# Just how much control should a breeder have?



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

A friend and I were talking about this today. She paid a lot of money for her dog from a not-so-well-known but reputable breeder. The dog is 6 months now, and she no longer talks to the breeder at all despite wanting to stay in contact originally.

The breeder on several times wanted to randomly reject her for things such as taking the dog to a dog park, taking the puppy out of the house at all before vaccines were done, enrolling in a puppy class before the pup is 4 months, etc etc. She had a bunch of weird rules and "deal breakers". My friend went through with getting the puppy anyway because she loved the parents. Even after the process she stayed in contact with the breeder, who continued to criticize everything (not feeding raw, working on agility stuff "too soon" despite the stuff being simple, etc). The breeder neglected to mention that it was limited registration only, also.

On another forum I'm on the general consensus is that with obvious exceptions (being abusive or neglectful) it's not a breeder's business to police the way you raise the dog after you purchase it. I kind of feel the same way. If I'm paying $1000+ for companion I should have the full registration and the ability to raise it the way I see fit. That did bother me about my breeder (I only have limited).

What do you guys think? Should a breeder be able to police the way a dog is being raised? Should the breeder have a say in the conditions? Or, do you believe that once you buy the dog it is your dog and the breeder should not control what you decide to do with it?


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

i think a breeder that sets up terms that
gives them some say in the after purchase
is a breeder who cares about the pups
they sell. if you don't like the terms that are set up
go to another breeder.


----------



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

doggiedad said:


> i think a breeder that sets up terms that
> gives them some say in the after purchase
> is a breeder who cares about the pups
> they sell. if you don't like the terms that are set up
> go to another breeder.


Please don't misunderstand, I'm not talking about breeders who care about how their dogs are treated. I'm talking about the ones that care so much that they try to control what food you feed, how you exercise your dog, where you go with your dog, whether or not you have the full rights to breed your dog, etc. I'm not against typical requirements that are good for a dog's health.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

So you don't like the terms you don't buy the puppy. That kind of behavior is self-limiting.


----------



## wolfstraum (May 2, 2003)

The conditions you mention that were in the contract are all there to PROTECT the puppy. Apparently your friend is NOT as experienced as the breeder and resents these terms. Like Nancy says - you don't like the terms, buy somewhere else. These terms are for the health and well being of the puppy. 

Dog parks, playing frisbee, vaccinations to a certain point are all in my contract. Have I had people ignore them anyway?? Yep - 2 dogs at dog parks as pups got seriously ill, $$$ in vet bills for owners, risk of death for one of the 2 pups; a dog who played frisbee tore a cruiciate ligament (specifically cited as WHY frisbee is not on MY approved list!) - several thousand dollars in vet bills for owner; vaccines ??? well - it is very unclear of the timeline - but a 2 year old dog contracting and having to be euthanized for distemper - after $10K insurance coverage in vet bills PLUS more....all these are 1st hand experiences of WHY these clauses are common in contracts!!!

Breeding - darn right I limit the breeding rights. I know at least one dog is being bred indiscriminately, and it is my job as a breeder to protect the futures of my dogs. An owner dies for example, and the dog ends up in a BYB situation, living out it's life in a run pumping out litters for the new owner - happened to a dog owned by a guy who I was very friendly with who passed away. Look at the rescue sections - if breeders were more responsible, and breeding rights were more strigently enforced, there would be less unwanted dogs - less throwaway dogs - yes maybe it would be harder to find a puppy in a low price range, but IMO that is why there are so many unwanted dogs - too easy and cheap and too many impulse purchases from "breeders" to whom pups are just a revenue stream.

Food - I cite a handful of good premium foods and advise that these are preferred. Some feed raw - if they know what they are doing, fine...if not, a high quality kibble is fine too. That is hard to be specific about. 

I try to spend alot of time getting to know buyers, in some cases, years before they get a puppy, and in the process, I know that there are people to whom I do not want to sell a puppy. 

But if someone basically lied by agreeing to contract terms, already planing to ignore them - I would be very distraught and fear for the well being of the puppy. And would be very mad at myself for not reading the buyer well enough to refuse to sell them a puppy.

Lee


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Exactly, I really do not get the issue. It is a two-way deal between two individuals.
---I have this thing you want. 
---I will sell it to you under the following conditions (because I care out it)
---If you do not agree with my conditions, we are not on the same page and I think you should look elsewhere.

Now, I would have issue if the breeder tried to change the terms of the agreement after the purchase was made or a non refundable deposit was put down. I applaud someone for putting all the expectations in black and white and not between the lines.


----------



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

wolfstraum said:


> The conditions you mention that were in the contract are all there to PROTECT the puppy. Apparently your friend is NOT as experienced as the breeder and resents these terms. Like Nancy says - you don't like the terms, buy somewhere else. These terms are for the health and well being of the puppy.


These weren't in her contract. It was after she'd already signed the contract and put a reservation down.



> Dog parks, playing frisbee, vaccinations to a certain point are all in my contract. Have I had people ignore them anyway??


Things like vaccines I agree with. I was actually glad my put that in the contract because it would stop any vet from trying to talk me otherwise. Luckily though, my vet actually already followed her requests as their standard (they never do vaccines within 3 weeks of each other, and recommend 4 weeks).



> Breeding - darn right I limit the breeding rights. I know at least one dog is being bred indiscriminately, and it is my job as a breeder to protect the futures of my dogs. An owner dies for example, and the dog ends up in a BYB situation, living out it's life in a run pumping out litters for the new owner - happened to a dog owned by a guy who I was very friendly with who passed away. Look at the rescue sections - if breeders were more responsible, and breeding rights were more strigently enforced, there would be less unwanted dogs - less throwaway dogs - yes maybe it would be harder to find a puppy in a low price range, but IMO that is why there are so many unwanted dogs - too easy and cheap and too many impulse purchases from "breeders" to whom pups are just a revenue stream.


I have no intentions of breeding my dog, but if I had a highly well bred dog I would want the option to do that some day if I ever changed my mind. Not being able to register the puppies as purebred does not prevent some BYB from breeding a pb dog, IMO. It gives people less of an incentive, but it doesn't stop them. Even if I had the full rights to Viking I wouldn't breed him. 



> Food - I cite a handful of good premium foods and advise that these are preferred. Some feed raw - if they know what they are doing, fine...if not, a high quality kibble is fine too. That is hard to be specific about.


I think just requiring the person to feed the best they can afford to feed, within reason, is a good option. My breeder provided me with a list of foods they considered to be quality and even showed me how she prepares the food for her dogs (she uses beef tripe, food rolls and kibble). But requiring that someone specifically buys a certain kind of food is a bit ridiculous. What if that food just doesn't work for the dog? So I agree with you there.




> I try to spend alot of time getting to know buyers, in some cases, years before they get a puppy, and in the process, I know that there are people to whom I do not want to sell a puppy.
> 
> But if someone basically lied by agreeing to contract terms, already planing to ignore them - I would be very distraught and fear for the well being of the puppy. And would be very mad at myself for not reading the buyer well enough to refuse to sell them a puppy.
> 
> Lee


This is one of the reasons I want to talk to my next dog's breeder years ahead of time. As good as my breeder was, from a buyer's perspective I would have preferred to know her a little better. I won't make that mistake when getting my next dog. I think it helps both people because after getting to know the breeder you'll learn if their methods/dogs are right for you and they'll know if your methods/personality is right for their dogs. 


I know this is a touchy subject. I agreed to most of my terms except the limited registration. I swallowed the LR bullet because I don't have any plans to EVER breed Viking (I just don't think I'd want that line being carried on). I have it set up that if I die, Pat gets the dog, and in the event that both of us die the breeder gets him. She is okay with this, and IIRC it's in her contract that if we decided we didn't want him we're supposed to talk to her first. 

My own personal opinion is that breeders shouldn't be controlling every aspect of how the puppy is raised. They can certainly chip in on some advice, but I've seen breeders who become so ultra specific that I would never in a million years buy from them, even if the dog was perfect for me and would do everything I wanted and never pooped in the house and knew how to speak English. That's my opinion though. And like Jocolyn said, I don't have to buy from people with super specific terms, so I don't.


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

I think beyond taking dogs back when they are left unwanted is about as far as breeders can go and limiting registration for breeding.

Beyond that, do a better job screening your buyers. I think it's comical and assinine that a breeder thinks they can get a puppy back because they play frisbee with their dog, or because they went to a dog park, or because they feed alpo instead of raw. They used a prong collar instead of a clicker? oh my god, go get the dog back 

Yeah you produced a puppy and yes you care about it, so find it a good home. I don't think a breeders rights extend any further than limiting registration and deciding whom to sell too. Once that puppy is sold? I think the new "OWNERS" can decide the rest.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Every breeder does things differently. Some are very controlling. Others not. Just buy from one that is the level of controlling you want. Some people get comfort in knowing their breeder cares enough to lay things out very particularly. Others would never stand for it. It's not really a "should"or "shouldn't" thing imo. 

I have no contract at all and pretty much have free rein to do what I want when I want with my dog. For some that is unimaginable.

I dont think I could buy a dog from someone like lee.not because of the quality of dogs but because I have a structured training program. Know a lot about food. Health, etc....and my personal preference is to be able to have freedom with my dog. But someone else feels a measure of comfort. all about the individualand the breeder and how they mesh together. No right or wrong.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

This story had a Brady Bunch "my friend" twist in the second post? 

Regardless, like Lee and Nancy said, this is how choice works. 

Frankly, it saddens me that breeders who are trying to do right by their dogs, who are trying to educate first time owners, who are trying to keep the dogs out of shelters, are criticized. I absolutely love to hear of breeders who do so much for their dogs, and don't want to find that a dog of theirs has ended up producing puppies down the line for people who don't know what they are doing with the breed. Don't want their puppies hurt by the inexperience of someone who knows better than them, who really does not have a clue. 

So caring breeders and caring rescues should just hand over dogs and butt the heck out of a process that they began so that child-people who want, want, want get to do whatever they want, no matter the underlying, best practice reasons behind the breeders' input. Got it.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

I do not like the limited registration either, which is why I would never buy from any breeder a dog that wouldn't give me full rights on the dog. I pay money, you give me the rights. Doesn't mean I breed it just because I can but I paid for that dog, therefor I want full rights for that dog. If you don't give me those rights I might as well go to the Shelter and get a speutered dog! 


Everything else laid out is just common sense in owning a dog. You don't take an eight week old puppy to the dog park because it could easily pick up something nasty. You don' play frisbee with a dog that is still growing. Heck, just having them run with the adults can be risky, as much fun as it is for the puppy.

Food, you don't want them to be fed Ol'Roy... of course you can't expect everybody to feed raw. Out here that'd be impossible. Wouldn't even know where to get all that meat from. I feed kibble and partially feed raw with whatever I can get. They are striving and healthy!


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

I voted 'other'

I agree with a couple of things..First, you don't like the terms don't buy the puppy and READ your contract ! .

Second, YES to Jean's post.

Third, I commend breeders who sell their dogs on Limited Reg's, I don't care how much money a buyer is spending, if you feel at a certain age, your dog is 'breedable' you can always go back to the breeder and see if THEY think it's breed worthy , if so, the breeder can lift the LR. 

I agree with NO agility to soon, I agree with NO dog parks to soon, I agree with offering their opinions on the type of foods you feed. (Heck isn't there one breeder out there that says "if you don't feed 'this' my warranty is void?") 

It sounds like the breeder probably has MORE experience than the purchaser , while it may sound like "control", it's better than taking the money for that puppy and disappearing into thin air? 

I co own my aussie with the breeder, she has always been there for me with advice, support, suggestions, but not once in 12 years has she said "its my way or the highway" (which was in my contract, I have final say for everything)..

But again, if any of the above mentioned isn't 'wanted' by a buyer, well go some place else where you'll get no feedback , pretty simple


----------



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> This story had a Brady Bunch "my friend" twist in the second post?
> 
> Regardless, like Lee and Nancy said, this is how choice works.
> 
> ...


No, not the case at all. I think it's responsible for breeders to follow up on things like vaccines, making sure you're not feeding your dog a diet of chocolate and friskies, and making sure the dog is going to get enough exercises. The reason I brought up my friend is because that's what inspired the post. She got dealt a bad hand with a breeder who was borderline-obsessive with detail but failed to put any of that information on the contract. Think of it like this, imagine a breeder who told you you had to feed a certain kind of food, had to use a certain very specific kind of training and couldn't deviate from it, etc. I don't think breeders should ever just hand out dogs. 

I'm just wondering what people's opinions are on how much is too much. I am not criticizing responsible breeders at all. 

For example with the agility thing: I practice Figures 8s. It's very slow. I think it helps him with body awareness. My breeder is okay with this. There are some people I know of who would freak out about "too much too soon" because that's considered "agility" work. I spend maybe 5 minutes a week (seriously, IF that) on figure 8s. I don't believe that to be too much. I also know some people who had their dogs involved in Schutzhund from 12 weeks (vaccines complete) on and did small stuff, and know that there are some breeders I spoke to when interviewing that would not be okay with that. I'm not starting Viking on Schutzhund until after I get back from NJ in April, which will make him 5+ months.

There are a lot of things that are made out to be black or white, "this is just plain bad for your dog" that really fall into gray areas. It's a matter of who is handling the dog, and opinion, which is why I firmly believe that buyers should spend several months talking to their breeders before making any sort of purchase agreement. You can have the world's best contract but if you don't know your breeder/buyer... it's pointless.


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

oops you were posting when I was posting.

If a breeder became to 'obsessive' with me, well I'd just put them on ignore.

Maybe your friend could say "well that wasn't in the contract". 

And there are some breeders out there (and I could name one HIGH PROFILE one) that requires you feed a certain type of food AND train a specific way but it's in their contract. Would I buy a dog from that person? Absolutely not, why? I've seen a couple of her dogs and the training she requires doesn't do a darn thing for them.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

> Third, I commend breeders who sell their dogs on Limited Reg's, I don't care how much money a buyer is spending, if you feel at a certain age, your dog is 'breedable' you can always go back to the breeder and see if THEY think it's breed worthy , if so, the breeder can lift the LR.


Just don't like it. 
That is why I prefer the German system. If you want a dog that will get the puppies papers, title it. Period! BUT you have the option. You don't have to go back to your breeder and literally convince them to change the rights. 

If I pay top dollars and you want to get rid of the dog, selling it for whatever reason, you betcha I want those rights. If you don't give them to me, I'll find another dog from somewhere else and that person will get my money.


----------



## Magnolia (Jul 18, 2011)

I believe a breeder can sell with any terms they would like and I can choose to buy or not. For me it's very simple.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

I that this breeder, all of those things, except being able to feed raw...honestly...just common sense.

I guess what is someone else's OCD is another person's research based best practice. And while I am all for people making and learning from their own mistakes for themselves, if that breeder could stop mistakes so that an animal who has no control has a better life, I think that's a good thing.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> I that this breeder, all of those things, except being able to feed raw...honestly...just common sense.


Except for feeding raw and the limited/unlimited registration 

Might be the German in me. Just can't stand when I buy something and I don't have full rights. That's not what I pay money for and I guarantee you, any breeder out there I know would never pay a dime for a dog with limited registration. It's too risky. If something happens between the two parties you'll never get full rights, ever. And there is nothing you can do about it. And that is why I'd never be satisfied with a limited registration. 

If I buy a dog, I get full rights or I won't buy it, period! 
I don't want to have to go through all that hazzle and have to go back. It's my dog, I paid for it. I have the rights!

Anything else...yes, it's common sense.


----------



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> I that this breeder, all of those things, except being able to feed raw...honestly...just common sense.
> 
> I guess what is someone else's OCD is another person's research based best practice. And while I am all for people making and learning from their own mistakes for themselves, if that breeder could stop mistakes so that an animal who has no control has a better life, I think that's a good thing.


For what it's worth, I'm extremely grateful that my breeder helped me through the process so much and gave me so much information with Viking. I should scan the papers in the puppy packet some time and upload them for people. There was so much good information in there.


----------



## marshies (May 18, 2011)

Amaretto came on a full registration, but I would have had no problems having her on a limited registration. Most breeders on limited will give you the option to "prove your worth" by titling and getting you the full registration?


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Yeah, I know I can be be OCD, but I also know I can't make anyone do something once they have one of "my" dogs, so I try to provide them with a ton of information and review it with them so that they realize I am not just making stuff up. Here's the health science behind it, here's the behavior science behind it, etc.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

Mrs.K said:


> If I pay top dollars and you want to get rid of the dog, selling it for whatever reason, you betcha I want those rights. If you don't give them to me, I'll find another dog from somewhere else and that person will get my money.


This is the reason why I have a clause in my contract that says the dog MUST come back to me if the owner cannot keep them - for whatever reason. They are NOT allowed to sell the dog to anyone else or even give it away.

