and Laura: 

My experience in dispensing advice is that you are absolutely right. Perhaps you have to deal with customers, or clients, or the public, like I also have to, in your line of work. If I spoke to clients in that demeanor, I would simply get fired. And I have been on other forums where some folks are good at ripping people a new one, or just verbally scratching them in their eyeball, and I don't think it ever did any good for that person. 

We are now on page 13 of a thread which is hardly about Zeus at all, but proving to the OP why she is an idiot, or somehow trying to "make her" accept what an awful owner she is, with some things about heartworms thrown in between.

What, honestly, is accomplished? The OP is still pissed off and saying "f-it." I hear the mantra, "well, I care about the dog." Okay. And exactly how has the dog, this particular dog Zeus, been helped by any of this? Forgive me for stating the obvious, but on the internet, it is the poster who has access to the dog, and is able to help the dog. If you push away the poster, you are also pushing away the dog. So much for caring for the dog.

Jax08: I have to disagree. I think the OP was getting some uncalled for comments before she said "shove it."


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

This thread was never about Zeus or his welfare. This thread was about whether the OP could be sued because Zeus was sold with heartworms. The concern was never about Zeus. The concern was about $300. 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because I don't believe for a minute that the OP posted for any other reason than her concern for herself. I absolutely believe she didn't come here to "be educated" or to hear any input other than that which agreed with her.


----------



## Miikkas mom (Dec 21, 2009)

Well, gee, thanks Jax. I've had that dang munchkin song in my head since I first read your post....earlier today!! :crazy:


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

:rofl: I've had Right Said Fred in my head since this morning! My sister said she wanted a theme song for when she did something awesome and I'm too sexy popped in my head!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I am totally with Jax08 on this. People were giving this person good advice. 

And before she got either of these two dogs, people were advising her against it because of her money woes. 

Some people want to be agreed with and that is it. 

It is not about constructive. What we gave her WAS constructive. But it was not what she WANTED to hear, so she took it defensively and started the bashing. 
In her opinion, it is not constructive unless it is what she wants to hear.

Lots of people read these threads. Just agreeing with people or keeping your mouth shut means that a completely wrong message will appear to be how the group of us feel about any particular topic. 

We cannot agree with people and cater to them because if we do not they might go home and beat up their dogs, or drop them in a pound, or give them to a puppy mill. Sorry, that will not work either.


----------



## HarleyGirl52874 (Jun 16, 2006)

Here is a thought, instead of calling the OP an idiot (somethings are better thought then said) why not drop this. She is done with the thread. 

It just blows my mind how hollier then though some of you act. I understand being concerned for the dog but to result to name calling, REALLY, but I must THANK YOU for remidning me why I have choosen to stay away from this board.


----------



## CaliBoy (Jun 22, 2010)

HarleyGirl52874:

I hope you do not think I am calling "Soldier" (the OP) an "idiot" . What I have been trying to say is that the OP needs to be addressed with respect, constructive advice, and understanding. _That is why I was agreeing with the folks who said to attract a bee with honey_ and *not* to flame her.

These words of mine must be read very carefully. I am not calling the OP an "idiot" but am describing what I believe is the *problem with this thread*.


> We are now on page 13 of a thread which is hardly about Zeus at all, but proving to the OP why she is an idiot, or somehow trying to "make her" accept what an awful owner she is, with some things about heartworms thrown in between.


In other words, I think too much of the thread has been negative and critical towards the OP. I *am not in favor of that negativity towards the OP.* Soldier, if you are reading this, I also hope you take the postive things said and would not allow the hurtful comments to get in the way of that advice. 

I would rather we stick with giving the OP advice which she can benefit from. When the OP says that someone is not being helpful or constructive, I think we need to maybe go back to the drawing board and find a better way to express ourselves.


----------



## PupperLove (Apr 10, 2010)

CaliBoy said:


> HarleyGirl52874:
> 
> I hope you do not think I am calling "Soldier" (the OP) an "idiot" . What I have been trying to say is that the OP needs to be addressed with respect, constructive advice, and understanding. _That is why I was agreeing with the folks who said to attract a bee with honey_ and *not* to flame her.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you said. And yes, I work with customers!!

There was some very good advice given, but also too many posts that were dwelling on what could have been done rather than what the op asked, "what should I do?" It's true that sometimes people only hear what they wanna hear, but at the same time it's not good to get so off topic either. I almost left the board right after I joined when I couldn't get a simple bit of advice from a simple question, but only pages of off topic posts of opinions that had nothing to do with the question I asked. That's pretty irritating whether you got a good head on your shoulders or not!!!


----------



## shannonrae (Sep 9, 2010)

selzer said:


> Some people want to be agreed with and that is it.


At NO point did I agree with what happened. I never said what happened with the dogs was O.K. It is unfair to bounce a dog from home to home, it is confusing and has potential for permanent psychological damage. People should be aware of their finances before acquiring a pet. I just understand I do not have the right to judge someone based solely on a few posts.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

shannonrae said:


> At NO point did I agree with what happened. I never said what happened with the dogs was O.K. It is unfair to bounce a dog from home to home, it is confusing and has potential for permanent psychological damage. People should be aware of their finances before acquiring a pet. I just understand I do not have the right to judge someone based solely on a few posts.


Uhm, I meant the OP wanted to be agreed with and that was it, I was not referring to you. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

HarleyGirl52874 said:


> Here is a thought, instead of calling the OP an idiot (somethings are better thought then said) why not drop this. She is done with the thread.
> 
> It just blows my mind how hollier then though some of you act. I understand being concerned for the dog but to result to name calling, REALLY, but I must THANK YOU for remidning me why I have choosen to stay away from this board.


How come is it, that if you are disagreeing with what an OP or newbie has done or is thinking about doing, you are being "holier than thou" but if you are admonishing other posters on what they are saying to the OP or about the OP or about the thread in general, YOU are not being "holier than thou"?

Why is it ok for SOME people to bring up how they or others are going to leave the board or were going to leave the board, isn't that majorly controlling??? You are trying to mold other people into the shape you think they should be in, and if they do not comply, you will take your big red ball and go home?


----------



## PupperLove (Apr 10, 2010)

selzer said:


> Why is it ok for SOME people to bring up how they or others are going to leave the board or were going to leave the board, isn't that majorly controlling??? You are trying to mold other people into the shape you think they should be in, and if they do not comply, you will take your big red ball and go home?


WHAT?!

I think if someone wants to leave the board it's based on a personal decision whether or not they want to expose themselves to what is being said to them. That's about it. I don't think anybody is trying to mold anybody into anything......

isn't that why religion and politics are not allowed on here??


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

ahhh...but religion is allowed as long as it's kept civil.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

and politicians can run ads here!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

When people say, "that is why I left the board", "that is why so many people left", "that is why I don't want to be on here", they are trying to force people to shut up and keep their opinions to themselves.

And we all become little Stepford Posters:

Crazy Newbie: "What can I do, I just got my eight month old puppy x-rayed and the vet says she has 14 puppies in there, and well I used my buddies dog for a stud, but now they said that she could have more than one sire, and I know that there was a border collie mix hanging around..."

Stepford Poster: "Oh how nice, 14 puppies."

Crazy Newbie: "Yeah, and the thing is, I have been served with eviction papers so I only have thirty days to be out of here, do you think that I could do a c-section so that the puppies will be ready for weaning sooner?"

Stepford Poster: "Hmmmm, gee well I have never heard of anyone doing that before. You MUST tell us if it works."

Crazy Newbie: "Do you think I can still charge people $800 for the puppies, I mean if they may be some of them mixes?"

Stepford Poster: "Well, I think you should charge what you think is right. Good luck. Post lots of pictures."


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

:rofl: Sue..you need to write horror stories for a living!


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

That poor dog. Talk about people failing him over and over again.


----------



## HarleyGirl52874 (Jun 16, 2006)

I never said to keep opinions to yourself, but do people really need to be called names? Please, get off your high ass horse, and get over yourself. 

And yes instead of attacking the OP which alot of you did, in disguise of concern for the dog. But guess same could be said for you because somebody didn't take what YOU said as what is right (no matter if it was or not) you get an attitude. with the OP.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

You are right...we are horrible people and should be flogged. I'll take my high ass horse and go play in my own pasture. :doggieplayball:

I don't believe I called anyone any names.:thinking:


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

What is the difference of calling someone a name and saying that someone needs to get off their "high ass horse", get over themselves, or stop being "holier than thou"?


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Psst Selzer there is no difference In all seriousness do you not think this owner was irresponsible? If someone asks a question like could I be sued their obviously looking for an opinion and some justification for the opinion. I never called this person a name btw. Most on here gave their opinion and their reason for their opinion without calling any names whatsoever. Why should one ask a question and be lied to? The OP was irresponsible period. She adopted a dog and NEVER had it seen by a vet, she didn't have it tested for HW, or get it the preventative. Then the new owner followed in her footsteps and also never had the dog vetted or on a preventative so in real life that is called making a stupid decision. When one makes a stupid decision and then asks about it your average honest person is going to say that wasn't very wise. If you can't take criticism don't ask for it


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Betty said:


> That poor dog. Talk about people failing him over and over again.


