I agree that the pictures are awful. Looks like a hack job on her poor little feet. Other side is trying to say that she looked worse than that when she was brought in - and that the 'damage' like that takes longer than a year.
I read something on the other side that said something along the lines that someone who finds your dog can change the registration information on the chip? Is that true? They were insinuating that the finder could be considered the owner, if going by the precedent that a chip shows ownership.
And I don't see anything wrong with giving a breeder the right of first refusal. They bred that dog. That is reaponsuble breeding to me. They make it out to seem like that is the worst thing - ever What is wrong to me, are certain rescues. Like my parents tried to adopt a cat but they never gave 'ownership' to the adoptees. A waiver was signed saying the rescue would retain ownership and it would come back to them for any reason they deemed fit. They were allowed to show up, unnannounced, at any point and could take it back with them if they wanted. Why is that OK, but a responsible breeder should not be able to have right of first refusal?
