I think that 'Charlie' is home with his mom. I think the shelter should offer up another dog to the 2nd owner in replacement of 'Bam Bam' since they did not scan for a chip before just SELLING someone elses dog. Thats the sad part. I hope they get a scanner after this. Maybe the original owners can buy that shelter a scanner so this does not happen to another person!

So, did grandpa ever take bam-bam to the vet in that year and a half? Surely the vet has a scanner. He never mentions vet costs, so perhaps bam-bam/Charlie wasn't as well taken care of as he should have been.
Something seems a little off about grandpa, however I would offer to pay for another dog from the shelter for the grandson if it were me.

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! :p

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!!! :eek:

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.

one thing I don't understand is how the original owner did not find her dog at the Taylor Animal pound. At the time she lived near Taylor and said she looked everywhere, odd she missed that shelter or perhaps they did not keep good records. Of course it does not say exactly what shelter the guy adopted the dog from, just a shelter in Taylor, there could be more than one shelter in Taylor. you would think from experience the pound would know that not all small dogs wear collars but that they are expensive and most likely not abanded and often have microchips, so they should try a little harder. Almost every shelter have some vets that volunteer, could they have not used their scanner. Sounds like they only had the dog for a day or less when he was put on display for adoption since the grandfather had to wait for no one to claim him. Also how come the dog went missing again, sounds like the grandfather must have been a little careless. The animal control that found him this time is not the same that adopted him out so they would not be on the hook for a new dog. The beef the man has is with Taylor and also did someone ask the gal if she checked with the Taylor pound. Like most news stories it has left a lot of things out.

It's true there could be more than one shelter in the area. We have two. One a privately owned shelter and one is run by the county. People who lose their dogs generally notify the shelter, come in and look and leave a description of the missing pet. They think the shelter will call them if an animal meeting that description comes in. Sadly that is not the case. Many shelters have staff that varies quite a bit with volunteers that come and go. Descriptions taken down may be interpreted differently by others. Unless an owner comes in at least twice weekly they may miss their pet if it is adopted out quickly as a 2 to 3 day waiting period is all that is required in some areas.

I'm glad this little dog is back with it's original owner. I'm sure the child would be just as happy with a nice medium sized dog that he can play ball with and I'm sure there are many such dogs that are literally dying to go live with him and his grandfather.

I have volunteered at both my local animal control abd humane society...

You calling in or faxing a missing flier with a pic is a good idea...but going and actually looking for your dog there is best.

Things like michrochips get overlooked, sad but true.

A woman called about her missing lil dog once for yhe life of me I forget the breed anyeays sge was tild nope no such dog here she described her dog as white etc etc and was told sorry no such dogs foubd...her cream colored dog with a few random white tips on its hair was there listed as another breed. Poor dog was taken from tge pound to the humane society where she physically went and identified it &loved claimed it.
She was rightfully livid when finding out her dog was at animal control when she called but I'm sorry I'd be scouting door to door goibg to cgeck and double check because these things happen...probably a lot more than we think they do.

If Charlie had gone yo an out if the area breed specific rescue he could have been adopted across the country...if he hadnt been a habitual escapee...lets just all hope he is home for good now.