With Pet Purchasers it's Buyer Beware.

A friend gave me an article from the national newspaper, USA Today. A lady purchased a Yorkshire Terrier puppy. Two days later the dog got sick. Her veterinarian "thought the dog had a bacterial problem" and when asked "... is there any chance the dog could have gotten this sick in the past two days?" the vet said "...it was highly, highly, highly unlikely." The puppy recovered "...after receiving antibiotics." The vet bill was $2000.

There is always a lot of uncertainty when you read things in the newspaper. It is not like reading a case report written by a doctor and published in a reputable medical journal. I would hope that, after $2000 worth of diagnostics and therapy, the veterinarian could tell me a lot more about what was wrong with this dog.

The insinuation was that the puppy had whatever made it sick when it was sold and that the seller should have been liable for the expense of treatment. Puppies, especially toy breeds like Yorkies, are fragile and can get really sick in a short time. Parvovirus has an incubation period of at least a few days, but there is no way to be certain that a puppy is not incubating a viral disease before the symptoms appear. Even if the vaccination series is properly started, most puppies are sold at an age where the series is not complete and protection is unreliable. And it is certainly not "highly, highly, highly" unlikely that an 8 or 10 weeks old Yorkie, stressed by a new environment, could go from perfect health to really sick in 2 days.

Twelve states now have "Lemon Laws" that apply to puppies, and in some cases, kittens. Most apply to pet stores, commercial kennels or catteries, and hobby breeders that sell more than a litter or two per year. They typically cover infectious or contagious diseases that show up within 10 to 14 days and require the seller to provide replacement or a refund, and to cover veterinary expense for up to the cost of the animal. I'm not sure that's completely fair to sellers. Two weeks is plenty of time for poor management on the part of a new pet owner to make a puppy sick. But, the law would put pressure on breeders and dealers to provide a healthy environment and a correct vaccination schedule and parasite control.

Hereditary and congenital diseases that surface are typically covered longer - 6 months to a year. That's more problematical. Testing for all possible hereditary and congenital diseases could be a major expense and add considerably to the cost of the pet. And some diseases - hip dysplasia, for example - may not show up, even on X-Rays, until two years of age. Furthermore, eliminating all risk of a hereditary disease through careful breeding may be very difficult, and a congenital disease - present from birth, or conception - may not be hereditary. It may be impossible to eliminate that risk or to make an early diagnosis.

Neither Washington nor Idaho has a puppy lemon law now but they may be coming. I would be in favor of a well thought out law, especially if it applied to out of state puppy mills. I don't think the laws I've seen require enough proof - such as a positive parvo test, or evidence of worms or fleas, for example - that a disease should have been discovered or prevented by the breeder. And I think a law should apply to backyard breeders. Bringing more puppies or kittens into the world should be taken seriously.