Gwinnett.talk

By tray

September 18, 2007 7:56 AM | Link to this

My comment is simple-don’t own things that you can’t afford to take care of…ie:pets and children. If you can’t afford them and everything they require, you shouldn’t have them!

By jess

September 18, 2007 8:12 AM | Link to this

Too Little- Too Late If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck it’s most likely a duck. Can’t say I wouldn’t try to erase my image also if I were this vet but…….Too Little- Too Late

By GaLiberal

September 18, 2007 8:23 AM | Link to this

Reality check folks. A pet is property just like a car or a lawnmower. If you have your car or lawnmower fixed and refuse to pay the bill, the shop can legally hold the car/mower. Same thing with a pet. It is not being ‘held hostage’ and the vet isn’t a terrible person. He’s a businessman who’s trying to get paid for services rendered.

I have a dog who I love very much, but I would have to think twice before spending over $1,000 for treatment when I can get a replacement for

By cara

September 18, 2007 8:27 AM | Link to this

The fact of the matter is that Pilot’s owner agreed to pay a set amount. Innocent increased that amount by $974. This guy fails to understand that point. It doesn’t matter whether this dog was vaccinated or not. What if the dog was sick after being vaccinated? It doesn’t really matter. What matters is that this doctor is trying to force this owner to pay boarding fees that weren’t agreed upon in the beginning.

Dr. Innocent, you’re a moron. You reep what you sow. Give the guy his dog back and shut up. The best you can do now is to just go away. FOREVER!!!

By cara

September 18, 2007 8:43 AM | Link to this

We still don’t like you Dr. Innocent!!!

By navy10767

September 18, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

I adopted a dog 2 1/2 years ago. Someone had tossed her in a garbage can to be trashed with the Monday pickup. The area was rural and all the cans were brought to a central collection area. It was in July and 90+ temps. She was covered with maggots and dehydrated. And only 6 weeks old. Today she is the best watchdog and protector out of all 3 of my dogs.

If you can’t afford to vaccinate and take care of your pet, you shouldn’t have gotten one in the first place. Face it people, pets are expensive, and from what I have read, the owner has not done his maintenance (vaccinations, heart worm pills etc.)

I disagree with the vet proposing. pay or pound. I find that reprehensible. I can agree that something should be done, but sending it to the pound? I can’t agree with that. Most end up euthanized. Would that not just be throwing away his work and money?

I know it cost a lot to treat the dog. Could the guy maybe do payments?

By Shirley

September 18, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this

Let the owner make payments on the bill - animals well being should come first - not money - sending the dog to the pound is unthinkable - pets should not have to suffer because owners can not afford vets HUGE bills - set up payment arrangements and do the best you can for the dog!!!!

By Getitright

September 18, 2007 9:14 AM | Link to this

The pet owner can pay a lawyer, but can’t pay the vet who treated his dog for an illness caused by the owner’s negligence and other pet owners support his failure to take care of his pet. Gee, I hope he doesn’t have any kids. Otherwise, he might need more more for his lawyer.

By catlady

September 18, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this

As an animal lover (I have rescued and spayed/neutered about 40 animals myself) I feel for the pet. However, I feel for the vet as well. It seems to be a situation where the young man is living well beyond his means and wants someone else to pay for it (borrowing money from girlfriend and boss, and wanting to skip the rest of the payment for the animal he brought in as his). For the vet, I think you can multiply this case times 100 for perspective. I suspect the vet doubts he will EVER get the rest of the money, no matter what arrangements he makes with the young man. The young man should be working two jobs if he cannot afford the luxury of pet ownership, or else give the animal up. Pets, when well, are very expensive!

I have been in a similar situation needing care I could not afford with a vet, who has been kind about letting me make payments for a few months. However, I had a good job and long history with the vet of responsible pet ownership, so that helped. In the end, if the vet could not have extended me those terms, I would have had to have the animal put down, as a responsible adult sometimes has to do.

By Tater Tot

September 18, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this

You have got to be kidding. This is a waste of legislative time. YOu give the anamil a treatment to save the damn thing’s life then send it to the pound to die, good deal. So where is the reasoning here. Did the owner agree to the treatment or not. If you then the bills on you, if they did then you can repo the dog and hold it for ransom. Man what a waste of time.

