A Coalition member challenged us to produce proof of a statement from the Humane Sociey of the United States about the life of an ant being equal to the life of a child so here it is: Michael W. Fox, was a senior officer of the HSUS for 26 years from 1976-2002 after which he assumed the position of Senior Scholar, Bioethics; Here are four direct quotes of his and their source: "The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration." (In Inhumane Society, 1990) "We are not superior. There are no clear distinctions between us and animals." (Washingtonian Magazine, February 1990) "The life of an ant and the life of my child should be accorded equal respect." (Associated Press, Jan. 15, 1989) "Human care (of animals) is simply sentimental, sympathetic patronage." (Newsweek interview, 1988) "Man is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on earth." (Quoted in The Intellectual Activist, Sept. 14, 1983) Any more questions? View Comment

A Coalition member challenged us to produce proof of a statement from the Humane Sociey of the United States about the life of an ant being equal to the life of a child so here it is: Michael W. Fox, was a senior officer of the HSUS for 26 years from 1976-2002 after which he assumed the position of Senior Scholar, Bioethics; Here are four direct quotes of his and their source: "The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration." (In Inhumane Society, 1990) "We are not superior. There are no clear distinctions between us and animals." (Washingtonian Magazine, February 1990) "The life of an ant and the life of my child should be accorded equal respect." (Associated Press, Jan. 15, 1989) "Human care (of animals) is simply sentimental, sympathetic patronage." (Newsweek interview, 1988) "Man is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on earth." (Quoted in The Intellectual Activist, Sept. 14, 1983) Any more questions? View Comment

No surprise that Allison would ignore over 90% of the points raised in our response to her first rant. It continues to boggle the mind that she knows of other nearby stores open now as well as closed now but open for years after we opened (and she learned all about "puppy mills") that buy puppies totally indiscriminately, lie about their origin, fail to properly care for them, one present owner arrested for animal cruelty!, another store shut down and quarantined by the state! and all regular buyers from both Hunte and Lambriar who have been labeled by "pet shop puppies" - a site that Allison reveres, as being the PRIMARY source of the problem puppies they uncover.....AND YET SHE CHOOSES TO FOCUS ALL OF HER EFFORTS ON PUPPIES OF WESTPORT BECAUSE WE SAID WE DON'T SELL PUPPIES FROM PUPPY MILLS AND WE SAID THAT WE OPPOSE THEM! HOW DOES SHE EXPLAIN THAT SHE BEGAN ATTACKING US BEFORE WE EVEN OPENED OUR DOORS OR HAD A WEB SITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And using that same logic, we suppose you would not have had much of a problem with Hitler if only he was more open about the fact that he was systematically exterminating millions! You must think that everyone is too stupid to see through your ludicrous excuses! Just the fact that you have used your web site to viciously attack us personally with charges that have absolutely nothing even remotely to do with puppies is all that anyone needs to know in order to conclude that you are a conceited, narcississtic, self righteous, irrational, stubborn, cruel, evil, closed minded and deplorable individual who wants to impose her views on everyone else with total disregard for the way in which the message gets delivered. It's great that you finally admitted the fact that your group is a classic example of the NIMBY phenomenon. Do you not realize that it is not something to be proud of? Do you not know that NIMBY means people who are only interested in what goes on in their backyard and don't give a damn about what goes on in other people's neighborhoods as long as it doesn't affect them! You and your group have consistently voiced this rationale but you have finally said it definitively. You do not care that we are one of the finest puppy stores around- all you care about is that we are in your backyard. We couldn't care less about what you do with the other 166 hours of your life each week, however we truly feel sorry for anyone who has to spend a good portion of that time with you. View Comment

To Lacey Fisher We want to apologize for the emotional posting that followed your last comment. We are actually in the process of preparing a response to your posting that will begin with an appreciation of your attempt to ratchet down all the noise and name calling. We admire your commitment to your cause and agree with you on almost every issue which is why it makes so little sense that you have picked us as your primary target. Our response will follow shortly, but we felt compelled to write after the last comment since you appear to be the most rational and level headed of all the other activists, most of whom are not interested in hearing anything or anyone other than what they have to say. View Comment