I did alot of work bringing that dog into this world and I feel ultimately responsible for them.

IT IS NOT ABOUT "getting the money".  Those types of breeders are called BYBs.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

ladyfreckles said:


> Please don't misunderstand, I'm not talking about breeders who care about how their dogs are treated. I'm talking about the ones that care so much that they try to control what food you feed, how you exercise your dog, where you go with your dog, whether or not you have the full rights to breed your dog, etc. I'm not against typical requirements that are good for a dog's health.


All those *ARE *requirements that are good for a dogs health.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

wolfstraum said:


> Dog parks, playing frisbee, vaccinations to a certain point are all in my contract.
> 
> Breeding - darn right I limit the breeding rights.
> 
> Food - I cite a handful of good premium foods and advise that these are preferred. Some feed raw - if they know what they are doing, fine...if not, a high quality kibble is fine too. That is hard to be specific about.


I voted Other. I think being "picky" is relative. I don't see Lee as being picky with dog parks and frisbees. Why? Because I'm about to dish out over $3000 to get Jax's acl fixed because of a frisbee and my own ignorance. But to someone who hasn't experienced this or has an "it won't happen to me" attitude, that would be picky. 

Breeding - again...it's attitude relative to the person. I never want to be a breeder so I have no reason to want full registration unless I was going to show in conformation. At that point, it's a discussion with the breeder. Some people want full registration just because they paid for the dog so they should have it. I don't agree with that.

Food / Supplements - there is a breeder I really like. I've met a couple of their dogs. But the contracts says you have to use a specific supplement. If I want to know more, it's a discussion point with them. If it's non negotiable...then I go elsewhere, not because I don't want to use supplements but because I think specifying a particular supplement and only that supplement is a bit much when I like the ones I have.

It's really all about what a person wants, what a person is willing to accept and how much control a person is willing to give up....for both breeder and buyer.


----------



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

Lauri & The Gang said:


> All those *ARE *requirements that are good for a dogs health.


No I mean extremely specific, nit-picky stuff. For example, we all know that fruits and veggies are important for a child's health and growth. Teaching parents about this is a good thing. However, it's going overboard to tell a parent which vegetables/fruits specifically the child is allowed to have. IMO there are a lot of things people believe are black and white common sense that just aren't. I know a lot of people are more experienced but I've seen two sides of the coin (people of equal experience yet completely different viewpoints) with certain issues. For the most part, things can be common sense, like don't feed your dog 99 cent food from the grocery store and don't let your dog go running extensively on hard surfaces until bones are developed. I think as long as the dog is healthy and happy the specifics shouldn't matter, and I believe that too many specifics can hinder an otherwise good owner. There's no 100% right way to raise a dog, and some people seem to think that there is and that if you follow xyz your dog will be healthy and happy forever. That's simply not the case.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Being as I just purchased my first dog 18 months ago, I'm in the same boat as Mrs. K. It might be the foreigner in me but I like having full rights to what I own. A dog is legal property, I know its a living thing, but I feel like this would be Apple coming to your door and taking away your computer because you're not using it correctly. The breeding rights thing, I will not breed, but in the chance that he's titled and a reputable breeder comes to me and asks me to stud, I'll think about it. And its nice having the option to do so without having to go back to the breeder.

The agility thing, I can see where the breeder is coming from. Although all signs point to genetics as being the number one cause of HD, say the early agility does cause it and the dog ends up with HD, then the breeder has to replace the puppy (I'm assuming theres a guarantee). Maybe I just don't see the tone of the breeder when she is saying not to do these things, but to me it sounds like good advice from an experienced dog owner. At our club, they don't allow dogs to do any kind of jumping until they are a year old, and agility training is out of the question until then also.

I do however feel like its the reputable breeders that put all these restrictions on their puppy owners that cause some, not all, but some people to go to bybs. There are too many people (like myself) who don't want others telling them what they can and can't do with a $1000+ purchase. Its really just stupid principle and I know it but I don't care, its the way I think.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

The problem is that Americans are used to the Akc and being able to breed with no restrictions. My pups have limited registration until the owner performs hip evals and obtains a working title. I love the gsd and do this is an attempt to preserve the traits that we hold dear in the dog and to prevent someone from being a byb. Retriever folks do it too and I have no problem with it. There is no obligation to purchase a pup from we who limit.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

As a buyer (not a breeder) I voted no control. I only buy dogs on full registration, no hoops to jump through. I don't care if there is a "contract" or "guarantee" or not. Any breeder has every right not to sell me their dog.

I'm perfectly fine with the breeder maintaining first right of refusal. I see that a bit differently since at that point I no longer want or can't keep the dog so how much control I have is a null issue. I offer the dog to the breeder on *my* terms (the breeder doesn't get to just take the dog back).

I keep both my dogs' breeders well aware of my dogs' progress in training and titling, how I find their temperament, what health clearances they've obtained and what concerns I have. What they do with that information is totally up to them.


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

I voted *other*.
.......since we have no *restrictions* in our simple contract, and offer a replacement puppy if one is warranted due to HD.
However; we will and do offer our expertise with any and all problems that may arise. We *offer* suggestions in food, training, behavior, vaccinations etc...etc....but ultimately it is the *buyers* puppy, and their *choices*.

I don't want a breeder to *dictate* what I can and cannot due with a puppy that I may purchase, so I use the same respect...when someone purchases a puppy from us.
JMHO


----------



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

ladylaw203 said:


> The problem is that Americans are used to the Akc and being able to breed with no restrictions. My pups have limited registration until the owner performs hip evals and obtains a working title. I love the gsd and do this is an attempt to preserve the traits that we hold dear in the dog and to prevent someone from being a byb. Retriever folks do it too and I have no problem with it. There is no obligation to purchase a pup from we who limit.


This, I believe, is a fair alternative.




Liesje said:


> As a buyer (not a breeder) I voted no control. I only buy dogs on full registration, no hoops to jump through. I don't care if there is a "contract" or "guarantee" or not. Any breeder has every right not to sell me their dog.
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with the breeder maintaining first right of refusal. I see that a bit differently since at that point I no longer want or can't keep the dog so how much control I have is a null issue. I offer the dog to the breeder on *my* terms (the breeder doesn't get to just take the dog back).
> 
> I keep both my dogs' breeders well aware of my dogs' progress in training and titling, how I find their temperament, what health clearances they've obtained and what concerns I have. What they do with that information is totally up to them.


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

I put other. I am not obsessive, but like Renee, do use LR for the same reasons she states (this isn't Germany where there, technically, are even harder restrictions). I make recommendations to my buyers and I weed out a lot of people during the interview process that have ideas that are totally off the wall or very much against my beliefs. This way I don't have to control them. I think it is very hard when you haven't been on both sides of this issue to understand why good breeders in the USA do what they do. Breeders that have had more than a couple of litters that actually give a darn about their puppies tend to become more cautious and maybe, in many people's opinions, more controlling. 

I will agree, though, that some of these breeders really are totally crazy. We had a club member that purchased a puppy from a highly recommended breeder. The breeder required proof that she fed what the breeder required, had this stipulation and that stipulation or their contract would be void. Since the puppy owner worked at a boarding kennel/day care place she felt it was important to vaccinate her puppy for parvo/distemper. Nope, contract became null and void. Contracts like this are not done to protect the puppies. They are done to protect that puppy producer.


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

Liesje said:


> As a buyer (not a breeder) I voted no control. I only buy dogs on full registration, no hoops to jump through. I don't care if there is a "contract" or "guarantee" or not. Any breeder has every right not to sell me their dog.
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with the breeder maintaining first right of refusal. I see that a bit differently since at that point I no longer want or can't keep the dog so how much control I have is a null issue. I offer the dog to the breeder on *my* terms (the breeder doesn't get to just take the dog back).
> 
> I keep both my dogs' breeders well aware of my dogs' progress in training and titling, how I find their temperament, what health clearances they've obtained and what concerns I have. What they do with that information is totally up to them.



Agree. If a breeder does not trust me to do right by the dog do not sell me the dog. 

Right of first refusal is a very fair clause in my opinion.


----------



## juliejujubean (May 4, 2011)

I voted "A little control: breeder should be able to put purchase conditions on contract, but shouldn't be extremely specific/picky about them."
This is with dealing with Dia's breeder. She had a lot of good information on her contract, a lot of reasons why or why not to do things. she also had a lot of recommendations instead of rules on her contract and said why. For example she has a hip guarantee for her pups but if you do something that would hinder the pup like running with it before joints are developed fully (like marathon running) its null and void. It does not say you can't run with it.. but if the pup develops some bad hips it is then transferred to your fault. Also, my girl was sold on limited registration. I did not understand and I was kinda angry about it at first, but I was looking for a pet, not a breeding dog so I got over it. Her reasoning behind it, is she sold her dogs on full registration when she started out and a person bought a dog from one of her litters and is not breeding it with any ole dog to make a buck. She has tried to get this dog back with no success (not in contract) and this person is in a sense ruining the lines. (breeding the male with untitled, un checked for hd/ed. etc...) I understand why she wants it this way now. 
I have a wonderful relationship with the breeder, we keep in constant contact on facebook and i went and met her this past december. she loves her dogs with a passion and would go above and beyond for any of them. She was the right pick for me


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

A breeder does not need to be *controlling* to care about their puppies or the people they sell to.
A breeder needs to be *thorough* in their *buyer* prospects.....just as a buyer should be thorough in their breeder(s) prospects.
_...and even then....things can still happen....._


----------



## wolfstraum (May 2, 2003)

crackem said:


> I think beyond taking dogs back when they are left unwanted is about as far as breeders can go and limiting registration for breeding.
> 
> Beyond that, do a better job screening your buyers. I think it's comical and assinine that a breeder thinks they can get a puppy back because they play frisbee with their dog, or because they went to a dog park, or because they feed alpo instead of raw. They used a prong collar instead of a clicker? oh my god, go get the dog back
> 
> Yeah you produced a puppy and yes you care about it, so find it a good home. I don't think a breeders rights extend any further than limiting registration and deciding whom to sell too. Once that puppy is sold? I think the new "OWNERS" can decide the rest.


Taking a puppy back is not in my contract except for abuse - and that would have to be a legal situation where the owner has been convicted in a court.

As far as the frisbee - it is part of a more educational paragraph - frisbee is high risk for cruciate ligament tears. If your dog limps then maybe it is NOT HD - but CL....happened to a 5 year old spayed female owned by a doctor. She called me wanting to know when HD shows up....ends up the dog was playing frisbee with DH and would come up lame after a throw or two....she went back and read my contract, and said - Oh shoot - there it is! Dogs hips (x-rayed while out for CL surgery since she was under) were fine. 

I do not dictate anything about training once I am comfortable with the person and what they plan to do - talk about training and compare info and offer advice - yes, dictate no.

Lee


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

I do believe, in this day and age of BYBs and pet overpopulation, it is a breeders' right--nay, responsibility--to sell pups on limited registration. It can always be lifted. Sure, true BYBs won't care whether their pups are registered or not and will breed anyway, but hopefully those people will be screened out by the breeder.

Diet, exercise, training, etc... I don't think you can even legally enforce those things once the dog is in the new owners' hands. Dogs are legally looked upon as property, and you can do what you will with them, within reason. I have never heard of a breeder taking a puppy buyer to court over feeding them the wrong food and winning.

However, a breeder can put anything they like into a contract, it's simply a way of spelling out their wishes and expectations for the pup. If the buyer doesn't agree, they can go elsewhere to buy the pup. Or they can buy the pup and do what they want. I don't think the breeder has the legal right to tell them what to do after the sale is final. 

If a breeder were insisting I do things that weren't in the contract, I'd take it under advisement, but the ultimate decision is mine.


----------



## Good_Karma (Jun 28, 2009)

I also voted "A little control: breeder should be able to put purchase conditions on contract, but shouldn't be extremely specific/picky about them."

Niko's breeder had conditions like neutering (unless we planned on showing), hip checks, and at least one set of obedience classes. She recommended a RAW diet but did not insist on it. I would have had to look elsewhere if she had insisted on a certain type of food. I think that every dog is different when it comes to nutrition and what works, so it seems like a bad idea to insist that all dogs be fed diet X without giving consideration to how well it is working for them.

I think if a breeder has rules for purchase, as long as he has legitimate reasons for them and does not take offense when asked to explain them, that is fine. Like when our breeder said we needed to take an OB class, we told her that we did not feel that this was necessary. She explained that it was important for socialization, not just training, so we understood the class's importance and were then convinced that she was right.


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

As a buyer I voted other. I want a breeder or a rescue who cares about her dogs enough to have stipulations in the contract. I would not expect them to be like a meddling MIL 
I think before you get to the contract there should be an application and interview that gives the breeder an idea if the buyer is a good owner for her pup and if so, then support, but not a tight rein will be enough. This type pre contract interaction will also let the buyer decide if the breeder is someone she who will offer the type of support wanted.

I do not mind limited registration, but do not want a contract that insists on spay/neuter.

I doubt breeders want to breathe down every buyers neck to make sure their pups are ok, or do they want buyers calling them every two seconds .

There is no need for extremes. A workable relationship between breeder and buyer is possible.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> This story had a Brady Bunch "my friend" twist in the second post?
> 
> Regardless, like Lee and Nancy said, this is how choice works.
> 
> ...


I was going to say, we deal with this in rescue a LOT. I've put "no dog parks" on some of our dogs' bios and then talked with owners at the time of adoption, providing everything else was in place and reference/vet checks went well. Or kibble - we list certain kibbles which are quality, tell folks what to avoid, and what to look for.
Yet we get this same criticism. The puppy who'd be left alone for 11hrs. a day, by himself in a home (at 4-5mos. of age) whom I nixed that adoption, I was accused of "wanting to keep him"!! ***??
As if. If they'd had some game plan laid out which included a walk or two a day, or use of daycare for even part of the day, bringing the dog to work with them, anything, I'd probably have done the adoption.
We don't want to keep or have these dogs here, we can't wait until they are adopted to be able to save more dogs who are waiting to come here.
But I'll be damned if I'm going to send a dog to a home who can't care for him in even the most basic way, because all I see on the horizon is failure and a broken adoption and once this dog is gone, I _do not want him back._

People have a really bad habit of getting a cute puppy then in 8mos, when it's puppyhood is gone, stolen by them, they want to return in because they failed to train it properly. 

I think puppy classes are a splendid idea and we have required them in certain cases, I do not think a breeder is out of line to want them for their puppies, to help the owner communicate with their new dog.
I think listing certain foods above others, and not taking puppy out until it's vax are completed are wonderful ideas, and I don't know why people would balk at that. I mean...if you take the puppy all over and it becomes sick, you're not going to want to pay the $1500 + in vet bills it can cost to save one from parvo.


----------



## BlackthornGSD (Feb 25, 2010)

Remember, too, if you like a breeder but have concerns about a specific point in the contract, you can always discuss the point and negotiate having the contract changed. 

I sell my puppies on limited registration with the specific clause that it will be changed to full registration if the pup gets hip certs and a performance title or working certification. But I would bend that LR if the circumstance were right for the right person--say someone wants to show in the conformation ring or it's someone who has experience raising and training pups and isn't going to have an "oops" litter with their 12 month old and I know that their breeding standards are high.

But that LR clause has served me well. It eliminated some buyers who "promised" they were going to title/xray... and in looking back, it's pretty obvious that these were exactly the people I wouldn't have wanted to sell to--they got a puppy from somewhere else and a year later, that pup is, "oops pregnant!" Their promise was worthless.

Another example, I have a partial money back hip warranty in my contract--but if someone wanted a replacement pup instead and negotiated for that, I might be agreeable. I don't offer a replacement pup because what if I don't want to send another puppy to those buyers? I don't want to be contractually obligated to do something that I might later think is a bad idea. 

It's always worth bringing it up if there's something in the contract that isn't what you wish. I am formulating the contract to meet the "broadest" range of buyers, and it's always possible to customize it to better meet a particular buyer's concerns. And, of course, the breeder, too, has the option of saying, "no deal."


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Yes, Christine, I think this is how most breeders do things.


----------



## wolfstraum (May 2, 2003)

Mrs.K said:


> Except for feeding raw and the limited/unlimited registration
> 
> Might be the German in me. Just can't stand when I buy something and I don't have full rights. That's not what I pay money for and I guarantee you, any breeder out there I know would never pay a dime for a dog with limited registration. It's too risky. If something happens between the two parties you'll never get full rights, ever. And there is nothing you can do about it. And that is why I'd never be satisfied with a limited registration.
> 
> ...


Mrs. K - with most of us breeding in the US who sell on limited - it is basically the equivalent of the SV system - not even as stringent as the SV - normally, most of us all release the papers to full when hips/elbows and titles are achieved. I am very happy to release papers on one of my pups!

