# When does a breeder's responsibility end?



## Jazy's mom (Jan 5, 2004)

This question has been discussed between me and another member of my local GSD club.

When is a breeder no longer responsible for a dog that he/she has breed and sold? I am not talking about being responsible legally for any damages or harm the dog may do, but more along the lines of being responsible for taking the dog back if the purchaser no longer wants the dog.

I am a rescuer and my adoption contract states that if the adopter no longer wants the dog, then the dog must be returned to the rescue and can not be rehomed without the approval of the rescue. There is no time line on this. It is for the life of the dog.

I have always thought that responsible and reputable breeders would do the same. Is this unreasonable to expect and if so why?

There are many very responsible breeders that are members of this board and I respect your opinion on this matter. I am asking for this not to turn into a debate between rescues and breeders. Even though I would never breed dogs (because I feel I do not know enough about breeding to do it right), I obviously do not want our beloved breed to die out so I respect those breeders out there that are doing it for the right reasons and know what they are doing.


----------



## GranvilleGSD (Mar 28, 2007)

I feel that if you are bringing the dog into the world, you should assume responsibility for the life of the dog. That being said, sometimes there are situations where the breeder for one reason or another just cannot take the dog back. In this situation, they should at least offer their help and input in the re-homing process.


----------



## ChancetheGSD (Dec 19, 2007)

I'm not a breeder but this is my opinion. If a person isn't willing to take back any and every puppy they breed even if it comes back to them at the age of 10 with health problems, then they aren't a good breeder. If you aren't up for taking back what you bred then don't breed. JMO.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Hmmm, I don't think ever. One of my dogs was a dog that my breeder bred, took back, and then re-homed to me when the dog was almost 4 years old. I think she also recently took back a much older dog, like 8 years old or so, because the owners could no longer keep it (not sure why). Both my purebreds are from this breeder and she has first right of refusal for both, something that I gladly agree to. Even if something happens to me and my husband is still around, she gets my shepherds back.

When we got Coke from the rescue, he had been adopted out as a pup and then returned because his owners could no longer care for him (health problems). They said that if something happened in the first few months to contact them, but after that we were free to re-home the dog ourselves. This is not to absolve them of any responsibility, but just the sheer number of dogs they save they have to choose between their ability to honor a lifelong contract and their ability to save more dogs (they pull dogs from the county pound, especially unwanted pregnant dogs that were stray or got dumped). 

So I guess I am more lenient with the rescue because they are doing all they can and still dogs are euth'd, whereas the breeder makes a choice to breed and bring lives into the world. I also believe that the comparison is really apples and oranges (ie, I do not believe that good, reputable breeders are in any way responsible for the "overpopulation problem" because to me, part of being a responsible breeder is taking a dog back) so I don't have a problem having different standards for rescues and breeders.


----------



## katieliz (Mar 29, 2007)

what lies said.


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

Any dog I bred has a home with me.


----------



## bmass01 (Apr 7, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: katielizwhat lies said.


Yup! I think Lies said it perfectly!


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

Same here.

Even a dog that we did not breed, but sold, we helped out when the owner became terminally ill.


----------



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

> Originally Posted By: jazy's momWhen is a breeder no longer responsible for a dog that he/she has breed and sold?


When the dog dies.


----------



## Kayos and Havoc (Oct 17, 2002)

> Originally Posted By: Lauri & The Gang
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: jazy's momWhen is a breeder no longer responsible for a dog that he/she has breed and sold?
> ...


Exactly!







Well said!


----------



## WiscTiger (Sep 25, 2002)

My Weim breeder friend is a great example, she will take back a dog from her breeding at any time. She has also brought a dog home, had major surgery done on the dog, rehabed the dog and then took it back to the owner. Why, the owner couldn't afford the surgery and was older and couldn't take care of the dog through rehab. But with the surgery the dog and owner are just fine.


----------



## Jazy's mom (Jan 5, 2004)

Thank you everyone for your responses. 

Lies I have to admit that I was pleasently surprised by this comment.



> Quote:So I guess I am more lenient with the rescue because they are doing all they can and still dogs are euth'd, whereas the breeder makes a choice to breed and bring lives into the world.



Smithie86, I am glad that you added that you feel this way about dogs that you did not breed, but sold. 

This whole discussion came about when I was contacted by two different individuals in the last two weeks wanting help rehoming their GSDs. After speaking with both owners, it was discovered that both of the dogs were breed by a local breeder who is also a member of my local club. Out of respect for the breeder, I told both individuals that I would help them, but not until they had spoken with the breeder first so if she wanted the dogs or wanted to place the dogs herself she could. I also advised them that they needed to read their contracts. One of the owners did not want to call the breeder, but did after I insisted. The other said that there was nothing in the contract that stated she had to return the dog to the breeder and that she would prefer to place the dog through me. I told her that I didn't feel comfortable going behind the breeders back and then I called the breeder myself to tell her.