Ms. Lamb- By continuing to write the same nonsense over and over you are doing an excellent job of demonstrating your ignorance. You have admitted that you and your group post comments using aliases. We have tried to explain over and over that we do not need to emulate you as we stand behind every comment that we post. You continue to believe that anyone who posts a comment that disagrees with you must be us or an employee when this is absolutely not true and you have no basis upon which to make such a claim! We cannot stop those who wish to write something here and we do not condone name calling or those who seek to confront you. We gave up on attempting to have a rational conversation with you and your group some time ago as it is clearly futile. You appear to think that you are helping your cause by continuing to 'demand' answers to your questions when all you have to do is re-read our earlier posting in which we answered your questions!!!! We hope you will continue to post and continue to demonstrate your false accusations so that everyone can better understand some of what we have been dealing with for the past five plus years. It would appear that you are one of a very small group that is amused by your repeated rants. Keep it up and you may be banned from being able to post on your group's web sites in the same way that anyone who disagrees is blocked from making a comment. ONE MORE TIME - When we have something to say to you it will be posted as coming from Puppies of Westport. You can continue to make up whatever fabricated claims you wish if it makes you feel better about yourself. View Comment

Ms. Lamb, Although I disagree with much of what Lacey Fisher has said and the fact that she has made a decision to go after Puppies of Westport based primarily on its proximity to where she lives, I respect her as someone who is obviously a dog lover and certainly committed to a cause even though she could accomplish so much more if she pursued those who should be punished and shut down for their transgressions. You, on the other hand may be committed, but it is also clear that you should be 'committed' for so many of the irrational rantings by which you obviously continue to amuse yourself. You are doing such an injustice to the cause of those you sem to agree with. The Coalition has access to every breeder we use. Unfortunately, they do not accurately identify when we stop buying from substandard kennels. We agree that we have made a few mistakes and we have corrected them. However, I did answer your question yesterday when I told you that we have purcased from over 80 breeders in the last three years that have not had a single violation of any kind listed on their inspections. We are regulated by State and Federal authorities and we have no obligation to respond to requests from individuals who have demonstrated an inability to accept facts. You hve had nothing to say about the dozens of valid points raised in both the article and the various postings below it. So you finally admit that your group frequently uses aliases to post things anonymously. Just because you and your buddies do it certainly doesn't mean that we do as well. We'd hate to shock you with the fact that some people actually have integrity but we will tell you again that we do not know who Westportmom, making a living, or Norwalk Native is. We have not seen any postings by a Dominick. If you do not understand that the postings under our name demonstrate that we are comfortable standing behind every word that we have written without fabricating aliases for them, then there is nothing that any one could say that would convince you otherwise. By the way, more than half of our puppies have beds and most of the others have soft rubber mats. We love and care about our puppies and they certainly don't need you to be their advocate. View Comment

Ms. Lamb, Although I disagree with much of what Lacey Fisher has said and the fact that she has made a decision to go after Puppies of Westport based primarily on its proximity to where she lives, I respect her as someone who is obviously a dog lover and certainly committed to a cause even though she could accomplish so much more if she pursued those who should be punished and shut down for their transgressions. We also think she is a fine artist. You, on the other hand may be committed, but it is also clear that you should be 'committed' for so many of the irrational rantings by which you obviously continue to amuse yourself. You are doing such an injustice to the cause of those you seem to agree with. The Coalition has access to every breeder we use. Unfortunately, they do not accurately identify when we stop buying from substandard kennels. We agree that we have made a few mistakes and we have corrected them. However, I did answer your question yesterday when I told you that we have purcased from over 80 breeders in the last three years that have not had a single violation of any kind listed on their inspections. We are regulated by State and Federal authorities and we have no obligation to respond to requests from individuals who have demonstrated an inability to accept facts. You hve had nothing to say about the dozens of valid points raised in both the article and the various postings below it. We will tell you again that we do not know who Westportmom, making a living, or Norwalk Native is. We have not seen any postings by a Dominick. If you do not understand that the postings under our name demonstrate that we are comfortable standing behind every word that we have written without fabricating aliases for them, then there is nothing that any one could say that would convince you otherwise. By the way, more than half of our puppies have beds and most of the others have soft rubber mats. We love and care about our puppies and they certainly don't need you to be their advocate. View Comment