Since here, anyone can get papers on any pup whose parents have AKC paper - people breed dogs with HD because OFAs are are not required by AKC...basically the limited registration is a tool for quality control by many responsible breeders.

Lee


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Personally, this is what I would like to see in a contract for ME.

1) Breeder will take the dog back if I can't keep for any reason. I want a clause put in there that if something happens to me, the breeder will take back. Not because my family wouldn't follow my wishes but because they aren't into training dogs and I don't think would give my dog the proper outlets. So, if breeder thought my family was the best place then fine. If not, then the dog is protected.

2) Money back vs. replacement pup - I guess a choice would be nice. Depending on my situation, I might want a partial refund for vet care for the dog if I had no desire to have another puppy at that time. There is always something you can do for sport so obedience, tracking could still be done with a dog that has HD.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I voted "No'. That's why I seldom buy a dog from anyone in this country. I screen the breeders and the dogs; and after I am satisfied with the quality of the dogs, I purchase the dog and its mine. Nobody can guarantee anything with a puppy for the future, so I don't expect conditions or guarantees. If the dog turns up dysplastic or chronic illness...then it is the luck of the draw and I add the information to my internal database. I don't blast the breeder, go on forums and cry the blues, etc. I understand thoroughly we are breeding animalls and the high suceptibilty of certain health issues in the breed. A dysplastic dog from a breeder with conditions and guarantees is the same as a dysplastic dog from a breeder with no conditions....and it happens just as often. 
I don't knock people who have to have control and think this improves the breed, but i like buying from irresponsible breeders and the product i am getting.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I think, more important, than a health guarantee, I would want to know how many instances of genetic health problems the breeder has had. If it's a high rate then it would be stupid to buy a puppy from them. If it's a low rate then you are stacking the deck in your favor. I think for the majority of people that a guarantee is a "feel good" clause. I don't know anything about genetics or breeding so for me it's exactly that. I'm not going to return the dog. The dog is mine and my responsibility.


----------



## Danielle609 (Jun 18, 2011)

I voted "a little control". Now I have not purchased a puppy yet. But I am comfortable with a breeder demanding that I am not allowed to re home my pet or at least without their consent. I am also comfortable with limited registration or stating that I am not allowed to breed. (I will never breed..so that is why it doesn't bother me ) Other than that I want a breeder that will give their opinion and suggestions on what they think is best, but not controlling enough to force me into them.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

jocoyn said:


> So you don't like the terms you don't buy the puppy. That kind of behavior is self-limiting.


That's kinda the way I feel about it. I wouldn't purchase a puppy knowing that I had no intention of following the conditions of the contract. If I thought they were overly restrictive I would find another breeder. I do expect SOME conditions and I know that we may not agree on everything, but I'd like us to be generally on the same page. It's nice to have an open honest relationship with the breeder and that's much easier if everyone is upfront about their expectations.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I voted 'a little control'

So for the breeders who sell on a limited then full registration after the buyer has fulfilled the expectations on the contract...do you have them contact you to get the full registration or are you keeping tabs on them and their test/trials? 

I'll admit I bought a pup on a limited and do jump thru the hoops of the contract(hip/elbows and title before going full registration). It isn't a big deal one way or the other. I personally like to see the outcome of what the breeder is producing. IF no puppy buyers get the ratings for H&E, then how do I know they are producing sound dogs? Titles are another way to see the success of their program.
I'd never ever purchase a pup with stipulations on what to feed or other controlling expectations.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

BlackthornGSD said:


> Remember, too, if you like a breeder but have concerns about a specific point in the contract, you can always discuss the point and negotiate having the contract changed.



Definitely. I'm pretty sure Pan's breeder usually sells dogs with LR but when I contacted them originally I made it clear I was not interested in LR so they could have told me no but instead gave me full registration. I don't feel it's my business what arrangements breeders make with other buyers. I know what terms I accept and what terms I won't and I make these clear up front so the breeder has every right to say sorry, we don't have a dog for you. If a breeder has a totally different agreement with every buyer that doesn't bother me.


----------



## Germanshepherdlova (Apr 16, 2011)

I had a hard time deciding between no control and a little control, ultimately I chose a little control. I don't think a breeder should have the right to tell me to have my dog spayed/neutered and by what age it needs to be done. Nor should they have a say so in what I feed my dog. I do think that having a contract requiring the dog to attend obedience class or requiring that the dog be returned to them if it should happen that I can not keep it would be reasonable though.


----------



## Courtney (Feb 12, 2010)

I don't know...my experience was pretty straightforward. As soon as there was mention of a contract I asked to see it, read it, no issues (knew about the contract long before bringing him home, alot of breeders post one on their website). We talked several times & met at her house long before we picked up our boy.

If she had any reservations of me being a fit pet owner or I didn't like what I was signing...we would have parted ways...no biggie.

I just can't imagine buying a puppy bringing him home then being upset about the contract. Yes, some of the things mentioned in this thread sound a little silly to me about some demands...but again, know what your signing up for.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

I voted no control. The simple reason is that breeders can request or demand anything they want but unless they are going to hire someone to run around the country checking up on all the dogs they have produced the demands are useless.

There needs to be trust on both sides. If the buyer doesn't feel comfortable with the breeder or the other way around don't do it.

I understand limited registration to a degree but if someone decides to breed their dog without full registration there is nothing to stop them.

From the buyers end about the only protection you get is anothe puppy if your dog is proven to have "crippling" hip dysplasia. That won't usually show up until the dog is already a solid member of your family. Most people would not give up the dog at that point or even necessarily want another pup.

I don't feel like starting another thread but I wonder how many breeders actually follow up on the pups they sell. If they do follow up what does that consist of? A phone call or email, how often? After a year or two or three are they still checking up to see how their dogs are doing?

If someone has been breeding for a number of years I seriously doubt they are still pursuing the owners of dogs to find out what they are feeding, how much and what kind of exercise etc...


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

wolfstraum said:


> Mrs. K - with most of us breeding in the US who sell on limited - it is basically the equivalent of the SV system - not even as stringent as the SV - normally, most of us all release the papers to full when hips/elbows and titles are achieved. I am very happy to release papers on one of my pups!
> 
> Since here, anyone can get papers on any pup whose parents have AKC paper - people breed dogs with HD because OFAs are are not required by AKC...basically the limited registration is a tool for quality control by many responsible breeders.
> 
> Lee



It's not the same as the SV system. The SV is an organization granting you full breeding rights. Not where you have to rely on the goodwill of the breeder itself. 

Just too risky. I want full rights for what I pay for and nothing less. If I wanted limited, I'd go into a shelter and get a speutered dog instead. 

If there is a falling out between the breeder and the buyer you may never get those rights. 

I am right there with Cliff. I'd rather know what risk I'm taking by buying from overseas instead of dealing with too controlling breeders in the US. 

Even if they do sell limited dogs, it doesn't keep them from becoming a BYB.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

Jack's Dad said:


> I understand limited registration to a degree but if someone decides to breed their dog without full registration there is nothing to stop them.


That's true, but often people want to breed their dogs to make money. If they can't get the litter registered with the AKC and provide "papers" to prove that the puppies are purebred they're not going to be able to get a lot of money for them. 

My breeders haven't followed up with me in any formal kind of way, but I'm in touch with them through various means so it wouldn't be necessary for them to make a special point to contact me. 

I'm FB friends with both Keefer & Halo's breeders, Halo's breeder has an email list for her puppy buyers, and there is also a FB group for the progeny of Halo's sire. She's also always replied promptly to my emails when I've had questions or concerns. 

I knew Keefer's breeder for a couple of years on another GSD forum before getting a dog from her, and I used to post pictures and updates there all the time. I'm not really active on that forum anymore, but she sees the pictures I post on FB, and sometimes comments on them.

Anyone who wants to know how I raise my dogs and what I've been doing with them doesn't have to look very far or try very hard! That's probably why I've never had to fill out a puppy application, be interviewed or answer a lot of questions. Whenever I make an inquiry I try to include as much information as possible about my past experience with GSDs and the plans I have for the puppy I'm inquiring about, what I do and do not want in a puppy, and to describe a day and week in the life of my current/past dogs so they have a good idea of what kind of environment the puppy will be living in.


----------



## Barb E (Jun 6, 2004)

I haven't read all the posts yet, this is a long thread and I'm on limited time :rofl: in other words Kaos is in her crate taking a nap and I must do all my internet surfing before she wakes up :wub: this pup!!


Kaos is on limited registration (so is Dante for that matter) and I understand perfectly Lee's decision to do so. 
It's her kennel name that is attached to Kaos, not mine. 

Now let's say (not going to happen but let's pretend) I titled Kaos and got all the health certs etc. 
I'm pretty **** sure that Lee and I could come to an agreement if there was the perfect male out there for Kaos.

Lee and I talk often, we discuss food and vaccines and training and well what ever else comes up. 
I also feel that if we came across something we didn't quite agree on that as long as it didn't cause death or something else of dire nature she and I could agree to disagree.

Uh-oh I think I hear stirring in the crate.....


----------



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

Liesje said:


> Definitely. I'm pretty sure Pan's breeder usually sells dogs with LR but when I contacted them originally I made it clear I was not interested in LR so they could have told me no but instead gave me full registration. I don't feel it's my business what arrangements breeders make with other buyers. I know what terms I accept and what terms I won't and I make these clear up front so the breeder has every right to say sorry, we don't have a dog for you. If a breeder has a totally different agreement with every buyer that doesn't bother me.



What reason did you give for not being interested in Limited Registration?


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

I myself wouldn't buy on limited registration either, but if a breeder can do that and want to I don't have a problem with it. For every instance I can think of where it would be a PITA, I can think of about 10 scenerios it avoids that are good for everyone involved.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

I think there should be some control. If as a breeder, I did all the hard work and spent all the money to title them, then as a buyer you should have some respect for my judgement. If not, then you don't have to buy a puppy from me. Simple. 

I am in the process of purchasing a puppy (another breed). I spoke often to a specific breeder while researching. They were very helpful...but a little pushy. When she found out what my intentions were for the puppy (working breed / not breeding him) she actively sought me out. 

I kept asking her about the terms of her contract. (Something I learned here!) She kept saying she'd send it to me, but never did. Finally I told her that I would not send in my deposit until I read and understood the contract. There was a clause in the contract that stated I was not allowed to use my dog for breeding unless she agreed to the bitch I was breeding to...for the life of my dog. That set me back a bit. In my head, if I really respected the breeder and she told me that the bitch I wanted to breed to wasn't worthy, then that should be good enough for me. 

It wasn't a deal breaker for me though. I'm really not interested in breeding. So I asked her to send me a copy of the contract so I can go through it before I send in my deposit. Two weeks later and still no contract (even though I was in contact with her) I decided to go with another breeder. I have to trust my breeder. I was no longer comfortable with her. 

I think in a way a breeder needs to be a mentor. Especially with someone who is new to the breed. There is a big difference in a mentor and a police officer!


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

I think the breeder should have as much control as their contract says. 

You chose the breeder and signed their contract so abide by it, just like you would any other contract. 

If you don't like their contract, find a different breeder.


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

I'd say if you feel you need to "rent" your dogs rather than sell them, maybe you should get out of breeding?

Buyers have rights too and some breeders think they can walk all over them.

Regardless, there are lots of breeders producing very nice dogs. I don't think it's too much trouble finding one from a breeder you can agree with.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

ladyfreckles said:


> What reason did you give for not being interested in Limited Registration?


I don't know that I've been asked to elaborate, it's never really been an issue. My main reason is simply that the dog is mine, so I don't need someone else deciding ahead of time what I can and cannot do with it it in the future. I show all of my dogs regardless of line/type so limited registration is automatically restrictive. I intend to breed survey my dogs so having LR lifted is just another annoying hoop to have to jump through in an already complicated and expensive process. I reserve the right to decided whether or not to breed my dogs when they are adults; it's my decision to make.


----------



## wolfstraum (May 2, 2003)

Case by case, there are always exceptions to things....a few pups have been on full papers with people I know well - and I suspect one female has been bred by a BYB who went nder an assumed name and was a MAJOR con artist - - a good one who fooled alot of people - shame on me for being taken...but every time I check, the dog has not been transferred from my name...I will not sell a pup to someone who states they will not title it and want it for breeding. I will not sell a pup to someone who rips apart and rewrites my contract to suit themselves - thanks for your interest - good luck! I will bend over backwards to make sure that a good working home gets a pup that they can title - and if I can be there to cheer them on at a trial, I will be. 

As I have said to a couple of people - it is not the buyer that I "don't trust" - it is the uncertainity of the future if something happens!!!

I sold avery very very nice pup to a guy - he turned around & put it with a profesional trainer....he lost his job, got divorced...disappeared totally....Trainer walks up to me after the owner and dog were under the radar for almost a year, and asks me to do him a favor - release the limited on the dog so he can sell the dog to someone as a breeding male....Owner owed PT money, so handed HIM the dogs papers....hips not done, trained to title but not titled as this trainer would not put someone elses kennel name on the field...told me he would let me have the dog back for a 5 figure price....fully trained by a top trainer....contract said the dog should have been returned....last I heard he was sold and not sure where....so no matter what - once they are gone, no matter what your contract says, you really cannot control anythign...

And Mrs K - if the contract has stipulations for a release of limited, the buyer has that contract in hand and proof of compliance, they can go over breeders head if the breeder won't comply. But most are happy to release on a titled dog.

Lee


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Liesje said:


> I don't know that I've been asked to elaborate, it's never really been an issue. My main reason is simply that the dog is mine, so I don't need someone else deciding ahead of time what I can and cannot do with it it in the future. I show all of my dogs regardless of line/type so limited registration is automatically restrictive. I intend to breed survey my dogs so having LR lifted is just another annoying hoop to have to jump through in an already complicated and expensive process. I reserve the right to decided whether or not to breed my dogs when they are adults; it's my decision to make.


:thumbup:


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

I of course, would like the breeder of my dog to care about his/her well-being, and answer my calls to talk if needed. But in my opinion, to me this just sounds like, "Pay me and raise my dog for me. My dog, my rules." 

If you buy something, it's yours, and as long as you don't abuse it, you have the right to do whatever you want with it. I don't really like these super detailed contracts... The breeder of Max gave me a pretty simple contract that puts me in full control rather than it seeming like it's the breeder who owns him.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

And look what happened to Max...he's a young father with no health tests. How many breeders would be happy about that happening to one of their pups? Especially the female bred so young. Your situation is one of the reasons breeders sell on a limited. Though if your dogs have no papers, no worries right?


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

onyx'girl said:


> And look what happened to Max...he's a young father with no health tests. How many breeders would be happy about that happening to one of their pups?


the same thing would have happened on a limited registration as well...


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

onyx'girl said:


> And look what happened to Max...he's a young father with no health tests. How many breeders would be happy about that happening to one of their pups? Especially the female bred so young. Your situation is one of the reasons breeders sell on a limited. Though if your dogs have no papers, no worries right?


What happened to him? Is he hurt? I don't care about overly obsessive breeders. Max is healthy and doing well. So is Bailey, and so are the pups. And did I say my dogs don't have papers? No. They do. Just because I don't want to show them (because I have no reason to), doesn't mean I don't have them.

My situation is, things are working out perfectly. Healthy dogs, healthy pups. Not everyone wants trained show/working dogs. People want a pet. Mine are good quality and fed very well. Bailey may be young, but she's fully grown. The reason Bailey being pregnant being compared to a 12 year old pregnant girl is stupid, is because Bailey is full grown, but that 12 year old girl isn't. 

Just because you have titles for your dogs, their parents were health tested, does that guarantee yours not to have problems? NO. Besides, mine are a lot better quality than you would think. Criticize me all you want for being a BYB, but I couldn't care less at this point. If you refuse to believe that I learned my lesson, that's your problem and I still don't care.

Edit: Besides, I own Max, not the breeder. I bred high quality GSD's, BIG DEAL.


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

Actually...the bottom line is.....guarantees are meaningless when an affliction happens to your loved animal.
It can't "fix" anything.......
LR or FR again....means nothing if the dogs bred produce YOUR puppy and it has a problem.
At the end of the day, and when all else is said...including the insults, mightier than thou complexes'........ALL living, breathing creatures have no real warranties or guarantees. ALL puppies are a "chance"...a beginning...of what they can possibly be as an adult.
Your "guarantee" has no influence on that......once life begins....it is now up to nature.
JMO


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

jcojocaru said:


> What happened to him? Is he hurt? I don't care about overly obsessive breeders. Max is healthy and doing well. So is Bailey, and so are the pups. And did I say my dogs don't have papers? No. They do. Just because I don't want to show them (because I have no reason to), doesn't mean I don't have them.
> 
> My situation is, things are working out perfectly. Healthy dogs, healthy pups. Not everyone wants trained show/working dogs. People want a pet. Mine are good quality and fed very well. Bailey may be young, but she's fully grown. The reason Bailey being pregnant being compared to a 12 year old pregnant girl is stupid, is because Bailey is full grown, but that 12 year old girl isn't.
> 
> ...