That's the bottom line. 

Why is this in the health section anyway.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I wondered the same thing, Jean. Maybe because the dog is sick?


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Maybe!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Zoeys mom said:


> Psst Selzer there is no difference In all seriousness do you not think this owner was irresponsible? If someone asks a question like could I be sued their obviously looking for an opinion and some justification for the opinion. I never called this person a name btw. Most on here gave their opinion and their reason for their opinion without calling any names whatsoever. Why should one ask a question and be lied to? The OP was irresponsible period. She adopted a dog and NEVER had it seen by a vet, she didn't have it tested for HW, or get it the preventative. Then the new owner followed in her footsteps and also never had the dog vetted or on a preventative so in real life that is called making a stupid decision. When one makes a stupid decision and then asks about it your average honest person is going to say that wasn't very wise. If you can't take criticism don't ask for it


I agree with you. My beef is with the idea that we should not voice our opinions, and should just listen to people go off on us for being mean. 

I don't think I called anyone names either. I ususally don't do that.


----------



## PupperLove (Apr 10, 2010)

selzer said:


> I agree with you. My beef is with the idea that we should not voice our opinions, and should just listen to people go off on us for being mean.
> 
> I don't think I called anyone names either. I ususally don't do that.





selzer said:


> I agree with you. My beef is with the idea that we should not *voice our opinions*, and should just listen to people go off on us *for being mean*.
> 
> I don't think I called anyone names either. I ususally don't do that.


THERES A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VOICING YOUR OPINION AND BEING MEAN ABOUT IT

Selzer, There's absolutley no reason that you can't voice your opinion WITHOUT being mean. That' the problem with some people here. Idk why it's so difficult for some to understand that. It's coming off as extremley immature and things get blown way out of proportion. Aren't we all adults here? Yes, there are some young, young ones, but come on.....

Well just like you are offended by trailor trash and people talking about your female DOGS, some people are offended by the things you say too, you can come off pretty harsh sometimes.

Just putting that into perspective.

Since you are all about voicing your opinion, I see no reason why you should have any problem with anything I just said.


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

CaliBoy said:


> HarleyGirl52874:
> Soldier, if you are reading this, I also hope you take the postive things said and would not allow the hurtful comments to get in the way of that advice.


Yes, I did. Thank you, for helping me to realize that I'm not a bad person that you would see on Animal Cops, and that I'm a good mommy to my babies. 

Funny, how nobody seemed to care that I said the supposedly HW+ Zeus (still with no proof or further e-mails from the current owner) is undergoing treatment. Sad, because you all say you're ripping me a new one because you care about the dog. Really? You do, then why no comments about the treatment but still just comments about me?

No further comments needed. I think I'm the one that needs to be appalled. Yeah, I'll still be on here to see if I can find training tips, etc. But I won't be asking for advice. I won't give anymore details on the subject, reasons, or responses off topic anymore. Yeah, the topic was about whether I could be sued for something like this. I didn't say whether I cared about Zeus or not. Obviously, if I DIDN'T care, I wouldn't have come here..I wouldn't have responded to her e-mail AT WORK, and I COULD have just pretended I never saw it. You haters still haven't said a word on the fact that even if I had taken him in to get any kind of shots (which is silly because he was UTD) and to have him HW tested, there was still that possibility it may have come back negative. She bought him from me fully aware of the situation, that I didn't personally take him in and she had the UTD shot records, which is why SHE said she didn't need to vaccinate him when she took him into the vet.

But, even with the simple facts put right in front of your face, you still hold onto your beliefs because you have it instilled into your brain that I'm the worst scum in this world. I could tell you a lot of horror stories that I see friends and family treating their pets (not abuse), and in your eyes you would see them as the most unfit pet owners in the world, just because they don't give them shots ever month, two months, etc. 

Do these dogs get shots in the wild? Do they get pills? Do they get dog food handed to them? Do they get air-conditioned homes with belly rubs and squeeky toys or toys at all? No. They don't. I provide ALL of my pets with ALL of this. I have two birds, two cats, a Husky and a White GSD. Did I have to take my bird in to get sexed so I could know whether I wanted to say "Good boy", or "Good girl"? Nope. I didn't have to pay nearly $300 to do a sexing and to make sure he was healthy. I also don't HAVE to give my pets HW and Flea pills. But, I do. I don't have to go and buy no-pull harnesses, fancy collars, treats, brushes, water fountains, stand-up feeders, wet food to mix into their dry food for EVERY dinner, or even nail clippers and costumes. But, I do.

My babies are content and happy as ****. I give them MORE than what they need in life, and more than I can say for a lot of other people. If you still see me as an unfit guardian, then you're tunnel vision needs to be fixed. 

I apologize for not being as intelligent as you say you are, although I can see plain facts and piece things together better than what you are doing. I'm not falsely accusing people of saying things that they didn't. I'm not pretending to care about a dog that is "supposedly" sick with no proof, but not commenting about the fact that he is getting "care".

Oh, and no comment about the rescued blind puppies. Yeah, you guys really care about dogs and their welfare huh..?
My last comment here..go work for *PETA*.


----------



## Shavy (Feb 12, 2009)

I'm still wondering (not flaming) why you charged this woman $300 to adopt this dog when you had not vetted or neutered him. Can you explain the logic behind the high price?


----------



## PupperLove (Apr 10, 2010)

Soldier, I'm sure if you could do things differently you would. The best thing is to learn from the things you did, or didn't do. And move forward. Be thankful that Zeus is being treated. I'm thankful they are able to help him.


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

You do pose a valid question, and although people would still be pissy about my reasoning and make up whatever stories they'd like I will gladly explain to you since you did ask me nicely. Yes, that is how much I had paid for him when I got him. To be honest, my boyfriend went half for me as a present, and I felt that he would have been upset had I just let Zeus go. That is my reasoning. No I didn't get profit for him as another had stated, and no I didn't just spend the money on getting Niea fixed as another had stated. I still wanted a GSD, so I had gotten Hewie, and once I knew he was fine around my cats and the vet was in my area, I took him in for his shots and for HW and Flea pills. 

I was honestly more worried about getting Zeus into a better home without cats due to how aggressive he was being towards both of my cats. I DID try separating them, but I have a small house and he is VERY large. I have TWO pet gates that separate my bed room and my craft room and he managed to knock over one gate and push in the other. He could reach all counter tops as well, so my cats had no place to go. Let's see..vet and neuter Zeus and potentially have two DEAD babies in my home, or find him a home quickly..I took my better option.


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

PupperLove said:


> Soldier, I'm sure if you could do things differently you would. The best thing is to learn from the things you did, or didn't do. And move forward. Be thankful that Zeus is being treated. I'm thankful they are able to help him.


You know, I really did, from the few that helped the ordeal.

I still have no idea whether he was really HW positive or not, as she hasn't replied to me, and I don't want to call her or e-mail her back to enflame her so she "does" sue me for badgering and harassing her, because I know anyone can use that as an excuse even if I'm just trying to find out the truth. I only have her word as the truth, and sometimes that's not good enough.


----------



## GSDOwner2008 (Jan 19, 2008)

PupperLove said:


> Soldier, I'm sure if you could do things differently you would. The best thing is to learn from the things you did, or didn't do. And move forward. Be thankful that Zeus is being treated. I'm thankful they are able to help him.


Well put. I think this thread just needs to come to an end. Everyone is just bashing one another over different views and it's getting repetitive and annoying in my opinion. I personally don't think anyone is right who has bashed or called anyone names. The best thing to learn from this is people make mistakes and that's how we learn and grow. No one is perfect.


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

Btw, does this look like a mistreated or unhappy Hewie?









Took it this yesterday after work, since he wanted to nap with me on the couch.

How about this one?









Maybe Niea, my girl I've had since 8 weeks old..and is now a little over a year? Surely, she's mistreated..


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Both of your dogs are gorgeous btw and I don't blame you for rehoming a dog that couldn't get along with your cats. Most people get their dogs a vet check within the first week of having them and thats why the scrutiny has come about. I am sure you treat the two dogs you have now with plenty of love and care


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

I do realize that..and with all honesty, I would have if he would have worked out with my cats. I felt bad enough and didn't want ask for her to take Zeus back and then to ask for my money back. She was selling him because her landlord was making her get rid of him in her new place, so I doubt she would have taken him back. 

And thank you, they are quite happy. Niea even use to sleep with me until she decided she was a big girl and didn't need to sleep with me. Now Hewie sleeps by my side on the floor while Niea takes the couch.