By Anonymous

September 18, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this

Sounds like a reasonable proposal to me. Irresponsible pet owners should pay the price for their actions—the blameless pets should not.

Sorta like bad parenting. If you can’t raise your kid, he goes to a better home.

By Stan

September 18, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

Something stinks about this story…I’m just not sure if it’s the Vet or the Owner.

Oh and the registration of all pets…no thank you. There is enough government control in my life as it is.

By Rod

September 18, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

The owner of the dog should be prosecuted. He took the dog in for an expensive treatment with no intention of paying for it. He just figured if he makes a big enough stink about it, he’ll get the dog back and won’t have to pay.

He should be charged with fraud.

By johnnyB

September 18, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

what is wrong with this guy.

where is his heart for the good of the dog and the owner. The owner took out a loan to pay the 1000 dollars, then found out there would be kennel fees.

Come on. Keeping the dog and nursing it to health shouldnt be added on to someone’s bill unexpectedly.

What kind of a greedy vet is this guy.

You can stand on principal all day, but what about helping people in need.

Get a grip and release the dog to its owner.

Do the right thing.

By Starr

September 18, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Oh please. Dr. Innocent doesn’t need a legislation change to make a PAYMENT PLAN available to a guy who has already paid over 1100 bucks towards his dogs care.

Dr. Innocent (har) is just an assh@t who is reaping a TON of negative publicity and is trying to find an excuse for calling a client a “twit.” How professional. It matches perfectly with his office staff calling the story and the owner “full of crap” - which the woman did, to me, on the phone - and not accepting donations towards the bill. Sorry Doc…you suck.

By Dog Owner

September 18, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

Hey, the dog’s owner didn’t even have him vaccinated and he wants to point fingers? What an a$$!

By Atlantan

September 18, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

This vet has irritated me from the beginning. While I understand that bills need to be paid, adding fees after the original bill was paid is bad business. Yes, it would be much better if the owner would not be broke, and actually pay the bill and be done with it. But this vet’s defensive argument is hysterical. For the record, requiring pet registration wouldn’t solve anything. We’d have more strays and more animals in the pound because people wouldn’t be able to afford to own their pets. Also, the Parvo vaccine that he speaks of takes 6-8 months to start protecting the puppy. So, after you spend the money for the puppy to be vaccinated, for 6-8 months s/he can still get Parvo. That’s not a vaccine, that’s a waste. Treat your puppy the way you would treat a baby to prevent disease- Wash your hands and keep him out of public places where the disease is rampant. Innocent is not so innocent.

By Shirley

September 18, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

How could a vet even think of sending a person’s pet to the dog pound. Make payment arrangements with the owner - but don’t send the puppy to it’s death - the poor dog should not be punished because the owner can not pay a huge vet bill all at once. Contact IMOM.org for help with paying the vet bill if you can not afford it - but don’t let the puppy suffer. There are way too many vets that worry about money before trying to save a pet. I have seen the emergency vets send sick pets away for as little as $50 owed. How could you??

By Jeff

September 18, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Why do these sheeple always run to Big Brother Government to bail them out of their problems??

We don’t need MORE government intrusion into our lives. We need LESS!!!!

By Michael Wilder

September 18, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

PetFirst lost another customer when I read the article. The vet got over a thousand dollars - back down and take the loss. Innocent doesn’t see how much money he and his business are losing over his uncaring attitude?

By Former Client

September 18, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

We have used Dr. Innocent from the time he was located in Doraville. He has changed since his move to the more prosperous Duluth area. Recently, we took our pet to Dr. Innocent’s clinic for the same service that had been provided in Doraville and the fee was $25 more. Even his staff is more aloof. Return Pilot to his owner and just dismiss them as clients. Dr. Innocent there are other solutions !!!

By Jeffrey

September 18, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

He clearly saved the dog’s life. He is entitled to the $974.00. If the owners couldn’t afford it, they should have surrendered the animal to someone that could help it.

