Re: [pyrnet] Beau, Antlers, & breeders

["Robyn Allwright" <ziffanyrobyn@earthlink.net>]

No, I think you misunderstood me.  What I was referring to was the fact
that while you were "warned" not to get a dog from this one breeder, when
you checked with that breeder, you did get a fully logical AND ethical
reason for what had transpired.   I too agree, that if a person is found to
be violating club policies, they should be expelled, and Then IMHO, the
"world should know".  I'm not a lawyer either, but if the truth was
incriminating, then let it be that way.  Also, as they say, "if the shoe
fits, wear it".

> I think you may be misunderstanding me. I am saying the person should be
> exposed if, after a thorough checking of the situation, she or he is found
> to be in violation of club policies. Then it seems reasonable to let the
> public know that this person will not be responsible for their dogs. I
would
> be more concerned with protecting the public and future dogs from ending
up
> in rescue. I am not a lawyer, but am not sure how a person could sue for
> having the truth published. I don't know, maybe I am naive. But the good
of
> the dogs and future owners seems far more important to me than an
unethical
> person being able to continue making money from dogs that they are not
> willing to be responsible for.
> Marie and Beau
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@pyrnet.org with
> 	unsubscribe pyrnet-l
> as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
> 



--- Robyn Allwright
--- ziffanyrobyn@earthli