This same breeder called me two months ago, and explained that a dog she had placed (not breed) had been turned into the local shelter as an owner surrender. The shelter contacted the breeder after finding a microchip that was registered to her. She was wanting to know if I could pull and place the dog, because she had a litter of puppies on the ground and did not want to take the dog back since it had been at the shelter (may spread something to her puppies) and she had a confirmation show in two weeks and was too busy preparing for the show.

I was not real happy with the fact that she was not willing to take responsibility for a dog she had placed, but she said if it was a dog she had breed she would have gone to the shelter immediately. I was able to find a rescue for the dog to go to and when it was discovered that the dog was also HW+, I emailed the breeder to let her know and basically hinted that it would be nice if she made a donation to the rescue to help with the cost of treatment. She never responded to my email and has never once asked me anything about the dog since that day.

Now this breeder is accusing me of trying to make money off her dogs and that I am nothing more than a trouble maker who is trying to make her look bad in the eyes of her "clients".


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

> Quote: Now this breeder is accusing me of trying to make money off her dogs and that I am nothing more than a trouble maker who is trying to make her look bad in the eyes of her "clients".


I'm sorry.

It sounds like she is trying to deflect both blame and resposibility. If she could of made room for a dog of her breeding she could of made room for a dog that she had placed. IMHO anyways.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

I also agree that responsibility of the breeder extends for the dog's lifetime. We have Right of First Refusal and also Right of Reversion written into our contract. In the very few cases in the past where a dog we bred needed to be rehomed for whatever reason, we have taken the dog back and either kept or rehomed the dog ourselves, or worked closely with the owner to rehome the dog, including interviewing and approving the new owner. We also keep in very close contact with all of our customers, so we're able make sure things are going well and have a close relationship with them so they don't hesitate to contact us for help if needed.

But I also think that there are no absolutes in life and every situation is unique and must be addressed as such and while I think passing judgment on a breeder who displays a pattern of behavior regarding not taking dogs back is fair, I don't think a single instance of a breeder being unwilling or unable to do so should automatically get the breeder red flagged. At least not without knowing the details of the situation.

IMO, this is a good example.



> Originally Posted By: jazy's mom she had a litter of puppies on the ground and did not want to take the dog back since it had been at the shelter (may spread something to her puppies)


We are always willing to take our dogs back, but I can also say that I would agree with the breeder 100% in this situation. Taking back a dog who has been in a home with it's owner and who's health is somewhat known is one thing. Bringing home a dog from a shelter would be a very dangerous situation for the litter of pups and not all breeders have a kennel set up that would allow that dog to be isolated in order to keep the puppies safe.

If it were me, I wouldn't bring a shelter dog into my house with a litter of pups either because we do not have a set up that would allow to quarantine the dog. Not only is that risking the lives of those pups, but a single case of Parvo could not only kill the entire litter but also create an environment unsafe for pups for years. But I would work with friends, club members, local boarding kennels and rescues and figure out something to get the dog out of the shelter and somewhere safe and then would set about work rehoming it. But it wouldn't be coming into my home until that litter of pups were gone.


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

> Quote: But I would work with friends, club members, local boarding kennels and rescues and figure out something to get the dog out of the shelter and somewhere safe and then would set about work rehoming it. But it wouldn't be coming into my home until that litter of pups were gone.


To me that is taking the dog back. 

I once had a stray that looked like she was on her last legs, I almost euthanized her. I boarded her at the vets while the last of the pups left and I was able to make sure she was healthy.


----------



## Jazy's mom (Jan 5, 2004)

Chris, I completely agree with you about not bringing a shelter dog home with a litter of puppies on the ground. 

My problem with this situation was that if it had been a dog she breed, she said she would have gone to get the dog. I can't say if she would have taken it home or taken it to a vet's office to be boarded. Also, she never once offered to assist with placement of the dog or pay for any of the dog's expenses.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I just pulled a dog from an AC and his microchip was of no help(disconnected#)
The breeder would have no knowledge of this dog being dumped either, as the owner probably broke the contract by dumping him at a shelter. He looks to have hip issues and we just found out from the new rescue he was brought to that he is dog aggressive.
Who knows why he was dumped, but if it is a breeder I am thinking he came from, would have euth'd him due to his issues. So maybe the owner decided to dump him at the shelter vs being put down by the breeder. 
Some breeders do have the first rights in their contracts, but when it comes down to having several litters at once on the ground will not spend the time or effort to take care of what they produced when it comes to this type of problem.








This is a huge reason to research your breeder and be sure you know about the progeny that the kennel is producing, and the breeder to thoroughly interview potential families.