No need to be so defensive. You read way more into what I posted. By papers, I meant contract. 
Though you just admitted that you bred your dogs...I thought it was an oops litter? 

Bailey is still a puppy, regardless of what her structure looks like. 

I'm not going to derail this thread on your experience. Though I wonder how the breeders of Bailey and Max feel, or if they care~registration papers or not.


> Actually...the bottom line is.....guarantees are meaningless when an affliction happens to your loved animal.
> It can't "fix" anything.......
> LR or FR again....means nothing if the dogs bred produce YOUR puppy and it has a problem.
> At the end of the day, and when all else is said...including the insults, mightier than thou complexes'........ALL living, breathing creatures have no real warranties or guarantees. ALL puppies are a "chance"...a beginning...of what they can possibly be as an adult.
> ...


Yes but as a breeder you do want what is best for what you are producing, and hope that your pups don't have pups before they are health tested at the least. Contracts aren't the end all to certain situations, but at least having one is better than none.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

robinhuerta said:


> Actually...the bottom line is.....guarantees are meaningless when an affliction happens to your loved animal.
> It can't "fix" anything.......
> LR or FR again....means nothing if the dogs bred produce YOUR puppy and it has a problem.
> At the end of the day, and when all else is said...including the insults, mightier than thou complexes'........ALL living, breathing creatures have no real warranties or guarantees. ALL puppies are a "chance"...a beginning...of what they can possibly be as an adult.
> ...


And living conditions... there are things you can influence and things you can't influence.


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

robinhuerta said:


> Actually...the bottom line is.....guarantees are meaningless when an affliction happens to your loved animal.
> It can't "fix" anything.......
> LR or FR again....means nothing if the dogs bred produce YOUR puppy and it has a problem.
> At the end of the day, and when all else is said...including the insults, mightier than thou complexes'........ALL living, breathing creatures have no real warranties or guarantees. ALL puppies are a "chance"...a beginning...of what they can possibly be as an adult.
> ...


I completely agree with you. That's the way I think. Just like any other living being, no matter how healthy and amazing a parent is genetically, leaves absolutely no guarantee as to the health of their offspring. 

I myself am somewhat against mixed breeding and (especially for GSD's) would only want them purebred. I have never put someone elses dogs/puppies down however, be they BYB's or fully certified. To be honest, a lot of GSD's here I've had a pretty nasty OPINION of, but I keep it to myself because in the end of the day, it's just an OPINION and I would rather respect those owners as well as their dogs. What's important to me is Happiness over Quality. 

And BTW Robin, I respect your work and think you have incredible dogs. They truly are incredible


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

I know MrsK....and I too agree.
I just get flustered when I hear the words "guarantee or warranty" constantly used like a throw down card......
The fact is...if a dog has a genetic issue...no warranty or guarantee is going to "make it all better" or "fix" it.........once *your* dog is afflicted...the rest is pure _paperwork._
Germany has no guarantees...and as often as we have bought from Europe...we have never expected such. *LIFE* is a gamble....period.


_Thank you Jco._


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

onyx'girl said:


> No need to be so defensive. You read way more into what I posted.
> Though you just admitted that you bred your dogs...I thought it was an oops litter?
> 
> Bailey is still a puppy, regardless of what her structure looks like.
> ...


Yes, I said I bred my dogs. They are an oops litter. They were bred whether intentional or not. And no it wasn't intentional. I just didn't feel like adding more words, (I bred my dogs OR My dogs mated when I thought they weren't interested in eachother and had a litter of puppies. I didn't intend for it to happen). I didn't feel like typing a longer one but since you brought it up I did just to clear it up. They mated so since everyone sees me as a BYB I may as well say I bred them.

And Yes, I'm going to be defensive, when you talk down on my dogs. Bailey is not a puppy. She's fully grown. Your opinion, keep it to yourself.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

I love the "any puppy or living creature is a gamble" type argument that we see so often on here or just anywhere. 

Let's see... where would I feel more confident getting my puppy from? The breeder who health checks, has generations of health checks, a solid contract that they stand behind, years of experience and has proven to produce healthy and balanced puppies OR someone breeding their so called healthy dogs (with no real proof of that) and no titles, pedigrees, etc.

Sorry to say, but not all puppies are created equal - it's about "stacking the deck". Not all breeders are created equal. Not all contracts are created equal, but that goes back to the actual breeder providing that contract and the puppies that come along with it.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

robinhuerta said:


> I know MrsK....and I too agree.
> I just get flustered when I hear the words "guarantee or warranty" constantly used like a throw down card......
> The fact is...if a dog has a genetic issue...no warranty or guarantee is going to "make it all better" or "fix" it.........once *your* dog is afflicted...the rest is pure _paperwork._
> Germany has no guarantees...and as often as we have bought from Europe...we have never expected such. *LIFE* is a gamble....period.
> ...


Exactly. Which is why I think mutual trust is more important than contracts.

The two breeders I got my pups from both gave me valuable information on, training, food, health issues and very good suggestions on all that and more. They were suggestions with a couple of restrictions. Not demands.

I would be fine without a contract. I don't know what the breeders get out of it. They really have no practical way to monitor owners once the pups are gone. 

Society, I guess we need a contract for everything.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Lucy Dog said:


> I love the "any puppy or living creature is a gamble" type argument that we see so often on here or just anywhere.
> 
> Let's see... where would I feel more confident getting my puppy from? The breeder who health checks, has generations of health checks, a solid contract that they stand behind, years of experience and has proven to produce healthy and balanced puppies OR someone breeding their so called healthy dogs (with no real proof of that) and no titles, pedigrees, etc.
> 
> Sorry to say, but not all puppies are created equal - it's about "stacking the deck". Not all breeders are created equal. Not all contracts are created equal, but that goes back to the actual breeder providing that contract and the puppies that come along with it.


:thumbup: 
We all choose who we support. And learn from our mistakes!
jcojocaru, FWIW, I never posted the term BYB about you...


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

Mrs.K said:


> And living conditions... there are things you can influence and things you can't influence.



Exactly. Also I think it's completely false that behavior is "genetic" or anything like that. Behavior has to be related to the way they're raised, fed, trained, treated, their environment etc. 

Keep a litter of puppies from a badly behaved set of parents and I bet, if they're all raised exactly the same by their owner, they will turn out very similar. But if you send them off to different owners, each will turn out differently. 

Health, there is never a guarantee. Not for any living thing. But they can obviously be influenced by a healthy lifestyle.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Jack's Dad said:


> Exactly. Which is why I think mutual trust is more important than contracts.
> 
> The two breeders I got my pups from both gave me valuable information on, training, food, health issues and very good suggestions on all that and more. They were suggestions with a couple of restrictions. Not demands.
> 
> ...


I think many breeders have one just to protect themselves, but that can be hard to enforce, of course.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

robinhuerta said:


> I know MrsK....and I too agree.
> I just get flustered when I hear the words "guarantee or warranty" constantly used like a throw down card......
> The fact is...if a dog has a genetic issue...no warranty or guarantee is going to "make it all better" or "fix" it.........once *your* dog is afflicted...the rest is pure _paperwork._
> Germany has no guarantees...and as often as we have bought from Europe...we have never expected such. *LIFE* is a gamble....period.
> ...


Absolutely agree with you on that, which is why I prefer to buy from Germany too.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

jcojocaru said:


> Exactly. Also I think it's completely false that behavior is "genetic" or anything like that. Behavior has to be related to the way they're raised, fed, trained, treated, their environment etc.
> 
> Keep a litter of puppies from a badly behaved set of parents and I bet, if they're all raised exactly the same by their owner, they will turn out very similar. But if you send them off to different owners, each will turn out differently.
> 
> Health, there is never a guarantee. Not for any living thing. But they can obviously be influenced by a healthy lifestyle.


Not true at all...Genetics play a huge role in a dogs temperament! Managing the dog is a whole other thing. 
Example: I have two dogs without genetic obedience(I didn't even know what that was) and one who has it. 
There is a huge difference, and I am the handler of all three...they are not the same due to their genetics/not my ownership/handling skills. Of course within a litter, you'll get different temperament/drives etc...just like humans, some genes present stronger and a family who is identically raised are not all the same personalities.


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

onyx'girl said:


> Not true at all...Genetics play a huge role in a dogs temperament! Managing the dog is a whole other thing.
> Example: I have two dogs without genetic obedience(I didn't even know what that was) and one who has it.
> There is a huge difference, and I am the handler of all three...they are not the same due to their genetics/not my ownership/handling skills.


But did you have them from the moment they were born? You never truly know what may have happened to the dog you own, before you owned it. How it was treated by the breeder, its mother/father, people around it, etc. This world is full of liars, you can't even trust a breeder simply because he is "certified and titled".


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

Lucy Dog said:


> I love the "any puppy or living creature is a gamble" type argument that we see so often on here or just anywhere.
> 
> Let's see... where would I feel more confident getting my puppy from? The breeder who health checks, has generations of health checks, a solid contract that they stand behind, years of experience and has proven to produce healthy and balanced puppies OR someone breeding their so called healthy dogs (with no real proof of that) and no titles, pedigrees, etc.
> 
> Sorry to say, but not all puppies are created equal - it's about "stacking the deck". Not all breeders are created equal. Not all contracts are created equal, but that goes back to the actual breeder providing that contract and the puppies that come along with it.


I get all that Paul, but what does the contract do for you? Would you return Lucy because she had bad hips for another pup. Or keep her and get another pup from the same breeder even if you didn't particularly want one. What is a solid contract that they stand behind?


----------



## FG167 (Sep 22, 2010)

Jack's Dad said:


> Exactly. Which is why I think mutual trust is more important than contracts.


Jason and I have no contracts and are both more than pleased with our dogs  We absolutely trust our breeder and I will always go back to him for the next dog until he is no longer breeding. Whether for pet, sport or whatever. 



jcojocaru said:


> Exactly. Also I think it's completely false that behavior is "genetic" or anything like that. Behavior has to be related to the way they're raised, fed, trained, treated, their environment etc.


Totally disagree. In fact, I think that behavior is based more on genetics than on anything else. If you have a truly nice dog, that dog will be nice no matter the background. If you have a dog that is truly...well, not nice, then the same applies. I've had the not nice dog and no amount of training or help could fix that. I have three genetically stable dogs and they are treated much more...loosely I guess (I don't work as hard with them to expose them to things etc), and absolutely no issues among them.

ETA: I think breeders should get as much control as the buyers sign over to them. If the contract is too strict, don't sign it. There are so many good breeders out there, I believe that everyone should be able to find the dog that they want with the contract (or lack-there-of) they are comfortable with.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

> But did you have them from the moment they were born? You never truly know what may have happened to the dog you own, before you owned it. How it was treated by the breeder, its mother/father, people around it, etc. This world is full of liars, you can't even trust a breeder simply because he is "certified and titled"


Well, as an experiment keep all your pups back and raise them the same...see how different they turn out! 
With Onyx's litter she was the most dominant female. There was a male that had the same temperament as her. Both are handfuls. The other pups were more laid back in comparison. But they all have strong herding instinct. 
Karlo's litter is pretty consistent....the pups are almost 3 and very social, outgoing and confident. The breeder has raised several litters and not all litters are so consistent. Due to their genetics, not the way the breeder raised them til they went to their forever homes, not because of the way the owners are raising them. Genetics!


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

FG167 said:


> Jason and I have no contracts and are both more than pleased with our dogs  We absolutely trust our breeder and I will always go back to him for the next dog until he is no longer breeding. Whether for pet, sport or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally disagree. In fact, I think that behavior is based more on genetics than on anything else. If you have a truly nice dog, that dog will be nice no matter the background. If you have a dog that is truly...well, not nice, then the same applies. I've had the not nice dog and no amount of training or help could fix that. I have three genetically stable dogs and they are treated much more...loosely I guess (I don't work as hard with them to expose them to things etc), and absolutely no issues among them.


I personally will never really agree with "genetic behavior", and have plenty of reason not to. But either way, I'm not worried about that in regards to my pups because Bailey is incredibly nice to everyone, and so is Max. 

I will always believe it's the conditions they're raised in, how they're treated by people/dogs, and socialization as well as training. 

It's funny, every single time you hear about a dog attack, people ALWAYS BLAME THE OWNER. Why blame the owner? It must be genetic right?


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

jcojocaru said:


> Exactly. Also I think it's completely false that behavior is "genetic" or anything like that. Behavior has to be related to the way they're raised, fed, trained, treated, their environment etc.


Lol... temperamant isn't genetic at all?! Seriously?



jcojocaru said:


> Keep a litter of puppies from a badly behaved set of parents and I bet, if they're all raised exactly the same by their owner, they will turn out very similar. But if you send them off to different owners, each will turn out differently.


And you're basing this on what? 



jcojocaru said:


> Health, there is never a guarantee. Not for any living thing. But they can obviously be influenced by a healthy lifestyle.


So if I gave you the option of two puppies. One from two OFA excellent dogs. Pedigree full of A stamps and OFA good/excellent. The second option is a puppy from two dogs with crippling HD that can barely walk and no pedigrees. Which one are you taking?

I know I used two extremes, but the whole "health is never guaranteed" is not as black and white and you seem to try to make it out to be.


----------



## Danielle609 (Jun 18, 2011)

robinhuerta said:


> I know MrsK....and I too agree.
> I just get flustered when I hear the words "guarantee or warranty" constantly used like a throw down card......
> The fact is...if a dog has a genetic issue...no warranty or guarantee is going to "make it all better" or "fix" it.........once *your* dog is afflicted...the rest is pure _paperwork._
> Germany has no guarantees...and as often as we have bought from Europe...we have never expected such. *LIFE* is a gamble....period.
> ...


A warranty or guarantee wont "fix" anything...but it there is some peace of mind by getting a dog from a reputable breeder because if anything does arise at least you know you will have support. 

And, doesn't LR protect a kennel? I just assumed that if a person has LR they couldn't go breeding random dogs and then your kennel is linked to pedigree whether you approved of the breeding or not. I mean I know they can still breed the dog, but at least they can't be papered with your kennel name in the pedigree. Or am I wrong? (Trust me it happens a lot  )


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

onyx'girl said:


> Well, as an experiment keep all your pups back and raise them the same...see how different they turn out!
> With Onyx's litter she was the most dominant female. There was a male that had the same temperament as her. Both are handfuls. The other pups were more laid back in comparison. But they all have strong herding instinct.
> Karlo's litter is pretty consistent....the pups are almost 3 and very social, outgoing and confident. The breeder has raised several litters and not all litters are so consistent. Due to their genetics, not the way the breeder raised them til they went to their forever homes, not because of the way the owners are raising them. Genetics!


I still can't bring myself to believe in genetic behavior lol... and I truly wish I could keep all these pups. They're such a joy  

Maybe I'll just go with the combination of genetics and how they're raised. I'm sure genetics plays a partial role but I think ultimately it's everything after birth.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

Jack's Dad said:


> I get all that Paul, but what does the contract do for you? Would you return Lucy because she had bad hips for another pup. Or keep her and get another pup from the same breeder even if you didn't particularly want one. What is a solid contract that they stand behind?


Yes... one bad hip and she's out of here!!

Seriously, it's more of a peace of mind type thing just like with anything. The contract is really only as breeder providing that contract. It's kind of like saying, "this is my product and we stand behind it to the fullest."

I think it's just standard practice in the breeding world to provide a contract, but there's a whole lot more to a breeder than the contract they're providing.


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

Paul....I would hope that you can understand the direction my comments are actually intended to go.....
Of course, one should *trust* their breeder....and a breeder should do ALL that they can to insure healthy puppies are being born....and stand behind them is any problem does happen. They should also be there for their buyers for support.
Having all your ducks in a row.......does not *guarantee* anything.......and THIS is what I am _trying_ to comment on.
The *guarantee* will not be a get out of jail free card.....it will not *magically* protect you or your puppy from health issues.
I have bought puppies that have later as adults, had health issues......my *guarantee* didn't protect my dog from them.....I've also bought dogs with no guarantees....same situation.
We (breeders) offer them as a trust and in good faith proposal for buyers......honestly, they are nothing more. It is our way (as breeders) to insure our buyers that we (as breeders) are doing our very best to insure that the puppies we (breeders) bring into this world....are healthy & sound.
And if for *which ever reason stated in a contract* they are NOT....we (breeders) *offer* a specific type of compensation. _ *To make a long story short*._

Buyers should always *choose* the breeders that they want to support...be it their ideals, methods, venues, lineage...etc..etc....
Even the most responsible breeders have the unfortunate luck...that a puppy can be born with health issues.

Life itself has no guarantees.....no warranties....only dedication, hope and chance.


