# Does the Stud owner have a say????



## VaBeachFamily (Apr 12, 2005)

So, I haven't got the intention to breed just yet, but have had people ask about it, to which I usually just say " not now". We had discussed the possibility per the breeders request, and IF we titled, cleared OFA and health, etc ( Yes, I know the drill), I got to thinking.... 

If I was to stud my dog ( hypothetically speaking) to an approved female, would I have the right to say that I want the puppies on a limited registration unless I approve them? I know it seems like a stupid question, but my husband and I had a conversation the other night about it while talking about an irresponsible local " breeder" and it got me curious!


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I haven't bred either but I do have males (and intend to always have males) and my assumption is that no, other than possibly asking for pick puppy in lieu of a stud fee, I'd have no say (and don't really want any say, to be honest).


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

No , because the breeder of note is the person who owns the female and takes responsibility for the litter .

As a stud owner do you participate in guarantees? No.

If you are sceptical about the owner of the female , their ethics , relations with new owners, conditions or skill in raising pups then you have absolutely every right to say NO , not matter how qualified or fantastic the female is. There is your power.

Once you do the breeder you can be interested in the youngsters, follow their careers, understand what your male is producing , health and physical attributes , but you can't make contracts with the new owners.

I don't know how many owners of females would be that thrilled with those conditions and unless your male was the gift to shepherdom they would look else where .

Carmen
http://www.carmspack.com


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

carmspack said:


> I don't know how many owners of females would be that thrilled with those conditions and unless your male was the gift to shepherdom they would look else where.


Carmen, glad your post validates what I've been thinking. I giggled at this comment.

I would think if you want full control then you'd need to own or lease the female too.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I agree with Carmen and Liesje.

If you do not trust the owner of the bitch to choose the puppy purchasers properly, than do not let her use your dog. If you do trust her, then leave it to her. 

A limited registration is used by some breeders to try and ensure that their puppies do not land in the wrong hands, and it can work sometimes. But papers or no papers really does not matter to some people. If someone wants to use their dog to sire a litter or to have puppies, they will. If they cannot get AKC, because they are limited, they will go with CKC (continental kennel club) or others. If they cannot sell the puppies with an AKC registration, good breeders and good buyers will probably pass them right by. But the scum of the earth will not care, and will buy the pups for cheap and value them less if at all, and use them in the worst types of puppy mills if that is what they want to do.

At some point, we need to realize that we do not have control over every possibility. If you do not trust someone to own an intact dog responsibly, do not sell them a dog. Giving limited registration might eliminate the whole breeding idea to some buyers, others will breed them anyway. Unless you spay/neuter prior to eight weeks, you really cannot ensure that nobody breeds a dog that has been sired by your dog. The ONLY way you can ensure that that does not happen is to not breed your dog, ever.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I don't understand breeding a dog and selling the puppies with a spay/neuter contract. I fully understand and support the purpose of these contracts (and even early s/n) with shelter and rescue dogs. However if you believe your dog is worthy of being bred, why assume that none of the puppies should be bred? What then is the point of the breeding if the dog is not actually passing on any genes?


----------



## bocron (Mar 15, 2009)

Liesje said:


> However if you believe your dog is worthy of being bred, why assume that none of the puppies should be bred? What then is the point of the breeding if the dog is not actually passing on any genes?


I don't think the issue is the worthiness of the puppy as a breeding dog later in life, I think it's an issue of the puppy buyer being capable of being a breeder.
When I was breeding Beaucerons I sold pretty much everything (even show/breeding prospects) on a limited registration. If the person was interested in breeding then I told them I'd sign over the registration to full once certain requirements were met. Health certs, working titles, whatever. Most start out all excited and then life gets in the way and the dog breeding thing goes by the wayside. Those I had mentored under told me that they had sold breeding prospect pups to people who seemed ready to take on the challenge but couldn't quite follow through. But, here they had a rare breed dog with papers so they went ahead a bred it anyway. I was lucky I had them to advise me and I was happy to do my part to further the breed.
The only pups I sold on full registration out of the box went to other breeders I had a relationship with already. (usually those I had mentored under myself )


----------