----------



## rokanhaus (Mar 20, 2006)

I agree. the answer is NEVER!!! I am always willing to take my pups back at any time for any and no reason. I simply cannot imagine turning my back on a puppy I brought into this world.


----------



## rokanhaus (Mar 20, 2006)

I will add..this is why I tattoo AND microchip all my puppies..so no matter what, I hope they can always find their way back to me.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

The other thing is that you have breeders that are probably at their limit with dogs due to homeowner regs or city AC regs - what do those breeders do (or what will they do) if they get a phone call about one of their puppies/dogs?


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote: I agree. the answer is NEVER!!! I am always willing to take my pups back at any time for any and no reason. I simply cannot imagine turning my back on a puppy I brought into this world.


I think that is awesome!!!







To me that should be the norm for responsible breeders! I have been very disheartened to read stories on this board, even from supposedly "reputable" breeders discussing quite openly their refusal to take back a dog that had developed behavioral problems because she was now essentially damaged goods. As a rescuer, I take back my foster dogs no matter what! And these are not even dogs I chose to bring in the world. I just want them to have a safety net - never again to end up in the kinds of places I found them. I would hope that when a breeder makes a decision to create a life they would feel at least that much responsibility. I'm glad to read some do!


----------



## Jazy's mom (Jan 5, 2004)

Pupresq, as always, you have put my thoughts into words so much better than I can. 

I am very glad to read that many of the breeders who are members on this board feel the same way as I do. Just another reason why I think this board is so great.


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally Posted By: Smithie86The other thing is that you have breeders that are probably at their limit with dogs due to homeowner regs or city AC regs - what do those breeders do (or what will they do) if they get a phone call about one of their puppies/dogs?


If I had that problem (I don't) I would take the dog back regardless Sue and deal with AC if and when it came up.

Same thing as if I had moved or had stopped breeding or was in a wheelchair. I would take any of my pups back unless it was literally impossible.


----------



## WiscTiger (Sep 25, 2002)

Just a bit of a personal note. If any breeder from this board contacted me asking me to help (pick up a dog, house a dog) because they had puppies or transportation problems, I would help. I did offer my help to another breeder from another board about a dog of her's here in WI, that the owner wasn't happy with. I told her any thing I could do to help all she had to do was ask.

So that is true for breeders from this board. If there is any thing I can do to help, please feel free to contact me.

Val


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

Thank you Val. That kind of networking is invaluable. 

When I ship a dog I always make sure I have a contact person somewhat near that agrees to help out if need be. 

If someone needed help in my area don't hesitate to contact me.


----------



## Jazy's mom (Jan 5, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: Smithie86The other thing is that you have breeders that are probably at their limit with dogs due to homeowner regs or city AC regs - what do those breeders do (or what will they do) if they get a phone call about one of their puppies/dogs?


This is a very good point and one that I am personally dealing with. 

In the city of Knoxville you are only suppose to have 4 animals (dogs and/or cats) per household. You can apply for a kennel license which requires approval from every neighbor that shares a property line and an inspection from Animal Control. I am in the process of doing this because I have three personal dogs and foster one dog at a time, but I worry about previous fosters being returned.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Smithie86The other thing is that you have breeders that are probably at their limit with dogs due to homeowner regs or city AC regs - what do those breeders do (or what will they do) if they get a phone call about one of their puppies/dogs?


I think it's a fair concern. I'm not a breeder but currently I am at the city's limit for both cats and dogs so I can't take in any fosters of either species.

Even if the breeder can't keep the dog, I don't see why the breeder can't help rehome, or at least step in temporarily rather than have the dog be sold on Craigslist or sent to the shelter. 

Like I said before, I have a GSD that was re-homed to me by the breeder and we both love this dog and she loves us both. I have full registration on both my dogs, but I always ask the breeder if I have any problems or concerns, and she is forthcoming with her advice and knowledge based on her experience. To me, the promise of taking back any dog at any time is more about what that says to be about a breeder's commitment overall than all the technicalities involved if that situation actually happens.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Still, I would hope that responsible breeders are not producing more dogs than they can realistically take back if needed. I can see some rare event where after having no dogs come back forever you all of a sudden get a couple at once, but in general a breeder should be placing dogs with enough care and reserve enough flexibility in their housing situation so that the rate of return does not exceed their capacity to deal with it. If I had more dogs coming back than I could legally take in I would need to adjust my dog housing situation (perhaps by applying for a kennel license etc.) as well as re-evaluate my placement practices.


----------



## WiscTiger (Sep 25, 2002)

Some times no matter how well a breeder screens things can happen. The new owner gets ill or heaven forbid dies in an accident, the pup and home aren't a good match, loss of job(s), loss of place to live etc.

To make matters more difficult, the pup is shipped out, now the pup is an adult. That limits your shipping options. Maybe add to that the owner is unwilling to get health certificate, get an airline approved crate and drive to an airport that can handle full grown dog, plus summer shipping embargos.