----------



## gsdraven (Jul 8, 2009)

jcojocaru said:


> I personally will never really agree with "genetic behavior", and have plenty of reason not to. But either way, I'm not worried about that in regards to my pups because Bailey is incredibly nice to everyone, and so is Max.
> 
> I will always believe it's the conditions they're raised in, how they're treated by people/dogs, and socialization as well as training.
> 
> It's funny, every single time you hear about a dog attack, people ALWAYS BLAME THE OWNER. Why blame the owner? It must be genetic right?


Your dogs are just babies themselves and their temperaments aren't even fully formed. Dogs do not mature mentally and physically until 3.

In 10 years when you've had some real life experience with a lot of different dogs, come back and tell us that genetics has nothing to do with it. 

When a dog attacks, you blame the owner for not having better control, not because they made the dog weak nerved.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

You have it backwards. 
Genetics allow them to tolerate (or not) their environment. 
A stable dog can handle anything life throws at it - good or bad treatment.
An unstable dog (genetically unsound) will be screwed up by bad treatment and sometimes even by good/decent treatment.


----------



## FG167 (Sep 22, 2010)

jcojocaru said:


> I will always believe it's the conditions they're raised in, how they're treated by people/dogs, and socialization as well as training.
> 
> It's funny, every single time you hear about a dog attack, people ALWAYS BLAME THE OWNER. Why blame the owner? It must be genetic right?


Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I had several trainers/training directors/behaviorists etc that told me that there was nothing more I could do with the dog I had. Temperamentally, he was a failure despite all the hard work I put into him. Every single one recommended he be put down or sold into a position that would work for his temperament. This dog was socialized appropriately out the wazoo and given every single option that is available to teach him "otherwise" and he just couldn't do it. I know he wanted to do what I wished but he just could not be other than what he was. 

In fact, I do think some dogs are genetically programmed to attacks. Often, the owner should be blamed because it is their duty to not put such a dog in the position where those bad decisions happen. Also, when something horrendous happens, generally the public believes there must be someone to blame - who else but the person "responsible" for the animal? I would also like to point out that the general public is not exactly educated in regards to dogs, dog training or nature vs nurture. Therefore, John Q. Public is not going to say "oh it's genetics" regardless if every single dog trainer/owner/knowledgeable person said it was true. Otherwise there would not be all this ban the breeds stuff going on. 



Lucy Dog said:


> I think it's just standard practice in the breeding world to provide a contract, but there's a whole lot more to a breeder than the contract they're providing.


It's fairly standard in the US, but I think not so common overseas. Our dogs came from Belgium, no contracts. I agree with your second statement whole-heartedly. Even though we have no contract, we have lots of support, our updates are posted on the website and in general, we really like our continued contact with our breeder


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

Genetics are most important and that is what good breeders have to offer. 

If handling were all that was needed then you could get a GSD puppy off Craigs List for a couple of hundred bucks and call it a day.


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

Danielle....Breeders have contracts to protect both them and their buyers...at least that is what they are supposed to be for.
LR will not protect a breeder from a dishonest buyer.....and a contract with a ton of stipulations will not protect the buyer.
*Careful selection* of both buyer and seller will protect both equally.

Personally....I hate huge contracts and numerous stipulations for anything....
Either stand behind your dogs or don't......offer me a replacement or not.
I won't buy from a breeder that has a huge contract dictating to me what I must do.
Simple is more honest to me......
Replace, refund or do nothing....just simply state the facts. When I sign...I want to agree to the terms first.
I don't ask for more than I am willing to give.....


----------



## FG167 (Sep 22, 2010)

gsdraven said:


> Dogs do not mature mentally and physically until 3.
> 
> *When a dog attacks, you blame the owner for not having better control, not because they made the dog weak nerved.*


Sometimes even later than three depending on the lines, the breed and the specific dog. The bolded text is very well-stated. Thank you.



msvette2u said:


> You have it backwards.
> Genetics allow them to tolerate (or not) their environment.
> A stable dog can handle anything life throws at it - good or bad treatment.
> An unstable dog (genetically unsound) will be screwed up by bad treatment and sometimes even by good/decent treatment.


Excellent posts :thumbup:


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

Robin... I completely agree with what you're saying. My comment wasn't directed to you specifically, it was more of a general statement about this type of "health is not guaranteed" way of thinking. It just seems like an easy out for certain people.

My opinion on the subject, and to keep it as simple as possible, health is never guaranteed. That is true... that's just part of life. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do everything possible to stack the deck in the puppies favor, right?


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

Yes...of course.


----------



## FG167 (Sep 22, 2010)

robinhuerta said:


> It is our way (as breeders) to insure our buyers that we (as breeders) are doing our very best to insure that the puppies we (breeders) bring into this world....are healthy & sound.
> 
> Buyers should always *choose* the breeders that they want to support...be it their ideals, methods, venues, lineage...etc..etc....
> Even the most responsible breeders have the unfortunate luck...that a puppy can be born with health issues.
> ...


Absolutely fantastic post and all that I ask for from a breeder


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

robinhuerta said:


> Danielle....Breeders have contracts to protect both them and their buyers...at least that is what they are supposed to be for.
> LR will not protect a breeder from a dishonest buyer.....and a contract with a ton of stipulations will not protect the buyer.
> *Careful selection* of both buyer and seller will protect both equally.
> 
> ...


If breeders did a better job screening potential buyers there would be less issues as well.
How many breeders turn away prospective buyers...I bet quite a few...but more don't and will sell thru internet clicks no problem.
I agree, and really unless I was totally committed to the breeder, I don't know if I'd want that replacement. If they are breeding a dog that has as an example Pannus,Mega E or DM in the bloodlines, why would I want to chance it on another pup from them. Hips aren't the only problem plaguing this breed. 
My main concern when I looked for a pup was temperament of course, then I asked about allergies and digestion issues! Some breeders won't tell you if their dogs have any allergies or digestive sensitivities and really shouldn't breed them if so...but there are so many out there with these issues...and obviously it could be environmental, but genetics sometimes play a part IMO.


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

gsdraven said:


> Your dogs are just babies themselves and their temperaments aren't even fully formed. Dogs do not mature mentally and physically until 3.
> 
> In 10 years when you've had some real life experience with a lot of different dogs, come back and tell us that genetics has nothing to do with it.
> 
> When a dog attacks, you blame the owner for not having better control, not because they made the dog weak nerved.


They're not babies. They're full grown. Show me a picture of a baby and show me a picture of an adult and the differences are obvious.

No, people always blame the owner because: "Who knows how they treated that poor dog." Go read through the comments of any news article related to a dog attack. The reason that dog attacked was because it was not properly socialized, if at all. 

Fine, lets go with genetic. I guess Pit Bulls are pure evil because they're the leader in deaths caused to humans or animals. It's genetic. Nobody should be allowed to own a pitbull.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

> They're not babies. They're full grown. Show me a picture of a baby and show me a picture of an adult and the differences are obvious.


Physically they aren't even fully grown but what you cannot see is that mentally, they are far from it.


----------



## Shaina (Apr 2, 2011)

It honestly shocks me when I see that people still dont believe genetics play a huge role in temperment. I thought it had been proven enough. 

I own a poor nerved dog that I DID raise from birth as the litter was a HUGE oops with our lab. I put so much work into him and he is still a complete nervebag that I have to use caution with strangers meeting him. It is unfair how hard Ive trained and socialized only to get minimal results in return.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

So terriers are not critterers, herding breeds can't herd, lap dogs can't bite ankles, retrievers can't retrieve...genetics have no place in the big picture.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Years ago we had a puppy we raised since she was 6weeks. We socialized the living daylights out of her - she met everyone and went everywhere. She wound up being aggressive and fearful still and we still do not know why. Non GSD. 
She was put down after we realized we could not trust her and she was a danger. 
We did everything right.

**I think that until you deal with a genetically unsound dog (and if you haven't, be grateful!) you do not even have a clue about it. Sorry - I've dealt with more than one in our personal pack and also in rescue and it is no fun and you know relatively quickly that it's something worse than just environmental goings-on.
_The people who created those dogs ought to be the one holding the needle at the end of these broken souls tragically too-short lives. _


----------



## Shaina (Apr 2, 2011)

jcojocaru said:


> Fine, lets go with genetic. I guess Pit Bulls are pure evil because they're the leader in deaths caused to humans or animals. It's genetic. Nobody should be allowed to own a pitbull.


Pitbulls have been overbred by irresponsible BYB's with barely any aim for good temperament. They have been owned by owners who do not know how to train them, and who put them in bad situations. A nicely bred pit with somebody who knows how to train and control a strong terrier is no more dangerous than any other dog. Just like a nicely bred german shepherd is safe than a poorly bred shepherd sold on craigslist.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

jcojocaru said:


> *Also I think it's completely false that behavior is "genetic" or anything like that.* Behavior has to be related to the way they're raised, fed, trained, treated, their environment etc.


I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You can choose not to believe in genetically inheritable temperament, but your position is not supported by science. Environment does have an effect on temperament, yes, but only within a genetically determined range. You can't create herding instincts or working drives by the way you raise a dog, they're either already there or not.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

What do health checks and titles have to do with a breeder's level of control? Are we implying that breeders who sell dogs on FR with no hoops to jump through aren't doing health checks and titles? Because that's not true. Both of my FR-no-strings-attached dogs are from parents who are *all* SchH3, KKL1/2 dogs. Nikon is already SchH1 with OFA hips and elbows and Pan is being titled this year, a-stamps already sent to Germany last month. Just because a breeder sells or a buyer buys with no strings attached doesn't mean no one is doing health checks and titles...


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

onyx'girl said:


> So terriers are not critterers, herding breeds can't herd, lap dogs can't bite ankles, retrievers can't retrieve...genetics have no place in the big picture.


That's not what I meant by behavioral. Sorry I didn't elaborate on that. What I meant by behavior is not their skills, but how they treat others. 

I'm not sure how to explain exactly but I'll give examples: 

You teach a child stealing, hating, killing, etc is wrong. Would he know that if nobody taught him? No.

You teach a dog to be friendly to people and other dogs through socialization. You teach him to pee outside in a designated area. You teach him not to jump on you, to sit, stay, and so on. 

If you don't socialize your dog and leave him in the backyard all the time, what's he going to do when you take him in public?

If you don't teach him to pee in a certain spot, he'll pee anywhere. 

I think you get my point now. I guess you may be referring to skills rather than what I'm talking about.


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

Cassidy's Mom said:


> I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You can choose not to believe in genetically inheritable temperament, but your position is not supported by science. Environment does have an effect on temperament, yes, but only within a genetically determined range. You can't create herding instincts or working drives by the way you raise a dog, they're either already there or not.



I wasn't talking about skills. So I'm not wrong yet. Herding is more a skill than behavior.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Herding is a skill?? You can teach it to any dog, like a Lab or a Newfoundland??

Ookay.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

*
You teach a child stealing, hating, killing, etc is wrong. Would he know that if nobody taught him? No.*

I guess I have a more optimistic view of human nature but I believe human beings are born knowing the difference between right and wrong, with the exception of sociopaths.

*You teach him to pee outside in a designated area.* 

Actually I just open the door since I'm the one with thumbs. My dogs would be mortified if they were forced to pee and poop inside their home.

*If you don't socialize your dog and leave him in the backyard all the time, what's he going to do when you take him in public?*

I have a dog that was raised just like this and returned to the rescue as an adult. We adopted him and he has always been the most happy, social dog we've had. He loves people, kids, and loves the dog park. We taught him none of this and he was returned to the rescue because the original family was not caring for him. I also know a dog that was purchased after a year old and the dog basically lived in a kennel up until that point with NO training or socialization but this dog is very stable, very friendly dog, good with people and other dogs. She just came that way because the breeding is solid.


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

Shaina said:


> Pitbulls have been overbred by irresponsible BYB's with barely any aim for good temperament. They have been owned by owners who do not know how to train them, and who put them in bad situations. A nicely bred pit with somebody who knows how to train and control a strong terrier is no more dangerous than any other dog. Just like a nicely bred german shepherd is safe than a poorly bred shepherd sold on craigslist.


Tons of pitbulls are owned by "tough guys" and irresponsible people. Every gangster and thug out there want a pitbull because they're just "so bad"... They couldn't care less about training them, they just want a bad dog. In my opinion, pitbulls seem to be desired by idiots and irresponsible people more so than any other breed out there. I think it has very little to do with genetics. I guess then that even every bad child in this world has a bad set of parents as well.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Herding is an instinct which comes from genetics. A dog without that won't know what to do. Can a Golden Retriever herd? Onyx and Karlo constantly herd each other and Kacie. Kacie doesn't have that instinct as strongly as they do.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

jcojocaru said:


> I wasn't talking about skills. So I'm not wrong yet. Herding is more a skill than behavior.


That is so not true. Okay, lets put it this way - some people are born with musical talent or athletic talent, others have a tin ear or two left feet. You can ignore those those talents or you can nurture them, but you cannot create them if they're not there in the first place - that's genetics.

Herding dogs are skilled at herding BECAUSE of their inherited instincts. You may be able to teach a non-herding breed to herd, but they're probably not going to be very good at it unless they have genetically inherited herding instincts.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

A fish that can swim... is that a skill?


----------



## Shaina (Apr 2, 2011)

jcojocaru said:


> That's not what I meant by behavioral. Sorry I didn't elaborate on that. What I meant by behavior is not their skills, but how they treat others.
> 
> I'm not sure how to explain exactly but I'll give examples:
> 
> ...


Again, I worked my butt off with my lab from the day he was born. He has met HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of people in his life. He has been socialized insane amounts. He is STILL nervy around strangers. He has terrible separation anxiety. He growls at little old ladies and children. This is DESPITE training him insane amounts for three years, going to doggie daycare that I worked at and supervised at, and having no negative experiences with people.

That is genetic. Period.


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

msvette2u said:


> Herding is a skill?? You can teach it to any dog, like a Lab or a Newfoundland??
> 
> Ookay.


Ookay. Reading comprehension. Ookay.

MORE A SKILL THAN A BEHAVIOR.

Didn't say it's just a skill, and didn't say it's just behavior.

Behavior: manner of behaving or conducting oneself 
Skill: 1. special ability in a task, sport, etc, esp ability acquired by training

By behavior, I mean how my dogs conduct themselves.


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

Shaina said:


> Again, I worked my butt off with my lab from the day he was born. He has met HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of people in his life. He has been socialized insane amounts. He is STILL nervy around strangers. He has terrible separation anxiety. He growls at little old ladies and children. This is DESPITE training him insane amounts for three years, going to doggie daycare that I worked at and supervised at, and having no negative experiences with people.
> 
> That is genetic. Period.


One experience proves it's genetic? No. 
I can show examples working the opposite way. Period.


----------



## gsdraven (Jul 8, 2009)

jcojocaru said:


> They're not babies. They're full grown. Show me a picture of a baby and show me a picture of an adult and the differences are obvious.
> 
> No, people always blame the owner because: "Who knows how they treated that poor dog." Go read through the comments of any news article related to a dog attack. The reason that dog attacked was because it was not properly socialized, if at all.
> 
> Fine, lets go with genetic. *I guess Pit Bulls are pure evil because they're the leader in deaths caused to humans or animals*. It's genetic. Nobody should be allowed to own a pitbull.


Again, your dogs are 1 year old. They are not yet full grown nor are they mentally mature. Please go open an anatomy & physiology textbook or do some research. 

EDUCATED people do not blame the owner because "who knows how they treated the poor dog". EXPERIENCED people know that genetics plays a big role.

Pitbulls (which is a slang term for a bunch of different breeds) are actually genetically good to humans. They have been bred for dog aggression, not human aggression. In fact, quite the opposite. 

Where on earth did you come up with the idea that they are the leading cause of death in humans and animals? It couldn't possibly be disease or natural causes?!


----------



## gsdraven (Jul 8, 2009)

jcojocaru said:


> I can show examples working the opposite way. Period.


Please do.


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

gsdraven said:


> Again, your dogs are 1 year old. They are not yet full grown nor are they mentally mature. Please go open an anatomy & physiology textbook or do some research.
> 
> EDUCATED people do not blame the owner because "who knows how they treated the poor dog". EXPERIENCED people know that genetics plays a big role.
> 
> ...


I meant caused by dogs. WOW I'm done here.

Edit: Anyway, stick to your anatomy & physiology textbook. Don't bother to raise your kids on how to conduct themselves. Because clearly it's genetic how they treat others and the bad/good things they do.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

jcojocaru said:


> One experience proves it's genetic? No.
> I can show examples working the opposite way. Period.


You realize that this kind of thing has actually been studied scientifically, yes? Your examples are anecdotal, which is not even remotely comparable. 

Herding requires prey drive. Explain to me how you would teach a dog to have prey drive.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

This thread is getting bizarre...