By Garry Mengele

September 18, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

The vet has gotten bad publicity because his position is a reprehensible one. His customer paid approximately $1100 of a $1625 bill. He refused to release the pet after accepting the partial payment and had the audacity to charge boarding fees when HE is the one responsible for generating the additional costs, which have run up the previous balance of $400 to in excess of $900.

It may take Judge Solomon to dispense justice, but the owner certainly has $1100 worth of equity in the dog.

Couple that with the vet’s veiled threat to “dispose” of the dog if he didn’t get his additional thousand bucks.

No wonder the “Innocent” dr. is waging a p.r. blitz to save his business!

By zombieboy

September 18, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

Gee, “Dr.” Innocent sounds like O.J……”I wuz set up!!”

Deflecting attention from the real problem, his unwillingness to at the very least work out a deal.

So, “Dr.” Innocent has the money been worth all the negative attention and spotlight on your personal character?

He has damaged his career beyond repair.

By CutiePie

September 18, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

See what happens when all of you so called “animal lovers” jump on the bandwagon before all the FACTS are out and on the table!!! You hear the word pound, and automatically think death! While yes sadly millions of animals are euthanized every year in this country it is because so many IRRESPONSIBLE pet owners (and I sure many of you “pet lovers” are guilty of this) DON’T GET THEIR PET SPAYED OR NEUTERED!!! So we have all of these unwanted animals that get euthanized unnecessarily! While pets are wonderful, they are in fact a luxury, a luxury that requires a GREAT deal of responsibility which also includes proper health care to ward of many viruses and diseases. Lets not forget that this disease Parvo is completely preventable!! Had this pet owner whom everyone feels so sorry for been responsible in the first place and properly vaccinated his puppy he never would have had a bill that is now over $1000 for treatment!! You “animal lovers” seem to forget that!!! Not properly vaccinating and spaying/neutering your pet is neglect!!! So you people need to educate yourselves before you jump to conclusions. Dr. Innocent is a wonderful vet, and if you uneducated people think otherwise because some 22-year-old KID is trying to sell a sob story so he doesn’t have to own up to HIS responsibilities, then maybe you should look yourself in the mirror and ask “are you a responsible pet owner?”

By A

September 18, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

So not true. I took my dog for vaccinations and he came down with the Parvo Virus anyways. Because I knew I couldn’t afford the Vet bill I took my dog home and took care of him myself. I’m happy to say I had 10 more years with him.

By Jane

September 18, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

So the vet saved the pet—that the owner brought in for treatment—and now wants to send the dog to the pound because the owner can not pay $974 vet bill. And the pound is obligated to either adopt it out or put it to sleep. Excuse me that is not politically correct—bottom line the dog will be DEAD.

The vet knew the owner could not afford the bill—the owner couldn’t afford the vaccinations. This pet belongs to someone and the vet needs to give it back. The dog owner had you treat his pet—The vet does not have the right to hold the pet hostage and all he is doing is running up a higher vet bill by keeping the dog on the premises. He has NO RIGHT to give the dog to the pound as the owner has not abandoned the dog and wants him back.

Many people can not afford large bills in lump sum payments—why not make payment arrangements? Seems as if the vet is trying to make a point regarding his political motives for animal rights—And to the Vet I say Please put your priorities in order—As long as Children in this country do not have health insurance, go to bed at night hungry and at times do not have a roof over their heads—your energy would be better served in this arena than trying to make “pet wards” to give then better protection under the law.

You seriously need to reevaluate your priorities.

By SUZAN

September 18, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

iF HE LOVES DOGS SO MUCH LET HIM SET UP A PAYMENT PLAN WITH THE OWNER OF THE DOG. THAT WAY THE DOG GETS TO GO HOME AND THE VET DOSENT LOOK LIKE A NBASTY VILLIAN. VET PRICES HAVE GOTTEN SO OUT OF LINE THAT MOST PEOPLE STRUGGLE TO CARE FOR THERE PETS NOW.