I don't think most breeders on this board are producing more dogs than they could take back. There are some, but there are the larger commercial kennels that won't take dogs back, period.

So, I guess I just wanted to put it out there that I am willing to help if any breeder needs help getting one of their dogs back home.

Val


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Oh, believe me! I totally understand that in spite of your best efforts, dogs do sometimes come back. I've had it happen several times with foster dogs I placed, in spite of rigorous screening procedures. My only point was that I don't think having too many dogs at home relieves a breeder of their responsibility to stand by the dogs they've produced. When we've had breeder bought dogs show up in shelters and had the seller refuse to help for this reason, it is very frustrating. The situation of cross-contamination and the safety and wellbeing of puppies I think is a different issue and an understandable one. In that case I would hope the breeder would pay to board to dog or work to make other arrangements to find alternative placement.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

All above totally understood. 

And because if rescue or breeder does not take a dog back, many times that means the dog will die. 

I think both should do so, if they want to be considered truly reputable.


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

> Quote:And because if rescue or breeder does not take a dog back, many times that means the dog will die.
> 
> I think both should do so, if they want to be considered truly reputable.


----------



## Remo (Sep 8, 2004)

Our rescue once was contacted by a breeder in OH who thought she saw one of her dogs on our web site. She was ready to drive here from OH to get her dog back. I was in total awe of this woman!

As it turned out, it was not her dog (we had this dog's entire history including the pedigree information) but I was delighted that she cared enough to contact us. 

Sadly, with my experience, very few of the breeders whose dogs end up in rescue will take them back. Perhaps that is because the better breeders do a fantastic job of screening their puppy homes while the ones who are only in it to make a buck do not.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

> Quote:When the dog dies.


----------



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

> Originally Posted By: RemoSadly, with my experience, very few of the breeders whose dogs end up in rescue will take them back.


Let's not forget - it's a 2-way street.

I personally know of a rescue that REFUSED to contact the breeder of a dog they took in. The dog had been picked up running loose and brought to a local AC (in IL). It was a small town AC and didn't know about microchips (this was 10+ years ago).

When the rescue got the dog they had it scanned, found the chip and recognized the name as a local breeder.

They refused to contact the breeder - said if they were responsible they would have KNOWN the dog was running loose.

Ummm - how? How is the BREEDER expected to know when a dog they sold to someone is running loose.

So they placed the dog. Turned out the dog had bolted from friends of the owners - they were watching the dog while the owners were on vacation. The dog had been loose ONE day and the owners friends had been looking for it.

If the rescue had called the breeder she would have been able to contact the owners. She would have left a message on their answering machine (since they were out of town) and the friends would have heard it (they were checking the machine in case the Chip company called) and the dog would have been returned to it's owner.

So, just like their are bad breeders, there ARE bad rescues.


----------



## K9mom (Jan 15, 2004)

As both a breeder and a rescuer I have to agree that the responsability lasts from birth to death for a breeder and for my rescues, they are ALWAYS welcome back, and I have had to take some back. I also took back one pup from a litter of one of my males (not my litter) when I found out he needed a place. I no longer breed my males outside of my home because I can not control where they go. I too tattoo & chip every puppy that leaves and every rescue is chipped. Nothing is foolproof but it is something.

It is VERY unfortunate that in my last 14 years of Rescue I have had dogs from "reputable" and "well known" breeders around New England who either never returned my attempts to contact them or told me if I couldn't place them to go ahead and put them down. I have had two breeders in all those years actually step up and take the responsability (and one wasn't happy but was a friend of a friend). When someone contacts me to surrender a dog, my first question is whether they contacted the breeder. Most tell me they don't remember where they got the dog, very sad. Obvious the breeder sold for the money for the sole purpose of making money and never cared to follow up or that person would know how to contact the breeder or at least know their name or town.

My pups all get yearly holiday cards with my most current information and I talk to many online frequently.


----------



## WinitheGSD (Sep 21, 2008)

when the dog's life ends.


----------



## darylehret (Mar 19, 2006)

This thread is so full of opinions and fantasy, is it supposed to be some kind of poll? Chris's is probably the only sensible post here. But the FACT is, the breeder's responsibility ends where the breeder says it does, and as long as it's without conflict of the law. Whatever your "ideals" may be, the often used term "responsible breeder" seems to always be some mythological creature that never exists, due to an inability to separate fact from fiction.

Having a common mindset is not useful unless it has some sort of basis in reality. And statements like "if that were ever to happen, I'd go to this extent to make it right..." doesn't mean a thing without putting it to the test. Popular ideas are like politics, they're backed by statements that hardly ever get followed through.

