Originally Posted by Woogie Man (Post 4510543)

Wow ..... what a thread.

Legally, I don't have a clue where this thing will go.

What is provable and what is being 'just said'?

The puppy being dropped.

Diane requesting the puppy back.

Answers to the above would have an impact, IMO.

Also, what is 'consistent with liver shunt'? It seems to be an indefinite statement when I would think a liver shunt would be visibly apparent at autopsy. Am I missing something?

This is what jumps out at me at first glance.

Originally Posted by 107barney (Post 4510552)

The necropsy report said: “The gross and histologic findings are consistent with a portosystemic shunt. There was no evidence of a concurrent or infectious disease process within the tissues examined. Such a portosystemic shunt at this early age, combined with poor appetite and insufficient weight gain over weeks as reported in the history, suggests that this is most likely a congenital lesion.”


The medical examiner saw the shunt. It's a big vein jutting out where there should be none.

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom (Post 4510528)

Thank you for coming here and being willing to share your side of the story. I hope that things btwn you and the buyer can be resolved amicably.

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom (Post 4510528)

Thank you for coming here and being willing to share your side of the story. I hope that things btwn you and the buyer can be resolved amicably.

Originally Posted by Diane Schelach (Post 4510375)

Hello everyone,

I am deeply sorry for the loss of Zook4mud’s puppy, a life lost so early is not easy on anyone. Regrettably, I did not address this concern sooner as I was in the midst of receiving news of my own personal medical diagnosis. My biggest mistake was failing to let the buyer know how severe my diagnosis was and as a result putting their situation on the back burner. I finally had a chance to sit down and thoroughly go through the package the buyer sent me. What hurts me the most is that pertinent information was withheld from their public testimony. I was made to look like I was the only party at fault resulting in permanently damaging remarks from those who responded. Despite all of this, the greatest satisfaction I get out of my business is making people happy. Of course, I want to meet Zook4mud eye-to-eye and reconcile this situation as peacefully as possible.

We are all upset at the loss of Cash, he was one of Firebrand’s own. He spent the first 12 weeks of his life at our home socializing with our family of Yorkies. We love all of our puppies and seek to find excellent homes for each of them. When Zook4mud returned to us in search of their second puppy a little less than a year after adopting their first Firebrand puppy we were more than happy to help them find them the right one. We remained in constant communication for the next several months exchanging emails, calls, and text messages in order to find the right puppy for them. Three months ago the decision was finalized and Cash was to be the newest member of their family.

At the time of Cash’s passing, things became heated over the phone and I wrongfully accused Zook4mud for being responsible for his death. I was very frustrated at how the veterinarian may have treated the puppy fearing that the prescribed treatment would cause more harm than good. My mistake was letting a personal health issue negatively impact the way I conducted business, and I resent letting my emotions get the better of me in an extremely difficult situation. My failure to respond to Zook4mud in a timely manner left them feeling abandoned and forced them to take matters into their own hands. For this, I am inexplicably sorry and I have learned from this unfortunate lesson.

I have read the 28 page packet that Zook4mud sent to me, letters, reports, and legalese included. Having remained in constant contact with the family over the first few weeks to aid in assisting with Cash’s transition into his new home, I was surprised to learn about pertinent information that had never been mentioned in our conversations. In two separate veterinary reports sent to me in the 28 page packet I learned that Cash had been dropped; once by a child and another time from a kitchen counter. In the more severe case the puppy’s neck was cocked for an extended period of time, and he had trouble moving. The veterinarian reported that the puppy suffered trauma and depression in the diagnoses from the falls.

There was one document that was provided for me during our communication; it was a blood work report that they had performed on Cash after he apparently vomited. I know now that the day of he went in for that test was also the same day he experienced his first fall. It was also admitted to me that the Zook4mud was not staying “religious” with my advised nutrition regimen. Caring very much for our puppies, I became seriously concerned for the Cash’s health and on October 13th, 2014 I suggested it would be best for the the family to send the the puppy back to me, all expenses paid. I offered to replace the puppy and strongly encouraged that they did not seek additional specialized care and incur any further expenses. They did not consider my offer and decided to continue seeking help from specialists. On November 2nd, 2014 I was informed that the puppy died. This was particularly frustrating for me because I tried my best to prevent this exact scenario.

