Pomsky

Yes, that's why my friend was so shaken at the vet's office. It is somewhat probable the dog is one and the same, and she was terrified at the thought of giving back her cherished baby. I am all but certain the former owner knew she was looking at her long lost pet. Perhaps the former owner was comforted by seeing the dog being loved and cared for, and that was enough for her to not make an issue of it.

And just as a side note - I'm surprised by the overwhelming response to this thread! We are quite a bunch of animal lovers, it seems.

Playing devil's advocate...on my way by.

The original owner may not want the dog back...but...if she can prove she was the original owner...she may want the money she paid for the dog. I think,...before I did anything...if it were me....I'd talk to the family lawyer for advice. This whole event is just too coincidental for my liking. I know. I'm a suspicious old lady! But...what are the chances that this scenario would ever take place? Think about it.

And...just for the record...I love animals almost more than I do most people...on a good day. :-) I'm for that beautiful little dog staying with its current mother.

I guess I would want the person who lost the pet to show some proof that they actually had looked for it. Since she didn't seem to see any of the advertising about the found dog, just what exactly did she do to try to find hers? Where did she post? Did she contact the animal shelter? Maybe she did and things were bungled, but since it's the shelter's business and interest to keep pets and their owners together, it seems unlikely. And unless there is a DNA test in place, I think it also is unlikely she could prove it is HER dog, coincidence aside.

But because she was not confrontational at the vet's office, it seems like she may not be the type to push the issue of ownership.

While it seems kind to want to reassure her that her lost pet is well loved, if
she truly cared, she'd STILL have ads out looking for her lost dog. I
would.

Actually, I doubt it was the woman's lost dog for a couple of reasons. First, no two Pomsky's are the same. Just like the markings on a husky vary, markings on the Pomsky's vary too as would the fur; some fluffy others not so much. I would think that the woman would have recognized a dog she'd had for months, don't you? And dogs don't forget people after just a year. They can recognize and recall scents of people from years ago. If that woman was the dog's previous owner, it would have responded some how to show it remembered her.

It's a hard one atomic, but I agree with others that she didn't try too hard to find her dog, and no microchipping or tag? How did she think she would ever get the dog back if it was lost? I mean, even a tag with a phone no doesn't cost much. The thing is, it may not even be the same dog, and if it was, how would the original owner prove it if it wasn't microchipped? I can't see any way the original owner could prove that this particular dog was ever hers. If there is a local breeder, there must be other pomsky's around? I would let it go, since your friend only suspects this was the same dog, but no one will ever really know since there is no microchip.

I would not have your friend give up the dog since she went out of the way to give notices everywhere that she had found it. But I was wondering why the dog didn't recognize the woman. Dogs never forget. I've seen stories of dogs missing for many years and are ecstatic getting reunited. This is a rare dog and I'm sure that it is the lost dog and maybe the woman knew it. Maybe your friend could get the woman's name and get the message to her that in fact her dog had been found and had a lovely life. It's sad not knowing. I know from experience.

I would be worried that the woman from the vet's office encounter is thinking about the coincidence and might try to get your friend's phone number to pursue the likelihood that your friend has her dog. I would be contacting a lawyer for advice. I wouldn't want to give up the dog. I'm also surprised the dog didn't recognize the woman, so maybe it is just a big coincidence. What a weird thing to have happen!

I agree that your friend surely is entitled to keep the dog, given all of her efforts to find the owner and the total carelessness of the original owner not to chip and license. That said, due to the cost (OMG) of these puppies, she should absolutely contact a lawyer if/before she plans to pursue telling the original owner.

Images and costs of Pomsky puppies for sale

Given that the found dog was around 7 years of age, I'm surprised the dog didn't recognize the former owner's voice if in fact it was the former owner.

It was found at 7 months, Granny, but I still find it odd that the puppy didn't recognize the previous owner, or vice versa. I know my 3 dogs and would know them anywhere. Having said that, I totally agree with Tibbrix (never thought I'd say that, lol). It would eat me up inside if I did not come clean.

The person that lost the dog was referred to as a breeder? The person that found the dog did everything to find the owner. Any breeder worth a grain of salt would have been advertising, called animal control etc. it appears she didn't try to find the dog. Bless your friend for giving the dog a good home. She may hear from the original owner now, I hope not.

That's the part I'm stuck with lily, sleeper and granny! Why no recognition?

I know my animals, and the moment they see me, are obviously happy it's me. We had a cat that went outside that disappeared (someone took him? because he was loyal) once for over a year. I was elated when I heard the old familiar thump at the window and Punk was home. I just cannot believe, if they were bonded, they didn't know each other??? So it's unlikely it was her dog. Yeah, that's it.