I also try to frequent the new dog park in my area as much as I can. Niea even made the front page of our local newspaper!


----------



## Lola10 (May 5, 2010)

just as mistreated as this pillow thief (had to add the other pictures when I realized that all the others were of Lola sleeping ). Your dogs are gorgeous by the way, I always love the blue eyes. :wub:


----------



## smyke (Sep 24, 2009)

Zoeys mom said:


> If you can't take criticism don't ask for it


I can't believe I am still following this LOL

Not that it matters, but when did the OP ask for criticism?

Anyway, glad that OP decided to stick around. This forum is a great source of info even though things get heated at times. 
Love the baby blues on you Husky. Best of luck.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

The OP asked what we thought about her situation.......hence when one asks for an opinion your going to get the good and the bad in the form of criticism. Criticism should be constructive and delivered with tact I'll give you that, but sometimes well intentioned comments get twisted into something they were never meant to mean. I honestly still can't find a post where people were called names except the one about us getting off our high ass horse. I wish I were on a high ass horse right now I love to ride


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Come on over to my house Zoey's Mom..I do have a high ass horse in my backyard.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I'm soooooooo jealous. I took lessons until I was 16 and competed a little mostly in local trials. I haven't been on a horse in almost 7 years unless pony rides with my kids count


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I'll send you a pic in a PM. He's a pretty boy. I don't ride him...he's my daughter's. Showed him last year but money was tight and her attitude was out of control this year.  One day I'll have time to ride!!


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

A daughter with an out of control attitude- I don't believe you,lol


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

A 14 yr old daughter with an out of control attitude....hard to imagine, isn't it? LOL


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Mine is only 9 going on 30. When her teacher commented on how well her paper was written she turned and said "do you know how grounded I'd be if I didn't do my best?" Her teacher e-mailed me to let me know I'm doing a great job,lol According to my daughter I am ruining her life cause at 9 she thinks she has one


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Wait till she hits 13 and decides you are the devil! :rofl:


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Oh I already am and I quite like it. She's with Gram this weekend and doesn't know I found her stash of clean clothes she was to put away shoved in the corner of her closet yet. She'll be having no play dates or computer time this week


----------



## Miikkas mom (Dec 21, 2009)

I’ve been following this thread from the get-go. I made a few incidental comments but nothing of importance. At the moment, I don’t care to discuss the OP’s actions. I do, however, have a question for some of the breeders that have chastised the OP about not returning the $300.00 to the person who now has the dog. 

Would you, as a breeder, return the money? Obviously, I can’t go threw all the threads ever created on this board but I know for a fact many of the breeders here commonly tell people that “purchasing a dog is a risk”, “you never know what can happen regarding a dogs health”, and on and on. Furthermore, I personally have been told that I should not take my pups woes out on the breeder, because, again, “there is never a guarantee”. It seems to me that there is a different set of rules for breeders. Personally, I think that’s a little hypocritical.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I don't think there was a single breeder that replied to this thread? The ppl that said return the money have mostly been ppl that have been in rescue. 

That's not hypocritical because rescue dogs should be vetted, spayed/neutered, references checked and a home visit done. The "rehoming fee", which was really just the OP recouping money for the dog was a bit high for a rescue but understandable. The ball was dropped for this particular dog.


----------



## Shavy (Feb 12, 2009)

Jax08 said:


> I don't think there was a single breeder that replied to this thread? The ppl that said return the money have mostly been ppl that have been in rescue.
> 
> That's not hypocritical because rescue dogs should be vetted, spayed/neutered, references checked and a home visit done. The "rehoming fee", which was really just the OP recouping money for the dog was a bit high for a rescue but understandable. The ball was dropped for this particular dog.


When my husband and I were selling yorkies, we had one customer that came back to us after her pup died of hypoglycemia. Now, these are small pups, and hypoglycemia is something that is common and that we spoke to each customer AT LENGTH about - how to avoid it, how to recognize the signs, what to do if you suspect your pup may be having an episode. And this was the ONLY pup we ever had die in a customer's hands. Was it our fault? Gosh no, I don't think so. Did we give her a replacement pup of equal or greater value as soon as we had one available? You better believe we did! And we never sold a pup that had not been individually examined by our personal veterinarian. 

So no, I don't think it's okay to charge someone $300 for a dog they got on craigslist, that they haven't vetted or neutered or done ANYTHING with, and then refuse to refund the money when the new owner discovers the dog was ill at the time of sale and now requires expensive treatment. Ignorance doesn't excuse one from doing the right thing in the here and now.


----------



## Miikkas mom (Dec 21, 2009)

Jax08 said:


> I don't think there was a single breeder that replied to this thread? The ppl that said return the money have mostly been ppl that have been in rescue.
> 
> That's not hypocritical because rescue dogs should be vetted, spayed/neutered, references checked and a home visit done. The "rehoming fee", which was really just the OP recouping money for the dog was a bit high for a rescue but understandable. The ball was dropped for this particular dog.


I agree. The ball was dropped. Big time. And of course, the poor dog gets the shaft. 

She paid $300. for the dog. She was trying to recoop that money. I dont think there is anything wrong with that. Having said that, I'm not, by any means, defending the OP's overall actions. 

Frankly, I think she was dog-shopping. She went through 4 dogs in a very short period of time (if you check some of her older posts you'll see she was very close to getting a couple of other dogs). Now she has her white shepherd. I sure hope shes happy with him! 

Yes, look through the thread again Jax. Breeders have responed (at least I think they are breeders, I could be wrong, though).


----------



## Miikkas mom (Dec 21, 2009)

Shavy said:


> When my husband and I were selling yorkies, we had one customer that came back to us after her pup died of hypoglycemia. Now, these are small pups, and hypoglycemia is something that is common and that we spoke to each customer AT LENGTH about - how to avoid it, how to recognize the signs, what to do if you suspect your pup may be having an episode. And this was the ONLY pup we ever had die in a customer's hands. Was it our fault? Gosh no, I don't think so. Did we give her a replacement pup of equal or greater value as soon as we had one available? You better believe we did! And we never sold a pup that had not been individually examined by our personal veterinarian.
> 
> So no, I don't think it's okay to charge someone $300 for a dog they got on craigslist, that they haven't vetted or neutered or done ANYTHING with, and then refuse to refund the money when the new owner discovers the dog was ill at the time of sale and now requires expensive treatment. Ignorance doesn't excuse one from doing the right thing in the here and now.


As a breeder you SHOULD offer a replacement for a pup that died. 

But this is slightly different. The person that now has the dog wanted $$ to help cover the cost of HW treatment. Or basically $300..which was what she paid for the dog. So, for example, I have spent thousands of dollars (on health related issues) on Miikka so far and she's less than 1-year old. I think my breeder (and most breeders) would laugh at me if I came asking for money to help pay for Miikka's meds, or whatever. Why is the OP's situation different...seriously, I dont understand.


----------



## Shavy (Feb 12, 2009)

Miikkas mom said:


> As a breeder you SHOULD offer a replacement for a pup that died.
> 
> But this is slightly different. The person that now has the dog wanted $$ to help cover the cost of HW treatment. Or basically $300..which was what she paid for the dog. So, for example, I have spent thousands of dollars (on health related issues) on Miikka so far and she's less than 1-year old. I think my breeder (and most breeders) would laugh at me if I came asking for money to help pay for Miikka's meds, or whatever. Why is the OP's situation different...seriously, I dont understand.


Yes, there is a HUGE difference between my situation and hers. In my situation, I sold her a healthy puppy that she did not properly care for (unintentionally, and we certainly made sure that any other pup we placed with her would be taken care of properly) and it subsequently died. Our contract specifically did not cover deaths due to hypoglycemia, but we felt that in this case these were good people who had an unfortunate accident, and we wanted to help them out. Nobody wants to hear that a pup is ill or died, but a responsible breeder does want to do right by both their dogs and their new owners.

In the OP's case, she sold a dog that WAS ill at the time of sale (visibly or not). She then proceeded to say she's "broke" and this person is a "breeder" so she shouldn't have to refund the ridiculous "adoption fee" she charged this poor woman for a seriously ill dog that the OP didn't bother to ever have vetted. Darn straight she should be giving the woman her money back!

I don't know what your situation with Miikka is, but I don't think your potentially VERY different circumstances should be allowed to color the facts of the OP, which is that the woman sold a very ill dog for $300 and is culpable, whether she did so intentionally or not.

Most breeders will offer to refund money if it turns out the dog was ill when it was sold, which is all this poor new owner wants from the OP. So forgive me if I don't feel sorry for her because she's broke, not a breeder, or "didn't know better".


