A friend has a stud dog, bitches were booked to come to him, suddenly they have cancelled and it has been discovered that a person has been going round saying that the dog in question is hard mouthed and has a "suspect temperament"! Why do people do this?
The best of it is that the person saying this does not go shooting with my friend or the dog, not even training, but is telling everyone that he does, and makes out he is well known and respected on the shoots in question. My friend wondered can he be had for "loss of income"? (i.e. stud fees?).

Along the same lines - what about faulty diagnosis of eyes (sorry to be a bore!!) which has caused some people to have a blacklist and deter people from using a dog's progeny?
Jo

**winking** You've already listened to my 'tuppence' (gosh, legal fees have gone *way* down!!!) on the possibility/feasibility of a suit on the eye misdiagnosis.

For those who are interested, damages are often determined by being able to prove a loss of income (i.e., if you have records showing that you normally would breed the dog twice (for a female -- AND just a general figure) and that there are normally an average of eight puppies per litter that sell at an average of £400 each, and/or that it also effected your other related breeding stock's usage (such as a son from a litter prior to the testing who also tested clear but was not used in the same amount as other male dogs that you had previously to the misdiagnosis, etc. etc.), as well as a jury affixing an amount for loss of reputation, mental stress, etc. Now for the bad part, I believe that the damages would be lessened *if* (and that is a big IF) the agency registering the misdiagnosis did not immediately rectify said misdiagnosis by altering its records and issuing a statement concerning that dog and any other found to be misdiagnosed to be published in its reports and to the breed club. In any event, the veternarian in question should have malpractice insurance which you should contact immediately and lodge a claim. (Before the flaming starts, I realize that veternarians and doctors are falliable and make mistakes, however, when those mistakes are caused by a lack of experience and cause damage to the patient, they should be held accountable.)

As to the other person, Polly, I would contact him/her directly and ask why they are saying this and what they feel they have to gain by it. I'm pretty forthright and would certainly not let him/her feel that I am not well apprised of his/her actions. I'd also contact each of the cancelled bitch's owners and let them know that you are aware this misinformation is being passed along; no recriminations, simply say that you are sorry they got caught up in another person's spitefulness and that it will not cause any hardfeelings on your part (even though that is a damn tough one to do). To any one who passes along the 'rumor', I would simply smile and say there is no accounting for some people's veracity and offer to let them watch the dog work if they have any doubts. **smiling** I wouldn't offer the information that the person making the statements is not experienced, though I would certainly say that it is unfortunate that he is evaluating a dog that he has not seen work.

Another tuppence!! (mmmm, guess I should ask Jon to increase my allowance!!)

Thanks for writing it down, Sierra - I caught most of it on the phone the other night, and passed it to my friend (in much the same situation as myself) who had more ammo for the AGM. No names were mentioned.

You have already picked up that we hear the F/C Society will hopefully redress the records - big plus when it happens.

Am gathering my wits to write my own letters - you need to be in the right frame of mine, and thinking clearly, don't you?

Shall keep you posted - very many thanks for all the help and support

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

Sierra - another thought - may I copy your letter to my friend, as we are working together on this?

Jo

Of course, Jo. And, if you like, pass along the cell phone number and the email. As you know, I'm always willing to help where I can. I was tossing out a lot of information and strategy to you the other day and it sometimes puts one into overload! I still feel that the bulk of the blame lies with the veternarian for failing to acknowledge that he/she was not experienced enough to actually give a diagnosis and suggest that you get another opinion. It seems a matter of the veternarian not being willing to *admit* that this was something beyond his/her realm of expertise.

I normally write in the heat of the moment, set it aside and then go back to it later for revisions, clarifications, so I understand totally what you mean!

Again, if I can help even as a sounding board while you're deciding which avenues to pursue, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Many Thanks, Sierra, will do. Now back to the tennis!

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

Would not know the legal position Polly but what an awful thing to say about a dog, especially when based on what evidence.,the person spreading it not even going on shoots etc with the dog.
The eye testing is a different problem.That surely would rely on the results some of us recognise, ie not even breeding from a grade 1 glaucoma.
or even the problem of what testers we respect, and who the 'gods' decide are to be on eye testing panels. Much more complicated.