As soon as the majority of breeders followed all of the guidelines set forth in this thread, then other ideas would emerge, to push the envelope so to speak. "a breeder is responsible for the dog's entire life, and the dog's offspring, and the offspring's offspring..." and so on. If a pup from your breeding is injured in an accident and accrues serveral thousand dollars in necessary surgery, is the breeder again responsible? As a breeder, should you require a periodic home inspection of the buyer, that "such and such" food be fed, a 24 hr. puppycam, a GPS tracking collar?

The folks who think these pretty thoughts are going to do any real good, need to wake up, tell your 20 something children to get out of bed, get a job and move out of your house. Because your responsibility ends where you draw the line, or where the law requires it.

Any breeder that "has" a reputation, is naturally going to want to preserve it, and do right by their customers, even going "above and beyond" what's expected from them occasionally. That's just good sensible practice. The ones who go against their word, are the ones who ultimately pay.

So it seems fairly simple, that you just need to have a clear understanding of what is promised by the breeder you're considering, so that there's no misunderstanding later. Outside of whatever parameters those are, the BUYER should assume full responsibility for the livlihood of the animal they've accepted into their home.


----------



## IliamnasQuest (Aug 24, 2005)

I sure appreciate the number of breeders on here who have acknowledged that their responsibility to the dogs they produce lasts throughout the life of those dogs. That deserves respect. 

Daryl, you may be legally correct in saying that the responsibility ends when the breeder says it ends. But from a moral standpoint, that lacks credibility. And for you to say that those who choose to take responsibility for their dogs' offspring are fantasizing appears to be a pathetic attempt to avoid having to meet that same level of morality seen in others.

There have been a number of breeders discussed here who HAVE taken back dogs under some pretty tough circumstances. It IS done by responsible breeders. And just so you understand: the phrase "responsible breeder" is a phrase developed - by the general dog-buying public, as much as anything - to describe those who follow this higher road of morality. It's a completely valid phrase as there ARE those who fit into that category. If you choose not to, that's your choice but you shouldn't malign those who do.

I encourage people to truly question the breeders they deal with, so as to not get into deals with those who abdicate any responsibility as soon as the dog leaves their facility. If THEY have no feelings of responsibility or any emotional tie to their animals, then they're just popping out puppies to sell with no concern for what happens to them once they've got their money. And who needs breeders like that?

By the way, the first line of Chris's post:

"I also agree that responsibility of the breeder extends for the dog's lifetime. "

That's pretty much what most people here have said. Why are their posts "fantasy" and Chris's post valid? That really makes no sense .. *L*

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I personally feel there is merit to both sides of this equation....actually what Daryl emphasized is that there must be a clear understanding between breeder and buyer. What I find interesting is that many many breeders in Europe (of German Shepherds) do not share this philosophy whatsoever. My point?? Well if the practice of "NOT" being responsible for a puppy for lifetime does not reflect responsible breeding....then why do so many of these same people professing this moral position "buy" puppies and dogs from these breeders overseas that often "Don't" breed by these practices. I think that is the height of "hypocisy". 
I am not saying any position is wrong only the people who try to promote that their way is absolutely the only way to do something responsibly....That's nonsense!!


----------



## darylehret (Mar 19, 2006)

So, you think it's somehow a "higher moral standard", to alleviate the BUYER of any responsibility for the animals they've taken in?

Breeders who EXPRESS (rather than show) that same level of morality, lack credibility in my eyes. Words alone, won't command my respect.

I understood, Chris's post well enough. She'll do what she can, but there are sometimes exceptions.

Like Lauri's story, I had a very similar experience with a "unreputable rescue"; who had no interest at all in responding to my emailed attempts offers of information leading to a supposedly "abandoned" dog's proper home.

What someone or some group "represents", and what they "do" are not always the same thing. Just pretty words.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I guess I agree that whatever one believes, they should at least put that into practice. 

I for one value a breeder that is committed to their dogs and that goes beyond just the first right of refusal. So, I chose a breeder that does just that. I have seen the breeder take back puppies that "didn't work out" and give full refunds, take back a dog that was older and the owner could no longer care for it, take back and re-home a dog as it was in the best interest for that dog, and honor providing replacements for health problems (without forcing the owner to give back the current dog, or make good on the offer before it "expires"). My breeder has volunteered countless hours and resources to her "puppy people" by taking us to shows and trials, helping with simply things like bathing, worming, treating an ear infection, fitting new collars, helps us get hip and elbow prelims and OFAs done/a-stamps, found us a great SchH TD and hosts the training on her property at her expense (for the liability insurance). I'm not trying to advertise breeders, but just illustrating that as I buyer I do have high standards and I have found someone who consistently meets and exceeds my standards.


