Do you find a breeder irresponsible for allow buyers the option to S/N?

[ruthcatrin]

I've always stayed in contact with the breeder, so they've never had to go out of their way to contact me.

One of the benefits of living in America is that we can definitively state that, "Just as not every breeder is for every puppy buyer, not every puppy buyer is for every breeder."

So, you will refuse to buy a pup from some breeders, just as some breeders would refuse to sell you a pup.

Doesn't make them right and you wrong, or you right and them wrong ... it's just a side-effect of having opinions and living in a (largely) free society.

Honestly thats what it comes down to. As a the puppy buyer its your responsiblity to find out what the contract states before you get to far into the process of reserving or buying a pup. If you don't care for the spay/neuter terms (or any other portion of the contract) then you either discuss with the breeder to see if an accomadation can be reached, or you find someone else to buy a puppy from.

I DO believe that every responsible breeder should have a contract of some kind on their pups, it covers them, it covers the puppy, and it covers the puppy buyer, should there be a problem down the road. And its certinally within the breeder's right to have spay/neuter requirements in that contract. I think its better that there be some sort of spay/neuter requirements honestly, even if its as simple as "dog may be kept intact as long as owner can prevent unwanted pups". That way there's no confusion down the road over whats expected of the puppy buyer.

 

[angelbears]

Yes, I had signed contracts on most. Through the years i have bought from every kind of breeder out there, BYB, puppy mill, and kennel.

I have had the pleasure of talking to a few very well intentioned breeders on this forum that are breeding for the betterment of their breed. However, the vast majority that I have had contact with are in it for the money. Nothing wrong with that, except when corners get cut to save money and the breed ends up suffering.

 

[LauraR]

I wanted to offer my own insight. I am not a breeder, but a prospective puppy owner.
I would not buy a pup from someone that did not mention s/n in their contract. To me, that is a red flag that they just don't care what you do with the dog.
I am not opposed to being told to spay/neuter my future pup as long as they are open to hear me out on waiting the appropriate amount of time(around 18 months). I would also be more than happy to sign a legal contract stating I would not breed the dog before it was spayed/neutered. In regards to a co-ownership, I am not opposed to that either as long as it isn't putting the dogs health at risk. I'll admit that I am not fully informed about co-ownership, but something along the lines of what Walnut Crest mentioned is fine with me as long as the breeder has ethical intentions on preserving the breed standards. I will have to look more into co-ownership because I don't know a whole lot about it, but I feel that for the health of the dog, there should be limits on it(no over breeding).

All of you have really given some great insights on what goes on in the mind of a good/great breeder. As someone looking to add an EM to our family some time next year, posts like these really help keep me informed on what to look for/avoid in potential breeders. Thanks for your input

 

[Duetsche_Doggen]

Apollo's breeder required us to NOT neuter before 10months of age (unless there was a health issue that required it) after that there was no requirement one way or the other except that his registration was marked as not for breeding till I gave her the results of his OFA results.

Having talked to other breeders it varies, some are really really strict about it, others are willing to modify their standard contract after talking with the puppy buyer. But every puppy contract I've seen contains reference to spay/neuter in some shape or form. I've even seen ones where it simply states that the puppy buyer will spay/neuter if at any point they no longer feel they are comfortable with their ability to avoid unwanted breedings.

Ruth that was my experience too, but breeders that do give a choice are labeled incorrectly. 7 times out of 10 most "pet" owners will S/N their dogs, the other percent might violate the contract by breeding.

And I still think you're miss reading Walnut's post

What got me fire up was the notion that "good" and "responsible" breeders require S/N contracts.

 

[mx5055]

Thank you Walnut for answering my question. This was a topic I had never even thought about (co-ownership), and I find it extremely interesting. I got my cc pup at 13 weeks from a really iffy rescue place in New Jersey, and I realize now how lucky I was they were so irresponsible because she wasn't spayed. After reading everything on this forum and doing my own research I realize how detrimental an early spay would have been for her future health, so I have made the decision to let her go through at least one heat, if not two (not that I want to deal with the hassle, but I also want whats best for her health). To me, she is one of the most beautiful dogs I've ever had, but would I ever consider breeding her? Absolutely not. I have no knowledge of her history, no papers, and not even the knowledge of how "good" of a cc she is. I agree with your position (the a versus b options you gave); only the "best of the breed" should be bred. This whole thread has been very interesting and informative, and I thank everyone for their input

 

[Duetsche_Doggen]

I look at it this way ---

Is a breeder of any type of pure-bred dog more responsible to (a) the dogs they produce, or (b) the breed as a whole?