----------



## Miikkas mom (Dec 21, 2009)

Shavy said:


> Yes, there is a HUGE difference between my situation and hers. In my situation, I sold her a healthy puppy that she did not properly care for (unintentionally, and we certainly made sure that any other pup we placed with her would be taken care of properly) and it subsequently died. Our contract specifically did not cover deaths due to hypoglycemia, but we felt that in this case these were good people who had an unfortunate accident, and we wanted to help them out. Nobody wants to hear that a pup is ill or died, but a responsible breeder does want to do right by both their dogs and their new owners.
> 
> In the OP's case, she sold a dog that WAS ill at the time of sale (visibly or not). She then proceeded to say she's "broke" and this person is a "breeder" so she shouldn't have to refund the ridiculous "adoption fee" she charged this poor woman for a seriously ill dog that the OP didn't bother to ever have vetted. Darn straight she should be giving the woman her money back!
> 
> ...


Perhaps you're right. I dont know. This entire thread is making me ill. I just feel terrible for the poor dog that keeps getting push around from place to place. 

If I understand it correctly, the dog was vetted right before the OP purchased it (per the first owners). She has receipts etc showing vaccinations, meds, and whatever else he had done. He was on HW meds too. Should she have taken him to the vet after she bought him? Of course she should have. But I can sort of understand why she didn't. And, I suppose too, that money is tight for her (but that's a whole other issue). 

Is my situation with Miikka clouding my opinion of breeders? No. My breeder has offered us another dog but I dont want another one at this time. Frankly, I'm not sure I can afford having another one with all of Miikkas medical bills.  But she has said whenever we are ready for another dog, one will be available. I wish she'd offer to help pay for the medical bills for the dog we have now :laugh:


----------



## Shavy (Feb 12, 2009)

Miikkas mom said:


> Perhaps you're right. I dont know. This entire thread is making me ill. I just feel terrible for the poor dog that keeps getting push around from place to place.
> 
> If I understand it correctly, the dog was vetted right before the OP purchased it (per the first owners). She has receipts etc showing vaccinations, meds, and whatever else he had done. He was on HW meds too. Should she have taken him to the vet after she bought him? Of course she should have. But I can sort of understand why she didn't. And, I suppose too, that money is tight for her (but that's a whole other issue).
> 
> Is my situation with Miikka clouding my opinion of breeders? No. My breeder has offered us another dog but I dont want another one at this time. Frankly, I'm not sure I can afford having another one with all of Miikkas medical bills.  But she has said whenever we are ready for another dog, one will be available. I wish she'd offer to help pay for the medical bills for the dog we have now :laugh:


I hear you, but it sounds like the breeder has tried to do right by you. And she probably (again, don't know your specific circumstances) had your pup vetted and it was healthy at time of sale.

At any rate, if someone mistakenly sells something that is damaged or misrepresented, it is understandable that the ethical thing to do is to refund their money when that comes to light. All the more so when you're talking about an animal that the person has probably loves and doesn't want to just throw away to buy a new one. It's definitely a fluke of fate that a supposedly healthy dog winds up having had heartworms, but at that point, you do the right thing and you give them back their money - even if it wasn't your "fault" that the dog is ill, and you weren't aware at the time.


----------



## bmasplund (Sep 7, 2010)

Miikkas mom said:


> There is a section on eBay called “classifieds” that does have different rules than what’s allowed in the actions. I be surprised, though, if the classifies allowed one to advertized live animals. I’m too lazy to investigate it, but I suppose it’s possible.


Ebay Classifieds DOES allow the sale of live animals. Its like any other classifieds out there (newspaper, online, etc.) We actually talked to a few breeders before we got Sasha through Ebay Classifieds because they said they felt safe using it and didnt want to advertise on CL. Plus a lot of rescues use Ebay Classifieds too it looks like. 

As for this whole issue I read all the posts and I felt as you were just seeking advice to use. Which is fine, but overall it sounded like financially you were hurting. So why did you take this responsability on?

Oh well what matters is Zeus is now getting treatments for the HW.


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

to comment on Mikka's mom...and I am not a breeder, yes I would have returned the 300$ to the new owner of Zeus providing they were telling the truth by showing me documentation from the vet stating he was HW+.

It would have been the ethical and moral thing to do, knowing they were now facing a big vet bill and alot of work in clearing up the HW..


----------



## BayouBaby (Aug 23, 2010)

Shavy said:


> In the OP's case, she sold a dog that WAS ill at the time of sale (visibly or not). She then proceeded to say she's "broke" and this person is a "breeder" so she shouldn't have to refund the ridiculous "adoption fee" she charged this poor woman for a seriously ill dog that the OP didn't bother to ever have vetted. Darn straight she should be giving the woman her money back!
> 
> I don't know what your situation with Miikka is, but I don't think your potentially VERY different circumstances should be allowed to color the facts of the OP, which is that the woman sold a very ill dog for $300 and is culpable, whether she did so intentionally or not.
> 
> Most breeders will offer to refund money if it turns out the dog was ill when it was sold, which is all this poor new owner wants from the OP. So forgive me if I don't feel sorry for her because she's broke, not a breeder, or "didn't know better".



I have to disagree and this is why:

*Fact 1:* The OP purchased Zeus from Ebay Classifieds on June 9, 2010 and posted such on *these forums*. She was supplied valid Vet care paperwork and was told that the previous owner had just run out of HW preventative. 



SoldierofTwilight said:


> Buuuuutttt....I just found this guy today, and he's perfect in every way. Great with kids, other animals, etc!!!!! And, I'm picking him up in a few hours!!! (and in the Orlando area too)
> 
> He is AKC registered current on all his shots has the home again micro chip. He is perfect. He has all of his paper all vet visits invoices everything.



*Fact 2:* She sold the dog on July 2, 2010, because Zeus was not compatible with her cats, for the full price she had paid, $300.



SoldierofTwilight said:


> *I had gotten him around June 10th. I want to say she came out and got him on July 2nd,* but I can't remember the exact date. I TOLD her that he had ran out of HW pills and would need more. *You can tell that he WAS on pills by the vet bills and receipts.* She said okay and that she would be buying some that DAY she picked him up at the same time of the vet visit. So, all was well from what I thought.


*Fact 3:* The current owner waited until mid to late September to take the dog to the vet and have him checked. That's a full 8-11 weeks from the date of purchase. 



SoldierofTwilight said:


> From: X
> Sent: *Monday, September 20, 2010 10:11 AM*
> To: Robin Harbin
> Subject: RE: Zeus
> ...


*Fact 4:* The current owner and the OP reside in Florida where mosquitoes are rampant during the summer. The dog may have indeed contracted the heartworms during the 8-11 weeks prior to the current owner's vetting. 

*See above quote.

*Fact 5:* We do not have any proof of the last time that Zeus received HW preventative. The previous owner stated by the OP's post that the dog had "just run out". It is possible that the dog has not been on preventative for quite some time. 



SoldierofTwilight said:


> I believe he is 4 years now. His vet papers showed all good vet visits and was ON HW preventatives! When I got him, she had just run out of pills, so I would have had to get some more, but I didn't have him long enough to take him to get any, so the new owner SHOULD have
> 1. taken him to a vet SOONER than she did and
> 2. SHOULD have gotten more pills for him


*Fact 6:* No one knows if the dog does indeed even have HW. If the dog is indeed positive, we do not know what PHASE the results are at. 1? 2? 3? 

Should the OP vetted Zeus upon her original purchase? *Of course she should have. She's even repeatedly admitted that she made a mistake. * There are quite a large number of people who would have done the exact same thing that the OP did. IE: Purchase Zeus, have valid Vet receipts showing shot records and HW preventatives and assumed that was good enough for a month, find out he doesn't get along with cats, sell the dog and recoup lost money.

Who is really culpable here? I don't think anyone will ever know the answer to that question. It's going to depend on what phase the worms are at, if there are any worms at all. If it's phase 1, as explained to me, then HW preventatives will do a slow kill over a period of a year or maximum, 2. Phase 2 is moderate. Phase 3 is emergency zone and immediate treatment required - and the resulting health of the dog questionable. That's how it's been explained to me. _ If I am incorrect, then my source is incorrect and I will inform her of your opinions._

My gut instinct tells me that the current owner did not vet the dog, nor did she supply any preventatives until late September. It's my opinion that the dog went without preventatives for at least 3 months. July, August, September. It's my opinion that the current owner is culpable and that will remain my opinion until the OP receives the vet fax showing the test results and the phase, whether it is 1, 2, or 3.

Had the current owner vetted the dog by the end of July and found HW, then I do believe either the OP or the ORIGINAL owner would be culpable. 

This to me was the best post because it said it all:



Caledon said:


> So you had a receipt that indicated that he was on heartworm medicine. So June would have been the last pill and would have been given by the old owners Does the receipt support that? It sounds as if the new purchaser was given all the facts and made her decision to proceed with all the information laid out on the table. She even told you that she was going to look after the refill of the pills immediately. You had no reason to believe otherwise.
> 
> It appears to me that the dog got heartworm because he did not get the pills for July, August and September. These are prime months to have been missed.
> 
> ...



