Beware of Jerry Kruse

Originally Posted by Jeff Schofield

Stu, as I stated before I am not taking sides I'm just trying my best as a responsible member of this community to help the situation unlike alot of other posters on this thread. Rural TX, whose fault is THAT? LOL. I'd say for $3100 you can put the snakes on a plane, FIRST CLASS even, and let someone who has nothing to do with this fight examine them. If you are a seller answer me this: in bad/problematic transactions do you think you are ever at fault? It always takes 2 sides, but for experienced keepers/breeders/sellers most times the fault is with the reciever not the seller. But of course when it is with the seller his rep is on the line. We have all been burned before, and most times it STARTS with someone having similar problems. It does get emotional but you should always strive to be fair and balanced, particularly when it comes to a "undiagnosable/incurable" disease. This thread alone likely cost Jerry more than you paid, so think about that. He wants to work things out with you offline which is understandable. If I gave person A a refund but refused for person B, person B would have a axe to grind--like many in this thread. I had a bad transaction recently with a guy who got a heck of a deal from me on my "last" of the season snake. Even though I sold it to him at half price as is, and even agreed to get him a mate at the same price this season he freaked out about the snake and wanted ANOTHER one for FREE. You can see each transaction is different, personal even. Give some people a inch and they will take 10 miles, again not taking sides. Its just a good idea to do your best to be fair and balanced and unfortunately this forum isnt known for that. So take what others say with a grain of salt, your transaction with Jerry isnt over so there is no sense being a petulant child about it. Be the better person and you wont be surprised to see no one wins these contests. Not even Texas!

Jeff-You start off saying "as I stated before I am not taking sides I'm just trying my best as a responsible member of this community to help the situation unlike lots of other posters on this thread." Then you proceed with personal insults and accusations "Rural TX, whose fault is THAT? LOL. I'd say for $3100 you can put the snakes on a plane, FIRST CLASS even". And you close with name calling " there is no sense being a petulant child about it". I have refrained from commenting on some of the more ignorant posts in this thread until now. I must say you are very confused and a hypocrite. If you were truly not taking sides and trying to be responsible I would think you would use less inflammatory verbiage.

Summary:

1) Stu paid $3100 for a group of baby zonatas. Stu is NOT A NOVICE when it comes to colubrid husbandry/breeding (40 years experience with an excellent reputation).
2) Within two weeks, they start showing symptoms of "zonata disease." Stu wanted to return the animals and get his money back at that time and Jerry refused and wanted him to work with the snakes.
3) Animals progressively got worse/did not improve. Jerry offered Stu to return the snakes so he can work with them with no mention of a refund.
4) Stu refused, not trusting he will ever see a cent from Jerry or the snakes ever again.
5) Jerry started getting personally derogatory at Stu using expletives.
6) Stu refused to communicate with him because of his derogatory remarks and wanted an opinion on the other site about zonata disease.
7) Other sites moderator who is a friend of Jerry's selectively deletes any negative comments about the transaction.
8) Stu brings this issue to BOI.
9) Fast forward 25 pages of character history/witnesses and testimonials, endless rants/name calling, and opinions.
10) Jerry is supposedly refunding Stu's money but has not done so.

Please refund his money so we can all go back to our lives.

Jerry has sent me an email requesting a phone conversation to dicuss a refund. Just to ease tensions a little I will agree to this to show my good faith and give him the benefit of doubt.

Stu, it's best to simply ignore Jeff Schofield (aka a "Consumate Biologist").

He's been called out in here for his own shennanigans... namely sending misrepresented snakes in dirty athletic socks with holes in them! Yeah... you can't make this up Stu!

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...ad.php?t=42452

Just ignore him. He's "Jer-lite" or, for the younger crowd, you might also call him "Jerry Kruse 2.0".

It figures!