I'm still torn. I keep waffling back and forth.

At least she's giving it a good home. On our local Freecycle site, I've seen cats who are found and then put up free to a good home. No mention of trying to find the owner or anything. I slam that person, telling him that he has no right and remove the post.

eandhl......no the woman who lost him was not a breeder. She inquired if the lady bought him from a particular breeder, as that is where she got her dog.

We got Ruby from a reputable breeder. The day we picked her up, the breeder herself injected a microchip and gave me the registration paperwork to fill out (partially filled out with some of the lineage details). She sent it in herself. That way if she was ever lost, even if I had moved etc. they would still be able to find HER. For something designer like a Pomsky, I cannot believe the dog was not microchipped (unless we are talking puppy mill).

Periodically at check ups etc. I have them check for her microchip (they can migrate, especially in loose skinned dogs like pugs) and cross check the info that comes up to make sure it is accurate. If hers moves any more (it is now low on the front of her chest, started at the back of her neck) I will have them place a new one to make sure it is easy to find.

If the encounter had happened a few months after finding the dog, I would feel differently. But in this case, it is clear to me that she should keep this dog and not mention anything to the other person about the circumstances of getting it. I don't believe it is her dog, and you don't want to encourage the thought that it is.

" I don't believe it is her dog, and you don't want to encourage the thought that it is."

I agree. There are all sorts of people that keep an eye on CL and who are not above making up stories in order to get an unusual dog.

In the link I provided above, it talks about a statute of limitations, good as long as the finder made an effort to find the owner, after which no action can be brought. It may bring peace of mind for the OP to look up the local statute of limitations for lost dogs, the few that I have researched have not been that long.

You all who have suggested this original owner may have been a breeder bring up a good point. That might explain why she wasn't 100% certain if the dog was "her" dog and/or why the dog didn't recognize her. I agree w. those who've said they'd recognize their dog anywhere!!

Been reading through all the posts....everyone makes good points. Your friend went above and beyond to find the original owner. The contacts at the pound said the right thing; so many shelters are overcrowded and the pup may have been euthanized. It may have been pulled by a rescue group because of the unusual nature of the breed but there is no guarantee that would have happened. I can tell you the rescue group would not have tried to track down the owner like you friend did!

The original owner should have performed the same steps as your friend and if they had, contact would have been made. Additionally, if the vet had treated the dog (since your friend encountered someone with another Pomsky), the staff may have recognized it. The lack of chips or other identifiers certainly does not help matters. The lack of recognition is pretty key; there should have been something there with either the dog or the other person.

There are many coincidences in life.....I think your friend should enjoy the dog and not worry any longer.

' The lady then proceeds to mention that approx 1 year ago, her grandkids were visiting and had left her back gate open and that her dog at the time had escaped and was never found, and that she often hoped that the dog found a good home.'

This sounds like the woman was giving her blessing to the new owner.

I think your friend should not give it any more thought or action. If that other woman was so concerned about the pup, she had many ways to find out where it was. Also a Pomsky is not really rare. You can see how cute they are. They have become quite the sought after pups. The shelter is the first place that anyone who loses a pet will check. Your friend had notified the shelter. And it's not like the woman was missing a lab. This little Pomsky would stick out in anyone's mind. I don't think your friend should do anything but give that pup a hug and a kiss!

The fact is there's no way to know it is the same dog. None, because the original owner never performed the simple steps of responsible ownership. No collar, no tags, no rabies tag, no microchip, no registrations, letting the dog go outside with no identifying information and carelessly leaving a gate open. That's a long list of carelessness! I can't imagine my dog in any of those scenarios. I have multiple tags on her collar with every phone number including the vets and her microchip information, and our address.

The fact is your friend could have recently moved to that area from another state and got her dog in another state. This woman has no clue and I really question her story. I also wonder why the vet staff would not have known. My vets staff all know my dog by name and exactly who owns her and she is not a very rare breed.

Pomskies are somewhat rare but no longer very rare there are even rescue groups for them.

I totally understand the feeling of wanting to know if it was your animal that it was OK, however if it had been your loved animal would it have a collar and tags at the very least and some type of identification? Would you have gone to the various sites and taken the steps to find it? My guess is yes I know I would have. This woman didn't do what a responsible pet owner should do. Especially with that type of dog.

Well...there are genetic tests, possible if there was a breeder.

