Steven van Graan writes:
I refer to the article in the Roodepoort Record of 21 September 2016, Pet store in the spotlight – again.
On 31 December last year, I became another such purchaser of a puppy with parvo virus. The puppy was taken to the vet on 4 January, when it first showed symptoms. It died soon after.
The biggest problem I have with the store is that they are totally negligent in preventing transmission of the virus, despite them having a history of it. They make a huge profit, in my case by adding on 75 per cent to the breeders share, from any transaction, and when things go wrong they pass the buck and say that the breeders are to blame, that they must be contacted directly and the matter taken up with them. They try and exonerate themselves from any liability despite the fact that their negligence was most likely the cause of the transmission in the first place.
The profit margins can hardly be considered “helping out the community with ‘oopsies'” and I consider it to be sheer profiteering. They keep the cages jam-packed together in the store with other litters adjacent and allow all and sundry to handle them.
The breeders were surprised at the news that the last puppy of their litter of 12 fell ill and died from the virus. The store has also said that the pups were received in good condition which leads me to believe that the problem originated in their store. The virus time-frame of four to seven days to show symptoms indicates to me that the pup contracted the virus on the day it was purchased.
The store has offered to refund the purchase price of R1 750 and that to me is an acknowledgement of liability, but they will however not refund the further R1 995 in veterinarian bills that I undertook in an attempt to give the pup a chance. Even the vet considered the condition to be an emergency and said that treatment could not wait.
