RANT ALERT sorry but I - Page 6

I was not going to comment on this thread because i am not in the US and had no help to offer.

But what i don't understand is why not drag the sellers ass into the open. Why don't you hang someone out to dry whom has taken adventage of you when you were in your moments of most vulneralbility.

As a commercial GSD trainer chanses are that he/she is somewhere on this very site or at least visit.

The buyer has some culpability when they have been saving and planning to buy a dog for eight years. Breeding the dog before the papers are in hand, to 'help' the seller ? Seems like forking over 42 grand was 'help' enough for the seller. This story doesn't add up. I've personally known men who served in combat on the ground in wwll and Viet Nam. I personally knew two guys who were POWs for five yrs and eight yrs in Viet Nam, both of them spent time at the 'Hanoi Hilton'. Two of my brothers in law served multiple deployments in Viet Nam, one of my nephews was a marine guard at the us embassy in Saudi arabia when it was bombed. None of those guys talked openly to strangers about their experiences.

OP, did you have a contract with the seller? If so, was there an agreement about registration?

In his defence, Freddy may not have told the dog breeder/seller of his state of mind at the time of purchase; like Joan says, not everybody wants to tell the world they are suffering (from either a family loss or PTSD or anything else major) - although that no longer seems to apply ! But if he didn't say he was in a state of confusion/anguish (maybe he thought the seller might refuse to let him have the dog ?) and if it was not obvious from Freddy's demeanor, then they can hardly be accused of exploiting it, can they ?  Of course, other parts of the sale, like misrepresentation, possible dog-swapping, charging a ridiculous price etc do still apply !
However, since he has spilt it all on here, they can no longer be in any doubt, assuming they do read this website, or contribute to it. It would be nice if they would come forward and identify themselves ... but failing that, yes I agree we should be told.

Seems the op's main complaint was NOT that he overpaid for the dog ( if this is even a real story) but that the owner of the female the op bred the dog to is planning to sue the op for no papers on the litter. The amount he paid for the dog nor the quality of the dog were evidently an issue with the op, being as he said he bred the female 'to help out the seller/breeder' of the $42,000 dog.

His complaint is that the dog he agreed to buy is NOT the dog he received, that there was a switch between the time he looked at the dog, along with some other dogs at that kennel, and agreed to buy Dog A, and when he returned to take the dog home after the seller did some additional training with the dog...when he questioned the seller as to why the dog looked so, so different, the seller told him it had lost weight from all of the hard work it had been doing in training. As for the helping out of the seller, I THINK it may be a case where the seller either had a customer seeking stud service for their bitch, or sold an adult bitch to another party and part of that deal was that the bitch would be bred to the dog the OP had, or maybe any male, before going to the person who bought her.

It's not as if there aren't breeders out there who rope people in with 'foster home' schemes that benefit the breeder more than the person who does the 'fostering', or who sell a stud dog to someone, but use it to cover a bunch of bitches before the buyer takes possession [I think Helser did that to somebody, and wasn't there a thread this past winter re Alicia Jordan doing something along the same lines, with the same kind of outcome--unhappy bitch owners with litters that couldn't be registered because the person who collected the stud fee didn't have the rights to breed the dog to those females].

Call me a mushhead, but there's a sense of angst in the OP's posts that seems genuine to me, and there is no shortage of outfits that charge ridiculous prices for 'ultra-executive package personal protection/anti-terrorist attack K9s for elite individuals who want the best of the best' in the US, so the exorbitant sales price doesn't even strike me as completely impossible.

But if he had gotten the dog he thought he was buying, and the dog possessed all of the traits and training he was told he was getting, I don't think he'd have any issue with what he paid--the amount is more of a principal issue for him, I think...if you pay that much, you think you would actually get what you were paying for from someone who claims to be of such renown. I do agree that under the circumstances, might as well speak the name of kennel and the breeder--what's to lose, when you're going to need to go to court with it at the end of the day?

Right. Point is, he had eight years to research a breeder/broker for special ops dog. It isn't like, he saw an ad and on a whim said, hey I have $42,000 to blow, think I'll get this dog in the video. He said he'd been planning for years to get a dog like the ones he saw in special ops. Besides, if you're looking at b/r dogs, in videos, it'd be hard to tell its the same dog in person. Same for any other color.
It'd of been better if he'd of asked around before buying without researching. How many breeders have $42,000 stickers on their dogs? If he thought there was a switch, maybe he shouldn't have done the breeder a favor and bred the dog to someone else's female?

If he thought there was a switch, maybe he shouldn't have done the breeder a favour and bred the dog to someone else's female.

My sentiments exactly;  even if he'd by then got all the, apparently correct, paperwork on his dog - which he

apparently hadn't / still hasn't got.

Hund, agree.
Further, if the dog wouldn't perform per advertised, maybe the op needs to learn how to handle a 'special trained super expensive' special ops man stopper sky diving jumps out five story windows (sticks the landing once only) explosives detection dog.

 

I agree, the OP made alot of mistakes, we experienced  peolple would not have made.

The OP's emotions are all over the place in his second post, in witch he stressed on about the few threads he feld hurtful. Disregarding all the help and advise Hexe among others has offered. Also his constant use of capital letters witch is an equivalent of written shouting.

He said that he loved the dog so the switch is no longer an issue.

Should he have left with a 42 grant dog without the paperwork. No, we would not.

The owner of the female chose his dog as a stud because the dog came from this particular seller. This because the OP clearly has zip knowledge. There is no other conceivable reason for this choise.

Should he have bred the dog without papers? No, again we would not.

Bottomline remains the seller whom has the experience and knowledge sold a 42 grant dog without the proper paperwork.

Would any reponsible breeder/ seller do that, I don't think so.