FINALLY!!!!! We have been anxiously waiting for one of our detractors to cite the Inspector General's Report on the USDA. So thank you Stella Drake for bringing it up as your group frequently does on the picket line each week. You see the “SCATHING” report is truly horrible but it provides no support for the demonstrators' claim that the USDA fails to properly inspect the breeders that we deal with!!!!!!! And Lacey Fisher was wise enough to repeatedly point this fact out each time a photo of one of these breeders were posted on the Boycott Puppies of Westport site! The breeders described and the pictures included are heartbreaking and difficult to believe. However the report did not even remotely focus on the kinds of breeders that we deal with. The report found that all USDA inspectors had identified every instance of a violation that existed at every one of the breeders they inspected. The problem was not one of failing to include the violation on each breeder’s inspection report, it was that the inspectors had not imposed a strong enough penalty or had failed to collect sufficient documentation to guarantee prosecution of those violators who were operating the most deplorable facilities. There was absolutely no finding that inspectors had “missed’ citing any violations of any kind in their inspections but simply that they didn’t properly pursue it! So that when we say that we have 80 breeders that have not been cited for a single violation over the past three years, that means that they were, in fact, not guilty of any violations since the inspectors would have included them in the reports that are publicly available. And just four of the over forty plus remaining breeders we have used over the last three years were ever cited for a “serious violation” and only two of these were cited for such a serious violation prior to the date that we stopped dealing with them. And we have already admitted that we made some mistakes but these were quickly corrected. The focus of the study was LIMITED to reviewing the enforcement process of dealers with a history of serious and repeated violations. It focused on whether or not the financial and judicial penalties imposed by the USDA were strong enough when the most serious and repeat violations were found. They also focused on whether the USDA did enough to support prosecution and penalties for the most serious violations that were found. The report inspected 81 breeders with histories of the most serious violations and only 9 of these breeders were in Missouri with 12 in Ohio, 11 in Pennsylvania and 10 in Minnesota. Puppies of Westport never purchased a single puppy from any of the 81 breeders covered in the report. The single most important finding in the report had absolutely nothing to do with breeders who sell to pet stores!!! It found that “Large Breeders Circumvented the Animal Welfare Act (completely) by Selling Animals Over the Internet.” The Internet problem is something that Puppies of Westport has been citing for years as more than twice as many puppies are now purchased via the internet than all puppy stores combined! Yet another finding in the report was that there were numerous other breeders avoiding regulations by illegally operating without a license. Every single breeder we use is licensed by the USDA. We completely agree with the findings of the Inspector General’s Report and are sickened by the descriptions and photos of the breeders- virtually all of which had been cited for dozens of serious violations and repeat violations and many of which were fined, suspended or prosecuted by the USDA. THESE ARE NOT THE BREEDERS THAT WE GET OUR PUPPIES FROM! And before Ms. Drake or some other activist points out that some of the breeders we work with also sell some of their puppies over the internet we need to explain that the internet breeders referred to in the Inspector General’s report were those that sell exclusively to the public because that is the only way they could be exempt from licensing and inspection requirements of the Animal Welfare Act!!! The single most important thing to come out of the Inspector General’s report was that the USDA had a sufficient number of inspectors and that the inspectors had consistently identified all violations that existed at the times of their inspections! Citing the inspector General’s report as proof that the USDA does a poor job of inspecting all licensed breeders is a classic example of McCarthyism at its worst. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to explain how far off-base the Coalition is when they use the Inspector General's Report to support their unjustified condemnation of Puppies of Westport. View Comment