Everyone can have a different view, but I think some of you seem to want to bleed the melodrama you see on TV into real life. Better to keep it where it belongs, in fantasy worlds. I don't see this as a deep philosophical question or alternatively one requiring a long analysis or a CSI investigation. It's about a dog and a seemingly careless or uncaring person. Or maybe that person isn't involved at all. Too late, you snooze, you lose. (Yes, I'm as much of a doting dog lover as anyone you'll meet, but a dog is a dog).

I looked up images of this breed, it's hideous, it looks like a genetic freak. It's not something I would want around, to each their own taste.

If it was me, I wouldn't be giving back the dog. Placing the adds and making the efforts that she did were in good faith and were an honest effort to find the owner. I wouldn't be trying to contact the other party either. My worries would not be if she did the right thing and not saying anything to this women, I would be suspicious of someone with this story what their motives were. Was she just saying she just hoped that her dog had found a good home hoping to lure/manipulate the person into telling her that she found the dog, just to use the information against her. Or was she sincere? if It was my lost pet I would not have just gone into my appointment I would have wanted to find out the details and if I accepted my lost pet was in a new loving home I would have let the person know I was happy in the situation. Knowing what the law says about ownership would likely help just to ease anxiety, and if she needs to do anything else to establish ownership, but I agree that is sounds like she has done everything right. I would love to think the other person was sincere, and both parties were happy to meet. These days you just don't know what another person's intentions are it pays to be cautious.

Would it make a difference if you knew the previous owner's loss was
covered by pet insurance? I wonder if someone who pays as much as $4,000 for a
puppy also buys insurance?

Loss due to theft or straying--scroll down.

I
recently posted about two cats we discovered on our property this
summer (at different times). Each was in ill health, one necessitating
an expensive trip to the vet. Neither had collars or ID, so I assumed
they were abandoned, and didn't bother to try to find an owner. If I
thought either one was worth $$$$ I might have left notices at the local
vets, post office, craigslist, but then how would I know that it was
the owner who claimed it, and not just someone who saw a chance to
obtain a valuable animal for nothing?

In the past we've taken in
several other 'strays'--including an injured dog and a pregnant
cat--without looking for an owner. We live in the country, so I assume
any animal who shows up and stays close has been tossed out. A neighbor
missing a pet would come looking for it.

I think the acquaintance fulfilled her obligation by trying to find the lost dog's owner.

"I don't see this as a deep philosophical question or alternatively one requiring a long analysis or a CSI investigation. "

We have philosophy, law and ethics just because of the sticky, unclear issues that arise in life.

Perhaps you think that Snidely Opinion supersedes philosophy, law and ethics. I do not share that opinion but it is your right to have it. Some of the rest of us, not blessed with SO, must struggle along finding answers using the tools above.

For reasons outlined above by many, I believe the OP has an ethical and possibly, by now a legal right to the dog and should be cautious about anyone trying to take it. She can if she wishes check the statutes of limitations.

A true doting dog lover would never say "a dog is a dog". Just sayin'.

I watch Judge Judy almost everyday (lol) and unless that dog had special markings. Etc. that was documented from a vet ( since it didn't have any other form of ID) there is no way that the other lady could prove that dog was the one she had.pius the fact that the dog didn't even know her. The dog now has a good home and someone who loves it. I wouldn't worry about it.

I believe that the welfare of the animal is of greater importance than the rights of the owner.

Hearing you people talk about this–it's almost like listening to two slave masters fighting over a slave. And then one of them is wondering if they might have done something morally wrong by depriving the other owner of their living property.

Suffice to say I've never lived on a farm.

lucille, an SO (hmmm) is no better or worse, no more or less, than your LO, or someone else's O. It's just my O, as the same as anything anyone says. I was suggesting that in my view, a conversation between two friendly (but also chatty) people in a waiting room is perhaps interesting to think about (for not too long) but it doesn't present a legal question, a moral question, or anything else. It's idle conversation to kill time, best left behind when leaving the room. That's all.

murraysmom, have your view, that's fine. I know what I said and what I mean by it. I'm not always eloquent, perhaps this is one of those times. I think the person mentioned in this story did the right thing at the time but may have later overreacted emotionally. She needn't have given it a further thought.

I have had two dogs that were found by us. No collars, no tags. We made the effort to find their owners. When none showed up to claim them ,we kept the dogs, end of story. Same with a couple of cats. One was on the freeway, another was a stray at our door. Never even looked for their owners. The stray we thought at first bit our DD. Turned out not to be a bite but a scratch. We had taken it to the pound. The next day they called and mentioned she was a sweet cat and did we want her. We took her in. End of story.

If someone came along a year later the burden of proof would be on them. I would not be losing sleep over the situation.

