This is a placeholder text
Group text
by VomMarischal on 09 September 2011 - 03:09
Oh good grief.
by yellowrose of Texas on 09 September 2011 - 04:09
Unbelievable!
by Donnerstorm on 09 September 2011 - 08:09
Anybody else feel like they are in junior high again?
by Bob McKown on 09 September 2011 - 11:09
Just my 2 cent,s:
Readers digest version. I have a will, in it is stated upon my death or disabality where my dog,s go and how much money from the estate go with them to that person for there care. The mention person has already agreed to do this and I have agreed to do it for him. He is a friend and fellow trainer and handler.
It,s easy,responsible and everyone should do it.
by eichenluft on 09 September 2011 - 13:09
did anyone even bother to read cphudson's post? of course not - the drama is much more interesting than facts right? pitiful.
by Ruger1 on 09 September 2011 - 13:09
IMO statements like, "typical animal rights" and "sort of folks" is not really saying someone IS an AR activist, but that they could appear to be or are acting like an AR activist......
Regardless of what our opinions are about contracts like the one that the deceased signed, we should be supporting a breeder for wanting to honor the contract/agreement she signed. Instead you are accusing her of all ill and sinister kinds of motives. You can not have it both ways. You complain every day about irresponsibly breeders who will not take responsibility and honor their contracts. Then on the other hand, you are offended by Molly for wanting to take responsibility for the contract/agreement she signed for dogs she feels responsible for. .....
IMO when someone passes away, people can get greedy. If anyone should be accused of having alterior motives ( and I think we should refrain from accusing anyone) for wanting the dogs, I do not think Molly would be top on my list. JMHO.....
Sorry for the comma splicing, spelling, punctuation and the rest ( even with the spell check ). I am the QUEEN of MORONS lol...;)
Deanna....
Regardless of what our opinions are about contracts like the one that the deceased signed, we should be supporting a breeder for wanting to honor the contract/agreement she signed. Instead you are accusing her of all ill and sinister kinds of motives. You can not have it both ways. You complain every day about irresponsibly breeders who will not take responsibility and honor their contracts. Then on the other hand, you are offended by Molly for wanting to take responsibility for the contract/agreement she signed for dogs she feels responsible for. .....
IMO when someone passes away, people can get greedy. If anyone should be accused of having alterior motives ( and I think we should refrain from accusing anyone) for wanting the dogs, I do not think Molly would be top on my list. JMHO.....
Sorry for the comma splicing, spelling, punctuation and the rest ( even with the spell check ). I am the QUEEN of MORONS lol...;)
Deanna....
by eichenluft on 09 September 2011 - 13:09
Before this issue cropped up, I had already done what Bob suggests everyone do, by making a "living will" - in my case, a letter describing each dog and where I want them to go in case something happens to me. I'm lucky enough to have several good friends, and parents who would do everything necessary to be sure the dogs were cared for properly until they could be placed into the homes that are best for them. I named two friends experienced with the breed, and my dogs specifically, to be in charge of the care and placement of my dogs. As Bob says, this is a very good idea if you care what happens to your dogs in case of an emergency situation or sudden death. In fact I need to update my "living will", thanks Bob for reminding me to do so. And letting my family/friends know where that letter can be found.
cphudson's situation is the nightmare that could have happened to these dogs, or any dogs whose owner is suddenly unable to care for them or make arrangements for them - family often means well but the dogs are not on the top of their priority list at that time, and often family/friends are not "dog people" and wouldn't know how to care for some of our dogs, or want to.
Due to this specific issue, I have been contacted by several people not only to make sure that I would take their dogs if something happened to them - but two people sending me house keys, and getting my promise that I would be en route to pick up the dogs and take them into my care should anything happen to their owner.
so you see - people who sign my contract understand what it means. I will make it legally binding in the case that I have to deal with "friends" who didn't sign the contract and who don't feel like honoring it - but I'm not concerned about the people who I sold puppies to - they are all honorable people just like the owner of these dogs was - and they will follow through with their promises to me in case something happens that necessitates the placement of their dogs.
molly
cphudson's situation is the nightmare that could have happened to these dogs, or any dogs whose owner is suddenly unable to care for them or make arrangements for them - family often means well but the dogs are not on the top of their priority list at that time, and often family/friends are not "dog people" and wouldn't know how to care for some of our dogs, or want to.
Due to this specific issue, I have been contacted by several people not only to make sure that I would take their dogs if something happened to them - but two people sending me house keys, and getting my promise that I would be en route to pick up the dogs and take them into my care should anything happen to their owner.
so you see - people who sign my contract understand what it means. I will make it legally binding in the case that I have to deal with "friends" who didn't sign the contract and who don't feel like honoring it - but I'm not concerned about the people who I sold puppies to - they are all honorable people just like the owner of these dogs was - and they will follow through with their promises to me in case something happens that necessitates the placement of their dogs.
molly
by beetree on 09 September 2011 - 14:09
Deanna, I used to be naive, too. You are such a sweetheart! Have a nice day!
by VomMarischal on 09 September 2011 - 14:09
Ruger1, the dogs are not on the street, in the pound, or at Vickie's house. They have been taken by people who apparently want to do "right" by the dogs. The new owners just don't happen to agree with Molly's way of doing things "right." So instead of letting people do what they see fit (and what is humane and legal) with THEIR OWN dogs, Molly wants these people do do what SHE wants them to do, and if they won't do what she wants, then to give them back. Well, they don't HAVE to (also legal). The problem is a control issue, not a responsibility issue. The dogs are [apparently] in no danger. Molly would be right to be adamant about this IF the dogs were suffering or if their futures were not secure.
by VomMarischal on 09 September 2011 - 14:09
Oh and cphudson, that story was nightmarish and I'm really sorry you suffered like that.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top