Latest news with #petOwnership
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
My toy cockapoo grew into a giant beast: What owners must know before buying designer dogs that are meant to be just 10-inches tall
There's no feeling that quite compares to bringing home a pet pooch for the first time - but some owners have got a lot more dog more than they bargained for. People who splurged hefty sums to purchase a miniature Cockapoo - the designer dog crossbred from the Cocker Spaniel and the Poodle - have ended up with a huge canine lumbering around the house. Miniature cockapoos are specifically bred with toy poodles so that, in theory, they are small in size. Adult dogs are meant to be 10-12 inches tall and weigh 10-12lbs, but instead of having a small, teddy-bear lookalike, a string of owners have been left with huge dogs weighing several stone. When UK-born Kitty Morse, who now lives in the Netherlands, purchased a black cockapoo from a breeder in Cheshire, she expected a medium-sized fluffy dog. The pooch was advertised as a 'Gorgeous F1 all black Cockapoo puppy', alongside two snaps of the adorable pooch. However, the dog, though he's no less adorable, quickly transformed into a canine triple the size with wavy hair. Similarly, TikTok user Ria, 21, who goes by @jazzmariax, wanted a 'small' dog and so settled on purchasing a cockapoo. Fast forward seven months later, and the pooch was the quadruple its size at the time of purchase. 'They said he was going to stay small,' the content creator added in the post's caption. Elsewhere, owners Liam Griffin and Tiffany Kingdon, from Coventry, purchased 'miniature cockapoo' Winnie for £2,000, and expected her to weight no more than stone. At the time of purchase, Winnie was 11 weeks old and weighed 4.6kg, but soon enough, she defied the couple's expectations and grew to a whopping 32kg by the time she was just one. Liam told The Sun, 'We love her to bits but it's a good job we've got a house with a garden. I don't know why the breeder passed her off as a miniature dog. It was very irresponsible.' The breeder's blunder didn't appear to be so innocent either. Liam added, 'The guy asked us to send him some pictures but when we tried, they just bounced back. It seems he used a burner phone for the sale of the litter of pups and then moved on.' After speculating over Winnie's breed, Liam and Tiffany settled on a DNA test, which revealed her to not be a miniature cockapoo at all, but a Poodle and a Irish Setter Cross. Meanwhile, Charlotte Fallowfield appeared on This Morning earlier this week to tell the story of how she got her hands on her sweet pooch Waffle. She was over the moon when she brought home her miniature cockapoo puppy, but as soon as he started growing, alarm bells started to ring - and she soon realised that he wasn't the breed that they originally wanted. Charlotte expected Waffle to weight six to 11kg and 25 to 38cm tall. But Waffle - who is a Sproodle - weighs between 22 to 32kg and is 45 to 55cm in height. A Sproodle is a mix between a Springer Spaniel and a Poodle. Charlotte told the presenters: 'Due to my allergies, I wanted one that was slightly hypoallergenic, one that was small enough that he wouldn't injure me, we saw him advertised online and went to meet him and just fell in love with him straight away.' Co-host Ben Shepard asked, 'You did think something was a little bit off, didn't you?' Charlotte explained: 'We asked to see him with the mother and puppies, we weren't given that chance.
ABC News
20-05-2025
- ABC News
Baby crocodile seized from fish tank after alleged poaching from wild
A baby saltwater crocodile seized from a fish tank in a far north Queensland home was intended to be kept as a pet, state authorities say. Queensland Parks and Wildlife senior conservation officer Daniel Guymer said a man in his mid-20s allegedly found the hatchling late last year in a river at Mossman, about 75 kilometres north of Cairns, and took it home. "He believed it was struggling to swim with an injury," Mr Guymer said. "His heart was probably in the right place." The croc is estimated to be less than a year old. Mr Guymer said he understood that the Cairns man had intended to keep the crocodile in a fish tank as a pet in the inner-city unit he shared with others. "That crocodile would have quickly outgrown its enclosure." Police were tipped off about the crocodile — which was in an enclosure half a metre wide by 1 metre long — and rangers confiscated the animal on May 16. The man was given 28 days to pay a $2,419 fine. Mr Guymer said the man was remorseful once the legislation was explained. He said the crocodile had been surviving on supermarket meats and "the odd lizard". The 35-centimetre crocodile has been moved to a far north Queensland zoo as its months-long captivity would have posed too many potential health risks to the local croc population if released. Keeping crocodiles as domestic pets is largely prohibited across the country, except in Victoria and the Northern Territory where they can be kept under strict conditions. Queensland prohibits the practice but Charlene, a 62-year-old croc that's been with the Casey family her entire life, is one of the exceptions. Proserpine sugar cane grower John Casey, 63, has a grandfathered permit that will last Charlene's life. The 3-metre-long croc famously bit the hand that fed her when she chomped off Mr Casey's late father's hand during feeding. "She knows me, and I know her moods." Charlene was left to Mr Casey in his father's will, and she is also specified in his own will for his wife and children to inherit. Mr Casey said to protect the reptile's welfare and reduce the risk of poaching he supported the legislation disallowing crocodiles as pets. "As they get bigger they get more dangerous," he said. He says Charlene has plenty of light, shade and room in her large enclosure. He stays safe by refusing to enter the enclosure and stays away during egg-laying. "She has her instincts," he said. "My fingers are on one side of the fence and she's on the other."
