YorkieTalk.com Forums - Yorkshire Terrier Community - View Single Post - In the news paper today. Yorkie torn between two families.

navillusc · 08-13-2012, 06:54 AM

I agree...Charlie belongs with his owner, tragic as it is for the child...IMHO I found it interesting that Pierce paid "$25" to have the MALE YORKIE "spayed" however:

"Pierce said he paid $184.50 for the dog, spent $25 to have him spayed and another $2 on pain medication."

Don't you just love news reports...better than the comics!

Pierce has EVERY RIGHT to be "angry that the chip was never looked for or scanned" IMHO. He was "sold" a dog that wasn't "for sale"...who's RIGHTFUL owner NEVER got the chance to claim:

"Pierce is angry that the chip was never looked for or scanned in Taylor before he even purchased the dog. He said he never knew anything about the chip."

IMHO, however, Pierce HAS NO RIGHT to be "angry that the township turned the dog over to White"...who purchased the dog and spent over a year and a half searching for him but wasn't notified when he was found even though he had the most permanent ID that can be bestowed upon any dog:

"He also is angry that the township turned the dog over to White, even though the chip confirmed it was her dog."

IMHO, the center that erroneously sold the dog to Pierce, owes the child a free, replacement dog of the child's (or rather, the dog's) choosing...we all know it is the dog who chooses us...lol, and it would be nice if White would allow the child to visit with Charlie, if feasible due to distances, to ease the transition between dogs. As the child bonds more closely with his new dog, he will rely less and less on Charlie ("Bam Bam") for support, and the visits can get further apart until they cease. However, after having legal action threatened, if it was me, I'd probably want complete separation from such an irrational situation...and I wouldn't blame her for wanting to disassociate from Pierce.

It is always tragic with situations like this...someone is always jilted. The original owner took every possible step to ID, and then find, her dog...unsuccessfully.

"Then, White said, she heard about Pierre and said he has threatened to take legal action against her to take the dog back.

Pierce said he would like to sue several people in this ordeal, but is on a fixed income and does not have the means to do so.

He said he spoke with an attorney with the township, but said that conversation didn’t end well.

“She said she will never give it back,” Pierce said of White referring to the dog. “I would at least like to have the money I paid back. If I could get the money back, I’ll get my grandson another dog.”

Pierce and his grandson are close and he said he doesn’t know what he would do without the little boy in his life, who visits him for the day regularly.

He said he just wants to make Raymond happy."

IMHO, White owes nothing to anyone. She doesn't have to give the dog back to someone who did not own the dog BEFORE she bought him. She certainly should NOT be the object of a lawsuit!!!

She doesn't owe anyone any money, either...IMHO If Pierce had bought a different dog, he would have still paid for things for it like neutering/spaying it, medicines, vetting, food, etc. All he needs now is a dog that RIGHTFULLY belongs to him...and that dog is NOT Charlie...IMHO. If he TRULY "just wants to make Raymond happy," he will take his legal battle to its proper (IMHO) source and allow Raymond to acquire a NEW canine companion. It would be no different if Charlie ("Bam Bam") had died...who would Pierce have sued then!

Anyway, that's MY too picky, too analytical analysis...hee...hee...of this whole sordid situation. People "just doing their job" but NOT actually doing their job created a firestorm that White is paying for in who knows how many ways ,and Raymond and granddaddy Pierce are suffering because of. So sad...so very sad.

08-13-2012, 06:54 AM	#18
navillusc Donating YT 1000 Club Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: FL, USA Posts: 2,767	I agree...Charlie belongs with his owner, tragic as it is for the child...IMHO I found it interesting that Pierce paid "$25" to have the MALE YORKIE "spayed" however: "Pierce said he paid $184.50 for the dog, spent $25 to have him spayed and another $2 on pain medication." Don't you just love news reports...better than the comics! Pierce has EVERY RIGHT to be "angry that the chip was never looked for or scanned" IMHO. He was "sold" a dog that wasn't "for sale"...who's RIGHTFUL owner NEVER got the chance to claim: "Pierce is angry that the chip was never looked for or scanned in Taylor before he even purchased the dog. He said he never knew anything about the chip." IMHO, however, Pierce HAS NO RIGHT to be "angry that the township turned the dog over to White"...who purchased the dog and spent over a year and a half searching for him but wasn't notified when he was found even though he had the most permanent ID that can be bestowed upon any dog: "He also is angry that the township turned the dog over to White, even though the chip confirmed it was her dog." IMHO, the center that erroneously sold the dog to Pierce, owes the child a free, replacement dog of the child's (or rather, the dog's) choosing...we all know it is the dog who chooses us...lol, and it would be nice if White would allow the child to visit with Charlie, if feasible due to distances, to ease the transition between dogs. As the child bonds more closely with his new dog, he will rely less and less on Charlie ("Bam Bam") for support, and the visits can get further apart until they cease. However, after having legal action threatened, if it was me, I'd probably want complete separation from such an irrational situation...and I wouldn't blame her for wanting to disassociate from Pierce. It is always tragic with situations like this...someone is always jilted. The original owner took every possible step to ID, and then find, her dog...unsuccessfully. "Then, White said, she heard about Pierre and said he has threatened to take legal action against her to take the dog back. Pierce said he would like to sue several people in this ordeal, but is on a fixed income and does not have the means to do so. He said he spoke with an attorney with the township, but said that conversation didn’t end well. “She said she will never give it back,” Pierce said of White referring to the dog. “I would at least like to have the money I paid back. If I could get the money back, I’ll get my grandson another dog.” Pierce and his grandson are close and he said he doesn’t know what he would do without the little boy in his life, who visits him for the day regularly. He said he just wants to make Raymond happy." IMHO, White owes nothing to anyone. She doesn't have to give the dog back to someone who did not own the dog BEFORE she bought him. She certainly should NOT be the object of a lawsuit!!! She doesn't owe anyone any money, either...IMHO If Pierce had bought a different dog, he would have still paid for things for it like neutering/spaying it, medicines, vetting, food, etc. All he needs now is a dog that RIGHTFULLY belongs to him...and that dog is NOT Charlie...IMHO. If he TRULY "just wants to make Raymond happy," he will take his legal battle to its proper (IMHO) source and allow Raymond to acquire a NEW canine companion. It would be no different if Charlie ("Bam Bam") had died...who would Pierce have sued then! Anyway, that's MY too picky, too analytical analysis...hee...hee...of this whole sordid situation. People "just doing their job" but NOT actually doing their job created a firestorm that White is paying for in who knows how many ways ,and Raymond and granddaddy Pierce are suffering because of. So sad...so very sad. __________________ - Cat Brody Mia BriaStormy Last edited by navillusc; 08-13-2012 at 06:57 AM.