Dog Flipping Defended by Some
This post by the Keep Piper Safe Facebook page (KPS) states the opinion of those in support of COSR and Penny Sanderbeck in the legal battle over Piper the Sheltie. Reading it, I saw too many opinions that just didn't make sense to me. So, here is my rebuttal for what I see as nothing more than an excuse for a dog flipping business.
Oh, and KPS noted that comments would not be responded to on their page so I am assuming they don't wish to engage, which I'm happy to oblige. Read and decide for yourself what makes sense.
FTC required Disclaimer: I receive commissions for purchases made through commercial links on this website in addition to selling from my own eStore. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Let's Break Down This Defense for Dog Flipping Issue by Issue
KPS: “Piper has been returned home into the care of the very person who abandoned her over and over and over..”
- Abandoned: “Law. to cast away, leave, or desert, as property or a child.”
- Since when is co-owning a dog with a family who will care for the dog “abandonment”?
KPS: “A person who rehomed a 'champion' on a Facebook group to someone she didn't know.... “
- The first, most obvious rebuttal on this is Piper was NOT rehomed, to a stranger or to anyone.
- Then there is the question; Since when are rescues or breeders prohibited from selling to people unless they have known them for years? Do you mean to say that Penny / COSR only rehomes dogs to people already known to her? REALLY?!?
- Or perhaps the reality is Penny puts ads up for strangers to contact her just like anyone else and then proceeds to rehome dogs from there? Why can Penny rehome dogs regularly to strangers without the negative connotations when the rest of the world is held to a different standard? Don’t be fooled. “Rescues” REHOME dogs to strangers all the time.
- A few posts on Facebook is hardly a contract of sale or proof of any specific arrangement. It is merely wild conjecture, jumping to conclusions based on false assumptions.
KPS: “To someone who goes through animals like you and I go through undergarments... “
- How many dogs has Penny sold and then received back for a bad fit and then had to re-sell over and over again? There are enough people out there know of her constant re-sales to make this point equally relevant to her.
- The proverbial 'pot calling the kettle black'.
- How about producing documents to support this childish statement? Oh, that's right, you have none. Just spouting off again.
KPS: “A person who lied and said the dog was at a 'pet sitters' even though the facts showed otherwise.”
- STILL waiting for facts…. Nope, not a shred of evidence….
- Besides, does the reason given as to with whom or why my dog is held somewhere determine if I own the dog? No.
- If I said I left my dog with a friend while I went on vacation but in truth I left it with a relative while I went into the hospital for surgery, does that make the dog less mine? No.
- This is just another 'red herring' , having no bearing on who owns Piper.
Oh, here’s a good one:
KPS: “Just imagine .... You adopt a rescue from a shelter, pound or rescue group... You have information on the dog's original breeder and decide to reach out to the breeder for information about the parents and to network with that breeder to find out about them.
Imagine your shock and dismay when that breeder tells you - "all of my dogs are to be returned to me if the original owner can't keep them. I have the right of first refusal and I want my dog back!" “
- Imagine your shock when you find out the rescue KNEW who the breeder was, knew there was a contract and did nothing to contact the breeder, but instead turned around and sold the dog. IRRESPONSIBLE!
- Imagine your shock when the rescue regularly gripes about the irresponsiblity of breeders for NOT taking their dogs back and then refuses to even contact breeders when known.
- Imagine your shock when you realize the rescue was more intent on dog flipping and involved innocent buyers in their scheme.
- Imagine your shock when the dog flipping group ignored a microchip that gave the information of ownership because they could make money selling the dog instead.
- Not to mention leaving the new owner facing such an embarrassing and possibly expensive situation… since of course the rescue wouldn’t be giving any refunds for stolen property.
- The legal precedent in this case is DON’T SELL STOLEN PROPERTY in the first place. DON’T TRY TO GET AWAY WITH IT.
KPS: “If the person who has your dog is savvy enough - what if they immediately update the information on the (micro)chip and designate themselves as the owner ... Enough said. So again, by virtue of this pending legal argument - the thief or 'finder' is now the legal owner...”
- Hardly. The only good thing about this statement is the writer has apparently NOT tried to do this yet.
- Anyone trying to change the information of ownership on the chip needs the approval of the previous owner. If the new owner doesn’t approve, the change doesn’t go through. The only one that can add information to the database any time after implantation is the owner of record.
KPS: “…you let your emotions rule your actions; you let someone who does not have you or your pets' best interest at heart make you contribute to a movement that is ANTI-PET OWNER....”
- Not ANTI-PET OWNER, but rather ANTI-RETAIL RESCUE, ANTI- DOG FLIPPING.
- Putting an end to Rescue Mills churning out stolen dogs for resale, carrying out illegal interstate transport to their cohort Rescue Mills in other States so owners can’t find their dogs.
- Hopefully, the beginning of the end of this BIG BUSINESS of DOG THEFT and DOG FLIPPING FOR PROFIT.
KPS: “Is this what you wanted???”
- Most definitely!
- We want scam organizations shut down before every animal owner loses their family member to money grubbing, egomaniacal, sociopathic people that think they have the right to take someone's dog for resale by imposing their own opinions on others as if it were law, (which it isn't).
“Let me tell you something,” Judge Brandt interrupted. “These people have been without their animal for over a year. OK? So they get their dog back today.” (Second of two judges with the same opinion).
The Case Is Yet To Be Won
And that requires still MORE funds to keep COSR from getting Piper back. It could happen if sufficient funds aren't available. Please, consider donating. A little, or a lot. There's $100,000 worth of bills because of a "rescue" and her pro bono attorney.