NEW: Breeders-Only Forum - Page 3

Oli, my personal view is you provide a fast sharp looking database for free to its users, without being invasive in your user requirments and for that I an extremely grateful and respectful. THANK YOU!........Matt Dillen

Oli seriously please block all the members and owners of the new forum. We will all breathe a sigh of relief

cheers

including the cheerleaders

Short note:

Just because the original poster SAYS  the site has no intention of restricting free trade....doesn't make it true.
(If you call a tail a leg a dog STILL has only four legs. Because if you CALL a tail a leg it doesn't MAKE it one.)

First the poster claims one of the Raison d'ertes for the site would be for breeders to form a cabal expressly to pool information on individuals in order to "blackball" them from purchasing dogs (the product of trade in this instance).

Then the same poster CLAIMS they have no intention to restrict free trade.

The action of breeders, forming a group to share information on people they all agree to REFRAIN from selling product to - s    ...sounds like restriction of free trade to me AND I'd imagine that it would to many ejudicators.

Someone is always coming here hoping to ride the wave.
They are mostly all wet.
The disputes are always he said she said... 
They make for good reading only on rare occations and always seem to get proper responce from all sides.
Leave the politics out of it and let children be children.... easier on the nerves.

Moons.

Well, I understand the intent of the GSD Consumer Reports site. It's intended to provide a balanced forum, not to blacklist buyers. I think it's a good idea, because there are some really bad buyers out there, too, and sellers have some rights to their free speech and sharing information, so long as it is appropriate. Most of us are private parties, not "McPuppy" franchises, and it is insulting to be treated with suspicion and scorn, as if we were some sort of robberbaron corporate puppy moguls, subject to the whims of consumer-protection proponents. There is no blacklisting that I see..  There is nothing to prevent anyone from doing business with whomever they wish. Personally, however, I would have to say that I WANT to know about prospective clients and if they might be trouble-makers or provide an unsuitable home for a puppy, I would want to know BEFORE they get their meat hooks into me. I listen and watch for any warning signs.

I am the one who is raising the pups for Judy. I'm pretty well pissed off about the whole thing, and have thusfar wasted an inordinate amount of time on it.. Good for me, actually, because I decided now to keep the pick male, and he is extremely nice. I've got a good 25 years personal experience as a breeder, and I'm pretty good at picking pups and knowing their talents. I think this one would have been exactly what Daniel wanted, but he got nervous and started fussing.

No one did anything to harm Danny, but he started to do a lot of this blustering and comments on the internet which suggest that there is something wrong with Judy (and me), because he had this vague "gut feeling" or misgiving. I think what Danny really needed was a level of handholding and grooming that we were not prepared to meet. I told Judy I would raise these pups for her and ship them wherever she directs me, but I did not volunteer to babysit customers for her. I specifically wanted NOT to do that sort of thing, because it takes a lot of time, I am VERY busy most of the time, and I live a very private life, now. I do NOT run a petting zoo, or mass market puppies. This is my FIRST litter in ten long years, and I want to enjoy the process, which means not being bugged to entertain curious visitors until the pups are ready. When all of this fuss was going down, the pups were just shy of four weeks old!

Daniel has left comments on other forums, like Leerburg and DDRLegends, which will show up on a search for God knows how long... probably years. Personally, I don't want to sell to or deal with someone like that. It is my understanding that he allowed only a few days (if that) before going public to demand a refund of a deposit. I am very glad he pulled out, and grateful that Judy refunded, so now I can keep the puppy I am reasonably sure that Danny would have otherwise gotten.

I could see it if there had been a serious problem AFTER the sale, and no one had taken care of him. Then he would have a right to report on his experience. This was just a case of bad nerves, a change of options or maybe timing on the sale of a condominium (which seems also to be factored in) and suddenly Judy and I become suspicious persons. I think this was really bad manners on Danny's part. Free speech and factual reporting are one thing.. protected by free speech rights. Threatening someone that they will be the recipient of bad comments on a public forum if they do not do something which is not mutually agreed is another. Personally, I think that's crossing the line of decency and common sense.

For the record, I am receiving no money for this litter. I thought I'd do it to keep a female, and Judy has the rest of the pups to sell, trade, or whatever. She is a VERY good person, in my opinion, and I like to help good people, so it is my privilege. But, there is a limit,

To dedicate a entire forum to breeder bashing, is beyond me. I agree with Oli on this, once written then you maybe liable so why do it , unless you have protected yourself with legal proof , and I almost never see that on any of the forums. I wonder how many people that do the bashing get what they want. That is why most breeder have contracts, dont  write one or sign one that you cant live with,and then go to court if it doesnt work out, but making statements on net that you havent proven in court is a waste of time. Hope it gets you what you want put I wont be joining!