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

****, I state an opinion and claim it to be an opinion and everyone just loves to attack me and my dogs. I'm done with these forums.


----------



## Shaina (Apr 2, 2011)

When you come onto a forum full of dog trainers, breeders, and advocates that have done extensive research and had experience with something, and you try to state that science is wrong, people are going to disagree with you. A year old dog is still a puppy, and genetics strongly influence behavior. That is proven information, not an attack.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

Liesje said:


> This thread is getting bizarre...


This is what happens when we get into one of those touchy subjects like breeding and genetics. Certain subjects just tend to have this effect.


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

Yeah and this is what also happens when people can't respect anyone elses opinion. They're just idiots because they're opinion is different. I'm not going to waste my time here anymore.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

jcojocaru said:


> Yeah and this is what also happens when people can't respect anyone elses opinion. They're just idiots because they're opinion is different. I'm not going to waste my time here anymore.


Just walk away from the thread then. That's the beauty of forums like this. You stated your opinion. You don't need to prove anything to anyone. 

The longer you stick around and argue a certain point, the more responses you're going to get, especially when you're trying to argue science.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

You stated an opinion (at first) as if it were fact. When people pointed that out you used some very loose "examples" and people still pointed it out.
That's not an attack. 
You've gotten more support here and advice/help than most people who allowed their dogs who were less than a year of age to "accidentally breed".
And then you run off in a snit because these folks know way more than you and told you so, when you threw out the notions you did?


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Lucy Dog said:


> This is what happens when we get into one of those touchy subjects like breeding and genetics. Certain subjects just tend to have this effect.


I guess I didn't realize that scientific fact backed up with infinite anecdotal evidence can be such a touchy subject, lol!


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

> Pitbulls (which is a slang term for a bunch of different breeds) are actually genetically good to humans. They have been bred for dog aggression, not human aggression. In fact, quite the opposite.


speaking of bizarre I was told by a Pit Bull person that GSD's are bred for human aggression because a police dog can't learn to take down people when it's not in them.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

Liesje said:


> I guess I didn't realize that scientific fact backed up with infinite anecdotal evidence can be such a touchy subject, lol!


Stick a hundred people in a room (or internet forum) and I'll guarantee you'll find at least one of those people that wants to argue just about anything.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

Shaina said:


> When you come onto a forum full of dog trainers, breeders, and advocates that have done extensive research and had experience with something, and you try to state that science is wrong, people are going to disagree with you. A year old dog is still a puppy, and genetics strongly influence behavior. *That is proven information, not an attack.*


Exactly. Opinions are fine if you're talking about favorite foods, or colors, (I hate the color brown, it's boring! Spicy food rules!), or what type of GSD is the prettiest (longcoats!!!! :wub, or anything else that is subjective. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts. When people choose to stubbornly stick to opinions that are not supported by fact, they are closing themselves off from learning. And what would be the point of that? :thinking:


----------



## Shaina (Apr 2, 2011)

Mrs.K said:


> speaking of bizarre I was told by a Pit Bull person that GSD's are bred for human aggression because a police dog can't learn to take down people when it's not in them.


Interesting. Definitely not true, but interesting LOL. Maybe bred for neutral behavior and natural aloofness, but definitely not human aggression.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

ladyfreckles said:


> A friend and I were talking about this today. She paid a lot of money for her dog from a not-so-well-known but reputable breeder. The dog is 6 months now, and she no longer talks to the breeder at all despite wanting to stay in contact originally.
> 
> The breeder on several times wanted to randomly reject her for things such as taking the dog to a dog park, taking the puppy out of the house at all before vaccines were done, enrolling in a puppy class before the pup is 4 months, etc etc. She had a bunch of weird rules and "deal breakers". My friend went through with getting the puppy anyway because she loved the parents. Even after the process she stayed in contact with the breeder, who continued to criticize everything (not feeding raw, working on agility stuff "too soon" despite the stuff being simple, etc). The breeder neglected to mention that it was limited registration only, also.
> 
> ...


I did not read through the other posts, will after I post, so excuse if much is said already.

I put other. I do believe that once the sale is final, the dog is the responsibility of the new owner. 

My answer in short is that the breeder should have as much control as their contract which both parties agree upon, spells out. If both parties agree that the dog be kept inside and not chained, and that if the breeder finds out that the dog is chained out, they can demand that the dog be returned, then that is what should happen. If that is what WILL happen in the courts, I really don't know. But if you agree to something in the contract, then that is what both parties should be willing to do. 

I think that a breeder's job is to find excellent homes, and to educate and support their puppy buyers. Someone once told me that to stop their previous dog from going in the garbage, they duct taped rotting meat to the dog's muzzle for three days, you can bet I did not sell this person a puppy. But there are a host of things that make breeders cringe, and good reason for many of them. Dog parks can be an awesome experience if everyone knows what they are doing, they can also be terrible. 

I think that maybe more breeders should have more deal breakers, that is NOT sell the puppy if people are going to do certain things. Starting agility before a certain age -- that can damage the puppy's joints or cause serious injuries. Puppy buyers should know that, but many do not. So some people try to educate, some demand certain things. So we as breeders have to actually talk to the people on the phone, through e-mails, and determine whether it is a good home before the purchase. And provide information, warnings about things when we pass the puppy to the new owner. 

It does not make sense to not mention limited or full registration. The breeder may have that as a default, it may be stated on the web page. She may have mentioned it, and your friend had PUPPY on her brain and did not hear everything. But if you are not planning on showing in conformation or breeding, there is no reason for you to get a full-registration and it may be some protection for the puppy. 

$1000+ is no different than $500 or $200. The breeder does not care less about the puppy because they are selling it for more money. The point of limited registration is to try to prevent the puppy from falling into the hands of a puppy mill if they decide to sell the pup. If the pup is worth $1000, that probably means that a better stud was used, with a higher stud fee, and the cost of the bitch, health testing for the bitch, training and trialing for the bitch, maintenance costs for the bitch are higher. The person selling $200 puppies may be feeding Ole Roy. You don't know. 

Generally if you pay less than $500 for a puppy, those are the transactions where the breeder takes the money, hands you the pup and the papers -- probably full registration, says good bye, and is done with you. 

There are scoundrels out there charging whatever they can get, so the purchase price is really no assurance of a quality breeder, but chances are you will have more questions, more requirements, with the higher price tag, not the other way around. 

So to summarize the ramblings, 

The breeder should spend the time before the sale to find out what kind of home the pup is going to. 

The breeder and the buyer should abide to the contract that both signed. If the breeder does not require something in writing, they should not try to take the puppy back for something they did not spell out. 

The breeder should offer their opinions when the buyer talks to them, they should have more experience with the breed. And they may be able to steer the buyer away from serious trouble. The breeder should educate/support the buyer as needed.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

jcojocaru said:


> Yeah and this is what also happens when people can't respect anyone elses opinion. They're just idiots because they're opinion is different. I'm not going to waste my time here anymore.


You can do that or stick around and learn. 

There are many threads already on nature vs nurture and a really good one on genetic obedience. You can choose to be defensive or learn something.


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

I don't want a breeder that's a micro-manager for a couple of reasons. One it's just annoying. I also suspect there are breeders who pile on the nit picking requirements knowing meeting all of 'em will be nigh onto impossible which gives them a convenient out on the warranty. 

However, I'd never lie to a breeder. Lying renders meaningful communication impossible & it's insulting. I expect honesty from any breeder I'm dealing with & I owe that in return. IF I didn't like the conditions, I'd inquire as to whether they could be negotiated. IF not, I'd either comply or look further.

I like being able to take my dogs to the dog park. There are lines that do poorly in dog parks & I'd rather look further if that's the case.

I also don't want a pup from lines known to be highly intolerant of or allergic to many foods. Hence, I'm not much for a lot of dietary restrictions. I've known tons of dogs that thrived on truly crummy food. I currently feed RAW. Before that I fed high protein, meat based kibbles. ~15 yrs ago I fed Pro-PAK. My dogs are well fed. I doubt I'd promise more than that b/c I'd worry that breeders who need more than that might have dogs with problematic digestive issues they're not even fully aware of.

Full registration? It might be *my* dog, but it's the breeder's name on his pedigree. I absolutely support & understand limited registration. IF I was a breeder I'd be very selective in granting people full registration. No decent breeder wants their name on ill chosen breedings. No decent breeder wants to hear that their grandpups are pouring into shelters or rescues b/c irresponsible puppy owners have produced scads of badly bred, poorly placed pups.

Bottom line, if a breeder feels they can't fundamentally trust me then they shouldn't sell me a pup. Conversely, if I don't feel that I can trust them I need to look elsewhere. I'd rather get a pup from a trusted breeder with no warranty than a pup from someone I didn't trust even if s/he provided the world's best warranty.

Temperament absolutely is genetic though how it presents will be influenced by the environment.


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

Jack's Dad said:


> You can do that or stick around and learn.
> 
> There are many threads already on nature vs nurture and a really good one on genetic obedience. You can choose to be defensive or learn something.


look at their responses after i said i'm attacked for having an opinion. What did they do, apologize? No. they laughed it off. They think i'm an idiot. I respected everyone and their opinions and don't put anyone down unless I feel attacked. What should I stay here? There's no point if posting for me. I admit, yes, I can be wrong. I didnt state facts, I started opinion and defended it. Not one did I "lol!" or say, "go read a book...", "you came to a forum with lots of breeders, trainers, experienced people, what do you expect. Lol!" That means I can't have an opinion? That means i'm stupid? I'm not all knowing of course, I have a lot to learn, but I don't stay in hostile environments and that's why I would rather leave.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

jcojocaru said:


> Don't bother to raise your kids on how to conduct themselves. Because clearly it's genetic how they treat others and the bad/good things they do.


In your defensiveness you've totally missed the point. You still have to raise your kids how to conduct themselves, and you still have to train your dogs. But what they are ultimately capable of will fall within a range determined largely by genetics.


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

Cassidy's Mom said:


> In your defensiveness you've totally missed the point. You still have to raise your kids how to conduct themselves, and you still have to train your dogs. But what they are ultimately capable of will fall within a range determined largely by genetics.


I stated multiple times that by behavior I meant How we or the dogs conduct ourselves, not what we're capable of. I wonder if anyone even fully reads my posts. And thanks for proving my point.


----------



## Shaina (Apr 2, 2011)

jcojocaru said:


> "you came to a forum with lots of breeders, trainers, experienced people, what do you expect. Lol!"


If you want to be upset and leave the forums that is your decision, but I'd appreciate it if you would NOT misquote me. The way I responded to you was incredibly reasonable, fair, and did not include "what do you expect. Lol!". Misquoting somebody is definitely not a good way to make friends, online or offline. I am very insulted that you did that.


----------



## Shaina (Apr 2, 2011)

Shaina said:


> When you come onto a forum full of dog trainers, breeders, and advocates that have done extensive research and had experience with something, and you try to state that science is wrong, people are going to disagree with you. A year old dog is still a puppy, and genetics strongly influence behavior. That is proven information, not an attack.



For the record, THAT was my post. I'd like to bring it back to your attention to reread how civilly it was posted.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

jcojocaru said:


> look at their responses after i said i'm attacked for having an opinion. What did they do, apologize? No. they laughed it off. They think i'm an idiot. I respected everyone and their opinions and don't put anyone down unless I feel attacked. What should I stay here? There's no point if posting for me. I admit, yes, I can be wrong. I didnt state facts, I started opinion and defended it. Not one did I "lol!" or say, "go read a book...", "you came to a forum with lots of breeders, trainers, experienced people, what do you expect. Lol!" That means I can't have an opinion? That means i'm stupid? I'm not all knowing of course, I have a lot to learn, but I don't stay in hostile environments and that's why I would rather leave.


Stick around. We really aren't all that bad.

Most of us have our momemts when we aren't the nicest, and some of the topics really bring it out but most of us actually have a nice side too.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

Nobody attacked you for having an opinion, nobody said you're an idiot, they simply said that you're wrong. Does that mean you're stupid? Of course not. The very nature of an opinion is that it cannot be objectively proven as true or false, but what you're stating as "just my opinion" is something that CAN be objectively proven as false.


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

Shaina said:


> For the record, THAT was my post. I'd like to bring it back to your attention to reread how civilly it was posted.


I wasn't quoting you, I didn't put your name in it, and I was just combining different ones to show my point. forget this though. There's no point in proving my point, seems a huge majority of people here think they know everything and think i'm an idiot. It doesn't bother me, but just tells me time to move on.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

jcojocaru, for the sake of Max and Bailey(and their babies) please stick around and learn. This breed is so amazing and we need them to stay that way. Through good breeding, ownership and training, hopefully Max and Baileys pups will be great representatives. You as their breeder owe them that much. This site has been very supportive of you and I know it has been hard for you the past several weeks, but stick around for them, please.


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

onyx'girl said:


> jcojocaru, for the sake of Max and Bailey(and their babies) please stick around and learn. This breed is so amazing and we need them to stay that way. Through good breeding, ownership and training, hopefully Max and Baileys pups will be great representatives. You as their breeder owe them that much. This site has been very supportive of you and I know it has been hard for you the past several weeks, but stick around for them, please.


I'll think about it. Just hasn't seemed very friendly and it really irritates me that nobody seems to understand what I mean. I try very hard to be respectful and I've had so many moments where I could have said something rude but I didn't, and when I post a simple opinion, state it to be opinion, it's so wrong and stupid of me. My dogs are not adults they're puppies and i'm a BYB. this forum hates BYBs. I feel like most here are against me. If i'm so supported why do I feel like i'm opposed? I'm not asking to be supported, I don't deserve it by this forums standards. Whether I stay or not, don't worry about Max/Bailey/Puppies, i'm doing everything I can for them, i'm not going to neglect them no matter what...


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

Cassidy's Mom said:


> Nobody attacked you for having an opinion, nobody said you're an idiot, they simply said that you're wrong. Does that mean you're stupid? Of course not. The very nature of an opinion is that it cannot be objectively proven as true or false, but what you're stating as "just my opinion" is something that CAN be objectively proven as false.


can't prove someone wrong if you don't understand what they meant.


----------



## Shaina (Apr 2, 2011)

I'd like to see this topic go back to being ON TOPIC as opposed to debating if we understood your point or if you should leave the forums. I mean that in the kindest way possible, debating the issue is getting the topic nowhere.

I bought my girl with no contract, but the breeder will stand behind my dog if any health issues were to pop up. We actually spoke today and he is very happy with how far we have gone in training and how great of a dog she has been, as a pet AND as a schutzhund dog. He has been completely relaxed with how I raise my dog, but he is a personal friend of my trainer who got the dog for me, so that may have something to do with it.. knowing his dog is going into good hands. She has full registration.

On the other side, I could see where some structure is needed. The previous breeder I was going to purchase from had a VERY big contract with many stipulations. I don't want to worry about my breeder determining for me whether or not my case of HD is genetic or environmental on whether or not to support me from it... so that's not what I desire. However, if the right dog came along, I may sacrifice some of my freedom for that dog.


----------



## qbchottu (Jul 10, 2011)

I want to do business with someone I can trust and form a long-term relationship with. I would never give my money to someone I felt was less than honorable so I think this helps when deciding about rights and registration. 

My male is on full registration and I know my breeder trusts me to make the right judgment in regards to him. Ideally, I want FR with mutual trust and respect between the breeder and me. I used to be dead-set on no strings attached FR contracts. However, I have recently bent those rules because of a dog I just had to have. But the same standards apply in that I am only considering the new type of contract based on the strong relationship I have with the breeder. So I guess in my case, it depends. If I can trust my breeder, I don't need an overly cut and dry contract. I know my breeders have my back and they know I won't do anything irresponsible with their dogs. My breeders will be with me through the good times and bad; they know I will do everything I can to ensure that the dogs are developed to the best of their ability. This, to me, is the ideal situation


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

I want a contract that guarantees my dog will always be healthy, live as long as me and then go to heaven, while making sure I get there!

If that is not possible I will go with a breeder I trust, whose dogs I have seen and like, who I can learn from and who will provide support, and who will trust me to do my best with one of her dogs.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

martemchik said:


> but I feel like this would be Apple coming to your door and taking away your computer because you're not using it correctly.


Your computer is not a living, breathing creature that can be permanently harmed by not "using" it correctly.



> The breeding rights thing, I will not breed, but in the chance that he's titled and a reputable breeder comes to me and asks me to stud, I'll think about it. And its nice having the option to do so without having to go back to the breeder.


That's the problem with most dog owners. They don't realize that they are not just breeding their dog - they are breeding their dog, and their dogs parents and their parents and so on.

The BREEDER of your dog will - if they are a GOOD breed - have kept in touch with the owners from that litter and will know if there are any problems with the dogs. Just because YOUR dog doesn't have HD doesn't mean none of the other pups in the litter didn't. Your dog could have been the only one in a litter of 7 that had GOOD hips. And if you bred your dog your would be passing along only a 1 out of 7 chance of not getting HD.