Many breeders would say (a) ... I, however, would say (b).

And, so, I could suspect that a breeder who answered that (a) is more important than (b) would feel differently about required spay/neuter of the pups they produce than a breeder who felt (b) is more important than (a).

And, since I feel (b) is more important than (a), it's my duty to the breed to do everything in my power to ensure that any less-than-stellar representatives of the breed are kept out of the gene pool ... so, I have a required spay/neuter on pups I don't keep (or that don't go to the owner of the stud dog, if I used an outside stud and the stud owner kept a pup in lieu of the stud fee) ... HOWEVER ... pups can't be neutered before 15 months (if female) or 18 months (if male) ... and can only be neutered after I tell the puppy buyer that their animal is to be neutered.

I believe it's my duty to the breed to do everything I can to keep poor phenotypical or genotypical specimens out of the gene pool. Now, I'm quite careful to do "best to the best" type of breedings ... as many other breeders try to do to the best of their ability ... but, as we all know, there are no guaranties in breeding. So, if a dog with lousy phenotype (or genetic issues) pops up, then, that animal will be dealt with in a manner directly proportional to the issue at hand, and I will be the sole arbiter of what to do, how to do it, and when to do it ... realizing that (b) is more important than (a), to me.

Do we really need more breedings of "he's such a nice dog" to "if she has a litter, it'll even out her temperament", where the pups end up on craigslist or in shelters?

Again, I'm quite sure that rational and well-thought-out people will differ with me ... and that's fine ... as long as they won't begrudge me from having my well-thought out view on the matter.

None taken, your right its something I do agree with and that's fine. I'm not talking about a breeders philosphy for their program. If a buyer decides to breed a dog they will contract honored or not. As mentioned before most puppy buyers will S/N with only a selected few that might breed. I don't think the majority should be "punished" for a few bad apples.

PS --- This is a very similar issue I'm discussing with someone else off-line ... what are your views on breeders who require co-ownership on all the pups they produce?

I know it's not for every puppy buyer ... but, puppy buyers may find it well-worth-while to consider the reasons why may a breeder insist on it.

LOL, oddly enough this conversation started with the subject on horses. Personally I would never do a co-ownership to me its just like the mandantory S/N. I would understand it in a mentor sort of guidence. However to co-own based off breeder paranoia no...you couldn't pay me to.

 

[Duetsche_Doggen]

I think it should definitely be a case by case scenario. I, for one, prefer to not neuter my dogs. I don't see any reason to put them under unless it is medically neccessary. I have owned a lot of dogs, none of them ever neutered except for my favorite boy who got bit by a spider and it became medically neccessary to do so. I do understand that it is a tough decision for the breeder but I would hope that the breeder is getting to know the buyer for an extended time prior to them taking a puppy. I mean, a breeder could contact the vet and ask about the buyer and thier dogs and any issues/litters, etc.

I have never had a litter of puppies nor have my dogs ever been the cause of a an accidental litter. My dogs are my family and I treat them as such and make sure that they are always where they are supposed be. I guess everyone says it is different but I thinik if you can prove that you are a very responsible pet owner and you have a reason your would prefer not to neuter, it should be considered by the breeder.

Same here with the exception of one dog all have been full, no litters or medical issues.

I think a logical follow up to this conversation is, if you DO require spay/neuter, do you follow up with every puppy buyer afer the appropriate time interval? For example, spay after 18 months... so do you follow up at 2?

Its easier said than done, some breeders are pretty thorough about it others may do so once in a blue moon. When I got Thor and even now Stone I always kept my breeders up to date with their progress. I would hear from Thor's breeder maybe once a year, Stone's breeder is a bit more infrequent but still more than Thor's breeder.

What option?
To Evaluate the dog?
They can evaluate the dog all they want but if you purchase a dog for showing / working to be able to breed in the future then you play the same price as everyone else. This is why they purchase PET QUALITY ..
Did I answer your question?

The option of keeping a "pet" dog intact, wether they showed/worked or not. That's what I was asking

 

[dpenning]

It would be interesting to know how many owners are contacted by the breeders to follow up or even try to enforce the contact. I have owned many AKC dogs and I have never been contacted in that regard.

