Returning a dog to the breeder - Questions/Rant

[yoko]

Originally Posted by Romy

This is what I wanted to think, but if she thought the puppy was in "fine" condition, why did she:

1. Lie about the dates her photos were taken and erase the time stamps?

2. Lie about contacting Dianna to return him in the first place?

3. Make this thread? She hadn't contacted Dianna, so the whole bunch of questions about returning Bullseye and "Rant" was fabricated. Why fabricate a story around a dog that she thinks is in fine condition? She even admitted earlier in the thread that Bullseye's condition in Dianna's photos was not good, but then tried to say he didn't look like that when Dianna picked him up. Now she'd admitting he did.

There is a disconnect. BUT, the very creation of this thread says to me that she knew what she did was wrong. That she knew he was in bad shape. And that she knew she needed to fabricate a story to cover his impending disappearance.

ETA: To me the disconnect is between her actions to cover up the abuse, and her seeming disconnectedness from what she did. Clearly she knows she abused him or she wouldn't have gone out of her way to conceal it.

You explained it perfectly.

[Danefied]

FYI to whoever is still reading this thread:

Earlier I asked what was the point of Teal's last reply, and I got a PM response (not from Teal) saying that Dianna had threatened to sue Teal if she did not post saying Dianna was not at fault.

I don't do heresay, so I asked Dianna if this was true via email. Here is the response I received earlier today, in its entirety, which you can see Dianna says is okay to share:

Jari had a contract with me to purchase Bullseye. I had met her two years in a row at the Santa Rosa show. She came to our home a couple of times to view the litter. She gave me a deposit and I agreed to payments. In the contract she signed, and has a copy of, the health of the puppy was paramount. I had two calls during the two months she was with Jari. Those calls concerned how attached the baby was to her and what she could do to make a more comfortable relationship that Jari could live with. The third call came saying she wanted to bring the baby back to me on a day I had told her I had committed to be with my mother-in-law after a serious surgery the day before. I offered the next day and she said she could not afford to do so. I drove to her house the next day and picked Bullseye up. I was enraged at his condition, which she had not told me about. If I had stayed on site and called Animal Control, I could have pressed charges then. I wanted him away and safe, to his new home immediately. I got the documentation from the vet that the new owner took him to that day. When it turned out that he was in a better place and condition, I decided to let it be. I had spinal surgery and when I was able to sit for periods again, I checked mail and found inquiry about him. I responded and was told she was looking for another Fila. Jari called me and asked how Bullseye was. I was enraged that she should do so after the condition he was in when I picked him up. Someone e-mailed me the link to the string from before he came to me, so I responded. At no point in the phone conversations during the two months did she mention his physical state, I would have retrieved him immediately.


Yes, I did speak with Jari and tell her that if she did not retract allusions that she had made, that I read, that he was in the condition that the pictures show of the day that I picked him up, that she did not 'return' him to me - that I came to retrieve and help his escape to a new home, that I was not unresponsive to her in effort to do the best by him, that I would stand by the contractual agreement. That means the full purchase price.

My contract is on my web site, you may visit it to see what it entails. "Threatened" is a word that has an air of malfeasance, as if I would do physical harm. I would not, I would only follow through with the signed contract, with vet proof and the new home's testimony, with her on-line persona's statements, to find satisfaction that would compensate Bullseye's injuries. I was contacted by her and let to know that she had posted, minimally I would say, that I was not negligent. I accept the admittance. He is safe and loved, that is all that matters. Unless she begins again to say something else, I am satisfied by the lesson learned.


I expect full disclosure about myself and my kids, and have done so to the best of my ability. ANYONE is invited to my home personally to see our conditions. For people to think, even allude, that I don't care the utmost about any kid (dog) that I have in my home makes me want to react.


I hope this answers any questions you have about me. Since my one posting, the site will not allow me to post any others, I admit I am a computer idiot. Please feel free to share the above on the site with anyone. Anyone is invited to call me personally and to come to my home.


Best wishes,
Dianna
de la Luna

[ACooper]

Thank you Danefield, that explains it pretty well IMO. So sad that it seems the only thing Teal feels is the need to cover her own rear

[eddieq]

Anyone who is in contact with Dianna, please let her know that her original post became "moderated". Once we saw it, we approved it and put it in the appropriate thread. She is free to post at will here.

[Danefied]

Originally Posted by Romy

This is what I wanted to think, but if she thought the puppy was in "fine" condition, why did she:

1. Lie about the dates her photos were taken and erase the time stamps?

2. Lie about contacting Dianna to return him in the first place?

3. Make this thread? She hadn't contacted Dianna, so the whole bunch of questions about returning Bullseye and "Rant" was fabricated. Why fabricate a story around a dog that she thinks is in fine condition? She even admitted earlier in the thread that Bullseye's condition in Dianna's photos was not good, but then tried to say he didn't look like that when Dianna picked him up. Now she'd admitting he did.

There is a disconnect. BUT, the very creation of this thread says to me that she knew what she did was wrong. That she knew he was in bad shape. And that she knew she needed to fabricate a story to cover his impending disappearance.

ETA: To me the disconnect is between her actions to cover up the abuse, and her seeming disconnectedness from what she did. Clearly she knows she abused him or she wouldn't have gone out of her way to conceal it.

This bears repeating. How ANYONE can think Teal is not responsible for the condition the puppy was in in those photos is beyond me.

[Taqroy]

Originally Posted by Danefied

FYI to whoever is still reading this thread:

Earlier I asked what was the point of Teal's last reply, and I got a PM response (not from Teal) saying that Dianna had threatened to sue Teal if she did not post saying Dianna was not at fault.

I don't do heresay, so I asked Dianna if this was true via email. Here is the response I received earlier today, in its entirety, which you can see Dianna says is okay to share:

Thank you for posting that Danefied. I sincerely hope that this thread and its information makes the rounds in the biggest way possible.