Ok - that's rather simplified (genetically speaking) but you get my point.

If a well-know and, in my mind, respected breeder approached me and wanted to buy a puppy with full registration I would have no problem saying yes.

The average pet owner? NO WAY.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Wow this thread sure has taken a bizarre twist. Well, I have seen enough dogs washed from SAR because you cannot put drive in it if is not there, no matter how hard you want to or try, just as you cannot make a weak nerved dog confident. It is pretty hard to mess up a genetically sound dog; it really is and you can't take a dog that is not hard wired right and do much with it!

That said - my own preference in a contract is simple refund if major genetic issue that renders the dog unworkable occurs, and please don't try to control every aspect of my life with the dog but I agree with limited registrations. If a breeder wants to micromanage me and my dog, I simply won't buy. I don't want to buy from someone who does not know me well enough to know that I properly care for my dogs.

I expect the seller to be honest abuot their own dogs' known issues and properly represent what they are selling.

On the other side what about the BUYER? We are not buying widgets made in a factory where every part goes through design and quality control before it goes in. What you get is not so completely predicatable that every issue can be forseen but yet people expect an unrealistic level of perfection. Even if two great dogs go together, sometimes and unforseen combination can cause problems. I am not going to buy from someone I don't trust. 

To me the contract really is about laying forward the expectations of each other and making sure you are on the same page, because sometimes if you don't put them in writing, you are thinking one thing and the breeder another.

Somehow in 22 years of buying purebred dogs, I have never managed to return one or ask for a refund....I have had some health issues with some dogs but by then they are my dogs and what-r-ya-gonna-do? If it were a short time with a new puppy I could return it, but not a dog I have had for two years.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I read through all 15 pages. [pats self on back]

Robin, I agree, a simple contract is best. Mine is 1/2 page, and then some lines to write in any concerns. Then room for signatures. Mostly it is what I agree to do in certain events, and whether registration is limited or full. 

Andy (I think) I agree that trust is important between both parties. If I do not trust you to take care of the dog, I don't sell the dog. If you don't trust me, you don't buy from me. Of course, sometimes there is only so much trust that can happen between a few e-mails, and a phone call, and meeting people one time. I do not expect people to trust me completely, so I agree to some stuff in writing. I think the biggest gamble is when we pass the puppy over to the new owners, they are gambling on the health and temperament of the puppy; we are gambling on the ability and willingness of the people to treat the puppy well. We all hear all the time how puppies are a crap shoot. But all buyers have to worry about is what type of issues the pup will have and when they will present themselves. Breeders have a lot more to worry about, and I can see why some want to be controlling.

Jcojocaru, I think temperament is genetic, but behavior/manners is training, and for some things socialization. The last line of my training page in my puppy book is, "A well-mannered dog is a pleasure to be around, it is not an accident and it is not genetic." I don't think anyone here is letting owner's off the hook about socializing and training their dogs properly. We train a dog how to act in situations, we manage them with respect to what they can handle, but their capacity to handle situations/distractions is more genetic, which can only be improved somewhat through training/socialization/management.


----------



## spiritsmom (Mar 1, 2003)

I voted a little control. I have seen contracts from some breeders that are beyond ridiculous - I don't buy a puppy from them. I don't mind having LR until the dogs tests out as breedworthy. I appreciate advice on how to care for the puppy and do take all of that into consideration. But if a breeder wanted me to only feed raw I couldn't do it. There are some that require you give the puppy a certain supplement of which they happen to be a distributor. No supplement, no warranty. Others I have seen require a certain kind of food, certain amount, certain supplements/additives or you void your warranty. If you ever go back to them with an issue you better have receipts for all the items they required or they will void your warranty. Even seen one that requires you maintain pet insurance for the life of the puppy. I just don't buy from the ones that require so many things. I see nothing wrong with a breeder telling me what foods are best and so on - but requiring a certain brand/supplements and demanding receipts that I bought it are a little too much for me. You didn't feed Acana or whatever so that's why your dog now has HD is what they try to do so they can get out of their warranty. The contract for my first Shiloh Shepherd years ago was like that - required certain brands, ground turkey, cottage cheese, vitamins, supplements, obedience classes and OFA x-rays even for pet quality/spayed. I followed through on all of that yet that dog still had a genetic health problem and what I felt was a genetic tendency to fear aggression that caused me to return her to the breeder. But in the end - the dog had all that because I failed to raise her properly according to the breeder so my guarantee was voided.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

So yeah, 6 or 7 years ago a breeder recommends you feed Nutro and then the recalls are going on and Nutro is suspected of killing dogs....does that make your contract void? I'd never ever sign such a contract. Or your dog is now a senior and the food that is required is horrible for a senior. 
What is a breeder thinking when they require brands? 
Other than $ kickbacks from sales. 

Red flag.


----------



## spiritsmom (Mar 1, 2003)

I know it is that way for the supplements. As far as the brands I have no idea! My first Shiloh was my first ever breeder purchased dog and at the time I just figured those kinds of contracts were the norm - have found out since that they are not! I followed that nutrition contract to the letter every day and still she developed EPI somehow - I say that fairly sarcastically.


----------



## BlackGSD (Jan 4, 2005)

I haven't read all of the posts yet but obviously jcojocaru has never seen a herding dog with NO TRAINING, herd livestock. I really is something to see. And it WILL make a believer out of you if you are ever lucky enough to see it. It is 100% GENETIC.


----------



## jcojocaru (Nov 8, 2010)

BlackGSD said:


> I haven't read all of the posts yet but obviously jcojocaru has never seen a herding dog with NO TRAINING, herd livestock. I really is something to see. And it WILL make a believer out of you if you are ever lucky enough to see it. It is 100% GENETIC.


I never said anything about herding not being genetic in the first place... That was never what I meant by behavioral...


----------



## Lakl (Jul 23, 2011)

I will give a good example of "behavioral" genetics. My female I got at 9 weeks. My male at 8 wks. Got my female first and socialized heavily. Took her to puppy classes, shopping centers, parks, etc. every chance I got. She is a ball of nerves. Take her to an empy park at 7am and she is still nervous getting out of the car and will just bark at nothing. Fireworks or gun shots will send her cowering in the bath tub. She approaches strangers with caution, and has to stay in the car at the vets office until it is her turn to get called back, because she can't handle all the strange dogs.

My male has never been to a single class, and has not been socialized near as much as my female because of health issues, yet he is completely at ease in just about any situation. Fireworks and gun shots don't phase him at all. He is friendly and social with everyone. We were in Petsmart once, and there was someone there with a reactive dog. He saw my male and was lunging and barking at him. My pup just glanced at him and then focused back on me like he wasn't even there. My female would have come UNGLUED!

The whole genetics thing regarding behavior and temperament was never more clear to me than when I got my male. He is sound and stable because it is in his genetics. She is a nervous fear reactive mess because it is in her genetics. Period.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

breeder - buyer relations should be mutually interested that the pup has recieved the best chance for a long and healthy life (breeder) and will continue to recieve those things which contribute to a long and healthy life (new owner). That includes nutrition, care, and socialization/ training .
When you buy a car it is under warranty offered by the manufacturer , but , you as the owner , have to abide by conditions , such as regular stipulated oil changes etc. Fail to do that , warranty nullified.
Cliff said 
Nobody can guarantee anything with a puppy for the future, so I don't expect conditions or guarantees. If the dog turns up dysplastic or chronic illness...then it is the luck of the draw"
You may not expect them Cliff . Generally dogs from europe do not come with guarantees. The thinking is that they have already done everything possible , bred according to pre-set requirements , hips at one year "a" stamp , some training title , and the rest is up to caprice of nature.
You do know though , when you breed a litter Cliff , that the North American buyer does have an expectation of a guarantee from YOU. Would you not have a vested interested to work together in creating situation for the best outcome.
I don't think it is unreasonable that there be some guidance . 
I can't enforce you to feed a particular way , but I can certainly have that exchange where I am provide information that will have the new owner be prepared for better choices. Don't want to feed raw, not going to do it properly , well then here are some kibbles that I recommend . 
Weight -- since that is the one area where there does seem to be a risk elevation for poor hip results .
Vaccinations , provide material for intelligent choices , provide alternatives , information on titers.

Pretty basic stuff . 
Carmen


----------



## Verivus (Nov 7, 2010)

Frankly, I don't give a hoot if my breeders have contracts or not as long as I trust them, the breeding, and have built a good rapport. I had a contract with Kaiser's breeder; lot of good that did.  Now I know better.


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

I don't care much about contracts, they are only as good as the paper they are written on. I totally agree with the poster who said something like, as long it's a breeder one can trust, does right by their own dogs, that's what I'm going to go with contract or not.

don't get me wrong, I've got contracts on all my dogs, but in reality, if any of them had HD, or someother 'replacement' disease, I in all honesty, am not going to enforce it. CRAP Happens, I agree you can't really guarantee living breathing things, no one can foretell the future. 

However, in the above scenerio, I would expect said breeder to step up and offer 'something' just because it would be the right thing to do. 

I've seen atleast two examples, here on this board (and I'm sure more) of buyers doing the right thing, and breeders washing their hands of them. That tells me that 'said' breeders are just in it for the money Don't really care about the puppies they produce or selling.

The 'genetics' thing, yes we all have our opinions and one should be respecful of them, you can work with fearful, aggressive dogs, and you may be able to manage them, but whatever 'blueprint' that dog was born with, will always be just under the surface whether good or bad. 

A good read is Malcolm Willis's Genetics of the Dog. It's a fairly easy read and gives alot of insite into genetics.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

jcojocaru said:


> , is because Bailey is full grown, but that 12 year old girl isn't.
> 
> Just because you have titles for your dogs, their parents were health tested, does that guarantee yours not to have problems? NO. Besides, mine are a lot better quality than you would think. Criticize me all you want for being a BYB, but I couldn't care less at this point. If you refuse to believe that I learned my lesson, that's your problem and I still don't care.
> 
> Edit: Besides, I own Max, not the breeder. I bred high quality GSD's, BIG DEAL.


 

That is exactly why many of us restrict registration. ONLY by a training program can one properly evaluate drive and temperament. That is why we also require hip evals. Did you xray your dog's hips?? People who do not train and/or do not actually work dogs do not understand fully the necessity for titling,xrays yadda yadda in order to preserve the working drives and health in our GSDs in breeding stock. That lack of restrictions is exactly why the American line GSD is not used in police nor military work. With precious few exceptions,ONLY european line dogs have the drive and temperament for work .

I am expecting my Gabbi/Karo litter next month. Will their registration be limited. YES! There is no obligation to purchase my pups. I breed dogs for a specific purpose. In years past when I did not limit the registration,I had buyers lie as to their intentions and breeding them without health/hip clearances,titles etc. NEVER again. So there is another side to this thing about breeders placing restrictions on their pups. And again. Nobody has to purchase them from me. I could care less.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

ladylaw203 said:


> That is exactly why many of us restrict registration. ONLY by a training program can one properly evaluate drive and temperament. That is why we also require hip evals. Did you xray your dog's hips?? People who do not train and/or do not actually work dogs do not understand fully the necessity for titling,xrays yadda yadda in order to preserve the working drives and health in our GSDs in breeding stock. That lack of restrictions is exactly why the American line GSD is not used in police nor military work. With precious few exceptions,ONLY european line dogs have the drive and temperament for work .
> 
> I am expecting my Gabbi/Karo litter next month. Will their registration be limited. YES! There is no obligation to purchase my pups. I breed dogs for a specific purpose. In years past when I did not limit the registration,I had buyers lie as to their intentions and breeding them without health/hip clearances,titles etc. NEVER again. So there is another side to this thing about breeders placing restrictions on their pups. And again. Nobody has to purchase them from me. I could care less.


 
** Comment removed by Admin**


----------



## Caitydid255 (Aug 28, 2010)

*martemchik*  _ but I feel like this would be Apple coming to your door and taking away your computer because you're not using it correctly._


I'm glad Apple doesn't monitor my computer...lol. My sister spilled my soda all over the keyboard this new years doing intoxicated dramatics :angryfireno alcohol for me, post surgery) and I continually have to take the keyboard apart to clean it in order to keep it working. Plus lord knows what people google on this poor beast, as it's the only computer in the house. 

Meanwhile the dogs are curled up on their own chairs and the cat is sprawled in a sunbeam. Guess I'm doing something right.


----------



## Caitydid255 (Aug 28, 2010)

ladylaw203 said:


> People who do not train and/or do not actually work dogs do not understand fully the necessity for titling,xrays yadda yadda in order to preserve the working drives and health in our GSDs in breeding stock.



I have to disagree with you there. If you've ever owned a severe HD dog you fully understand the need for Xrays and the need for a breeding standard. Preston, my mom's collie, came from an oops litter (rescued later in life) and has the worst hips we've ever seen. He's also dumb as a rock but has the sweetest temperament. Aside from his temperament, he's everything the breed is not supposed to be, overly large (31-32 inches), horribly shaggy coat that needs to be trimmed to prevent his belly fur from dragging, unintelligent, uncontrollable herding drive, horrible hips, no energy, CEA (collie eye anomaly) etc. Despite all this, he's family and we would never part with him, but he's a challenge. Therefore I state that temperament is NOT everything. This opinion was formed way before I got Freyja and joined this forum. Even a layperson can tell the difference between a well bred dog (Franklin & Teddy) and a poorly bred dog (Preston).


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

****** Entire comment removed by Admin. Has nothing to do with this thread. Keep it in PM's please**


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

When you mention someone by name, then it is a _personal_ attack.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

Caitydid255 said:


> I have to disagree with you there. If you've ever owned a severe HD dog you fully understand the need for Xrays and the need for a breeding standard.


You have a point As far as temperament it IS everything for we who work the dogs as a job,but I get what you are saying. Naturally, my view comes from having a dog as a partner for many years and not just as a family companion. I am just very passionate about the dogs. I title my retrievers too before breeding. I have just seen the difference that a dog has made in police and military and again, I am just passionate about the health,working drives and temperaments


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

** message removed by ADMIN. **


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

As mentioned many times before - Mods cannot realistically follow every post on the board, if people feel that they are being attacked, there is a nifty yellow "Report Post" button with an exclamation point on the lower left-hand corner of each post. Mods will review the post and decide if any action is warranted. 

Let's get back to the topic at hand, and let's not make this a thread about whose feelings have been hurt, where and when. 

And thank you to all who are able to share their thoughts and ideas on controversial and touch topics with tact and sensitivity.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

jcojocaru said:


> That's not what I meant by behavioral. Sorry I didn't elaborate on that. What I meant by behavior is not their skills, but how they treat others.
> 
> I'm not sure how to explain exactly but I'll give examples:
> 
> ...


You can teach the child that things are wrong, but you can't teach the morality or empathy. You can TEACH that doing bad things to others will reap bad consequences for the child. The empathy (or lack thereof) is genetic. If you don't teach that physically harming others is wrong, most children will still react to the other child's tears by not harming them anymore. They can EMPATHIZE with the other person. If that is lacking, you can teach the motions of caring, but not the feeling and human connection behind it.

For the dog, you are talking about certain skills. Not wanting to pee where you sleep is a genetic trait. Teaching the dog to only pee in one area outside is taught.

Teaching the dog to tolerate actions by strangers or to cope in a crowded square is one thing. Having a dog with a disposition that can't tolerate the loud noises and constant commotion is something else entirely.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

This thread needs to get back on topic. If people want to discuss nurture (environment) Vs. nature (genetics) as it pertains to behavior please start another thread. 

Thank you,

ADMIN

***


----------



## Lakl (Jul 23, 2011)

I agree that breeders should have some level of control in where their pups are going, but I don't think there should be one flat contract for all buyers. I think breeders that have been doing this a long time can discern between what should be applied to whomever is purchasing their pups. I think limited registration is good idea for pet homes, but I don't think stipulating specific feeding practices should be void factor in a contract. In my research of different breeders, it has become more evident in those that are simply trying to protect the interest of their pups and those just trying to minimize any liability on their behalf. I've seen a few really good contracts, and then I've seen those that make me cringe with ten stipulations that could make your contract null and void. I've also met breeders where their contract would not be a first consideration because I know that they stand behind what they produce, and the support and appropriate solution would be met in a difficult situation. Like so many others have stated, there is no real guarantee when it comes to living beings, so I think that buyers have to decide for themselves what is important first and foremost and whether they trust the breeder to stand behind what they produce.


----------



## DunRingill (Dec 28, 2007)

jcojocaru said:


> You teach a dog to be friendly to people and other dogs through socialization. You teach him to pee outside in a designated area. You teach him not to jump on you, to sit, stay, and so on.


Wow. Glad it's so simple! 