Ms. Lamb, Although I disagree with much of what Lacey Fisher has said and the fact that she has made a decision to go after Puppies of Westport based primarily on its proximity to where she lives, I respect her as someone who is obviously a dog lover and certainly committed to a cause even though she could accomplish so much more if she pursued those who should be punished and shut down for their transgressions. You, on the other hand may be committed, but it is also clear that you should be 'committed' for so many of the irrational rantings by which you obviously continue to amuse yourself. You are doing such an injustice to the cause of those you sem to agree with. The Coalition has access to every breeder we use. Unfortunately, they do not accurately identify when we stop buying from substandard kennels. We agree that we have made a few mistakes and we have corrected them. However, I did answer your question yesterday when I told you that we have purcased from over 80 breeders in the last three years that have not had a single violation of any kind listed on their inspections. We are regulated by State and Federal authorities and we have no obligation to respond to requests from individuals who have demonstrated an inability to accept facts. You hve had nothing to say about the dozens of valid points raised in both the article and the various postings below it. We will tell you again that we do not know who Westportmom, making a living, or Norwalk Native is. We have not seen any postings by a Dominick. If you do not understand that the postings under our name demonstrate that we are comfortable standing behind every word that we have written without fabricating aliases for them, then there is nothing that any one could say that would convince you otherwise. By the way, more than half of our puppies have beds and most of the others have soft rubber mats. We love and care about our puppies and they certainly don't need you to be their advocate. View Comment

You are right dreamgirl, we didn't think that you actually meant what it seemed that you meant. But now we understand. You are obviously proud to be what PETA would refer to as just another animal. You may think that an ant is as important as your child and that no one should be allowed to breed or own a pet, but that doesn't mean that everyone else has to agree with you. View Comment

Let's see, you are obviously Stella Drakoulis, another of the merry band that regularly attacks Puppies of Westport but doesn't have the courage to post their actual name. As for your ridiculous comment on the Golden Retriever posting which makes absolutely no sense, you are no doubt aware that Puppies of Westport has not been at 420 Post Road West for over 8 months. We have no idea what puppy you are referring to and have no idea why you would post this as a comment here. It just doesn't add up. But the AD you referred to has only one "D" in it!. View Comment

To Dreamgirl: Sorry, but we have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say, but here is the support for the HSUS position on the rights of animals to sue along with some eye opening quotes from the President of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: At their national convention in 1980, the Humane Society of the United States formally recognized that “…there is no rational basis for maintaining a moral distinction between the treatment of humans and other animals.“ The Convention resolved to “pursue on all fronts…the clear articulation and establishment of the rights of all animals…within the full range of American life and culture.” A 1990 HSUS fundraising mailer stated “The Humane Society of the United States has long been in the forefront of advocating the recognition of rights of and for animals.” At its national conference held in San Francisco in 1980, the membership of The HSUS formally resolved to "pursue on all fronts ... the clear articulation and establishment of the rights of all animals ... within the full range of American life and culture." The mailer emphasized the need for animals to have legal standing in courts of law: “Animals are viewed as having no inherent capacity to invoke the protection of the state, and their entire legal status is underpinned by constitutional doctrines that deny them recognition as "persons. Access to the courts is such a powerful right and would pose so revolutionary a threat to the established order that it will probably be among the last of animal rights to be recognized, requiring statutory, even constitutional, changes.” Another well known animal rights group, PETA goes much further. Here are six quotes from PETA President and Co-Founder Ingrid Newkirk and where they can be found: “We feel that animals have the same rights as a retarded human child because they are equal mentally in terms of dependence on others.” The New York Times “In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.” Newsday “The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.” Animals “One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.” The Chicago Daily Herald “Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.” Harper's “There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals.” Washingtonian Magazine View Comment

