Endorsing a puppy, morally right or wrong? - Page 2

Well the breeder Browsers friend went to obviously lost a sale, so it can't be just me

Margaret N-J

Browser, it's the breeders' puppy. While the breeder still owns a puppy they have a right to attach any condition(s) they want to it. You don't have to buy it if you don't like the conditions. There is probably a reason why that dog shouldn't be reproducing. I cannot understand how anybody would take offense in this. The only incident when I put such endorsement on a pet puppy was a health issue, that I didn't want to risk propagating in the breed. Personally, it seems unlikely to me that a breeder would do this to limit competition in their market.
 
The breeder can exercise only a limited (if any) amount of control over the dog once the buyer takes possession of it. Endorsement on AKC papers will ensure that everybody adheres to what was agreed upon (i.e. no breeding) at the time of sale. Endorsements are the sign of a responsible breeder.
 
If the new owner decides to disregard the contract and breed the dog that they promised contractually not to, the only influence the original breeder can exert over that is the endorsement. Puppies from such breeding cannot be registered and sold as pedigree dogs.

And from the standpoint of a breeder who cares where my pups end up - losing a sale isn't the worst thing that can happen...



 

Why darylehret ask more for puppies for breeding rights? Either the pups are good enough to breed or they aren't?

I have sold puppies on limited registration.  As Daryl points out, if someone does not like the idea of limited registration they are free to go elsewhere.  In my case no one has ever had an issue with the limited registration as they were interested in performance dogs and not breeding.  If someone did have a problem I would not have been insulted or upset if they walked away from my litter <shrug>

Breeders can do what they wish with the puppies they produce. 
That said I will not purchase a pup on limited registration or with a 90 page contract either.  Looking back I do not recall ever having a health guarantee on a pup either.  Ya pays your money and ya takes your chances.  BUT over the span of my career I have not had any health issues on the dogs purchased.  Luck o the draw, I don't think so. 

Why darylehret ask more for puppies for breeding rights? Either the pups are good enough to breed or they aren't?

If I deem them UNsuitable prior to 8 weeks, I wouldn't allow them to be sold with "full" i.e., I labeled one of last year's pups a washout for having poor tolerance for pain and insufficient drive.  If they ARE good enough, I wouldn't make that call until after sexual maturity.  There are too many changes in temperament and drive that can occur prior to then, and I've washed many of my own prospects in the four to six month range.

However, I don't guarantee temperament and suitability for breeding, I just sell with or without full registration.  Nor do I take responsibility for how others choose to breed.  Like I said though, none of my clients have taken advantage of the "full" option, because they can earn it later, rather than pay twice the price now.  That's several hundred dollars difference that can go toward club dues, equipment, and other training expenses.

I certainly get a good chuckle out of a 'breeder' that would sell
planned puppies from untested/untitled parents on 'limited' registration.

You see those kinds of ads on here often. They always give me a good
laugh. If one doesn't see the joke in that, well....  

To the OP, tell your friend to pass on the litter. There is no shortage
of GSD in this world. They will find a litter from titled/tested parents
that they can buy free and clear, no strings attached. 
 

Pretty sure you are not talking about me but in my litter that I sold some on limited registration the parents had their hips, elbows, eyes, and ears tested (both parents had CHIC numbers) and between the two of them, they had advanced herding (HXs,d) and advanced obedience (UD) titles on them so it is not like all people who sell some puppies on a limited registration basis are just out the screw the buyer and make a quick buck in breeding.  As I mentioned in my previous post, the individuals who got my puppies on a limited registration could have cared less.  They were getting a dog to do performance with and had no interest whatsoever in breeding. No one is forcing someone to buy a pup on limited registration and if the breeder is upfront on the fact that the prospective pup will have limited papers I fail to see why people are getting heartburn over the issue. 

It is the idea that once somebody chooses to breed two dogs together, the breeder often then assumes ownership of the DNA, into perpetuity, simply because they think their choice imparts a value that somehow, they didn't have before.