Posted on 01/17/2014 6:19:25 PM PST by Innovative
A pet owner's happy reunion Thursday with his long-lost dog left a Queens man — who has been caring for the pooch for nearly six years — in tears.
Ben Choi got his Pekingese, Buddy, back after 78-year-old Alfred Hayek was coaxed into handing the canine over by two private detectives who negotiated the release.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
What do you think -- was this the "right thing" or the previous owner should have just visited the dog and let the current owner, who has been taking care of it for the past six years keep it?
I personally think it should have been left with the current owner.
doggie ping to a strange story
I can’t see losing my dog in the first place. He just wouldn’t allow it.
After six years, the dog would have little if any memory of the original owners. The dog has surely developed habits and traits that were not there back in the day. I think the dog should have remained with the second owner and the original owners just move on.
“I think the dog should have remained with the second owner and the original owners just move on.”
That’s my opinion as well. Don’t know why the original owner insisted of getting the dog back — I think he should have been happy that the dog found a good home and is OK, said hello to the dog, thanked the new owner and move on, as you said.
After 6 years, I agree, he should left the dog with the new owner.
Dude steals a dog and the when he is exposed, he still runs:
“But as Choi rushed to the vet’s office to pick up Buddy, Hayek scooped up the dog and scrammed.”
He’s lucky is not charged for dognapping.
There is nothing in the story to indicate the second owner stole the dog — it looks more like the dog got out of the house of the first owner, got lost and the second owner found it and took it in.
After he had and cared for the dog for six years, he didn’t want to have the dog taken away from him, which is only natural — he clearly loved and took good care of the dog.
And maybe the dog ran away from the first owner because he didn’t like the first owner, did you think of that? And maybe the dog was very happy in the home of the second owner.
” left a Queens man — who has been caring for the pooch for nearly six years — in tears.”
He had the dog for nearly six years before he took him to a vet. Then he managed to extort $500 from the rightful owner. He should count his lucky stars it wasn’t my dog he “took in.”
There was nothin at all about how he got the dog.
But the dog had a chip and it was lost. The owner put up flyers all over.
The dude easily could have found the dogs owner. He deliberately did not. And he deliberately tried to avoid being caught after he was found out.
Stealing a persons dog is the lowest of the low.
And finding and taking in without trying to find the owner is stealing.
And maybe the rightful owner would have taken him to the vet once a year. Did you ever think of that?
If the owner isn’t rich, the dog isn’t sick and is well taken care of, why take it to the vet?
And when he thought the dog may be sick, he DID take him to the vet.
After 6 years? Wow.
Tough call. The article doesn’t say how long the original owner had the dog. A Peke can live to be pretty old so maybe the original owner had him an equal amount of time.
It’s obvious both people loved the dog. Lucky for him.
The dog may have been taken to the vet previously. In my experience, most vets don’t check for chips unless requested to do so. This one is the exception...not the rule.
99% of the people that live in Queens are assholes.
Of course the knucklehead wanted the dog he hasnt seen in 6 years back
You don’t have to be rich to get your pets vaccinated once per year. You just have to give a damn. And if you find a dog, you don’t have to be rich to call Animal Control and have it scanned. You just have to not be a thief.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.