[bildio]

Originally Posted by jrsygal37

Irregardless of whether the petstore got an A+ rating and irregardless of whether they were Glenda's pups or not and aside from the fact they were shipped to a petstore. Looking beyond that THEY WERE SHIPPED AT 8 WEEKS OLD AND SOME RIGHT AFTER HERNIA SURGERY. You find that alright, just because this store has an A + rating and just because they weren't Glenda's pups or may have gotten a good home (Which you really do not know for sure is the case)? I find it disgusting that someone that supposedly loves the breed, would endanger these young babies for the sake of a $$. Are you all saying that because they weren't from her great breeding stock that their lives aren't worth as much? In my book whether it's a show dog or a mutt in the pound their lives are equal. Elaine

Where's the paper that says 8 weeks? I saw a paper with 11 weeks, but I know there were other papers. Not saying you are wrong.

I don't find any of this thread all right, except the direct answers to the OP's question.

Regardless, what code of ethics or law or otherwise did Glenda violate? Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning puppy mills, pet stores that get pups from puppy mills, or pet stores that don't screen potential buyers. I'm supporting reasonableness & fairness.

Are you a member of the YTCA?