What We Could Do With $4,300 . . . and what consumers can do when they're lied to

In a comment to my last post, someone mentioned a coworker who had purchased a dog from the Lucky Puppy for $4,300. I have previously not heard of their prices going that high, and I obviously cannot prove that they are getting over four thousand dollars for certain puppies. But just in case they are, let's consider what we could've accomplished with the $4,300 that was (allegedly) spent on that 8-pound "Tea Cup" Yorkie.

-$4,300 could subsidize 50 adult dog adoptions from our shelter.
-With $4,300, we could alter about 170 cats.
-We could treat 29 Heartworm-positive dogs.
-We could run a television ad to raise awareness about pet overpopulation.

You get the picture. $4,300 can do a lot of good. I realize that that $4,300 wouldn't have been ours anyway. How many people who decide not to drop that kind of dough on a puppy will turn around and give it to their local animal shelter instead? Less than one-in-a-million, I'm guessing. So I'll quit daydreaming about windfalls that aren't to be and move on to something more constructive.

I'n the past 18 months, I've talked to several individuals who bought puppies from puppy boutiques and were very upset to learn after-the-fact that the breeder identified on their paperwork was in fact a large-scale commercial dog breeder. Some of these people had gone into the store knowing about puppy mills, but believed the store employees when they assured them that the store did not acquire dogs from such places. Seems to me that lying to a customer who is about to drop a grand for a puppy might constitute "consumer fraud" or "deceptive practices."

Deceptive or unfair business practices and consumer fraud are of great interest to the Attorney General's Office (see http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/consumers/index.html). Anyone who feels that a business in Illinois has been unfair, dishonest, or misrepresented the facts of a transaction, should report their experience to the Attorney General's Office. Here is a simple consumer complaint form: http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/consumers/conscomp.pdf.

Complaints about a business can also be filed with the Better Business Bureau. Here is a link to the Central Illinois BBB: http://heartofillinois.bbb.org/Find-Business-Reviews/#middle-result. I've checked the BBB website and found that no complaints have been filed about the Lucky Puppy Boutique. This despite a number of complaints that have been relayed to me and other people that I know. View the store's listing here: http://www.bbb.org/central-illinois/business-reviews/retail-pet-suppliers/lucky-puppy-boutique-barkery-in-champaign-il-90006518.

If you talk to anyone who was unhappy with a pet-store experience (whether related to the purchase, the contract terms, or negotiating a return), please suggest they do something about it! Filing a report with a local BBB and/or the Attorney General's office isn't difficult.

See also: http://unluckypuppies.blogspot.com to report experiences with the Lucky Puppy Boutique.

Is This a Puppy Mill Dog?

Today a 5-month old puppy was surrendered to our shelter. According to the paperwork that the owner was given when she purchased the dog, the dog is a "Peek-a-chon." (Please keep in mind that this dog has not yet been evaluated for adoptability, and it is premature to start seeking adopters.)

Also according to the paperwork, the dog's breeder was Marsha Cox of Mar-Don Kennel in Chillicothe, Missouri. You can read notes from an investigation of Mar-Don Kennel conducted by the Companion Animal Protection Society in 2007 here: http://www.caps-web.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=169&Itemid=207&report_id=126

You can read direct quotes from USDA Inspection Reports on conditions at Mar-Don Kennel at the following link. (You have to scroll down a bit to find the section on Marsha Cox.) http://www.petstorecruelty.org/USDA%20Violations%20by%20Petland%20breeders.htm

Or, you can read actual USDA inspection reports, here:

http://www.petshoppuppies.com/inspections/43-A-0841_JAN-23-2003.pdf

http://www.petshoppuppies.com/inspections/43-A-0841_JUL-01-2002.pdf

http://www.petshoppuppies.com/inspections/43-A-0841_NOV-26-2001.pdf

Also according to the papers, I have surmised that at some point early in life, this dog was sold by Marsha Cox to Lonewolf Kennels, of Iberia, MO. Lonewolf Kennels is a USDA Licensed Class B dealer. You can read a little something about an investigation of Lonewolf Kennels at this website: http://savepuppymilldogs.com/pow.html (scroll down a little). A video is attached, which shows some auction footage.