To Linda Lamb We have not placed an ad of any kind on ANY of the Daily papers that you refer to. The last ad of any kind that we have placed was the radio ad that your group attempted to have pulled off the radio four months ago!You are apparently even more delusional than we originally thought. Is it that you are so upset that a responsible reporter wrote an accurate story that portrays Puppies of Westport in a positive light that you have created some false reality that has you believing that we purchased an ad in exchange for a positive story? Or maybe you think that the story is so positive that it is actually an ad as opposed to a news story? You and your group had no problem with Ms. Chapman's fact checking ability when she wrote last week's story in which we did not have the opportunity to offer any input. Sorry, the story was not bought, however, your continued postings are more effective at promoting our business than any advertisement ever could! As for our breeders, your group, as you well know, has access to every one of them from the CT Department of Agriculture's Animal Control Division- and I suppose that we must be farmers since we are regulated by the CT griculture Department! We have used over 100 breeders over the last three years and over 80 of them have not had a single violation identified during that period. We continue to carefully monitor all of our breeders and while we might make a mistake once in a long while, we admit it and we correct it and we go after the breeders that do not meet our standards. View Comment

Dear Ms. Lamb We are totally capable of defending ourselves without resorting to alternate names which is a trick that you and your friends regularly use on various sites. Your group regularly urges its supporters to post reviews about our business regardless of whether they had any actual experience with us or ever bought a dog from us! You are falsely accusing us of doing the very things that you and your group regularly do. One of the things that we respect about Lacey Fisher is that most of the time (though certainly not always) she is willing to place her name (as we are) along the comments that we post. How can you say that people who write on this site are not that stupid when you regularly write on this site and therefore disprove your own statement? Finally, and most importantly, you acknowledge that Paw and Claws was a despicable pet store in Norwalk that abused its puppies (though we do not believe they regularly killed them- cause if we had any knowledge of such conduct we would have personally shut down that business). But how do you explain that Paws and Claws continued in business until 2009- over three years after Puppies of Westport opened- and we regularly supplied the Westport Coalition with horrible information on Paws and Claws but they never did a thing about it! They picketed us every weekend but not Paws and Claws. They created a web site against us but not Paws and Claws. They filed complaints with the state against us but not Paws and Claws! And now you say that Paws and Claws euthanized puppies that they didn't sell!!!! You are a little late in getting to that party! If this doesn't demonstrate the true colors of those continually villifying us- and now you are even threatening to attack us personally- we are not sure that anything ever will. By the way, your friends at the Coalition have felt justified to post their personal attacks against us for years even though no charges were ever brought in connection with the incident. Just pitiful. The fact that you get indignant at the mere mention of your daughter when you are the one who had the audacity to blame her for your own transgression in a web posting (a truly cowardly act) is an unbelievably sad commentary on how far you are willing to go to pursue your interests. We noticed that you urged everyone on the Boycott Puppies of Westport site to post comments attacking Ms. Chapman's article. We have not done so. There is no need. Ms. Lamb you are doing a better job of demonstrating how hypocritical, malicious and despicable you and your friends are than anything that we are capable of writing and you can make up all the stories you want about those who choose to place a comment on this site but we are looking forward to selling a puppy to Westportmom this weekend and can't wait to thank her for her sincere posting. View Comment