As a small business owner, I believe in working with customers on a one-on-one basis, providing individual care for them before, during, and after their new puppy is adopted. I have built a trust between my buyers and myself and we both agree to honor all agreements, verbal or written. Nevertheless, I got into a habit of sending along the contract with the puppies asking that buyers send back a signed copy when the puppy is received because I trust them. I didn’t get a copy of the signed contract from Zook4mud until I got a copy of the puppy’s autopsy report; they were mailed in the same envelope. Despite all this, I take pride in always making a fair decision. In reading the Michigan autopsy final report, the lab states “The gross and histologic findings are consistent with a portosystemic shunt. There was no evidence of a concurrent or infectious disease process within the tissues examined. Such a portosystemic shunt at this early age, combined with poor appetite and insufficient weight gain over weeks as reported in the history, suggests that this is most likely a congenital lesion.” In light of this, I am prepared to resolve this issue with Zook4mud.

I am in this business because I love breeding quality Yorkies and I love sharing the joy they bring into people’s homes. Firebrand Yorkies has been in business for 35 years, the last 7 of which have been run by my husband and I with occasional help from my family members. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a customer of mine with a negative story to share. Our reputation is something we have earned and it’s the thing we are most proud of. I’ve met wonderful people through my business and maintain good relations with all of them. Many of my customers are repeat customers.

I fully admit that this situation could have been resolved more amicably and I hope my post has shed more light on the situation. I have reached out to Zook4mud to privately to resolve the matter.

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom (Post 4510598)

Jenskwan -- just fyi, we are able to track your IP Addresses and while it does indeed appear that Diane initially registered her account in Wisconsin -- it is clear that *you* are doing all the posting for her from Ontario, Canada.

Here I was commending Diane for her open response and willingness to come here when all along it's you posting for her. This is so dishonest.

Why are you posting as if you are Diane? Shouldn't Diane speak for her own breeding program?

Originally Posted by 107barney (Post 4510550)

If you're in the business of breeding dogs and selling the dogs for a fee, then the buyer is not an "adopter" and is not "adopting" the dog. The buyer is buying the dog. That's why you have a contract with the buyer.


I think it does little to your side of the story to say things like the buyer "adopted" the puppy. It also doesn't do much for your side to say that you felt a licensed veterinarian may have hurt the puppy... Unless you're a vet, your opinion about their vet is really quite irrelevant. Why is it that breeders (i.e. people who SELL dogs and not adopt them) try to bully the buyers by making statements against their vets. It's getting old.


You aren't qualified to give the BUYER advice on NUTRITION for the puppy they BOUGHT from you. So what if they didn't "obey" your rules? Was it a contract term that they agreed to?


Sorry, but I too would have continued to seek help for my puppy with specialists over sending it back to you especially while it was sick. Who would ship a sick puppy back in that situation? Certainly no caring owner of the kind you say you seek out when "adopting" out your puppies.


Anyway, none of the above really matters -- your contract apparently guaranteed against genetic defects. There's a necropsy report that the dog died of a PSS. No self-respecting yorkie breeder on the planet would try to argue that a PSS is not a genetic issue or that there was any fault on the part of the owner. It's your job to breed a healthy puppy and to sell a product free from defects to your buyers. It's your responsibility to stand behind your contractual guarantees and to avoid blaming the victim.


As you have said you are ready to resolve the issue w/ your buyer, then you should do so. I think you should spend a little time offering your condolences and provide them with some emotional support that you failed to give when they first reached out to you. I also hope you s/n the breeding pair and take a long look at your breeding practices so as to avoid the suffering of buyers and puppies in the future.


Good luck to all.

Originally Posted by margaritaville (Post 4510569)

I hope this is resolved soon. You have suffered enough losing your puppy. I hope the parents of this pup are taken out of the breeding line, spayed and neutered so others do not have to experience this.

Originally Posted by ladyjane (Post 4510603)

Wow... but then, why does it surprise me?

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom (Post 4510607)

I have to admit, I was totally surprised! I guess I just always assume first that people are being honest and authentic - I always hope for the good side of things. Then someone PMd me and suggested I check this, and sure enough...

I wish Diane would've just posted her experience as herself. Really disappointing and disheartening...