Just my .02.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Miikkas mom said:


> Yes, look through the thread again Jax. Breeders have responed (at least I think they are breeders, I could be wrong, though).


There is one breeder that responded. Selzer. I have no doubt that if Sue sold a sick puppy she would have immediately refunded the money and/or replaced the puppy. I also have no doubt that Sue wouldn't have sold a sick dog to begin with. The majority of ppl that responded negatively to the OP regarding selling a sick dog were rescue.

I'm not a breeder but here is my take on the health risks. If the dog was sold with a preventable/curable disease such as HW then that is negligent on the part of the seller. 

I believe the risks that the breeders speak of are allergies, HD, DM, IBS, SIBO, etc. The diseases that try as they might it sometimes just happens. A good breeder has it in their contract that they will replace the puppy in the event of genetic health problems.

Read the Wildhaus health warranty. It's a good example of what a health warranty should be.
(German Shepherd Health Warranty, by Wildhaus Kennels )

If a dog has a disease due to neglect or environment, the breeder has no obligation to honor the warranty. However, I do know of several breeders on this board who will do everything in their power to get the dog back if it is due to neglect.

So no, given the breeder that responded and the health warranties that good breeders have, it is not hypocritical of them to advise refunding the money.


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

I have paid vet bills for someone that just purchased a pup. And this is for a puppy that not only had a current health certificate but was dated the day of pickup. 

If this situation was with one of my dogs I would require the dog back and refund the money.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

SoldierofTwilight said:


> *Yes, it wasn't really a SMALL fe*e. *But, for 1..the places I was looking at before I found him were rescues. However, most people wanted $3-400 for an adoption fee!!* *Also, he wasn't fixed..and if someone wasn't willing to pay a descent price for him, then more than likely they're the type of people that just get a cheap dog and breed it to death, you know what I mean? I just wanted to make sure he was in a descent home, otherwise I would have said $100 or something.*


How quickly we forget what we have told people already when we are not telling it straight.

So all those "Facts" a few posts ago, well, can you really believe them when they are from this same source? 

1. This person is putting more than one exclamation point after the adoption fee, like can you really believe they want that??? Well, so now we are to believe she paid that? OK. 

2. She charged more for him because he was worth more, he was intact. And she did not want someone to get a breeding dog for $100 when they would pay $300.

I am a breeder, yes. 

I replaced a puppy that was hit by a car at 11 months old. 

My health guarantee does say that I will replace a puppy if it has certain genetic conditions diagnosed by x-ray and verified by the OFA within 2 years of the purchase date -- so they have time to let the puppy mature and be tested at age two. Then they have a couple of months beyond that. 

I do not require the puppy back, but I require evidence that it has been spayed or neutered. I do not require that they take a new pup right away. 

The money I get for my puppies goes for all of what goes into them. I refund cash for two weeks, and encourage people to take the dog to the vet within that timeframe. One of my puppy buyers did, and the vet found a heart murmur and sent her to a specialist. She told me she was getting an EKG. 

I had no previous problems with hearts, and the puppy had been checked by my vet three times already, so I was interested to hear what the EKG said, and I checked with my vet. Everyone agreed that the puppy will most likely outgrow this. The EKG supported this as all parts of the heart were clear and looked properly developed. 

I told them that I would extend the cash refund for 30 more days so that they could retest him and if the murmur was still there, I would refund their money. The murmur was gone at that point.

When I sold Rush, also four years old. I had not been giving him heartguard for about a year. I went in and had him tested for that, stool sample, blood test, general check up, vaccinated (as his vaccinations that are done every three years were almost due), purchased a six month supply of heartguard for him, and gave his entire health history, ofa's etc, to the new owner.

*If the new owner decided that the dog was not getting along with his cats or grandkids, I would have returned the money that he paid for him.*

The major question here was whether she should retain a lawyer. Without a contract, and since she could not prove that the dog had been vetted or checked for heartworm, which is very common, she should return the $300, to help them pay the $650 worth of treatment. To take the dog back, and return the $300, she would then have to pay approx $650 more for treatment. So she could have been out $950. That did not make sense. But a trip to a lawyer's office can cost $1000. Why retain a lawyer, when you can arrange to pay back the money that you got for the dog.


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

BayouBaby said:


> I have to disagree and this is why:
> 
> *Fact 1:* The OP purchased Zeus from Ebay Classifieds on June 9, 2010 and posted such on *these forums*. She was supplied valid Vet care paperwork and was told that the previous owner had just run out of HW preventative.
> *Fact 2:* She sold the dog on July 2, 2010, because Zeus was not compatible with her cats, for the full price she had paid, $300.
> ...


Thanks. 

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat something, or how many true facts you can cite, some people are just too ignorant of the truth and will stick to their feelings rather than listen to facts. They will stick with what _they_ think is true, because they're looking to place blame on someone.

Speaking of which, since some breeders are on here (which I think is funny how most people condone breeding yet are breeders themselves), and don't know about the life cycle of the Heartworm..I thought I'd share this with you:

ENY-628/MG100: Mosquito-borne Dog Heartworm Disease

*Development In The Dog *

_After penetrating the skin, the larvae stay close to the entry site and grow very little during the next few days. The molt from third- to fourth-stage larvae occurs 6-10 days after infection. Fourth-stage larvae migrate through subcutaneous tissue and muscle toward the upper abdomen and thoracic cavity. *Fourth-stage larvae grow to about 1/10" in length during the next 40-60 days and then molt to the fifth and final larval stage, or young adults. The young adults penetrate veins to get into the blood stream and eventually, after 70-90 days in the dog, reach the heart.* For unknown reasons, the percentage of infective third-stage larvae that reach maturity vary in different breeds of dogs. _

_Upon reaching the heart, the young adults continue to grow. Up to now there has been no evidence of disease in the dog. *It is only after adult worms mate and start to discharge tiny motile microfilariae that circulate in the blood that disease becomes apparent. Microfilariae appear in the blood about 200 days after infection. *_

_*Visible signs of heartworm disease may not appear until a full year after being bitten by infected mosquitoes.* In fact, the disease may be well advanced before the dog shows any symptoms. Dogs with typical heartworm disease fatigue easily, cough, and appear rough and not thriving. Blood and worms from ruptured vessels may be coughed up. Blockage of major blood vessels can cause the animal to collapse suddenly and die within a few days. _

_Dogs with 50-100 mature worms exhibit moderate to severe heartworm disease. *Dogs with 10-25 worms that receive little exercise may never show signs of heartworm disease, and one may not be able to find microfilariae in the blood.* *Heartworm infection without detectable microfilaremia is called occult dirofilariasis.*_


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

JakodaCD OA said:


> I would have returned the 300$ to the new owner of Zeus providing they were telling the truth by showing me documentation from the vet stating he was HW+.


I agree. To me it doesn't matter whether the dog got HW with the original owner or not. The fact is, the dog was sold with HW and was not on preventative. If I took in, adopted, or bought a dog and I was unsure whether it might have HW, I would keep it until it tested positive or negative before trying to sell it or re-home it. When you buy or adopt a dog, that is your responsibility. If you don't know if the dog is HW+ when you get it, then that is the risk you are taking and the responsibility you are taking on by getting that dog. 

IMO, the OP is culpable. S/he bough a dog knowing it had not been kept up on HW prevention and then did not take steps to make sure it was positive or negative before selling it. I know s/he may not have been able to tell right away but when you are taking that risk then it is your responsibility to KEEP that dog and keep it healthy until you CAN definitively test positive or negative for HW.


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

Liesje said:


> If you don't know if the dog is HW+ when you get it, then that is the risk you are taking and the responsibility you are taking on by getting that dog.


And she knew that as well. She was well aware that I did not take him in myself..and then you state this:



Liesje said:


> IMO, the OP is culpable. S/he bough a dog knowing it had not been kept up on HW prevention and then did not take steps to make sure it was positive or negative before selling it.


Um, does that even make sense to you? The fact so, you're saying it was okay for her to buy him, knowing those risks, then come back to me wanting her money back when she still hasn't responded to me in a week and hasn't even provided proof that she's even telling the truth? Makes perfect sense..for me to just give up $300 to her. Yep.

While I'm at it, anyone else want some money since I'm just randomly giving it out because someone tells me to?



Liesje said:


> then it is your responsibility to KEEP that dog and keep it healthy


Again, you guys must be absolutely correct and it's always better for me to deal with two dead cats. Brillant, why didn't I think of that? :shocked:
Or, I guess he could have just been kept in a crate for a few months..