To Horsegirlk- Just 9% of all dogs acquired annually come from puppy stores. If there were no puppy stores tomorrow and everyone who would have bought from a puppy store were to adopt (which would never be the case as most of those buyers would end up buying puppies through less regulated channels) you would only impact the number of dogs in shelters by just 10%! We would be willing to feature shelter dogs in our store, but thanks to the CT lemon law passed last year, we would be obligated to pay $500 in vet bills for any dogs "adopted" from our store for free! Shelters and pounds face no such obligations. Urging an end to puppy breeding in order to save more shelter dogs is the same as telling people that they cannot have children as long as there are so many children out there in need of parents! All of the animal activists regularly cite their precious right to freedom of speech but somehow think that others should not be given the freedom of choice to decide where and how thay would like to acquire a puppy. The argument that pet store puppies end up populating pounds and shelters is absolutely false. An extensive American Veterinary Medical Association study conducted just last year in conjunction with a major university vet school found that barely two and a half percent of all dogs brought to shelters had originated from pet stores. The same study found that puppies acquired for $100 or less (including for free) and that dogs adopted from shelters and pounds were twenty times more likely to end up in a shelter than a puppy from a pet store. And in the only study of its kind ever conducted, Cornell University Vet School (the most prestigious vet school in the United States) found that puppies acquired from pet stores were healthier than puppies acquired from any other source!!! We agree that there is a need for education about adoption and we actualy do our part by referring customers who find our prices too high to the Connecticut Humane Society, their local animal control facility as well as PAWS. But on the subject of education, you ought to focus on where a significant amount of money that could be used for education is readily available. The Humane Society of the United States has over $140 million dollars in assets and collects over $120 million annually but less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the money it raises goes to local shelters, pounds or humane societies. Over 20% of it's money goes to staff salaries and pensions. Another quarter goes to all sorts of lobbying efforts. More than one quarter of its monies goes to fundraising which puts it at the bottom of all charitable organizations. In the last year for which tax returns are available, the HSUS spent 93% of the money it raised in New York State on fund raising activities in that state keeping a whopping 7%! Best of all is that the HSUS raised over 25 million in response to ads urging innocent people to help them "save the MIchael Vick dogs" even though the organization and HSUS President Wayne Pacelle urged that all of those dogs be euthanized as they could not be rehabilitated. Well, all of those dogs were rehabilitated (without any HSUS money) but it actually gets better...because after the Philadelphia Eagles hired Michael Vick and contributed $50,000 to the HSUS, Wayne Pacelle stood next to Mchael Vick and suggested he had learned his lesson and should be forgiven!!!!!!! And as for the HSUS initiative that has pet shops agreeing to stop selling puppies, you should know that not one of the over thirty such stores that signed the pledge in CT had ever sold a single puppy prior to signing the worthless pledge!!!! So you can continue supporting the HSUS, you can continue raising funds and spending hundreds of person hours to protest places like Puppies of Westport, you can continue to believe that you can solve the puppy population problem by eliminating pet stores, you can continue to urge that people who choose to purchase a puppy rather than adopt one should be forbidden to do so OR you can face facts and focus on closing the Internet loophole, going after the UNLICENSED breeders who get away with true animal cruelty, expose the HSUS for the embarrassment that it is, and go after the licensed breeders who have dozens of pages of serious and repeat violations rather than trying to eliminate all puppy breeding which is like throwing the baby out with the bath water! Keep the comments coming, and we will continue providing responses View Comment

Lacey Fisher (who runs the Boycott Puppies of Westport Site and who threatened to boycott the radio station for running our ad) is an example of someone who knows enough to be dangerous but not enough to be accurate. Two items: First, All young puppies require multiple and expensive vaccines and inoculations until they are 16 weeks old. All puppies should receive regular deworming and parasite prevention medication. Our puppies are given a variety of high quality nutritional supplements to boost their immune systems and help avoid hypoglycemia and as I regularly explain, we never hesitate to provide all of our puppies with the highest level of veterinary care. Young puppies are no different than infants, some will get sick regardless of their source or the care that is provided. The fact that Ms.Fisher would have you believe that our puppies are from puppy mills because we spend a lot of money on medicine and veterinary care is yet another example of how our opponents attempt to twist everyting into something that supports their outrageous claims. Second, Ms. Fisher chose to leave out the most outrageous requirement of Proposition B in Missouri which was largely drafted by activists seeking to put all of that state's breeders out of business. It contains a provision that would prohibit all breeders from administeing any type of medicine or veterinary treatment including eye drops, antiseptic, wound dressings, etc. without the presence of a veterinarian! This obviously unduly burdensome requirement would make it economically untenable for any breeder to survive. And oh yes, in the event that a breeder administered eye drops to one of their puppies it would be worse than a misdemeanor and would incur a $100 fine per incident per puppy. Anyone who maintains that such a provision has any goal other than to harm all breeders is being less than honest. But when it comes to pursuing their cause, the animal activists are all too often comfortable with sacrificing the truth to pursue their agenda View Comment