----------



## darylehret (Mar 19, 2006)

Some breeders take it even further, by committing time and offering their experience to other breeders to help them achieve their goals. I have learned much from and have a high respect for Chris, Cliff, and other breeders on this board for what they offer to help better all of us. I'm frequently consulted for advice myself, and help where I can, or refer them to someone else who can offer more. The overall state of the breed is also important for each breeder and buyer, not only regarding what you've produced. Those measures your breeder took, definitely put them in the "reputable" category for me.


----------



## darylehret (Mar 19, 2006)

Should add, "reputable" and "responsible" however, are not the same.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

While I will take my dogs back, I have to say it is not for the reasons that people here 'seem' to be saying they do. I do it to protect the dogs, period. I don't do it because I feel like I should be somehow responsible for another person's irresponsible behavior. I am pretty sick of that kind of thinking and it seems to be getting much more common in just about everything nowadays. It is this same idea that is behind so much of the dog legislation we see now. Because I live in the "Nanny State", perhaps I am a bit more outraged at that idea than some of the rest of you. Don't worry though, what is good for CA is good for the rest of the country and it will get to you eventually. 

I was taught personal responsibility. The idea of dumping my problem...or dog for that matter, on someone else, just doesn't ever occur to me to be a option. 
Usually, when a dog is returned, it is because the Buyer did not live up to their obligations when it comes to owning a dog. The dogs have to have attention, training etc but once they get the dog, ( after they have promised and made assurances in writing and verbally that they would do what is necessary), suddenly they don't have time, or money or whatever excuse they can come up with so they don't have to work at anything. I regret making it just a little too easy for these types of people to dump THEIR problem.....and it is theirs...they bought the dog, they said they wanted it and understood what it took to own one etc.

Sure, we all screen buyers but some people are just a little too good at presenting the right "image". It is made worse by people on these boards telling people how to present themselves as buyers. I have actually had people ask me for the answers to my questionnaire so that I will sell them a puppy. That's the mentality of some people but no matter how careful you are, sometimes they can fool you. I have not had to take too many dogs back over the years, I try to really take a hard look at people and listen to the little voice that says , "don't sell them a dog" but I have had a couple people fool me too and I can tell you, when they called to return the dog, it was not a "no questions asked" situation. I try to learn from my mistakes, so, I want to know exactly the reasons why people give up the dogs and what it was I missed when I sold them the dog in the first place. 

Now, there have been cases where it really was not the person's fault and they needed my help but there are other types out there that just find the dog inconvenient and expect you to take the dog that day ( within the hour), and to give them a full refund, because of course, as a breeder, I am going to make a TON of money on the dog when I re-sell it. THAT is also a fantasy that people have and a story I hear told over and over. What happens to me is, I become super protective of the dog after it is returned. It becomes harder for me to place the dog because I don't want to let the dog down again. So, maybe there are people out there just waiting to make a "killing" reselling the dog but I don't think that is normally the case. Not for the people who like their dogs anyway. I have heard more than one rescue person saying that kind of thing and have experienced and heard the same type of stories that Laurie presented. 

It is expensive to take a dog back. It is hard on the dog and the breeder. The only one not paying is the person who dumped the dog. Most responsible buyers will at least give you a chance to help them place the dog and will hold onto the dog until a good home comes along. The best ones will give you the opportunity to help with training or advice if that is what the problem is. I am more than happy to help people who want to work with me to help them, but some people are simply outrageous in their demands of the breeder and this idea that we are ultimately responsible for the dog is only making matters worse. I can't tell you how many threads like this one I have read over the years. They come up over and over but oddly, I rarely read threads about irresponsible buyers. Why is that? There are only one or two people like Daryl who speak up and say "what about the buyer's responsibility? If I had raised those people from childhood maybe I'd be willing to look at it that way but it's been hard enough learning how to live my own life, thank you. 

I know what people are going to say. You made the dog so you are responsible. While that may be at the core of this, the unintended result is we are also taking responsibility for the behavior of other people and we pay while they are set free of all responsibility. I suppose they are already paying for the way they live their lives but I still would like to see a bit more outrage directed at them vs the people who may be trying to do the right thing. The dogs would be better served if people passed more of the "guilt" along to the irresponsible buyers. They are the ones who have let the dogs down the *most* and yet, like I said, I mostly read these threads aimed at the "uncaring breeders".

As for other countries, every European that I have talked to is quite dismissive of the idea of taking dogs back. They feel it is the owner's responsibility and one person told me at their retail stores , they don't offer the money back guarantees either. You buy it, it's yours. They seem to be more responsible as a society, although I am certain there are exceptions.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Fantastic post, Anne!


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

> Quote:I do it to protect the dogs, period.