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

For some odd reason, I feel like a broken record, so I'll say this:

If you have something to say, that's nice. Don't post your comments, thoughts, or concerns if you're not reading the other posts in their entirity. It's getting old repeating myself and what others have made notably clear.. :/


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I'm saying that as far as I understand, you bought a dog knowing that it had not been on HW prevention but are now upset that after you sold it, the new owner is pissed that it's HW positive but you do not feel responsible? I think you should return the money and take the dog back. Treat it for the HW (which it apparently had before you originally got it) because that was your responsibility. If she is such a shady person why would you even want her having your dog? I would just take it back and find a better owner, be done with her, and not have to worry about getting yourself a lawyer if that was your concern.


----------



## Shavy (Feb 12, 2009)

SoldierofTwilight said:


> Thanks.
> Speaking of which, since some breeders are on here (which I think is funny how most people *condone* breeding yet are breeders themselves)


I just want to point out that a) you're using that word incorrectly (just a helpful life tip) and what you mean to say is "condemn". Common mistake.

b) Your attempt to obfuscate the issue by bringing up the supposed hypocrisy of breeders has nothing to do with this conversation. You might as well throw in that people who starve their dogs are animal abusers - it has no relevance to the topic whatsoever. You tried to garner support and sympathy by stating that this woman is a breeder, but really, as someone mentioned, it is her right to do as she chooses with her own dog. If you don't like that, you shouldn't have sold her the animal. At any rate, bashing breeders (which I am not, but whom several respected members here are) is uncalled for and is fooling no one.


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

Shavy said:


> what you mean to say is "condemn". Common mistake.


Yes, you're right. Sorry! >.<
Wrong word.


----------



## Shavy (Feb 12, 2009)

SoldierofTwilight said:


> Yes, you're right. Sorry! >.<
> Wrong word.


S'okay, I figured.


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

Liesje said:


> I'm saying that as far as I understand, you bought a dog knowing that it had not been on HW prevention but are now upset that after you sold it


And no, I didn't say he had not been on preventatives. He was, and the receipts showed that, and I showed them to her. He had his last pill shortly before I got him, and the new owner was made WELL aware of that and said she would be getting him new pills when she took him to the vet that SAME day she bought him. SO READ THE OLD POSTS. THANKS.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

But when was he tested for HW? It is still possible to get it, and if you are giving pills after the dog already has it, it can make it worse (depending on the stage). Where I live we have a lot of HW, so if I get a new adult dog I can't just take someone's word for it, either they have to test the dog or I will have it tested shortly after I obtain the dog, just to be sure. My vet will not even start selling me pills for a new dog without testing it, doesn't matter what the previous owner says or whether there are receipts for pills.

But, that's beside the point. Your question was whether you need an attorney, and the short answer is if you don't want to get one, simply return the purchase price and get the dog back.


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

Liesje said:


> But when was he tested for HW? It is still possible to get it, and if you are giving pills after the dog already has it, it can make it worse (depending on the stage).


I'd love to tell you the answer, but the new owner has all of the paperwork, including all vet visits. :/

So, would you say it's always best to check for HWs monthly, 6 months, or yearly? I know pups can't be tested, and now I know why because of the lifecycle of the HWs.

Again, legally, I did nothing wrong. Yes I do realiaze morally, I should have taken him to get tested for at least HWs. And I've already apologized a million times (maybe less), but at a legal stand point, I'm not obligated to refund her because she knew what she was getting into when she bought him. I told her everything, kept no secrets, and she was made well aware of the situation with him. I even told her he was NOT good with cats and will more than likely kill them. I did say he was good around children, because he was great with my b/f's neices and nephew. Only after having him for over 2 months is she now saying he's not good around her toddler? Well, she stated it's because he's so large. She knew his size the day she got him as well...

Now, she still hasn't responded in over a week since I made her aware. This makes me think she thought I was completely stupid and she could have gotten money out of me. I knew I did nothing wrong from a legal stand point, although she tried to bring up that Health Certificate thing. She tried citing things to me..and I'm not stupid. I know what comes next, "well if you're not stupid, then why did you freak out and come here"? Because I wanted a second opionion from people that I THOUGHT were respectable adults.

Sure, nobody has technically called me names. But it's quite easy to indirectly call someone stupid and irresponsible, and you might as well have said it straight forward. Fox on the sly.

So, you're still telling me to get an attorney, please state why. I've read over and over the HC law, but I'm sorry, that only applies to breeders or stores (retailers, etc). Even so, if she is indeed a "breeder" then she KNEW to ask for one, yet she didn't. Hmmm.. but yet again, I'll state:



SoldierofTwilight said:


> And no, I didn't say he had not been on preventatives. He was, and the receipts showed that, and I showed them to her. He had his last pill shortly before I got him, and *the new owner was made WELL aware of that and said she would be getting him new pills when she took him to the vet that SAME day she bought him.*


:/


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

Shavy said:


> b) Your attempt to obfuscate the issue by bringing up the supposed hypocrisy of breeders has nothing to do with this conversation. At any rate, bashing breeders (which I am not, but whom several respected members here are) is uncalled for and is fooling no one.


 
No, I wasn't. Actually, I have no hatred for breeders at all, except for backyard breeders. I was thinking about this last night, when I saw an ad for a free dog on CL because she got knocked up by the neighbors dog, so now he has to get rid of her. Sickening, actually.

But in all honesty, I don't. I bought Niea from a breeder. I actually drove to another state just to get her, because I fell in love with her when she was born, and I knew she was the one for me. And she is. So, driving to another state, paying $700 for JUST the pup, and then spoiling her to death should show that I have money. Heh. 

I have no problem with paying for things, it's just on how important something is. I'm not going to over pay on something. It's just like shopping for a T.V or anything else. Why waste X amount of money on X item, when you can go to X place and spend so much less? I just know how to budget. That's the ONLY reason why I ever mentioned paying $300 to have her spayed. It's a ridiculous amount of money for an unnecessary procedure. HOWEVER, I don't mind spending half that amount now that I know about the low cost clinic in my area!! That's why I'm getting Hewie fixed this week!


----------



## smyke (Sep 24, 2009)

If it were me I would do my research and crunch some numbers. 

Buyer is asking for $300 (refund of the money she paid you), right? so if the lawyer fees were anywhere near that, I would just pay the lady and make her go away. otherwise you are spending money up front and possibly if it goes to court you may be ordered to pay her anyway plus court fees. so you are cutting your losses by just giving her money back.
However, I would first and foremost wait for her to prove to you if Zeus is indeed HW+. sounds like she hasnt produced that documentation yet. 

Also if she is unhappy with what she got (his size) it will be best if you refunded her the money and took the dog back because we dont know what she would do with him.


----------



## lish91883 (Nov 2, 2006)

Funny how you are were crying money woes ealier in this thread, but in your last post state you have no problem paying for things. Then you want to brag about how much you spent on a puppy & expect people to not comment? Just because you don't like what you hear doesn't make the other posters mean, just honest.

You seem more interested in covering yourself than in Zeus's welfare. That makes this thread all more sad, because the only victim is the poor dog.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

lish91883 said:


> Funny how you are were crying money woes ealier in this thread, but in your last post state you have no problem paying for things.


She had no problem paying for "*important*" things....kind of says it all...


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

If she's no longer responding to you then I doubt you need an attorney, seems like she was making empty threats if she was threatening you legally.

But I still think the right thing to do is offer the $300 for getting the dog back. If she doesn't respond to that, chalk it up to a lesson learned.

IMO you should test for HW yearly or any time you get a new dog that is old enough. HW test doesn't hurt them (besides a needle prick). If I had a dog tested and then for whatever reason gave the dog away 6 months later I would expect the new owners to bring the dog to a vet and have it tested, as I would not be surprised if their vet would refuse to sell them preventative for the dog without testing it first.

Driving to another state and paying $700 is not going to prove much around here.


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

Liesje said:


> Driving to another state and paying $700 is not going to prove much around here.


Yea, I laughed out loud at that one


----------



## Shavy (Feb 12, 2009)

Lin said:


> Yea, I laughed out loud at that one


Lin, your avatar always cracks me up.


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

Lin said:


> Yea, I laughed out loud at that one


So did I.


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

Shavy said:


> Lin, your avatar always cracks me up.


Thanks! Me too. Sneak sneak sneak... run run RUN!


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

Lin said:


> Thanks! Me too. Sneak sneak sneak... run run RUN!


I wonder......... did he steal Cheetos? I could really go for some Flaming Hot Cheetos.....


----------



## smyke (Sep 24, 2009)

they have them in flaming hot flavor? I have been out of the loop.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I actually right click > saved that gif in the avatar, I love it!


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

smyke said:


> they have them in flaming hot flavor? I have been out of the loop.


Yes, they have them in that flavor, they are delicious......


