An outpouring from readers over tales of puppy problems
Puppies.
Who ever thought that something so cute could cause such consternation?
Last Sunday’s articles on managing pet costs -- at www.latimes.com/petcosts -- brought forth impassioned e-mails from dog owners and animal rights advocates.
By far, the most emotional reaction was stirred by the section about the state’s puppy lemon law, which says purchasers can get money back from pet stores or breeders if their dogs show signs of a congenital disorder within a year.
“I was blown away to learn that California had a puppy lemon law,” wrote Sandy McKnight of San Marino. Her English bulldog, Bert, will probably have to undergo a triple pelvic osteotomy, during which the pelvis will be broken to treat hip dysplasia, according to her veterinarian.
Under the puppy lemon law, McKnight could receive as much as $4,200, or 150% of the price she paid for the puppy less than a year ago. That would go a long way toward paying the cost of the surgery, estimated to be as much as $4,900.
McKnight contacted her pet shop, which is considering her demand for the money.
Ron Nassif of Valencia also plans to make a claim. Only six months after he bought a female Maltese for $2,200, the dog required knee surgery on both rear legs. “It cost me $5,160,” Nassif said.
The lemon law provides a far greater refund if a dog with a congenital defect is simply returned to the seller within a year. In that case, the buyer would get back the entire purchase price, including tax, plus up to an equal amount to cover medical costs. In other words, it could amount to a 200% benefit.
Brenda Stang of Simi Valley bought her puppy in September for $1,500 and has already spent $650 on the toy fox terrier’s congenital knee condition.
By returning the dog, she’d not only get back the money spent, she’d also avoid an additional $5,000 for the surgery.
But the dog, named Dinkee, is staying.
“How could we possibly give her back?” Stang asked. “What would we be telling our children? Dogs are disposable?”
Peg Henry, a patrol officer with the Los Angeles Police Department, said she spent more than $4,000 in medical costs on the boxer puppy she bought from a breeder last year.
Unfortunately, the breeder was in Texas, so the lemon law does not apply.
“It’s all well and good for those dog owners who purchase from places here in California,” she said. “What about those who purchase dogs from out of state and have them shipped in?”
There also were angry e-mails targeting the people who purchased the dogs from stores and faraway breeders. Animal activists have accused some stores of getting their product from high-volume breeding factories, often called puppy mills.
“It is both frustrating and baffling to watch someone spend $2,000 to $3,000 on a puppy that has been raised in such cruel and inhumane conditions,” said Elizabeth Oreck of Beverly Hills.
Elaine Livesey-Fassel of Cheviot Hills said the specter of puppy mills “should shame all who participate in this activity, be it breeding, buying or selling.”
No one e-mailed in defense of pet stores that sell puppies.
Lisa Levenstein, who works with cocker spaniel rescue groups in Los Angeles, said that purebred animals don’t need to be bought retail.
“So few people realize that you can adopt any full breed in our L.A. County and city shelters,” she wrote.
Well, if you wait long enough. Most public shelter dogs are mutts, not that there is anything wrong with that. In fact, mixed breeds are far less susceptible to congenital conditions.
If you get a dog from a nonprofit shelter or rescue group, the puppy lemon law doesn’t apply.
But with most pound dogs costing less than $100 to adopt, the law wouldn’t provide much monetary protection anyway.
Besides, for most folks, a puppy is not an investment.
--