That's the whole deal right there. Whether it's your dog you created, a rescue's dog (generally in worse shape) saved once already, or heck, the dog of someone so irresponsible that they drop it at a kill shelter, we all need to work together to protect these dogs, who have not done anything to deserve what has happened to them.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I think "responsibility" in terms of whose "fault" the situation is is a different issue than what the "responsible" thing to do is by the dog. Like Anne, I take the dogs back for the dogs' sake. I'm not doing it to relieve the adopter of their responsibility, I'm doing it because regardless of the adopters responsibility or lack thereof, the dog needs help and I'm commited to being there for the dogs I placed. 

However, this thread does highlight the various shades of grey and variability out there in terms of what breeders do and what they believe. This comes up a lot on some of the rescue and overpopulation threads when people make statements that "reputable" or "responsible" breeders don't ever add to the pet overpopulation problem because they take their dogs back. Well... maybe. But there's not a big stamp that people can get that says "reputable" or a giant black line that divides one kind of breeder or rescue from another. 

I'm sure most of the breeders on this board would consider themselves "reputable" and "responsible" both but some take dogs back and others don't







. Some take dogs back some of the time and not others. Some take dogs back they see as re-sellable/adoptable and refuse to take the ones who now have behavioral problems as a result of mistreatment at their buyer's home. Daryl was quite open about just such a situation. I do not at all agree with this policy and have and will continue to take back the dogs I place regardless of their adoptability but I do appreciate his honesty. 

So... as in Lies's and Daryl's posts, a lot comes down to 1. what people really do, not just what they say they do, and 2. buyers finding out the policies of their chosen breeder and buying accordingly if these issues are important to them. People need to be careful with labels such as "responsible" and "reputable" because their meanings are highly subjective and vary widely among both breeders and rescues.


----------



## IliamnasQuest (Aug 24, 2005)

Anne, your post was quite provocative and interesting - and you bring up a very valid point regarding the buyer's responsibility.

I don't, under and circumstances, think that the buyers don't have a huge responsibility toward the dogs they purchase. As a puppy buyer myself, I feel an extreme responsibility toward the dogs in my life. I have never returned a dog to a breeder even when there have been extreme difficulties (such as suddenly being diagnosed with an incurable autoimmune disease). I skimp to continue to keep my dogs in the manner they should be kept, and they supply me with companionship that is beyond price. But there have been bad moments in the last few years when I agonized over whether I would be able to keep my dogs. 

The reality is that some buyers are going to find themselves in a situation where the dog cannot remain with them. And, as you said, good breeders take those dogs back "to protect the dogs". That's an honorable reason and one that deserves respect. I can't think that any good breeder would want to leave a dog they produced out in the world to be passed around and potentially mistreated or starved or abused. And I think that knowing this - knowing the responsibility of being a breeder includes the possibility of having to take an occasional dog back - should be part of who a breeder is. 

Now, breeders who screen their clients well are probably not going to get many dogs back. It's not like you're likely to have all the pups from a litter come back a year after you sell them. If that's what's happening, then I would truly question the screening process. I wish there were a way to put some kind of responsibility on people who buy a dog and then dump it later for some inane reason like "well, didn't know he was going to get so big!". Maybe we need a "bad buyers" list. 

How many dogs DO come back to a decent breeder with a good screening policy? From what I've heard on this list, it's not really many. I think that any good breeder would want to know exactly where the dogs are that they produce, and to be able to have some say in where the dog goes if the original buyer can't keep it. No one wants their dogs to end up in some puppy mill, do they? I hope not. Surely taking back a dog is better than that possibility.

Maybe some of the difference in thought is that some of us think of dogs in a more emotional way, and some consider dogs to be a business concern. From a business standpoint, it's not very logical to take back used goods that may be difficult to re-sell, and will cost for upkeep in the meantime.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



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

I just wanted to say that I've seen plenty of outrage on this board about irresponsible dog owners, no matter where those dogs came from or how they were acquired. PLENTY. And all of it is well deserved. Maybe not so much about that on this particular thread, but that's not the focus of this thread, which was started for the purpose of discussing the breeder's responsibility. But look around at other areas of the board. It's definitely there, and both sides of the issue are valid and worth discussion.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

> Quote:you have breeders that are probably at their limit with dogs due to homeowner regs or city AC regs - what do those breeders do (or what will they do) if they get a phone call about one of their puppies/dogs?


If they can't be responsible for all the puppies they breed forever..... 

Then they should have stopped breeding entirely, until their situation changes.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Yes, there are many rants on the board about irresponsible owners, but I don't think it fair or reasonable to have a discussion on breeder responsibility to take dogs back without considering the responsibility of the owner. 

As Anne said, we take the dogs back to protect the dogs. Period. Unfortunately, that often means that the owner gets off scott free dumping their responsibility on someone else. Some buyers are going to do that no matter what and someone.. shelter, rescue or breeder... is going to end up cleaning up their mess. 