Me either AB, that was one of the reasons I asked the question. There is lots of talk about responsible breeders, I guess I've never gotten a dog from one.

 

[Duetsche_Doggen]

One of the benefits of living in America is that we can definitively state that, "Just as not every breeder is for every puppy buyer, not every puppy buyer is for every breeder."

So, you will refuse to buy a pup from some breeders, just as some breeders would refuse to sell you a pup.

Doesn't make them right and you wrong, or you right and them wrong ... it's just a side-effect of having opinions and living in a (largely) free society.

That's how it should be but its not...I find that most breeders are either paranoid or have been brainwashed by AR groups. When I mentioned to breeders about keeping a "pet" dog full I was pretty much escorted to the nearest door. After a few choice words of course. If I want to own a full dog I either have to buy from a BYB ( not a chance in..) or import. Absolutely crazy...

It would be interesting to know how many owners are contacted by the breeders to follow up or even try to enforce the contact. I have owned many AKC dogs and I have never been contacted in that regard.

AB, I can't speak for all but experience with my breeders it was pretty much the same.

 

[tb44]

I have an amazing relationship with my breeder actually we have developed a great friendship. We contact each other at least once a week. My other breeder however never once contacted me or my vet to make sure that I had held up my contract with neutering. Which of course I did get him neutered because that was the agreement that I signed. Of the 15+ breeders I contacted everyone had a s/n agreement with an age specification and if they didn't I would of probably walked away cause that would tell me they are only in it for the money and not for the love of the actual breed.

 

[Rugers-Kris]

I agree that it is responsible for a breeder to have requirements, even spay/neuter requirements but I don't think it is irresponsible of they make exceptions, though, if they feel comfortable with it. I have talked to a several recently and I have talked to couple that are willing to hear me when I talk about not wanting to neuter. I have vet records for ALL of my dogs from the very first one I ever owned to include those that were not breed worthy. If I can prove myself to be responsible, I think it should be a consideration. That is all I am saying.

 

[Geisthexe]

Same here with the exception of one dog all have been full, no litters or medical issues.



Its easier said than done, some breeders are pretty thorough about it others may do so once in a blue moon. When I got Thor and even now Stone I always kept my breeders up to date with their progress. I would hear from Thor's breeder maybe once a year, Stone's breeder is a bit more infrequent but still more than Thor's breeder.



The option of keeping a "pet" dog intact, wether they showed/worked or not. That's what I was asking

No not allowed PERIOD

 

[Duetsche_Doggen]

I've always stayed in contact with the breeder, so they've never had to go out of their way to contact me.



Honestly thats what it comes down to. As a the puppy buyer its your responsiblity to find out what the contract states before you get to far into the process of reserving or buying a pup. If you don't care for the spay/neuter terms (or any other portion of the contract) then you either discuss with the breeder to see if an accomadation can be reached, or you find someone else to buy a puppy from.

I DO believe that every responsible breeder should have a contract of some kind on their pups, it covers them, it covers the puppy, and it covers the puppy buyer, should there be a problem down the road. And its certinally within the breeder's right to have spay/neuter requirements in that contract. I think its better that there be some sort of spay/neuter requirements honestly, even if its as simple as "dog may be kept intact as long as owner can prevent unwanted pups". That way there's no confusion down the road over whats expected of the puppy buyer.

Ruth I'm not saying no contract should be involved between buyer and breeder. I'm strictly speaking of the S/N portion of these contracts. To have a dog I can actually call "my own" I would have to either purchase from a BYB or from another country. I will never again buy from a breeder that would forces me to S/N my dog that should be my decision, pet, show/working, etc. Nor would purchase from one that requires co-ownership.

 

[Jadotha]

With the exception of our adopted Wolfie (who came to us neutered), we have never neutered our dogs either, for reasons similar to what has already been stated -- subjecting your dog to unnecessary (and in the case of giant breeds, potentially risky due the use of anesthesia) surgery. Additionally -- and this is a personal belief that I don't expect to be shared by many others -- my husband and I feel it infantilises the dog and detracts from who he is as a complete adult individual. We have always been extremely careful and responsible owners; for example, our dogs have never been allowed outside without monitoring/supervision. We do buy show quality pups and show, but we have never bred them. We currently do have a contract with our present breeder which stipulates that she may use him, but only if/when he gets a championship and passes testing.