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

lish91883 said:


> Funny how you are were crying money woes ealier in this thread, but in your last post state you have no problem paying for things. Then you want to brag about how much you spent on a puppy & expect people to not comment? Just because you don't like what you hear doesn't make the other posters mean, just honest.
> 
> You seem more interested in covering yourself than in Zeus's welfare. That makes this thread all more sad, because the only victim is the poor dog.


 
Oh, yeah you're right. My bad, my finances must obviously stay the same a year later. I wasn't bragging at all, but you can put whatever words in my mough like everyone else.

So, why is it that no matter how much I clarify myself, the only things you people want to believe (although I HAVE NO PROOF OF IT), that he is "SUPPOSEDLY" HW positive..and STILL NO COMMENTS ON THE FACT THAT HE IS BEING TREATED. Nice..yeah, you really care so much for the poor dog. Right?

Right.

My expenses are for my bills and my CURRENT PETS. Had Zeus worked out with my cats, I would have kept him, and taken care of whatever he has, or DOESN'T HAVE.

I must remember to tell myself, no need to get into a battle of the wits with an unarmed man. Thanks for reminding me of that. 

I just come on here now to just get my shiggles out of the idiotic responses most of you give..while trying to say you "care about the dog". I have an idea, then why don't you go and offer to take him, since you "care" so much. Right?

Sure, I could offer to take him. Where would that land me? Square one, with cats being attacked. Gee, now that's smart. It' better for me to take him back and have him stuffed in a little crate all the time? Wow, you truely ARE brilliant, caring people....


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

If you don't wish to return the $300. Why not ask the lady which vet is treating the dog, and at least pay $150? Send it directly to the vet. That would show you feel some sort of responsibility, but don't feel your 100% responsible? 

There is an old saying, "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." That might be something to keep in mind.


----------



## smyke (Sep 24, 2009)

SoldierofTwilight said:


> Sure, I could offer to take him. Where would that land me? Square one, with cats being attacked. Gee, now that's smart. It' better for me to take him back and have him stuffed in a little crate all the time? Wow, you truely ARE brilliant, caring people....


yes, if for whatever reason the new owner was looking to get rid of him it would be better if he was in your crate than at the pound or worse. thats all.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

SoldierofTwilight said:


> IF I HAD THE MONEY RIGHT NOW, I WOULD GIVE IT TO HER, TAKE HIM BACK..AND SEND HIM TO A BETTER PLACE. But the fact is, I'm barely able to afford gas right now, I can't afford to give her the money back!


 
September 22, 2010 quote.

First registered date: May 30, 2010.

Time elapsed: Less than 4 months.


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

GSDElsa said:


> September 22, 2010 quote.
> 
> First registered date: May 30, 2010.
> 
> Time elapsed: Less than 4 months.


True story right here.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

smyke said:


> yes, if for whatever reason the new owner was looking to get rid of him it would be better if he was in your crate than at the pound or worse. thats all.


Yes, or work now on trying to find a reputable rescue who will treat his HW, neuter him, check references and do a home check and back him up forever if his forever home turns out not to be.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

SoldierofTwilight said:


> So, why is it that no matter how much I clarify myself, the only things you people want to believe (although I HAVE NO PROOF OF IT), that he is "SUPPOSEDLY" HW positive..and STILL NO COMMENTS ON THE FACT THAT HE IS BEING TREATED. Nice..yeah, you really care so much for the poor dog. Right?


Here's a response for you...

1) *You DIDN"T test him. You DIDN"T treat him.* You really need to write down your facts and keep track of them.
2) The email from the new owner states that they want the money so they can *START *treating him.

Therefore, there is no proof that he is currently be treated. Are we supposed to praise YOU because another person may/may not be treating him for the HW? You have no proof that he has HW but you somehow have proof that he is being treated for the HW? That is downright logical. 

3) The dog is NOT our responsibility...it was YOURS. Don't try to put this on us. You dropped the ball. 

4) You started this thread. Your logic is faulty at best. Ridiculous most of the time. And you just keep coming back for more. I think you just like to argue. 

5) We do care about our dogs. Which is why we are saying the right things to do is give back the money to help treat him if it's proven he does have HW.

And as far as the cats...how hard is it to figure out to put the cats in a room for their own safety? Talk about unarmed! I did it for 7 months with a foster dog. It's not exactly brain surgery. It's all about what you are willing to do for the safety of your animals..and yes..Zeus WAS your animal.


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

Jax08 said:


> Here's a response for you...
> 
> 1) *You DIDN"T test him. You DIDN"T treat him.* You really need to write down your facts and keep track of them.
> 2) The email from the new owner states that they want the money so they can *START *treating him.
> ...


Excellent post Jax


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> Yes, or work now on trying to find a reputable rescue who will treat his HW, neuter him, check references and do a home check and back him up forever if his forever home turns out not to be.


I actually told her about quite a few rescue groups in the area, one notably in Orlando..but again, she hasn't responded to me. If she would provide me with _something_ at least, I would try something. But honestly, the only reason why I think she's bluffing about the whole ordeal and just wanted money, was the fact that she had nothing to really say to me when I gave her facts and she has yet to respond. I can't work with something I don't have, ya know? :/


----------



## SoldierofTwilight (May 30, 2010)

But, I'll just give you guys what you want. So, later!


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

lish91883 Funny how you are were crying money woes ealier in this thread, but in your last post state you have no problem paying for things. Then you want to brag about how much you spent on a puppy & expect people to not comment? Just because you don't like what you hear doesn't make the other posters mean, just honest.

SoldierofTwilight Oh, yeah you're right. My bad, my finances must obviously stay the same a year later. I wasn't bragging at all, but you can put whatever words in my mough like everyone else


GSDElsa September 22, 2010 quote 
First registered date: May 30, 2010.

Time elapsed: Less than 4 months

If there is one thing I cant stand, it's a liar.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I think what is souring many people here is how this person even ended up with your dog. No, it's not your fault if she lies and cheats but why was someone like this ever given the opportunity to buy the dog in the first place? Does it not bother you that your dog is with this person who apparently had no interest in him other than using him as a pawn?


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

SoldierofTwilight said:


> I actually told her about quite a few rescue groups in the area, one notably in Orlando..but again, she hasn't responded to me. If she would provide me with _something_ at least, I would try something. But honestly, the only reason why I think she's bluffing about the whole ordeal and just wanted money, was the fact that she had nothing to really say to me when I gave her facts and she has yet to respond. I can't work with something I don't have, ya know? :/


 
It could be that she hasn't responded is she is following this thread closely, arming herself for court....just a thought.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

SoldierofTwilight said:


> I actually told her about quite a few rescue groups in the area, one notably in Orlando..but again, she hasn't responded to me. If she would provide me with _something_ at least, I would try something. But honestly, the only reason why I think she's bluffing about the whole ordeal and just wanted money, was the fact that she had nothing to really say to me when I gave her facts and she has yet to respond. I can't work with something I don't have, ya know? :/


Yeah, didn't have a PS time to say that won't be easy since all rescues are generally full. 

If you have a way to crate and rotate and keep the cats safe, or if the lady who has him is in anyway trustworthy where one of you could foster him for a rescue, that would help a lot.


----------



## lish91883 (Nov 2, 2006)

SoldierofTwilight said:


> So, why is it that no matter how much I clarify myself, the only things you people want to believe (although I HAVE NO PROOF OF IT), that he is "SUPPOSEDLY" HW positive..and STILL NO COMMENTS ON THE FACT THAT HE IS BEING TREATED. Nice..yeah, you really care so much for the poor dog. Right?


Kudo's to the responsible person that is treating Zeus. 



SoldierofTwilight said:


> I have an idea, then why don't you go and offer to take him, since you "care" so much. Right?


Because, I have 6 dogs, including 2 with costly medical problems, & 1 that has dog issues. 



SoldierofTwilight said:


> Sure, I could offer to take him. Where would that land me? Square one, with cats being attacked. Gee, now that's smart. It' better for me to take him back and have him stuffed in a little crate all the time? Wow, you truely ARE brilliant, caring people....


There are ways to seperate Zeus for the cats so he would not have to spend 24/7 in a crate, but it would take work on your part, which from the sound of your posts you are unwilling to do. You could have also tried training Zeus, but this is all besides the fact now.


----------



## gsdraven (Jul 8, 2009)

SoldierofTwilight said:


> So, why is it that no matter how much I clarify myself, the only things you people want to believe (although I HAVE NO PROOF OF IT), that he is "SUPPOSEDLY" HW positive..and STILL NO COMMENTS ON THE FACT THAT HE IS BEING TREATED. Nice..yeah, you really care so much for the poor dog. Right?


So you don't believe that he is HW+ because you haven't been given proof but you DO believe he is being treated for a condition you aren't convinced he has?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Not to mention, if the dog is HW+ being crated much of the time until you can find a new owner or rescue isn't actually a bad thing. 

At this point, I like the new owner. The only "facts" we KNOW about her is that she took the dog to a vet who says there is a problem and she contacted the person who sold her the dog to see if they would be willing to help.

