Breeder Rights? Breeder Greed? - Page 8

Beetree,  what I meant by this is most of the breeders I know have lists of perspective people who have contacted them looking for either a rescuse or a dog that needs to be rehomed.  I even have a list of a number of people in this catagory.  These are people who cannot afford the purchse price of a puppy becuase they can be expensive but that does not mean they are not going ot be a good homes for some dogs.  Most families who have a dog do not have this available to them and these are the dogs that end up on craigs list, in shelters or in the back of a car at the local walmarts trying to get rid of them.  I would rather a puppy I have bred for any reason to come back to me rather then a family who has a problem with the dog trying to find a home for them and that would include one that had cancer and needed to be treated.  I never got into this to make money, I got in it becuase I love my breed and the minute I made the decision to have my first litter I also took on the responibility og maybe having to one take take them back for what ever reason.  I use the same criteria for a rescue or a dog that is returned to be rehome as I do  when I sell a puppy.  Personally I find it unethical to say that once you sell a puppy its the new owners responsibility after that to find a home for that puppy if they decide its not the right dog for them or becuase it might have health issuses.

PS:  In the origional comments the person was refering to whether the owner of a returned dog that has a title should be compenstated by claiming the dog has more value then it did as a puppy becuase it has titles.  First if the owner wanted to get rid of the dog after it was titled  then I would say there is something wrong with the owner and not the breeder. And if the breeders were required somehow to have to compensate an owner becuase he had put a title on the dog then decided there was something wrong with the dog that could turn into one heck of a busines for people who buy puppies.  It would be like my Boy who is a Grand Champion and is a certified service dog, his value would be a lot to a disabled person who needed his expertise.  If I got tired of him and decided to rehome him with that thought in mind would it be ethical of me to expect the breeder to compensate me his value becuase I no longer want him but I know the owner has a  guarantee to take back their puppies.  I think not.  Just my opinion of course. Steve

I'm a breeder AND a buyer.  I've signed "contracts" for puppies that I've purchased, just as I have "contracts" for my own puppy buyers....(Kim from JustK9's has a return clause/I bought a puppy from her).....I'm also considering an up-coming litter from a breeder on this forum...I know she has a return clause as well.
I would never create a contract that I (myself) would not be willing to agree on...IF..I were the buyer.
I would rather see a "buy back, re-home, return or right of first refusal" clause,  in a contract from a breeder...than a contract that basically says...*you buy/good bye*.
again...JMO

So many posts since I checked this thread last. Rather than go bit by bit and respond individually, I'll just say this to those who think a breeder is somehow infringing on your rights if they give a rat's @$$ about their dogs and want them back should a catastrope occur:

Do you honestly, seriously believe that a breeder who cares enough to put endless time and effort into correctly matching you with as close to a perfect puppy as they can provide, would really sell a dog and say "thanks for the money, have a nice life" ???  No; people who are like that tend to be like that in all aspects, so the caring and perfectionism doesn't stop w/the check. So, you want a great dog w/a great ped. and great temperament, as well as nearly perfect conformation, pigment, movement, dentition, etc. out of very high quality parents that cost a fortune to own and to breed to, but you expect that same person who goes to those lengths to have no feelings of wanting to protect the living, breathing, results of their work? Oh, and let's not forget that you want a guarantee second to none and a breeder who will work with you whether it's been 12mos. or 12 years since you bought the dog/commodity.

If you want to buy a subpar pup that no one cares about so it can be yours and yours alone, there are literally millions of breeders willing to oblige you. However, good luck finding the same puppy you'd get from someone like me (yes, I will say my puppies are damn nice) or Robin or any of the others who want to know what happens to their dogs from one of those people who change their number once you cash the check. It's simply not a realistic expectation. You want a dog that good, you have to be logical and realize that you're not the only one who will care about it. They are not pens or sweaters. The law cannot force me to view them as such. Truthfully, I wouldn't even sell a dog to someone I really thought I needed a contract with. But then, I turn down more people than I approve these days and it's just getting worse. From a breeder's standpoint, do you really think WE need to deal w/this "shite" as RS says? I, personally, have better things to do than worry about the defenseless puppy I sold to what might be a callous person who won't look out for his/her best interests for life. I have lots of other stuff to worry about, so I just choose to tell those buyers I don't have anything for them.

Notice that the dog's best interest is the motivation here...not stealing dogs out of happy homes that their owner left them in upon a medical emergency. If a dog was kenneled and the person died on vacation or in surgery or something like that, I would be doing what Molly is doing, if not worse, lol. But they are in a happy home w/someone who loves them and someone they know. Lots of people don't have anyone and the dogs COULD/WOULD end up in a shelter w/out breeder intervention. This situation is not a good situation to gauge the worthiness of breeder contracts on; there are clearly other motives at work here.

 

Do any of you sell a puppy or dog that is  seriously started in obedience training,  dog sport ,SAR, showring,ect.  for the same amount as an 8 week old puppy? If  not, then why would you expect someone else to do so. I know some of you have your contracts in place for the right reasons, but that doesn't mean that everyone does. If you trust me enough to sell me a puppy then I expect you to trust me enough to know I'll do the right thing for the puppy or dog. Taking back a dog with health problems and placing it in a home that could not afford to puchase a pup outright doesn't make any sense to me either.


