wow... this is an old thread.
There is one thing I wanted to bring up that no one thought of.
Because the animal has been sold now, did not mean Kirby wanted the animal back
right now. He may have been checking up on how the loan out was doing only to find it had been sold. The breeding loan would very logically have been for a lot longer than 6 months especially if it was immature. Further more it is not at all inappropriate to send out an immature animal on a breeding loan. Payment for the care provided as a young animal would have been received from the animals progeny. Clearly the person in question thought this was a reasonable deal... as would I!!
In breeding dogs, if I am going on a co-ownership or doing a breeding loan I will very frequently send the dogs out as pups. No one expects the dog to reproduce as a pup!! :| The loans go for a period of many years in some cases.
At least in breeding loans and co-ownerships for dogs... it is typical to send them on as young animals before breeding is possible. Any expense in the keeping of the animal is normally made up for in two parts... the mere fact they have the animal and the publicity it may acquire... and the animals it will produce at a later date. They pay no initial outlay, pay for its care and often in the end either send the animal back with offspring, or send offspring back and have the animal signed over into their name.
I dont see any reason to condemn Kirby.... and the person with the loan animal would have known full well that he would not have wanted the animal moved on.
And a new mutation... as unexciting as some may view its appearance... is a big deal especially to someone who may not produce alot. I find some of these arguements terribly offensive and feel sorry for Kirby
He was just seeking advice.
Kirby... I went through the same thing... my mother had to move house and the new house was taking a while to build... in the mean time she needed to rent. The rental people wouldnt allow her to have all her dogs at the property so her "friend" did her a deal. She would take them on a breeding loan, take care of them and have litters with them to repay any associated care costs and return them to her when she was in her new place. Four of them went to her on different basis... one was to stay with the lady in return for a pup. The other three were to be used for breeding for the 18month period and were to be returned with one extra pup.
Time came to have the dogs back and what happened... she wouldnt give them back. They had proven to be invaluable animals to her program. She said that my mum had simply given them to her out of the kindness of her heart. RIGHT! four dogs at $1000 each, just given away, I think not!
I find it hard to believe you would give a new leatherback mutation away out of the kindness of your heart either.
My parents had to take her to court. But its not a criminal matter... its a civil matter as there was an agreement.
So you cant go to the police. But if talking civily to them gets you no satisfaction... then you can do up a legal letter to send to them requesting your animal back or compensation. Give them a time period to contact you within and name the consequences of not complying with your request. If they do not comply, send another letter outlining your next course of action. If you are keen to have it back, then you may need to go to court.
Im sorry you had to go through this. I know there are two sides to every story... but... if this person knew this was a loan then they did the wrong thing. The legally accurate response to Kirbys disappearance would have been to send official letters in similar format to what I had just recommended to Kirby to do. The person would have needed to make a clear effort to get in contact with Kirby... and it would have been a few months without contact before the person could have reasonably moved the animal on.
Goodluck dude
