I've read and reread the story 5 times now and it just doesn't make
sense to me. I don't even know where to begin. ..Having had puppies
kits and babies all residing in the same house myself, it is common
sense to leave none of them unsupervised together EVER. The lady who
sold the pup says it was 2 weeks old when she sold it and it's mouth
would have been too small to get to the babies toes......now all of us
who have ever seen a month old baby know that a month old babies toes
are about the size of tiny little peas....also,we all know a 2 week old
puppy is about a month away from even being old enough to wean at 6 to
8 weeks so what the hell was the woman doing selling it at this early
age? Perhaps the woman herself needs to be looked at by ASPCA officials
reguarding her breeding practices....perhaps the theory of the pup
trying to nurse, if it was the pup, is accurate, but it still doesn't
seem right to me... Next ferret kits are also teeny tiny with tiny
little mouths and will literally fit into the palm of your hand at 8
weeks old. They also still have tiny little milk teeth the same as the
puppy would which would be really unsuited for the task of removing
toes of any size......I also don't see a kit especially or a puppy that
small having the attention span to sit and chew for 4 hours as it says
it would have taken in the article. This seems to me a no brainer, but
Why didn't they take the animals straight to a vet and let the vet
monitor stool samples for bone and flesh matter??? Even without blood
on the culprit, the proof would be in the poo, so to speak. Or it would
have cleared the both of them from guilt. Moving on, month old babies
wake and cry throughout the night to be fed and changed, let alone if
they are having thier toes chewed on........I find it very hard to
believe that neither parent awoke to the sounds, especially if they
were both right beside the baby.....Something is definately not right
there and I think that further investigation is definately needed. Were
they intoxicated? On drugs? Not even there? Either way, This only ads
fuel to the fire for anti-ferret and anti-pit bull people, and both
animals already have enough enemies. Both have recieved bad raps over
the years and it doesn't look like any of that is going to change any
time soon. I don't really see how it could have been either animal,
and a rat does seem to be more plausible...but the article doesn't say
where this rat came from....pet or wild? Don't get me wrong. I like
rats the same as I like ferrets and dogs but I just don't see, based
on the information given, how it would have been the pup or the kit.
What do you guys think?

Dooks and Hugs,
Yvonne

[Posted in FML 5460]