My more rural friends don't even look for the owners. If it's a good dog they keep it. If it goes after their stock.chickens etc. they shoot it. End of story.

My sweet cocker was stolen as I was putting things in my car and she was on the other side waiting to get in. She would never walk away and I was shocked and remembered a family on that side of the car. She was off the leash and collar, they didn't have chips then, and I got the weirdest calls to my notice in the paper and put signs up. I was sure she would waft to find her way back home. I thought my mom and I would pass away from the loss. Mommy lived nearby and well time passes as only time will and 5 years later I saw my dog. Yes, it was mine. I stopped the car and watched the owner go by with her. I let her go. I judged the look of the mom who stole my pet and said this would end up being one heck of a fight. My dog looked fine and was not in a research lab as callers told me happens. There is always a lesson in these stories.

Parker, I am scratching my head over the mystery of how you can turn this discussion into a race issue. Or a farm issue.

Atomic, I hope that your friend stops feeling guilty. She clearly did all of the right things as it would appear that the previous owner did little to nothing to find the lost dog.

Years ago, I had my own lost animal incident. I had two indoor/outdoor cats at the time...I didn't know any better back then and they were allowed free access to the outside.

One afternoon, Troll (so named because he looked like a little troll as a kitten) meowed at the door. When I opened it for him, he was sitting there with a tiny fluffy kitten!

That little thing strolled inside with Troll like she owned the place! Both Troll and Harpo (so named because he didn't make a sound) acted like she was theirs, clearly adored her.

Anyway, we canvassed our neighborhood and the next one, left word at the two veterinary clinics in town, and after two weeks we made it official. Named June Bug (because she was as cute as......) , she totally captured our hearts with her hilarious and endearing personality.

Over the years, Troll brought other cats home with him, including the neighborhood Tom, a hulking bully that was known to attack cats and small dogs. He acted like a doting grandfather with our three cats.

Luckily, we found the owners for all of the other cats!

"Parker, I am scratching my head over the mystery of how you can turn this discussion into a race issue. Or a farm issue."

I was wondering which thread parker was reading, because it didn't seem like this one if that's what they got from it

I think what Parker was trying to say was, everyone is talking about this living being like a piece of property rather than a part of a family's life. But, let's face it, current laws do regard pets as property. Maybe it should change.

Wow. Not surprisingly (from history) but yet again, so much arrogance, so much ignorance, so much need to condemn someone about whom you know nothing over a situation about which you know nothing.

I'm appalled over people vilifying the original owner, claiming they didn't do enough, or didn't have collar, tags, etc on the dog when it was lost. Wow! LOL What do you KNOW about this? Nothing. Having been an owner of and knowing people who have dogs and cats both, I KNOW how easy a dog or a cat can get OUT of a collar and yes, even a harness and you know what? That's what SHOULD happen! Many suggest breakaway collars so they don't choke if they do get loose.

Chipping? Maybe there's a bit of a rational point there but a 7 month old puppy not being chipped yet, I won't hang an owner for that even though many of you would.

I thing the friend of the OP went out of their way to find the owner but find it laughable that people suggest that if the person who lost the dog didn't FIND the dog then they didn't do enough! Have any of you who condemn this person ever lost a pet and not found it? For those who did, you must feel you should be condemned because you (according to many in this group) obviously didn't do enough or take adequate precautions!

Expecting a 7 mo old puppy to remember and respond to a former owner after bonding with another family for over a year? Oh come on! Talk about searching for rationale! For that matter I often go up to unknown animals and they respond to me like they've known me for a long time. Does that mean I should be able to take the animal? Time to get real folks.

This group just LOVES to attack people they don't know over situations about which they have no facts.

Had I been in that situation, I'm not sure what I'd have done. I probably would have been surprised. But I feel like they were or would be happy to know it found a good home. I'd have mixed feelings. But I would keep the dog. And I don't care what "Judge Judy" thinks either!

Although I do have affection for animals, I am pragmatic enough to know that in our country, pets are property, like it or not. Lost pets are a sad situation but it's a reality of life. For those animals to get good homes is a great thing. Vilifying someone based solely on stretched-to-the-max assumptions and wishes is just plain nasty.

while not as passionate as cynic, I had noticed everybody is assuming orig. owner was neglectful, w/o really knowing what was going on with her that day. I've had my dog sneak out of the car at a gas station only to find out we'd left him behind for several miles. We were lucky that a gas station attendant kept him instead of another traveler. I was travelling too so where would I have posted signs?????