To Lamb52 otherwise known as Linda Lambert- the one who wrote that every one of our breeders had horrible violations in a letter to the Norwalk Hour- something even Lacey Fisher admits is not true! Let's see, you would have us believe that since your adoption experience went as it did, that has to mean that all of the statistics we quoted earlier must be wrong. You have got to be kidding as well as fairly embarrassed. But you are also the one who attempted to distance yourself from a libelous posting attributed to you on the web by saying you were "not going to let my daughter" post on your behalf anymore!!! And as for every single puppy that has ever spent more than a few months in our store-- every single one has either been sold at a huge economic loss in order to give the puppy a home or simply adopted by someone who we investigated prior to permitting them to take the puppy. There are bound log books required by the State of CT and they consists of consecutively numbered pages of which none may be removed and these books contain information on every puppy that enters our store (as required by law) and it is regularly examined by an officer of the CT Department of Animal Control. We care deeply about every puppy and strongly resent any attempt to question our absolute commitment to insure that every one of our puppies is ultimately sold or adopted. You and your ilk are the ones who ought to be ashamed of yourselves for being so reckless with the truth and making so many unsubstantiated and false claims. View Comment

To Lacey Fisher, Unlike you, we will not resort to calling you despicable and a liar even though it is most assuredly deserved. Now you say that you are not focused on "educating the public on the Lemon Law" but when the City of Norwalk ordered your malicious sign removed from the bus shelter you and your group were quick to argue that its purpose was to perform a public service by informing the public about their ability to recover $500 in vet bills from a puppy store. That argument was nothing more than a subterfuge as the portion of the sign that referred to the lemon law occupied way less than 5% of the sign's total area! But it was a nice try even though it was obvious that one would have to be a fool to believe that argument. And do you think that people are so ignorant as to believe your logic that since breeders are regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture that means that they are farmers as opposed to breeders????? You just might want to know that the USDA is responsible for just a few "non-farm" items such as school lunch programs, radiation safety, animal imports and exports, our national parks, forestry services, radiation safety, food safety, animal exhibitions, animal cruelty, and dozens of other critical responsibilities that go beyond "Old McDonald"!!!! As for Rhonda Gear, you are, for once, absolutely correct. We admit that we made a mistake by buying a total of 8 dogs from her over a three week period in late 2010. Once we discovered that oversight, we not only immediately severed our relationship with her as well as the broker that had brought her to our attention. We also proactively sought to damage her ability to continue breeding by contacting a total of five brokers and web sites through which she marketed some of her puppies and managed to get two of them to blacklist her and a third to require full disclosure of her inspection reports on their site. Unlike you, we are able to admit a mistake. Somehow you are so delusional as to believe that we "kept Rhonda Gear in business" by buying a total of eight puppies from her. And although we acknowledge our mistake and we stopped buying from her almost six months ago (after a total of 8 puppies) you continue to write about her inspections that were conducted AFTER we had cut her off completely. We suppose we can look forward to reading many future Rhonda Gear inspection reports in the same way that you continue to refer to inspection reports of breeders that we stopped buying from over two or three years ago and before they actually had a poor inspection. You are also responsible for one of the most ludicrous statements we have heard in some time. After admitting that "you never said that all of our breeders were bad" (that blatantly false assertion was made by Linda Lambert in a letter to the editor of the Norwalk Hour last month) you actually argued that although a breeder might have a good inspection today it is always possible for them to become a bad breeder in the future!!!!!!!! So we guess you would like us to proactively stop dealing with all good breeders since they have the potential to go bad at some time in the future!!!!! Using that logic, Lacey Fisher just might discover a cure for cancer??????? As for the audacity you demonstrate by expecting us to provide you with all kinds of information because you want to see it, we have to inquire about who died and made you Queen? The fact is that we have been repeatedly examined and inspected by the the CT Department of Animal Control, that big USDA farming organization and the American Kennel Club and we have passed all these inspections. In addition, when the Westport Coalition filed a complaint with the CT Department of Consumer Protection claiming that our statement that we were against puppy mills was an "Unfair Trade Practice," all charges were dismissed as having no basis in fact by the head of the Unfair Trade Practices Division. Sorry Lacey, you just can't handle the truth View Comment

