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

[ruthcatrin]

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.

I've had several breeders here in the States say the same thing about the s/n clause in their contracts. Your chances of getting a contract held up in court are TINY, and its going to cost you a fortune to try if the person is out of state. Although I haven't asked I suspect thats why Apollo's breeder's contract is written the way it is. She can at least keep pups from being registered AKC till she has proof the dog's hips/elbows are good. The same breeders also said they have better luck with the portions about getting a pup returned to them if there's a legal problem (ie: abuse or the like) but enforcing the s/n clause seems to be virtually impossible. Co-own seems to work better than an actual s/n requirement, but still.

 

[Duetsche_Doggen]

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...

Intergrity is a two way street both breeder and buyer, and from your standpoint the breeder is hogging the road. A breeder hoarding the right of choice is paranoia, IMO. Why not cull the litter instead? Less gray hair.

Rescue is overflowing with pure breed dogs. What's your point? People are quick to point a finger as breeding but won't accept the fact that other factors come into play. Like lack of the average dog owner responsibility. Moving, lack of training, wrong breed, neglect, rescue hoarding, etc. Heck even "good" breeders can have pound pups.

 

[Duetsche_Doggen]

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.

Thank you Mary exactly what I mentioned before. If a buyer decides they want to breed a dog they brought from you they will...consequences or not. Happens everyday.....

 

[BlackShadowCaneCorso]

It is what it is, there are too many heart breaking stories I have heard from friends who have contracts with this in them only to find out later that the dogs were bred. The paper is only worth what the person signing it believes it is. If they want to breed the dog then they are going to breed it regardless of what they signed Does that suck! Absolutely! Does it make us trying to do the right thing down right pissy! You wanna believe it but we can't force people to uphold their word, it is either in their character or it isn't and you just have to hope that when picking the homes for your puppies you pick the right ones as there are some pretty smooth people out there

 

[Duetsche_Doggen]

Yeap, CKC anyone??? and I don't mean Canada.

The very same happened to the breeder I got Thor from. Owner signed the S/N contract, but breed the dog anyway, I think they even started a puppymill. The dog was throwing pups that either dysplastic or prone to seizures. Mary is also right again there are some very smooth operators.

 

[Cody]

I do know a breeder who had her contract breached, took it to court in Canada and was awarded with the settlement. It does and can happen. That said the breeder MUST have the funds to retain a lawyer (usually upwards of 3k) and be prepared to fight and take the dog back. But for the most part the contract is only as good as the people signing it. As Mary said there are some "smooth" puppy buyers out there, but in the same vein there are some "smooth" "breeders" out there as well

 

[WalnutCrest]

And, as someone above said:

"If someone wants to defraud you, they can and they will."

 

[VentiandMe]

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.

I agree with this and it seems you have similar views to my breeder. They love the breed and are vested in providing the best examples of EM they can. My contract for my EM was to co-own with the breeder for the first 24-months and I could not neuter prior to that (I didn't plan to anyways). Depending on how he developed and did in the show ring, they could request to stud him out and we would split stud fees. If they do not believe he is "good" enough, then they will release their ownership and he becomes mine. I personally like the extended family feel of my breeder, we train together and they show my EM. Some people don't care for it, but it shows me they care more about the breed and their offspring than money.

 

[Cody]

I agree with this and it seems you have similar views to my breeder. They love the breed and are vested in providing the best examples of EM they can. My contract for my EM was to co-own with the breeder for the first 24-months and I could not neuter prior to that (I didn't plan to anyways). Depending on how he developed and did in the show ring, they could request to stud him out and we would split stud fees. If they do not believe he is "good" enough, then they will release their ownership and he becomes mine. I personally like the extended family feel of my breeder, we train together and they show my EM. Some people don't care for it, but it shows me they care more about the breed and their offspring than money.

I couldn't agree more!