Originally Posted by Jeff Schofield

Stu, as I stated before I am not taking sides I'm just trying my best as a responsible member of this community to help the situation unlike alot of other posters on this thread. Rural TX, whose fault is THAT? LOL. I'd say for $3100 you can put the snakes on a plane, FIRST CLASS even, and let someone who has nothing to do with this fight examine them. If you are a seller answer me this: in bad/problematic transactions do you think you are ever at fault? It always takes 2 sides, but for experienced keepers/breeders/sellers most times the fault is with the reciever not the seller. But of course when it is with the seller his rep is on the line. We have all been burned before, and most times it STARTS with someone having similar problems. It does get emotional but you should always strive to be fair and balanced, particularly when it comes to a "undiagnosable/incurable" disease. This thread alone likely cost Jerry more than you paid, so think about that. He wants to work things out with you offline which is understandable. If I gave person A a refund but refused for person B, person B would have a axe to grind--like many in this thread. I had a bad transaction recently with a guy who got a heck of a deal from me on my "last" of the season snake. Even though I sold it to him at half price as is, and even agreed to get him a mate at the same price this season he freaked out about the snake and wanted ANOTHER one for FREE. You can see each transaction is different, personal even. Give some people a inch and they will take 10 miles, again not taking sides. Its just a good idea to do your best to be fair and balanced and unfortunately this forum isnt known for that. So take what others say with a grain of salt, your transaction with Jerry isnt over so there is no sense being a petulant child about it. Be the better person and you wont be surprised to see no one wins these contests. Not even Texas!

In what way is this forum "unfair", and/or "unbalanced"? And this is known by whom? Anyone other than someone who has had his ass righteously handed to them on a platter here? Because of your own personal experience, or have you actually done a study to prove your, what appears to be, personally biased opinion?

Sorry you do not agree with how this forum works, but in MY opinion, it DOES work, regardless of your apparent biased and self imposed ignorant opinion. It actually works MUCH more than not, as any rational person can see with just a minor amount of inspection.

You apparently seem to feel that only principals should engage in discussions of this nature, and everyone else needs to butt out, and I simply disagree. It's called "peer pressure" in case you have never heard of it, and it is quite effective in situations of this nature. The power of peers (meaning potential customers) expressing their opinions about an issue is what helps the principals to see what is right and what is wrong with their stance in a situation of this type. On of the main purposes of the BOI is to try to resolve problems encountered during transactions when they don't go as hoped by one or both of the parties involved. Outside opinions being expressed is certainly a fair method of measurement the parties can utilize to gauge their stance with the public to see if perhaps their choices are ill advised. One aspect of this is that the airing of such transactions then can be used by others as guidance in their own methods of doing business as well as help guide those people possibly considering doing business with any of the parties involved.

This has been the basic philosophy behind the BOI since it's inception, and I am taking it's popularity and support from the membership as adequate evidence that this methodology is working quite well, thank you, as intended.

So, quite bluntly, if you think you know a better way to do this, by all means set up your own website and take a whack at it like so many others have and found that it isn't quite as easy as it looks. Otherwise quit wasting bandwidth here with your inane complaints about this site and either accept it AS IS, or go elsewhere more appealing to you.

Hey Bob! Austin is doing great! Eats like a pig and growing fast.

I have a bit of a confession to make here. Jerry called me when this thing first hit and before I'd read any of the other postings. In very generic terms he said that he had a sale going south. He felt that he sent perfectly healthy animals and that they developed some hydration issues (ZD was mentioned) and asked if he should replace or refund the animals. I did not say either way but did express that two weeks was ample time for neonates to deteriorate (indeed die) in the care of a new owner and if that was the case the new owner is not necessarily “entitled” to a refund. We also discussed that I'd had a few animals over the years do the same constant shedding thing. I advised that a wait and see approach might be best. During the conversation refunds or replacements were not further discussed but I felt it was inferred that if the animals didn't pull through after the buyer did everything he could to turn the situation around, at least from a business perspective, some remedy would be called for. I feel bad for both parties and the advice I gave because it completely failed to take into account the egos of the third parties who were involving themselves.