The paperwork also shows that the dog surrendered today had been purchased by the relinquisher at the Lucky Puppy store in Champagin.

So you tell me . . . does the Lucky Puppy store obtain dogs from Puppy Mills?

Bo Joins the First Family

Like many other animal-welfare advocates, sure, I'm disappointed that the Obamas didn't adopt a shelter dog. I was already composing pithy ad campaigns in my head: "There's a shelter dog in the White House. Why not yours?"

But at the same time I have to admit, I'm kind of o.k. with First Dog Bo.

The way I see it, once you take inhumane breeders out of the equation, the most important thing to me is not where a person obtains a dog, but that they select a dog wisely so as to minimize the risk that the dog will ever be homeless or cross the threshold of an animal shelter.


I believe there is a such a thing as a responsible breeder. I own two purebred dogs (both formerly homeless) and their breeding is part of what I love about them. They are uniquely athletic, intense, and talented at what they were bred to do. I would not for anything wish for the extinction of these breeds. I am not alone. I know a number of people who have given many years of their lives to dog rescue and advocate for shelter dogs with great passion. Yet they also have a special fondness for a particular breed of dog . . . one that speaks to their soul, or touches their heart, in a way that no other dog does.

The Obamas were looking for a reliable family dog that produces minimal dander. They did some homework and determined that a Portuguese Water Dog would be a good fit. Bo was a PWD in need of a new home because things weren't going well between him and another dog in residence. The Kennedys had purchased a PWD from the same litter and had a relationship with Bo’s breeder (reportedly, Martha Stern, of Texas). The Obamas met the dog, and all went well.

Obviously, the Obamas could have adopted a PWD from a shelter or breed rescue group. Wayne Pacelle, HSUS President, has been quoted as saying that HSUS provided the Obamas with a variety of adoption options.

On the other hand, the Kennedys offered the Obamas a dog whose history was known. Yes, rescue dogs can be great dogs with confidence and a rock-solid temperament. But the truth is, you can’t know all there is to know about a rescue dog until months, or even years (in the case of some genetic issues) down the road.

The First Family needs a dog that is more “bomb-proof” than most. They need a dog that harbors no demons. Bo will have to play well with children, members of the press corps, and heads of state. I realize there are no guarantees with any dog, from anywhere. But it would be dishonest for me to deny the fact that obtaining a dog whose genetics and early history are known lessens the risk that a problem of health or behavior will later arise without warning. Note I said, “lessens” the risk, not “eliminates.”

Dog lovers and animal welfare advocates ought to focus on what the Obamas did right. They delayed getting a dog until a major life transition was completed. They did their homework. They considered Malia’s allergies and all that would be required of this dog before they obtained him. They welcomed a displaced dog into their lives at 6 months of age, when they could have purchased a PWD as an 8-week old pup. It seems to me they did a lot of things right in selecting Bo.

I’ll close with two final points. First, the suggestion that the Obamas should now adopt a second dog from a shelter to make good on their promise to do so is ridiculous. The desire to satisfy ones critics is a poor reason for obtaining a pet. Second, this would have been a different essay entirely had the Obamas obtained their dog from a pet store or any other mass-breeding commercial enterprise.

Myles

This is Myles, a "Welsh Terrier Mix" in his adolescence (we estimate his age at about 15 months).

To answer the reader's question (see comment 4 to the previous post) . . . There is nothing particularly remarkable about Myles' adoption and return. As in many cases, it just wasn't a good match. We still think Myles will make a great pet for someone, which is why he is back up for adoption.

A Terrier in his adolescence has a lot of energy and could easily develop some bad habits if under-exercised and left to his own devices. Wait. What am I saying? Most dogs will make pretty unacceptable choices if we let them do the deciding. After all, these are dogs we're talking about. At the same time, most dogs can learn the rules that make for a happy co-existence with humans, if we take the time and make the effort to teach them.

Anybody interested in adopting a Terrier or Terrier-mix would be wise to do some reading about the breed, if they've never lived with one.