To Lamb52 otherwise known as Linda Lambert- the one who wrote that every one of our breeders had horrible violations in a letter to the Norwalk Hour- something even Lacey Fisher admits is not true! Let's see, you would have us believe that since your adoption experience went as it did, that has to mean that all of the statistics we quoted earlier must be wrong. You have got to be kidding as well as fairly embarrassed. But you are also the one who attempted to distance yourself from a libelous posting attributed to you on the web by saying you were "not going to let my daughter" post on your behalf anymore!!! And as for every single puppy that has ever spent more than a few months in our store-- every single one has either been sold at a huge economic loss in order to give the puppy a home or simply adopted by someone who we investigated prior to permitting them to take the puppy. There are bound log books required by the State of CT and they consists of consecutively numbered pages of which none may be removed and these books contain information on every puppy that enters our store (as required by law) and it is regularly examined by an officer of the CT Department of Animal Control. We care deeply about every puppy and strongly resent any attempt to question our absolute commitment to insure that every one of our puppies is ultimately sold or adopted. You and your ilk are the ones who ought to be ashamed of yourselves for being so reckless with the truth and making so many unsubstantiated and false claims. View Comment

To Lacey Fisher, Unlike you, we will not resort to calling you despicable and a liar even though it is most assuredly deserved. Now you say that you are not focused on "educating the public on the Lemon Law" but when the City of Norwalk ordered your malicious sign removed from the bus shelter you and your group were quick to argue that its purpose was to perform a public service by informing the public about their ability to recover $500 in vet bills from a puppy store. That argument was nothing more than a subterfuge as the portion of the sign that referred to the lemon law occupied way less than 5% of the sign's total area! But it was a nice try even though it was obvious that one would have to be a fool to believe that argument. And do you think that people are so ignorant as to believe your logic that since breeders are regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture that means that they are farmers as opposed to breeders????? You just might want to know that the USDA is responsible for just a few "non-farm" items such as school lunch programs, radiation safety, animal imports and exports, our national parks, forestry services, radiation safety, food safety, animal exhibitions, animal cruelty, and dozens of other critical responsibilities that go beyond "Old McDonald"!!!! As for Rhonda Gear, you are, for once, absolutely correct. We admit that we made a mistake by buying a total of 8 dogs from her over a three week period in late 2010. Once we discovered that oversight, we not only immediately severed our relationship with her as well as the broker that had brought her to our attention. We also proactively sought to damage her ability to continue breeding by contacting a total of five brokers and web sites through which she marketed some of her puppies and managed to get two of them to blacklist her and a third to require full disclosure of her inspection reports on their site. Unlike you, we are able to admit a mistake. Somehow you are so delusional as to believe that we "kept Rhonda Gear in business" by buying a total of eight puppies from her. And although we acknowledge our mistake and we stopped buying from her almost six months ago (after a total of 8 puppies) you continue to write about her inspections that were conducted AFTER we had cut her off completely. We suppose we can look forward to reading many future Rhonda Gear inspection reports in the same way that you continue to refer to inspection reports of breeders that we stopped buying from over two or three years ago and before they actually had a poor inspection. You are also responsible for one of the most ludicrous statements we have heard in some time. After admitting that "you never said that all of our breeders were bad" (that blatantly false assertion was made by Linda Lambert in a letter to the editor of the Norwalk Hour last month) you actually argued that although a breeder might have a good inspection today it is always possible for them to become a bad breeder in the future!!!!!!!! So we guess you would like us to proactively stop dealing with all good breeders since they have the potential to go bad at some time in the future!!!!! Using that logic, Lacey Fisher just might discover a cure for cancer??????? As for the audacity you demonstrate by expecting us to provide you with all kinds of information because you want to see it, we have to inquire about who died and made you Queen? The fact is that we have been repeatedly examined and inspected by the the CT Department of Animal Control, that big USDA farming organization and the American Kennel Club and we have passed all these inspections. In addition, when the Westport Coalition filed a complaint with the CT Department of Consumer Protection claiming that our statement that we were against puppy mills was an "Unfair Trade Practice," all charges were dismissed as having no basis in fact by the head of the Unfair Trade Practices Division. Sorry Lacey, you just can't handle the truth. View Comment