So, that’s my background disclaimer now onto the points and there really are only two of them:

First, a point upon which we all agree, Stu is feeling very uncomfortable about his $3100 investment. He doesn’t feel that he had the neonates long enough for this condition to have developed completely in his care and he isn’t feeling that Jerry will make it right if this significant investment fails completely. Certainly if this is ZD as he is being told, then the condition existed prior to his acquiring the animals and he should be given a refund,

On the other hand, Jerry feels that the snakes where in perfect condition when shipped and developed the problem while in Stu’s care and therefore Stu is not entitled to a refund. Whether any of us agree with this or not is immaterial, it’s an issue for Jerry to address. None of us saw the animals or their condition at time of shipping so it’s up to him to make the call and deal with the consequences. If there has been any mistake here it’s been that Jerry started worrying about damage control after this went public instead of staying focused on his customer. That said, given the implications (which I’ll address in a bit) I’m not sure any of us would have reacted much differently.

Secondly, I do not think that there has been enough evidence presented here to CONCLUSIVELY say that this is ZD. Unless I missed something Stu is not claiming that the snakes are demonstrating neurological dysfunction which is always reported in instances where classic collection wiping ZD is described. I’m still having a hard time wrapping my mind around how we can’t even know if this is a pathogen driven disease or not. Is it possible that we’re looking at multiple conditions and calling them all ZD? Certainly dehydration and its inducement of multiple sheddings alone is not without precedent outside of the zonata community so why would we think it always means ZD when it occurs in zonata?

So where does that leave us on the BOI? Well from my perspective it breaks down like this:

If this is simple dehydration, Stu needs to work with Jerry and others on getting the animals back to health as the condition likely developed in his care. Jerry should offer some advise and hand holding but Stu isn’t “entitled” to a refund. If this does turn out to be ZD, Stu is due a complete refund AND Jerry has some very difficult decisions to make regarding his collection.

The thing is we’re not going to know which case is which without a wait and see approach! Stu and Jerry REALLY need to collaborate and make sure that these animals get optimal care and are given the opportunity to recover because the implication if they fail are a lot bigger for Jerry’s collection than having to refund Stu’s $3100. Maybe some here are happy about that and are hoping for the worst but I’m not one of them. I’m a bit at a loss as to why there is such a rush to judgment by people who know full well what the implications are. Love or hate Jerry I can’t imagine wanting to see his collection put down unless it is absolutely necessary. I 100% guarantee if the shoe was on the other foot Mitch would all be taking a wait and see approach too. That the situation is characterized here as “recklessly irresponsible” is premature and suspect.

BTW, yes Jerry and I are friends. When it comes to herps, like many of us he’s guilty of being enthusiastic to a fault and subject to impulse control problems. As a New Yorker he’s brutally direct which can be unsettling but he’s never been anything but up front and generous with me.

Tony-Not sure why you are stuck on the "dehydration" issue. It is not dehydration. Did you see the pics I posted of their enclosures? If it was a dehydration I think maybe I would see this condition in at least a few of the 200 + other snakes in my collection. Secondly you and a few others keep referring to 2 weeks being ample time for the problem to be caused ny me. I received them on Dec 6. The first one started showing signs of this skin issue within a few days but went into the blue on Dec 16. I had no idea what was wrong at that time as it had only been a few days. I thought dehydration or some affect from the cold during shipment. But since it ate a few time and went into the blue I thought maybe it would shed out. It shed on Dec 20 and that's when I knew I had a problem as it looked worse and called Jerry. So 2 weeks may be when I contacted Jerry but not when the problem began. Hope this clears up the timeline a little.

One thing I WILL begin implementing into practice is taking dated photographs of any animals just before I ship them. Not that I am discrediting you Stu -- again, this is not to fault or lay blame as that's not what we're here to do.....I'm just saying that because I don't want others to think I sent animals in that condition. I have not nor would I ever. Again, I'm so sorry this happened on your end and I wish you could be just as content as the fella who got the other babies who updates me twice monthly on their progress (which he reports are in perfect condition and thriving well). Maybe we could try this once again later this year but with the sinaloae you expressed interest in trading me. No money involved, yet perhaps a reparative experience all-around. Just food for thought. =)