We have always kept 2 at the same time, and never have had any problem with 'dominance', aggression, marking or any of the other behaviors associated in many people's minds with intact males.
We would never buy a puppy on a spay/neuter contract -- although I completely understand breeders' concerns -- and it is the major obstacle in our adopting dogs from shelters/rescues. We adopted Ike to save his life at the 11th hour, because the facility he was at assumed no one would take a five yr old, 38" Wolfie who had bitten his owner, and were about to put him to sleep.

On the other hand, I would also never buy a puppy without a contract, and I do think that breeders should stipulate spaying/neutering/leaving intact obligations/conditions/expectations in all contracts. My mentors considered buyers on a case-by-case basis, and was quite picky about placement of pups to be kept intact.

 

[alwcm4]

This is a great discussion. I lean towards agreeing with Walnut Crest on just about everything! Saves me some typing time. Spay/Neuter unless very specific circumstances. Co-ownership for me on everything not spay/neutered.

 

[Cody]

Interesting conversation. Most breeders in my breed do have a mandatory S/N on pets that are sold after the animal reaches 18 months or risk a 10 000$ penalty. If I were ever to breed I would do the same. Which is completely hypocritical of me as my pet Boxer was an intact male. I am not like most pet people however, I am anal lol, my boy never went to dog parks, was monitored and we were very careful that he NEVER reproduced although were asked quite a few times.All I have to do is look at the number Corso (my chosen breed) popping up on kijiji. The large majority of those dogs are not registered and were most likely sold as pets. People post pictures of their dogs and others gush over them, whether the dog is correct or not it doesn't matter, all the owner hears is how nice their dog is. A few people say they would love a puppy from that dog and badda boom the pet owner decides that one litter won't hurt and make up great excuses to justify it in their heads. That is my problem, people although can say they have the best intentions, suck for the most part. As for co-ownership, I have that on my female and my boy is still fully registered under my breeders name. For many years we have been good friends, yes we have had not great times, at one point he even signed our bitch over to me fully. I however refused to sign the papers or send them in lol, so she is still a co-own In my situation there is no point in owning outright. They are my dogs, but my breeder and I speak pretty much daily, we make decisions about them jointly, discuss what future plans we have for them... Our families are friends, our children pen pals we have stayed at his house and they have an open invitation to ours. I guess as said before there are so many breeders out there, but for me picking a breeder is equally as important as picking a pup.

 

[Robtouw]

I think a good breeder should do what is best to continue protecting the quality and pureness of the breed. I have no desire to breed nor show but require that my pup be left in tact. I have when searching for pups come across a lot of breeders that I felt were not doing their best for the breed by allowing "no provisions" on neutering, also the opposite too stringent on neutering which was not in the best interest of the pup. My breeder and I had a lengthy discussion on the subject, she wanted me dicuss my plans and felt comfortable with my experience and my reasons for leaving Cruiser in tact. But our environment is atypical and I have strong opinions of breed preservation. I think only the best, healthiest, well conformed dogs should be bred and also think that there are quite a lot of people that should not be allowed to do so.

 

[Duetsche_Doggen]

Again I agree with breed preservation, that's 100% NON negotiable. The requirement of mandatory S/N I do not agree with.

 

[WalnutCrest]

Again I agree with breed preservation, that's 100% NON negotiable. The requirement of mandatory S/N I do not agree with.

So, how does a breeder uphold the integrity of the breed while not requiring S/N on lesser-quality pups?

Rescue is overflowing with poorly bred dogs...

 

[BlackShadowCaneCorso]

So, how does a breeder uphold the integrity of the breed while not requiring S/N on lesser-quality pups?

Rescue is overflowing with poorly bred dogs...

My take on this is you have to trust people, are you fixing the dogs before they leave your care to ensure they are S/N?

If not then regardless of what they sign I suspect there are many that sell on craigslist and Kijiji that have contracts on them for S/N and are still bred. So thinking that putting that in a contract and having them sign it is going to prevent it is wishful thinking.

Also I don't know how it works where you are and perhaps you have talked to a lawyer but it is EXTREMELY hard to get a contract enforced when it is breached. It might be different down there but up here in Canada I have talked to people who have had co-owns, and sold on S/N and the courts will not enforce the contract. I have asked if written by a lawyer if it would hold up better and no one seems to have a clear answer there.