Now, that they know that that is not the case, they are not hounding her, sending scads of e-mails, threats, etc. They have given up and will know better next time. 

Because of all the falsehoods in this thread already, we do not have any proof that she was trying to sell the dog, or that she was going to breed the dog, or breeding any dog. That she suggested getting the money to help with treatment does not sound like she was about selling him. 

I think that in part she and the dog are both victims here. She bought a four year old dog for $300. And within a month (according to her email) the dog has been diagnosed with a disease that takes about six months to show up (there may be different tests, but the one my vet uses shows + approximately six months after infestation. 

At the vet today, I heard that treatment at the stage their dog was, would be two shots, hospitalization over night, and cost approx 450$. I understand that there are different treatments, different fees for hospitalization, different costs depending on location, and we have no idea what stage of the disease the dogs are in (the one I heard about today and the dog in the post), but $650 certainly does not sound out of the ball park. 

This lady's character has been assassinated by the OP because she sent an e-mail asking to be refunded her money to pay for treatment for a condition this dog had at the time of sale. 

But that _is _OK I guess.  We do not know this person's name. 

I would really hope that in researching heartworm disease or something else, this lady comes on board and tells us her side of this very interesting story.

There is only one thing I feel very sure about: the dog is better off out of the OPs care. The OP is a great owner because she dresses dogs up in costumes and doesn't bother taking care of their veterinary needs. Unreal!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

SoldierofTwilight said:


> Thanks.
> 
> It doesn't matter how many times you repeat something, or how many true facts you can cite, some people are just too ignorant of the truth and will stick to their feelings rather than listen to facts. They will stick with what _they_ think is true, because they're looking to place blame on someone.
> 
> *Speaking of which, since some breeders are on here (which I think is funny how most people condone breeding yet are breeders themselves)*, and don't know about the life cycle of the Heartworm..I thought I'd share this with you:


There are some breeders within the membership. Some people do condemn breeding they feel that people should rescue dogs until there are no more dogs in need. But the vast majority of people do not condemn breeding dogs, so long as people are working with their dogs, health screen for genetic conditions, have the dog tested/trialed by an outside source, and are responsible about where the puppies go and whether they are willing to take them back. 

As, for breeders knowing the ins and outs of heart worm disease, well, if you have never had a dog test positive for it, it is less likely that you will be an expert on the disease. Someone such as yourself who has claimed to have a dog with HWs, well, I would expect them to be very in tune with the disease and various treatments. 

One thing you said in the e-mail was that the cost is ongoing, they will not need all the money right away. However, the dog I heard about at the vet today DOES need to come up with the money for the two-day, two shot, treatment in a lump sum.


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

selzer said:


> The OP is a great owner because she dresses dogs up in costumes and doesn't bother taking care of their veterinary needs. Unreal!


You forgot, she paid a WHOPPING $700 for her dog as a puppy! And drove a STATE AWAY! She should get a medal.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

LOL!!! That did slip my mind -- I like your avatar too -- I need to train me up one of them birds, and teach it to steel dog treats.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

I wonder if the dog was on HW perventative before the OP got him, as a treatment for testing positive. But at a stage where he could be treated by the preventative, and not the harsher course of meds. But because the HW treatment was stopped, he now has progressed into a more serious stage.


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

For all those coming in and saying we're horrible... I'm being snarky because I vividly remember this poster back when she first joined the forum. Not to mention the many inconsistencies in this thread. So yea, I guess I've given up on her. 

So with the avatar talk, did you guys notice my avatar is bigger than its supposed to be? Only mods are supposed to get ones that big I think... But when the board switched over it was this size and I didn't want to mention it for fear it would be shrunk. In fact now I'm afraid to change it because if I want to change it back I'm sure it wouldn't be this large. Hopefully no one demotes it now that I've mentioned it! Or maybe all the admins enjoy it too much as well


----------



## Shavy (Feb 12, 2009)

selzer said:


> LOL!!! That did slip my mind -- I like your avatar too -- I need to train me up one of them birds, and teach it to steel dog treats.


It's hysterical the way he walks slowly and cautiously inside, looking around to make sure no one's nearby. Then he snatches it and high-tails it out of there. :biggrin:


----------



## Miikkas mom (Dec 21, 2009)

People, the OP *knows* she made a mistake about not vetting Zeus. She has repeatedly apologized for it. I know we are all trying to be advocates for poor Zeus, but give it up, already! It might not be the way you or I would have handle things, but what is done, is done. Hopefully the OP has learned something from this experience. 

Also, people, sometimes when one writes a message, post or whatever, they *do not* include every single, solitary detail (I am the worst example of this type of behavior). Consequently, the reader tends to jump to their own conclusions and more often than not, it’s incorrect (as you can see, I am also the worst example of this behavior). At any rate, I’m trying to get into the habit of clarifying something I read, and take issue with, before I fill-in the blanks myself and start blasting the author of the post. Otherwise, the author of the thread (or an ally) gets all defensive because people are blasting him/her. Then of course, little by little, the author will start to divulge more and more info but no one bothers to go back and read all of the older posts. And things start to snowball. 

This thread is a pretty good example of the snowball effect (but there have been others, too). 

*To the OP…*

As far as any lawsuit goes; courts generally do not look at what the moral thing to do is. Courts tend to look at what is legally and/or constitutionally acceptable. I don’t know what the laws are in Florida. Are there any laws the specifically deal with the sales of pets and/or animals? You might want to check. 

If the new owner does sue you it will probably be in small claims court, I would think. If that’s the case, you won’t need a lawyer (unless you want one). She’ll probably lose her case because of the timeframe. Too much time has passed between the time you sold her the dog vs. when she contacted you regarding the HW. Plus, at one point, she sent you an email telling you how well things were going. Since you gave the new owner all of the paperwork, you might want to get something from Zeus’ first owner (or the person you purchased Zeus from), saying they had vetting done right before you purchased him and that he was on HW meds. In addition, as I understand it, there was no contract between you and the new owner, in this case. So, yeah, the new owner will probably lose and you will be off the hook. 

About Zeus not getting along with the cats; just for future reference, it is possible to train a dog that has high prey drives to get along with cats. It does take time and a lot of patience but it is possible. I personally know a rescued GSD that did not like the cats of her new owners. After about 4-5 months of the new owners working with her everyday, she now gets along fabulously with the cats! 

Lin: your avatar is hilarious!!!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Actually, I think this post would have been over and done with 20 pages ago if the kinder and gentler posse did not show up and start bleeding for the OP. 

Read the posts, she is not just coming up with more information, she is changing her story over and over. 

As a breeder, I vetted Rushie because I do not want to get a bad name for selling sick dogs. So I want to know if the dog has anything like this, and I want to make sure that I did everything in my power to ensure the dog was what I claimed he was. 

But if I was just a pet owner, who picked up a dog on Craig's list, and the dog did not work out, so I found him another home, I do not know if I would have bothered -- especially if the dog had a vet history that was passed on to me. 

I know that the rescue people would not agree. And people who live in areas where heartworm is running rampant would probably not agree, but if I was not burning up my life's candle on message boards for GSDs, well, I probably would not have thought another thing of it. 

But as a pet owner, if I did sell a dog that had an issue, and it does seem that if the dog did test positive, he must have been infected prior to this lady getting the dog from me, and they asked for the purchase price back in order to pay for treatment that cost more than double the purchase price, I would give the money back and take my lumps for not ensuring the dog was ok before he left me. Lesson learned, move on. 

So I am not upset that the OP did not vet the dog, I can understand that. But she got $300 for the dog, and did not do anything for that $300, like take the dog to the vet to be checked out. So, she should give back the $300.

But NOW she says she paid $300 for the dog. Just one of those details she did not mention up front. Ok. But, before she tells why she charged $300, and it had nothing to do with the purchase price. 

So, I have to believe that Zeus was free. She turned a quick $300 profit. Nothing wrong with that. Dog had a serious issue, so she should give it back. 

Right now there is nothing the OP can do to make me BELIEVE that this is not the case. She can cut and paste an e-mail from the person she obtained her dog from. Or an e-mail that she makes up from said person, discussing the $300.

You know what? I think the OP should go back to the person that she obtained the dog from and threaten to sue her for the heartworm problem unless she sends $650 for the treatment. No, it would not be right, as she doesn't own the dog, and did not vet the dog, and is not sure the dog even has a problem, and certainly would not plan on using the $650 to send on to the dog. But it would help her budget problems and that way she can save a couple more blind puppies along the way.


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

She also talked about how she got the dog from ebay classifieds, but the dog WAS listed on craigslist as well. In fact in the thread when she adopted the dog someone recognized him from a craigslist ad and posted the link in the thread. I remember looking at the ad. Too bad the old ones are deleted and not archived.


----------