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom (Post 4510607)

I have to admit, I was totally surprised! I guess I just always assume first that people are being honest and authentic - I always hope for the good side of things. Then someone PMd me and suggested I check this, and sure enough...

I wish Diane would've just posted her experience as herself. Really disappointing and disheartening...

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom (Post 4510598)

Jenskwan -- just fyi, we are able to track your IP Addresses and while it does indeed appear that Diane initially registered her account in Wisconsin -- it is clear that *you* are doing all the posting for her from Ontario, Canada.

Here I was commending Diane for her open response and willingness to come here when all along it's you posting for her. This is so dishonest.

Why are you posting as if you are Diane? Shouldn't Diane speak for her own breeding program?

Originally Posted by Zook4mud (Post 4510648)

I want to thank whomever gave Wyliesmom the tip. I dont really know what to say. Or what to think anymore. I am just trying to digest all this new information and keep my head clear.........................................I feel like laughing to keep myself from crying. :confused:

Originally Posted by jenskwan (Post 4510647)

As I have already mentioned in previous posts, I am a social media admin for Firebrand Yorkies. I assist Diane with her website, her Facebook page, Pinterest, and forums such as this one. I was the one who originally found this thread and immediately brought it to the attention of Diane. She sent her response to me in the form of an email, asked me to spell/grammar check it, and post it on here on YorkieTalk.

However, our single concern here is not to defend the authenticity of my identity, it is to communicate Firebrand Yorkies' desire to resolve a pending issue with the OP, Zook4mud. The OP has already stated: "She messaged us privately last night and we are to be having a conference call tonight. I look forward to talking to her and being able to come on here and tell you all we have come to an agreement."

Any further questions can be PM'd to myself or Diane directly.

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom (Post 4510598)

Jenskwan -- just fyi, we are able to track your IP Addresses and while it does indeed appear that Diane initially registered her account in Wisconsin -- it is clear that *you* are doing all the posting for her from Ontario, Canada.

Here I was commending Diane for her open response and willingness to come here when all along it's you posting for her. This is so dishonest.

Why are you posting as if you are Diane? Shouldn't Diane speak for her own breeding program?

Originally Posted by KazzyK810 (Post 4510662)

Extremely shady...

I knew the "we" and "our" were slipping out so easily for this Jen character. Will the real Diane Schelach please stand up!

OP I would record this "conference call" tonight.

Originally Posted by chachi (Post 4510672)

The spokesperson could be posting for the breeder we dont know for sure so we just have to take her word for it. The important thing is the breeder is going to have communication with the OP we will have to see where it goes from there

Originally Posted by KazzyK810 (Post 4510673)

The behavior is still shady, IMO.

Full disclosure and clarity would have helped if that is the situation. Signing on under another person's account and representing yourself as them, is shady as hell...but not that surprising given the progress of this situation.

I hope this social mediaadmin position is not a paid one. As she has done nothing to reflect on firebrand and its breeder in a positive way. And as for her comments about our forum, its members, and their opinions...for a social media admin, she appears to have a very poor understanding of online forums, and clearly has no concept of the scope of website admins to track IP addresses.

Originally Posted by lynzy420 (Post 4510689)

Normally I report these things but I'm going to ask admin here please check the IP addresses of the breeder and Diane? As I previously said I was a proofreader and I see very similar styles of "speech" blah blah blah....If I'm wrong I will apologize.


Thank You 107Barney for your translations and your wise words...


At the end of the day this breeder is going through all this to avoid paying the purchaser....at the end of the day it comes down to the almighty dollar...

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom (Post 4510281)

The breeders here can probably best describe what is considered a "manageable" amount of puppies annually....and/or what is manageable in terms of # of females and whatnot. Hopefully they will chime in with experience.

Whether or not it's overproduction is so tough to say bc, just for example -- we have some really horrendous BYB (backyard breeders) out there (and this isn't even counting the Puppy Mills) - and many of those said BYBers are considered unethical breeders - so then one could/would say that even producing 1 pup out of that program would be "over production", know what I mean?

Whereas some Show/Exhibitor breeders, who breed for the betterment of the breed (or, should be) may produce only 1 litter every year or 2. Some breed a few a year. It really just depends. But the point is that they breed very conspicuously, and breed for a targeted reason in most cases....they don't really breed for the purpose of providing pets only.