quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been in the reptile industry for quite some time and have never heard anything bad abotu Neil's animals until this supposed incident.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob, Are you quite sure about that?
This has come up on a few different threads recently so I figured I'd address it here on this one...
Every individual has their own particular tolerance for what is and is not acceptable when it comes down to the health of an animal being sold or the track record of a seller when deciding if there's acceptable risk in doing business...
Live animals come with a certain inherent risk, an ingrained ability to develop health problems or die for any number of reasons, it's never good when it happens and over a certain amount (determined by the individual) it becomes unacceptable but... as someone said on another recent thread where this was brought up... Where do you draw the line when determining that the seller has poor quality animals? One animal with a health problem ever? Five out of thousands over a decade? More than 3%? 10%? It's a determination that has to be made by the individual who's thinking or purchasing of course and my definition of "Too many" might not be equal to someone else's.
Everyone who deals over a certain volume (and I'm certainly not one of 'em) will eventually have something they have sold develop a health problem or die... it happens and it's inevitable. Pretty much all of the people who regularly post here who can be considered bigger names or more recognizable as having expertise (weather they admit it or not) will verify this, I am certain... Heck, some of these stories of individual animals are here on the board itself...
I've always been far more of a customer than a dealer, having made very few sales, mostly locally and to friends, but my personal feelings have always been based more off how a dealer handles the situation than the fact that it happened once or twice. If the situation is resolved to the satisfaction of the participants, or a solution is proffered that I (as a personal determination) feel was appropriate, it doesn't give me a bad impression, quite the opposite... It makes me trust them more, because I know they'll take care of me if that rare problem occurs...
There are people who most of us would label as having low quality animals because of the volume of problems... there are those most of us would label as not being worth dealing with because of problems on both ends of sales in terms of how they conduct themselves...
There are also people who the opinion of the masses will be far more split on in that breakdown of "good guy" and "bad guy" determinations.
In this instance, I can recall that there have been a few problems with Neil's animals before, although I can't tell you what it was... But I can't recall any instances of the situation not being resolved in a positive manner (this thread an obvious exception). This might be an oversight in my memory, but the impression I formed was favorable... My personal thought is that a few problems in a few years is really only to be expected when dealing over a certain volume and I get the impression that Neil does enough business to qualify as a reasonable volume (he does this to make a living, so he's obviously supporting himself).
How many of the bigger name breeders/dealers on here could say they have
never had a problem with animal health after shipping? If they can, I would wager they had an enormous amount of luck up until this point.
Since I mentioned that a positive resolution excuses the rare problem and that solution has obviously not been found here, I will express my opinion... I feel that Neil offered an acceptable resolution but that it was rejected, not because it was unreasonable, but because the buyer isn't stable mentally... A harsh analysis of this situation perhaps, but a history of identical problems has been identified...
Neil offered a refund if the animal was shipped back immediately OR if proof was offered that return shipping would represent a significant danger to the animal's health, paid upon the return and verification that the animal was identical...
The buyer refused to send the animal back and further refused to provide evidence or proof of any kind that the animal shipped was unhealthy in any manner, demanding a refund be sent before the return of the animal. The buyer then went on to have the animal treated (or treated it himself?) without the permission of the seller. Since the buyer supposedly had every intention of returning the animal for a refund, it was not his decision to make and as has been said, I feel that the second he treated it in his home, he bought it.
I might add that there has been no evidence of any kind provided that this animal arrived ill... no pictures, no vet report, nothing but the word of the buyer. While i hesitate to call them an outright liar (I already did a few pages back), I will say that this person has damaged their own credibility way beyond what I personally see as being someone who is believable when they make ANY statements, the refusal to the initial polite requests to provide evidence just re-enforces that, he's apparently a business owner and filthy stinking rich, he should be able to at least send some pictures, I'm dirt poor and I could manage that much at least.
General points being...
Everyone has their own line that they draw after which they avoid a seller because of reputations for poor animal health...
Neil hasn't crossed mine as a personal matter yet, because I acknowledge that it's an unavoidable situation... to a point. I haven't seen anything saying that 90% (hyperbole here) of his animals are sick or dying. A couple a year when thousands are dealt with is something I see as perfectly acceptable and even unavoidable.