PS: In the origional comments the person was refering to whether the owner of a returned dog that has a title should be compenstated by claiming the dog has more value then it did as a puppy becuase it has titles. First if the owner wanted to get rid of the dog after it was titled then I would say there is something wrong with the owner and not the breeder. And if the breeders were required somehow to have to compensate an owner becuase he had put a title on the dog then decided there was something wrong with the dog that could turn into one heck of a busines for people who buy puppies. It would be like my Boy who is a Grand Champion and is a certified service dog, his value would be a lot to a disabled person who needed his expertise. If I got tired of him and decided to rehome him with that thought in mind would it be ethical of me to expect the breeder to compensate me his value becuase I no longer want him but I know the owner has a guarantee to take back their puppies. I think not. Just my opinion of course. Steve       Yes,in this instance there is something wrong with the original owner, he or she is deceased, hardly any fault of their own. You seem to think a person can wave a magic wand and put a title on a dog, thus making lots of money selling it back to the breeder, seriously do you beleive that. So if your Grand Champion certified service dog is worth a lot of money to a disabled person,  you would sell it back to the breeder for less money simply because they bred it.
 l
I agree completely with Wanda.

Thank you Robin and Jenni and others who obviously can read English and who understand the breeder's point of view - I am only running in/out today as it is a holiday weekend and I have a very full boarding kennel, not made easier by the 16 rescued dogs that are taking up a lot of space here.  So I'm working today and hope to make time to track my dogs, do obedience with Bandit, run out to TSC to get a new fence charger as my 3 year old colt is once again looking at "the grass on the other side of the fence" - never ending job here as always for this greedy money-grubber breeder person LOLOLOL

I'll try to explain "the other side of the story" to the morons who always like to chip in on these threads - from the breeder's point of view, later.

molly

Right now I own two intact male dogs that I purchased as puppies, different lines and different breeders.  Both I have full registration.  One did not come with a contract, so presumably I can do whatever I want.  If something happened to me, my husband would keep him (that wasn't always the case but I think my husband has grown to like him and the dog has settled down with training and maturity, he would be OK as an active house pet).  As long as I am alive and lucid I will never sell him because he is my favorite dog and I enjoy his company.  His value to me is as a companion, not a sport or breeding animal though he does have multiple conformation titles and working/sport titles.  He is intact but not a breeding dog and never will be.  The second dog did come with a contract that states if I decide not to keep the dog I must first offer him to the breeder at my price.  I don't have to give him back nor am I forced to receive his original purchase price.  I can determine the price and give the breeder the first opportunity to purchase the dog.  If something were to happen to me, my husband would return this dog to the breeder and likely would not ask for anything as without me around the breeder would be doing him the favor of taking the dog off his hands.

When I purchase a dog I require full registration and will not agree to jumping through hoops like I must x-ray with this vet at this age or obtain this title by this age.  I do not fault breeders that have these requirements, as so far all of the ones I have met that do only have their dogs' best interests at heart.  I just feel like what is mine is mine and any breeder who disagrees is not obligated to work with me or sell me a dog.  That said I am not a breeder myself and while I keep my dogs intact I am not purchasing dogs for breeding.  I x-ray my dogs at 6 months and then obtain OFA or a-stamp (or both) beyond that.  I earn conformation ratings and working/sport titles on all my GSDs.  They are my companions and we train and title in a dozen different sports.  I keep in touch with breeders so they are aware of the dogs' progress and have pictures.  There are some breeders I feel want to have too much control over dogs the bred and I have had to skip over a few breeders who had dogs I was genuiney interested in but such is life.  Again, I do not have anything against these people or their dogs, luckily this breed is popular enough where there plenty of breeders I can work with. 

I also am not that interested in health "guarantees" because for one no one can "guarantee" the health of an animal and two I would be the type of person that would have trouble returning a dog at 6+ months.  One of my dogs has two genetic problems (an overbite that never corrected and transitional vertebra with a bone spur that effects his movement) but it is what it is and I do not hold this against the breeder or expect the breeder to give me money or a new dog or anything.  If I wanted a "guarantee" I would not be owning dogs.  I try to do my best researching the lines of the dogs so I can predict any genetic problems.  I feel like at least in the USA we place too much responsibility on the breeder and the buyers don't want any accountability for obtaining a sound, healthy dog.  I feel sorry for good breeders, so often they are damned if they do and damned if they don't....

I think the topic has swayed more towards the idea of a  "breeder" wanting or demanding something for nothing....
This is NOT the intentions of some of us posting....

The *purpose* of a re-home, return, buy back or right of first refusal...is supposed to be for the buyer, dog & breeder's benefits equally.
It is intended to assist the buyer (when needed)...protect the puppy/dog (when warranted).....and allow continuous responsibility from the breeder (when required).

It has nothing to do with trying to "take" possession of sold dogs or puppies, from loving, caring homes. It also has nothing to do with trying to re-claim sold dogs (titled or not) from responsible homes, *without compensation*.....

I think (IMO)...the whole "idea" for the true, ethical reason for such clauses is being misconstrued & misunderstood.
again...JMO.

Robin, from what I've read and heard, you are a class act, but unfortunately not all breeders are like you.  

You certainly have my respect.

The *purpose* of a re-home, return, buy back or right of first refusal...is supposed to be for the buyer, dog & breeder's benefits equally.
It is intended to assist the buyer (when needed)...protect the puppy/dog (when warranted).....and allow continuous responsibility from the breeder (when required).


One of the best structured phrases with meaningful context I read since long time.

Ibrahim