Mike is one of the most socialized dogs I know. He's also one of the most dog aggressive dogs I've ever known. He's also EXTREMELY friendly with people, everyone is his friend. Obviously he's had a lot of training and he's learned to keep his opinions to himself in a show/training environment, but that doesn't mean he isn't still highly dog aggressive. It's genetic, I know where it came from, and no amount of socialization or training was going to change that!


----------



## bocron (Mar 15, 2009)

Personally I don't think the breeder should have any "control" at all once the puppy is sold (unless on a co-own type purchase). Having said that, I also don't hold the breeder responsible for the consequences of my actions regarding any puppy I buy beyond presenting the parents in an honest and factual way (OFA ratings are accurate, Schutzhund and KkL reviews available for me to read if I choose). As has been proven in court, puppy contracts don't actually hold up beyond a refund of purchase price, and they do not hold up at all for the breeder. There have been numerous cases where a breeder has tried to take back a dog based on a clause in the contract but the court ruled that the dog is property and once the check has cleared the seller has no further rights to anything at all having to do with the dog. Anymore than you can put in writing that the person buying your house must not paint it blue, once you've sold it the deal is done. 
Now having said that, I have maintained VERY good relationships with all the breeders I've ever gotten a pup from. But like others have stated, I walked away from a few who seemed to be absolute control freaks and wanted to tell me every step to take. If they don't trust me to raise a puppy correctly why would they sell it to me? Sure, I'll call for advice and encouragement and hopefully to report on the dog's progress and successes, but I don't want to be told how and what I can and can't do with MY dog.
If the breeder wants to sell a pup with limited registration because they don't think it should be bred(for whatever reason), then that is fine, I'd accept that as long as I knew beforehand that was the case.


----------



## DunRingill (Dec 28, 2007)

Trying to decide between "a little control" and "no control." But really, it's comes down to knowing something about the lines (because basic temperament and health DO have a strong genetic component) and trusting your breeder. If you don't trust your breeder, you should probably look elsewhere. 

I often wonder about breeders who have all kinds of conditions and specifications in their contracts.....if anything, it makes me look deeper into the temperament and health of their dogs. All those restrictions on food, supplements, type of exercise, etc. just look like a way to put blame on the puppy buyer. If you don't trust the buyer enough to think they'll raise the puppy in a common sense manner then perhaps you should find a different puppy buyer. A good dog should not need to be handled with kid gloves.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

> Personally I don't think the breeder should have any "control" at all once the puppy is sold (unless on a co-own type purchase). Having said that, I also don't hold the breeder responsible for the consequences of my actions regarding any puppy I buy


There's a point...if you don't want any clauses or stipulations you shouldn't be able to come back and sue said breeder for mishaps which were ultimately your fault (that could have been in the agreement papers).

For instance...breeder states "avoid dog parks" and you take your dog there and it comes down with giardia. You could then come back and claim the dog got it from the breeder's home. Same with parvo - breeder stipulates (or strongly suggests) no public places until vaccines completed, and you take your puppy out and before it's vaccines are done (but past the time frame for acquiring it from the breeder) it gets sick so the buyer tries to sue.


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

> I agree that breeders should have some level of control in where their pups are going, but I don't think there should be one flat contract for all buyers.


I don't think there usually is with experienced breeders. For varying reasons breeders might give some buyers a break on price. None of my business. Might permit some buyers to have full registration immediately & not others. None of my business. Might grant some full registration after passing tests but not others. None of my business.

I expect the breeder to honor her agreements with me. I'm not concerned that others might have different, even 'better' agreements.

Bocron, you make some excellent points. Anyone, breeder or owner, who tries to enforce the contract often quickly discovers how prohibitively difficult & expensive that can be. Out of state can be practically impossible. Additionally, the health warranty is usually limited to the refund of the purchase price. Most significant health problems will quickly cost far more than the purchase price of the dog. Many times, despite Herculean efforts & ongoing care, the dog will still die prematurely.

People shouldn't buy from breeders they can't have a good relationship with regardless of how much they like the dogs. (Obviously this isn't applicable to those buyers & sellers that don't need information/support beyond the sale itself) What one buyer needs/wants will be very different from another. The breeder I got my IWs from is a close friend, while it's strictly about the dogs with my GSD breeder. However, both are fair minded, reasonable, honest, knowledgeable, considerate & supportive. Although we're friendly rather than friends, I value & appreciate the relationship with Djibouti's breeder. She's always been there for questions & concerns & she's interested in his development which is exactly what I want in a breeder. Her kindness & support during Sam's final days made a wrenching decision easier.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> There's a point...if you don't want any clauses or stipulations you shouldn't be able to come back and sue said breeder for mishaps which were ultimately your fault (that could have been in the agreement papers).
> 
> For instance...breeder states "avoid dog parks" and you take your dog there and it comes down with giardia. You could then come back and claim the dog got it from the breeder's home. Same with parvo - breeder stipulates (or strongly suggests) no public places until vaccines completed, and you take your puppy out and before it's vaccines are done (but past the time frame for acquiring it from the breeder) it gets sick so the buyer tries to sue.


Most puppies on average from any line cost about 1,000 to 3,000 dollars. How many people are going to take the time, money, and stress to try to sue someone because there dog came down with Giardia.

I agree with bocron. 

Unless a breeder sells dogs to only local buyers there are no practical ways to monitor or enforce contracts on dogs. Even if a breeder heard that someone breached a contract on something I don't believe that anything short of proof of abuse would get a court to take a dog away from it's owner.

I might add that often the breeder and buyer aren't even in the same state or country. that makes any legal action from either party difficult and not worth the costs involved.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

> Most puppies on average from any line cost about 1,000 to 3,000 dollars. How many people are going to take the time, money, and stress to try to sue someone because there dog came down with Giardia.


Did you miss the part of my post that said "for example"? And I know people who would sue over that and more.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

I do not believe that this is correct "Your dogs are just babies themselves and their temperaments aren't even fully formed. Dogs do not mature mentally and physically until 3."
At three years of age the dog is not a baby. The dog is well into it's prime years , physically developed , which is why "a" stamp chooses one year , ofa two years to certify hips. Fully capable and interested in reproduction and maternal instinct. Fully able to integrate and live co-operatively if they were a feral animal - "street-dog" (not hot dog with mustard) . 
WE (especially pet owners) want to prolong the infantile state to play nuturing "parent" , while the dog is mature, or needs to be helped or brought to responsible maturity.
Temperament is what the dog comes into the world with . The basic clay of the temperament , the fine points are shaped by experience and training .

Carmen
Carmspack Working German Shepherd Dogs


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

@ Carmen, like I said, Iunderstand people's need to FEEL good about contracts and guarantees, but I don't subscribe to it. Feelings has messed this breed up more than any single element in my little opinion. I have good relationships with 99% of my owners, but I explain my position from the beginning. If they are logical thinking, they will see my point and decide to get a pup if they trust my knowledge. If not, then they will balk or go somewhere else. Bottom line is I produce excellent dogs, except for the things I can't control.....so it comes to them trusting me and what i say. I look at the lack of common sense in raising a dog I read on the forums in other sections, and the emotional responses I see to issues on the forum, and I wonder how anybody can be comfortable with a guarantee these days in the breed. Nope, I don't believe in contracts and I don't believe in prenupts, its for better or worse. Now if the dog comes up with a chronic severe health issue like severe or crippling HD, I will gladly refund their money, but the responsibilty of a owner to do the right thing with THEIR dog is not MY responsibilty.
Some people will be turned off by my approach and never want a dog from me.....that's fine as it does both of us a favor.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> Did you miss the part of my post that said "for example"? And I know people who would sue over that and more.


I didn't miss it. My own post is an example. We can never post to cover every possible scenario. 

The people you know who would sue. What would they sue for, and expect to get. Proof the breeder caused anything would be dificult. Your not going to get a settlement of 50,000 dollars on a 2,000 dollar dog. Not to mention they (the people you know who would sue) would probably lose anyway.


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

cliff I'd take a dog from you any day, no contract necessary,,however I do insist on a prenup )))


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

JakodaCD OA said:


> cliff I'd take a dog from you any day, no contract necessary. )))


Me too.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

JakodaCD OA said:


> cliff I'd take a dog from you any day, no contract necessary,,however I do insist on a prenup )))


Me too! I'm not big on marriage so I don't need a prenup. :laugh:


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

I think a breeder should be able to control future breedings of progeny to a certain extent. A simple fix is to sell on limited registration and change it to a full registration if certain criteria is met. I don't understand why breeders hand out full registrations to complete strangers. (as opposed to giving FR to other breeders or people they know and trust) 
The LR doesn't stop people from breeding, but it does stop the registration of pups that come from parents who shouldn't have been bred in the first place.

Our contracts were pretty basic. The breeder wrote down suggestions for food, vacinations, spay/neuter etc. but they weren't part of the contract. She asked that our male not be neutered until after the age of two if possible, but told us more than once that he was our dog and our decision.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I don't need a prenupt because I have nothing to take half of...lol, but in all seriousness, I understand people's desire to have some control over their pups they sell, I just don't think that in the big scheme of things we can stop bad owners from doing bad things breedwise. Still, all things that help the breed are worthy!!


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

cliffson1 said:


> I don't need a prenupt because I have nothing to take half of...lol, but in all seriousness, I understand people's desire to have some control over their pups they sell, I just don't think that in the big scheme of things we can stop bad owners from doing bad things breedwise. Still, all things that help the breed are worthy!!


At the end of the day no I cannot prevent someone from breeding an untrained dog with no health clearances *BUT* I can prevent them from registering theresulting litter. I spend a lot of time and money obtaining nice dogs for breeding. I am specifically trying to produce dogs with retrieve drive,solid temperament and health for work. I care very much about the breed. Generally, when the plane lands in Houston with a dog I have purchased, folks start reserving pups because they know what a fanatic I am. I do the best that I can. That is all we can do


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Jack's Dad said:


> I
> 
> The people you know who would sue. What would they sue for, and expect to get. Proof the breeder caused anything would be dificult. Your not going to get a settlement of 50,000 dollars on a 2,000 dollar dog. Not to mention they (the people you know who would sue) would probably lose anyway.


The cost of the dog back? A new dog? Who knows? 2k can be won quite easily in small claims and you don't even need an attorney. 
The point was that may be one way breeders are trying to cover their behinds. I know many of the HD clauses sure are.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I still stand by my opinion that what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours.  Like Cliff was getting at, if I had a reason not to trust the breeder, or a reason to believe the sire/dam were producing dogs that would have health or temperament problems, I'd walk the other way, not look to a contract for protection (which is not automatically legally binding anyway).

That said of course breeders will try to help their clients by offering advice about food, nutrition, health, basic care, training etc. Just because I don't have a contract for my dog doesn't mean I haven't exchanged several hundred e-mails with the breeder about everything from getting a handler for an upcoming show to how to firm up the dog's stool, lol. Honestly if one feels there *has* to be some sort of contract in order to maintain this sort of relationship with the breeder I'd be a bit worried. And just because I insist on full registration does not mean I am breeding 12 month old dogs with no health certifications or titles. I've never bred a thing in my life and as you can see, all of my dogs obtain titles.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Honestly, the first time I've ever seen such a fuzz about breeders and their buyers is here in the US. 

In Germany you call, reserve a puppy (without a deposit), it's expected that a client might walk away without the puppy so if one does, they simply have to find a new buyer. The contracts are very very very simple. All it says that you bought the dog, date and how much you paid for it. That's it. 

You bring the money the day you pick up the dog. The breeder then sends you the papers of the dog, thats it. 

Yeah they are happy to get news from the dogs, especially when the dog is successful or doing something that you usually don't see everyday. Like the request of a police station to use one of your videos of your dog to include that into the learning plan to explain what the different drives are. 

I also let the breeder know about Judges problems and that it's not a genetic fault but due to an injury but never did I expect money or a second dog. 

I much rather have the very simple contract. There are absolutely no questions open. I give the money and get the dog. It's as easy as that. 

If I'd have to put a dog down due to severe HD then I'd get another dog to cut my losses and I know that he would honor that agreement even without a contract but it doesn't give you YOUR dog back... 

And get that. For one of my dogs, I never even signed a contract. It was a verbal agreement. I sent the money, received the papers before I picked up the dog from the Airport, DONE!
Actually, for two dogs I never signed a contract.


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

MrsK...we have signed a total of 3 contracts the entire time we have had dogs.....all 3 from the USA......NONE, have I ever "used".
*I'm speaking of dogs that WE have bought*


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

robinhuerta said:


> MrsK...we have signed a total of 3 contracts the entire time we have had dogs.....all 3 from the USA......NONE, have I ever "used".
> *I'm speaking of dogs that WE have bought*


Yeah, most of the time all you got is a handshake or verbal agreements. Those are the easiest contracts.


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

Absolutely....if I don't trust & respect the breeder...I simply don't buy.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

In Germany, the dogs have to pass testing before being bred. That is testimony in itself if done honestly....maybe the reason for the lack of contract specifics as compared to US breeders?


----------



## Shaina (Apr 2, 2011)

onyx'girl said:


> In Germany, the dogs have to pass testing before being bred. That is testimony in itself if done honestly....maybe the reason for the lack of contract specifics as compared to US breeders?


Thats kinda my thought. In the US there are no standards, so those sold on LR and then lifted after accomplishments is a great idea, IMO. I wish the US had the same regulations on breeding that Germany does.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

Halo was actually here before the check was received by her breeder - I got the puppy BEFORE I paid for her, imagine that! Lots of trust at work on both sides of the equation. I don't recall if I faxed back the signed contract or mailed it with my check, but we decided to get her on a Friday and I mailed a check to Connecticut that day. Halo was put on the plane two days later and we picked her up at the SF airport Sunday night. I'm sure the check didn't arrive until Monday or Tuesday.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

onyx'girl said:


> In Germany, the dogs have to pass testing before being bred. That is testimony in itself if done honestly....maybe the reason for the lack of contract specifics as compared to US breeders?


But even that doesn't give you the guarantee that your puppy won't have HD by the time it's one. Most people just deal with it differently.


----------



## Lakl (Jul 23, 2011)

It's been many years since I lived in Germany. We were stationed in Stuttgart from '85-'90, but one of the things that always stuck out to me over there, was that I never saw stray dogs running around. You never stumbled across a poor, hungry, flea riddled dog. I remember there being a completely different outlook towards dogs when I was there. People took their dogs everywhere, grocery shopping, to restaurants, and they were always well behaved. I didn't know anything about the breeding standards, but I'm guessing this has played a big part on why I never saw the things that are so commonly seen here in the U.S....


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

One thing I find more ridiculous than the health guarantees is the clause that I have to go back to the breeder to get permission to sell MY property. That's one more reason not to buy from a breeder like that. My dog, my property and if I want to sell my dog, I sell it without anyone interfering with it.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Mrs.K said:


> But even that doesn't give you the guarantee that your puppy won't have HD by the time it's one. Most people just deal with it differently.


I know that, and frankly wouldn't expect much from a contract anyway.
Personally, I think contracts are put together to protect the breeder, not the purchaser. US is a sue happy place after all....


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

onyx'girl said:


> I know that, and frankly wouldn't expect much from a contract anyway.
> Personally, I think contracts are put together to protect the breeder, not the purchaser. US is a sue happy place after all....


True. That I can understand and I'd probably do the same thing to protect myself from being sued over. Even the best of relationships can break up and end in a court room and it's better to be protected at that point. 

I also think that there is a difference between sports, show and pet people. 

While I don't participate in the sport yet, I have different expectations of a breeder than pet people do. I don't need, nor do I want me breeder to be on standby 24/7. 
I don't expect them to be there for me all the time. At some point I have to take responsibility, do research and learn for myself. We were born with a brain, we learned how to look up information in school and there are so many books, facilities and the internet. 

A lot of people simply waltz off their responsibility onto somebody else and in my opinion... there is no excuse to do that.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Mrs.K said:


> One thing I find more ridiculous than the health guarantees is the clause that I have to go back to the breeder to get permission to sell MY property. That's one more reason not to buy from a breeder like that. My dog, my property and if I want to sell my dog, I sell it without anyone interfering with it.


Yeah this one rubs me wrong too, though with Pan the agreement is that I offer him to the breeder first on my terms. I'm not obligated to GIVE him back, I can offer him back on my terms for my price as long as I make the offer to the breeder. I found that to be fair, since even if I didn't have this agreement and wanted to sell him I'd probably offer him to the breeder first anyway.


----------



## CMorton (Oct 28, 2000)

I am ALL for breeders caring so much about what they produce but important- was all this in the contract? If not the breeder can really only strongly recommend, otherwise you may ostracize a really good puppy owner, and really damage that relationship. I am very protective of any puppies I produce but I am very careful to put my expectations and recommendations on paper.

Catherine


----------

