I was looking through a few threads form this week, some that I responded to and a few I didn't but am watching with interest.
One peice of information in a thread has been niggling at me. In this case the animals are "owned " by a few people, only one is the legal owner though.
The animals and the "owners" all live together. There is some debate on a few points between them, on limits and behaviour. In general and on the whole, they all seem to agree on tolerable things, housebreaking, crate training etc. However there is a disparity on the level of tolerance on biting.
One of the owners was bitten, and made a choice not to tell the other owners, as that owners level of tolerance did not match their own. I am not mentioning names as that is not my intent, but the issue that bothers me is it is the legal owner that is unaware of this behaviour.
The part that niggles at me is this....what happens if this living situation changes? What happens if the legal owner then has custody of an animal that has bitten, this person is unaware of it. If this animal again bites, with a different outcome, this person is not only going to be baffled at the behaviour but put in a very unsavory position, as with this info he would have had choices available to him, i.e. to turn legal ownership over to the other "owner', to work with the animal themself to correct the issue, or very possible in their rights to return the animal.
In my own personal belief, as I have co-owned many animals legally and also without the paperwork, I would be rather upset if that type of information was withheld.
Just my opinion, what are yours??
Bookmarks