SAD SAD SAD

By KEITH

September 18, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

HE PROBLY A WITE MAN AN KAN GIT AWAY WIT KILLIN DOGS WONDER HOW MANY HE KILT I SAY GIT VICK BACK TO PLAYIN SO DA FALCONS KIN GO TO WINNIN AGIN AN VICK BE GOIN FO DA RING NOE WHUT IM SAYIN

By KEITH

September 18, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

HE PROBLY A WITE MAN AN CAN GIT AWAY WIT KILLIN DOGS WONDER HOW MANY HE KILT WHUT WE NEED TO DO IS GIT VICK BACK TO PLAYIN SO DA FALCONS BE WINNIN AGIN AN VICK BE GOIN FO DAT RING NOE WHUT IM SAYIN

By scott

September 18, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

The AJC painted a negative picture of the vet. I agreed with his stance, the owner needed to pay up. All the negative comments he received last week were unnecessary; if everyone who was so concerned donated $5, the bill would have been paid for.

By Robert Davis

September 18, 2007 6:29 PM | Link to this

Pilot is home with Mr. Gomez. PetFIRST 24 staff, Arthur stated Mr. Gomez paid his balance a few moments ago. (http://www.petfoodtales.com)

By felicia

September 18, 2007 10:31 PM | Link to this

Why couldn’t the vet work out something with the owner? Such as reasonable payments? A pet is not an object. A pet, most of the time, is a family member. Why couldn’t the vet show some kindness?

By Tiony

September 18, 2007 10:55 PM | Link to this

It amazes the amount of you that dont know how to read and arent that bright. The kid showed up to pick up his dog with $1158,thats a very odd number to come up with if your planning on not paying the bill and given no quote.When will you wake up obviously he was given a price that wasn’t honored.Come on people think for once in your lives. So when you go somewhere and the bill is different then what you were quoted you just pay the amount like sheep? Very sad. I have three dogs, they do nothing to my dogs without giving me the price first. The only surprises I want are on my bday.

By tiony

September 18, 2007 11:01 PM | Link to this

typo the kid showed up with $1152.

By Jonny

September 18, 2007 11:34 PM | Link to this

The first night josh brought the dog in, the vet tested him for the disease. He then refused to treat the animal until he had recieved payment in full, while at the same time telling josh that the dog was not stable enough to be moved to another vet’s office, such as one who would allow a payment schedule to be made. In effect, he told the dogs owner that as a vet, he would rather watch a dog die than try and meet a customer’s financial needs. I’ve seen several people say don’t get a dog if you can’t afford it, but that’s b******. Don’t become a vet if you value money over life. Cheers, Innocent. Hope the 972 bucks was worth your integrity you f*** hack.

By Dr. Innocent

September 19, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this

Mike Vick is my hero.

By hedidit

September 21, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

Keith said “HE PROBLY A WITE MAN AN CAN GIT AWAY WIT KILLIN DOGS WONDER HOW MANY HE KILT WHUT WE NEED TO DO IS GIT VICK BACK TO PLAYIN SO DA FALCONS BE WINNIN AGIN AN VICK BE GOIN FO DAT RING NOE WHUT IM SAYIN”

You had to bring up race. FYI, Dr. Innocent is black. What’s your point?PS - Screw Vick!

By hedidit

September 21, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

By the way, Keith, in addition to you being a racist thug, you’re also very dumb. Over 20 misspelled words. Forget about football and go back to school. Idiot

By George S Ellington

September 23, 2007 4:53 AM | Link to this

It is not fair to punish the poor dog because the owner can not afford to pay additional fees he was not told about up front about! I too would like to see every person who reads this paper today send $5.00 to this crooked vet who seems to have forgotten his Hippocratic Oath and set up a payment plan with the man who owns the dog so his friend can be returned to him! After all he has already showed that he can be reliable by paying the original fee! Why subject the poor dog to being euthanized because the owner is strapped for cash! Put your self in the owner’s shoes!

By cheryl love

September 23, 2007 6:41 PM | Link to this

Enough trashing Garry Innocent. He has been my veterinarian for the last 6 years. He is a smart, caring individual. Your one sided reporting of Pilot the dog is unfair. My animals have had the BEST OF CARE on every visit to his clinic. My 18 year old cat had to be put to sleep last May. Dr. Innocent’s compassion for the cat and me made that difficult process bareable.