 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Contact Sales! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Mr. D on February 19, 2003 at 14:47:55:
In Reply to: READ THIS posted by DANA456 on February 19, 2003 at 13:34:45:
If there was already a previous fire in the same location then it most certainly IS open for debate. According to the article that I read, the animals in questions were only beginning to recover from the previous incident of smoke inhalation etc, when this fire took place. Having already subjected their animals to ONE life threatening incident I would have thought that the owners would be concerned enough for their animals to take appropriate preventative measures to ensure that there would be no repeat incident. Add to that that I personally think that it is a bad move to keep "personal" animals on the same premises that house "retail" animals for several reasons. Bottom line - if they had taken appropriate preventative measures to protect the animals that they were selling they just might have had fewer losses - but then again, I would suspect that business insurance, if they had any, would cover their "inventory". Answers most likely won't be forthcoming until after a complete investigation. And, judging from the tone of the article, the majority of the animals were so traumatized/injured that they aren't expected to survive much longer. If this were something other than a retail pet store that had suffered the loss I would feel a bit differently for the situation. But, as the article also mentioned, the owners have plenty of breeding stock left at their home.