What struck me about the discussion was the fact the 2nd owner was second-guessing herself. saying something to lady she met at the vet would have eased her heart. I agree that it appears the 1st owner had already "let go" but that's her. Had it been me, I probably would want my dog back after all this time. Maybe I'd get it back, maybe I wouldn't, but there are SO MANY unwanted dogs around, if I just had to have canine company, I would just spend another $$ or go to the pound. Not a disagreement needing to be resolved at the OK Corral.

Again, a light heart would prepare you for the final outcome, whether she got to keep dog or had to return the dog. After speaking out she could consider it an act of kindness to have fostered dog and let go; or she could charge for expenses while her responsibility,; or she would get to keep dog with a clear mind & heart after orig, owner decided dog was well cared and loved (that would be best for the lady finding herself in an ethical uncertainty.

There is nothing to assume if the OP posted facts. If they live near enough to one another to find themselves in the same vet's office and the OP did do all the things stated to find the owner then the original owner WAS negligent. Seems she didn't bother to look very hard for her precious pet.

We must be reading two diff. posts. I talks about the great effort spent by owner #2 in finding owner #1 but I see nothing about efforts by owner #1. Just b/c it's not mentioned, it doesn't mean she didn't try but truth is we don't know for sure, which is what cynic and I are saying. we don't know. So, is "we don't know = neglectful? Plus their chat was brief, so maybe the reason more detail was not available.

BTW, I would like Atomic's friend to be my friend as I admire somebody who gives top priority to doing the right thing and not rationalizing actions. but I would want my dog back, more than likely. I welcomed my kitty back with open arms after 15 months, even though there had been another pet kitty in between. I don't read pet minds so I can't possibly know if pet remembered me or not, but I remembered him!

What I keep coming back to is that here, in my area, generally a pup is chipped when they get their puppy shots before heading to its new home. Why wouldn't an expensive designer pup not be chipped? In my mind, I can't reconcile why that would be.

Of course you would want you dog back, vossybossy. But, that dog has bonded for a long time with someone else. Do you have the right to take it just because you want it? There are 3 hearts involved, not just 1.

I have read enough posts. Moonie just summed it up best for me. I can't read anymore.

I think that I'd check with the vet to find whether the other lady were a reasonably responsible owner, and that I'd found such a dog at a similar time, and become substantially attached to it.

The vet might have some idea as to whether it would be well to contact the other person, and could give the other person, possible original owner, the info that a dog similar to hers had been found at about the time of her loss and that the dog now had a good home with a loving family.

Quite possibly such a message from the vet would put the loser's mind substantially at rest, and if she were desirous of obtaining the animal's return, there could be some negotiations, but unless she appeared to have been substantially attached to it, it's doubtful as to whether she should get it, and doubtful even if she should want it quite strongly. It could well be that she would be happy to know that her former pet had found a new loving home and would leave it at that, especially since she has replaced it.

In any case, should she be inclined to go the legal route, I can't see where she'd have a leg to stand on.

ole joyful

I don't think a responsible vet would want to share any information or talk about any aspect of Client B to Client A. Most wouldn't touch that situation with a 10 foot pole.

You hit the nail on the head there SnidleyWhiplash. I'd think a person is about as likely to get an answer there as they would to going to a human clinic and ask about the responsibility or health of a client/patient.

moonie_57 (8 NC), while you bring up a good point, my point is that condemnation of someone without knowing anything more than we know at this point is irresponsible.

Additionally, for people to suggest such things as a 7 mo old puppy is supposed to remember someone a year later and respond to them, and because they MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE responded this makes the original owner irresponsible, is a far reaching rationalization to dislike someone for no good reason.

And of course the henhouse high court isn't going to reverse their ruling(s) so there's no sense to appealing to common sense. :) I've made my point and others have made theirs and the reality is, we'll likely never know what really happened and I'll also move on.

For crying out loud, cynic. Over react much? I don't see a lot of vilifying or condemnation towards the 1st owner of the dog. Where are these ATTACKS you refer to? What I see is a group of people that are empathizing with a situation presented to us from the side of one of the parties involved. In a situation like this one, it's easy to walk in the shoes of the 2nd owner and understand the fear and uncertainty, because as human beings, we respond from emotion. I see as much concern for the original owner's feelings as was posted for the 2nd owner.

Henhouse high court? Oh, please. Talk about arrogance and ignorance!

"Additionally, for people to suggest such things as a 7 mo old puppy is
supposed to remember someone a year later and respond to them, and
because they MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE responded this makes the original owner
irresponsible"

My take on it was that some people were saying it was odd that neither the owner or the dog recognized each other, therefore, it may not have been the same dog, rather than being an attack on the other person?