CTV News
07-05-2025
- CTV News
Saskatchewan court rules on ‘custody' dispute over dog following breakup
Typically, a custody battle is reserved for familial disputes, but a furry friend recently became the subject of a decision in Saskatchewan provincial court. According to a decision handed down May 1, 'Charlie,' a Pug/Boston Terrier cross, was purchased jointly by a Regina couple for $800 in 2017. The two were in a common law relationship at the time and split the cost of the pet. There was some dispute in court over how that transaction took place. The plaintiff, who was seeking either the dog or $400 to cover his side of the purchase, presented a 'documentation package' that recorded the buyers' names in handwriting, listing both. But the defendant filed a different version of the document, listing only her name and signature. 'I am satisfied, as [the plaintiff] has conceded in direct-examination, that he had doctored the original contract by adding his name and signature well after the dog was purchased, and that he did so in an effort to try to convince this court that the contract would prove that each of them were joint purchasers,' the decision said. 'This manipulation of the document was unnecessary.' The judge factored the doctored document as eroding the credibility of the plaintiff when it came to other evidence presented in the case, along with finding the plaintiff 'not completely frank and forthright in the answers he gave to some of the questions posed.' Initially following their split in 2021, the pair entered into a written agreement to 'alternate having possession of Charlie' for a six-week trial period. The plaintiff said the signing was voluntary, while the defendant said the other would refuse to allow her to visit or have occasional possession of the dog if she didn't sign, a version of events corroborated by her brother. 'In addition, both of them asserted, and the plaintiff conceded, that he had occasion to become violent and lose his temper, and this type of behaviour is, in my view, consistent with the defendant and her brother's recollection of the events on that day,' the decision said. 'Simply put, I do believe that his proclivity to violent outbursts and physical behavior lends credence to the suggestion that he might also be the type of person who may threaten access to the animal.' The agreement held until 2024, when the defendant told the plaintiff she would no longer be bound by the agreement given a series of personal struggles the plaintiff was dealing with at the time. 'She further noted that she was concerned that the plaintiff was vehemently against vaccinations for the dog,' the decision said. The judge said none of the concerns besides the vaccination issue, which the defendant is 'adamantly opposed to', made the plaintiff any less entitled to ownership and possession of the dog. 'Were he granted exclusive possession and ownership of Charlie and followed through with his anti-vaccine approach to Charlie's care, this nonfeasance/misfeasance could cause illness or death not only to Charlie, but to animals and humans which come into contact with him,' the judge said. Despite the plaintiff's wishes against the vaccines, the dog was vaccinated for rabies, Bordetella and Distemper, Adenovirus, Parainfluenza, and Parvovirus (DAPP). The plaintiff's counsel advised the judge the plaintiff would abide by a court order to keep Charlie's vaccines up to date, but the judge was not prepared to issue an order that could not be enforced. In the decision, the judge acknowledged that while the courts 'fully understand and appreciate the extreme affection that dog owners have for their pets', but went on to clarify that 'a dog is a dog,' and is considered property under the law. As such, it does not get familial rights, despite the fact that many dogs are treated like family members. 'Any application of principles that the court might normally apply to the determination of custody of children are completely inapplicable to the disposition of a pet as family property,' the judge said. 'Any temptation to draw parallels between the court's approach in this case to the principles applied to settle child custody disputes must be rejected.' After all was considered, the judge ruled in favour of the defendant on possession of the dog, but did order the return of the $400 the plaintiff originally paid for the dog. The judge refused to award other costs, saying the defendant was 'ready, willing and able' to pay the $400, but was refused by the plaintiff. 'Had he done so, this action and the time and energy needed to prosecute it would not have been incurred,' the judge said. The defendant must pay the sum on or before June 13 or revert possession of Charlie to the plaintiff.