A "perfect" adopter for Myles will be looking for a fun, energetic, effectionate canine companion. Myles will need daily exercise -- probably two long walks and some playtime every day. I would recommend crate-training Myles right away, for two reasons. First, his house-training is probably not rock-solid, and crate training is an excellent tool for house training. (For great tips on house training, you can't beat Patricia McConnell's book, "Way To Go!" It's an easy-to-read, one-issue book and only costs about $6.00. Availabe at CCHS or the CARE Center.) Second, having a dog who is happy to "go settle" in his crate can save your sanity - and your furniture.

Myles' adopters should also understand that he can't be given "run of the house" when they're not at home; at least, not at first. I made this mistake with my very first dog, Spooner, who I adopted as a one-year-old from a Minneapolis shelter in 1991. Spooner didn't have anxiety about being left alone . . . but she also didn't have much experience distinguishing between the things she was allowed to chew and destroy (dog toys) and the things she was not (the comfy chair).

Finally, I think that Myles and his new people (whoever they are) would really benefit from taking a dog training class together. It doesn't have to be anything "serious" -- a simple "canine companion" class would help Myles and his new owner(s) learn to communicate and establish the boundaries of their relationship. Many adopters assure us that they don't need a class because they've raised many dogs, or they "know how" to train a dog. We encourage it nonetheless. In fact, the most knowledgeable and experienced dog owners I know always enroll in a training class when they get a new dog. And, most professional dog trainers do as well!! It's an opportunity to brush up on your skills, learn new techniques, and spend some time interacting with your dog, one-on-one. It's especially good for adopters of adolescent dogs to enroll in training. These dogs are full grown and full of energy, yet they haven't learned impulse control or boundaries. A basic class can make all the difference to a successful transition from rambunctious teen to well-adjusted adult.

One final note on Myles . . . The staff tells me that he doesn't always present himself well while in his kennel at the shelter, but once you get him out and start interacting with him, he is a very likable dog. The Adoptions Staff enjoys spending time with Myles behind the front counter. I'm sure he will be discovered one of these days by his new "forever family."

Sasha Update

Sasha went home on Saturday afternoon and was returned to the shelter less than 24 hours later. While we're very disappointed that it didn't work out, we also realize that, unfortunately, this kind of thing "comes with the territory" when you work in sheltering.

Frequently, when I meet someone who has adopted a pet from CCHS, their story includes the phrase, "the staff tried to talk me out of adopting him." Sometimes, that's actually true. In those cases, the staff is providing the applicant with information in the hope that the applicant will realize that the animal they are considering is not a good match for them. Sure, we could come right out and say, "No, we'll deny your application for Fluffy, please select a different cat." However, by providing the applicant with information upon which to make their own decision against adopting Fluffy, the staff is attempting to avoid hurt feelings and guide the applicant to consider the factors that will lead him/her to select an appropriate animal for their lifestyle.

In many other cases, and particularly in those cases where the adoption goes through and the pet is still in the home years later, the staff was not trying to talk the adopter out of the adoption at all. In these cases, the staff was simply making sure that the adopter was provided with as much information about the animal as possible. Adoptions tend to fail when they are based on unrealistic expectations. Our staff is often in that difficult position of trying to promote and encourage adoptions, while also making sure that each adopter knows what they're getting into. Walking that line is not easy. Sometimes the attempt to ensure that an adopter's expectations are in line with reality comes across as an attempt to discourage the adoption.

So, what happened with Sasha? A number of things happened on the day she went home that made the transition into the adopters' home a little more difficult than we hoped it would be. However, the bottom line is that the adopters didn't quite realize how difficult it would be to manage this young pup's behavior. Pam tried to tell them. The staff tried to tell them. It seems to me that sometimes when people attach to an animal, an impression forms in their mind that is very hard to alter with cautionary tales and factual information. At the same time, I have to admit that Sasha probably showed behaviors at the home that the adopters did not observe at the shelter or with Pam. That is not surprising with a young pup, and especially not with a headstrong one like Sasha. Pam is an experienced dog trainer who knew how to be very consistent with Sasha so that Sasha was starting to learn boundaries and acceptable behavior. She is too young yet to know that "the same rules apply" in all situations.

Sasha's adopters are good pet owners who, no doubt, will make a wonderful home for the right dog. We hope they'll adopt from us again. As for Sasha, we'll keep working on her manners and use what we learned from this experience to help us make a good match. I'll keep you posted.