The problems often encountered with *some* buyers in this situation is if they return the dog to the breeder they expect to be paid for the dog. They want the breeder to buy the dog back, possibly have it shipped from the other side of the country. The fact that if they'd turned it over to a shelter or rescue they'd get paid nothing doesn't matter. Since it's going back to the breeder, and they for some reason think the breeder is going to make a fortune reselling a dog who may have a health problem, temperament problem, or at the very least training/socialization problems, they expect the breeder to cover all the costs and to pay them for the dog.

Is this true in all cases, of course not. But it is true in some, and it can make things very difficult, and sometimes cost prohibitive, for breeders to get their dogs back.

I'll just share one example from our own experience.

Pup is sold for $1200 to someone several states away who easily passes the screening process, and no gut feelings say "danger, don't sell!" Guy is a novice who wants to get into SchH. Everything goes well for the first year. Then he drops off the radar and stops sending updates, and ignores phone calls and emails asking for updates. 

Next thing we know he's got a website up, and has essentially turned into a working line puppy mill. He's gathered a dozen dogs from various working kennels and is pumping out litter after litter of pups from untitled, non-OFAed parents of working pedigree. Emails and phone calls continue to go unanswered.

When the pup turns 2, he gets OFAed, and now the buyer contacts us demanding that we upgrade the pup's registration to full so he can breed the dog and sell the pups with AKC papers (and get more $ for them than the pups he's currently selling on CKC papers). He is reminded that the contract stipulates that will be done after OFAs *and* titles. He whines about SchH being too hard and he doesn't have the time to train, then hangs up. A week later he calls saying he doesn't want the dog anymore if he can't breed him, so he'll let us have him back for $3000. 

Now what to do? If he is going to sell the dog, Right of First Refusal just means that we have to pay his asking price and he can't sell it to someone else for less than he offers it to us. But frankly, we don't have $3000 sitting around, nor any idea if the dog is even worth that.

He is contacted by someone in another state who places dogs in PDs, tells that person the dog is a great candidate for K9 work, and that person offers to buy the dog, under the stipulation that the dog be sent to her first and be evaluated, and then if the dog will work out she will pay the asking price. He calls to ask again if we want the dog or not, and if not he's sending the dog to this other person. Do we want the dog back? Yes. Can we pay that kind of money with a week's notice? No. Fortunately we knew that the person buying the dog was at least reputable and I contacted her to let us know how the dog was doing and where he ended up, and she agreed she'd be happy to keep us updated.

She gets the dog, and calls me as soon as she gets him home. The dog is in HORRIBLE condition. At least 20lbs underweight, infested with roundworms and tapeworm, teeth are horrible, nails look like they've not been cut since he was a puppy, coat is horrible, he has hot spots, conjunctivitis in both eyes, yeast infections in the ears, and is covered in fleas. He seems to have a nice temperament overall, except he is EXTREMELY handshy, cowers if given a simple sit command, and while he shows a ton of drive chasing things, he's terrified of bringing a ball back to a person, much less playing tug. We were beyond livid.

She said there was no way she would pay for a dog in that condition as it'd be weeks if not months of care just to get him back in shape enough to be able to be evaluated, but in good conscience she could never send him back to his owner. So she turned around and shipped the dog back to us 2 days later.

Obviously his old owner was quite upset when we told him we had the dog, and told him what we thought of the dog's physical condition. He threatened all sorts of lawsuits, which we responded to with photos of the dog and vet reports of all of his problems that were obviously due to abuse and neglect. We did end up paying him a refund of the original price he'd paid for the pup, just to shut him up and make him go away and to make sure if he did decide to file a lawsuit we could easily prove we'd gone above and beyond what our contract required (since under our contract if there is evidence of abuse or neglect we can reposes with no reimbursement).

Between 2 airfares, reimbursing the person who originally was going to buy the dog for flying the dog to her and then flying him to us, refund to the original owner, medical bills to get the dog healthy again we probably spent that $3000 asking price in the end anyway. But at least it wasn't all one lump sum so we could do it without having to live on ramen noodles for months. Plus months of work with the dog to get him over issues that stemed from abuse at the hands of his owner. He was resold to a *wonderful* home (who's been very understanding of his baggage and has done a fantastic job with him) for the same amount he was sold for as a pup, so only about 1/3 of our costs were recovered.

We don't regret at all the money and effort put into saving the dog. Only regret is that he was sold to this person in the first place, and that the person ended up not only getting some $ for the dog but also got off scott free regarding being responsible for the dog... and he continues to run his working line puppy mill. I did contact the AC authorities in his county to report him, but since this is backwoods KY no surprise they didn't do anything.

But I don't think we, or most breeders, could AFFORD to do this very often. Especially not the small, hobby breeders who are far from making any sort of profit off breeding. 

Yes, a good screening process does go a long way in preventing this sort of situation, but it doesn't eliminate all possibility of it happening. This guy passed our interview and reference checks with flying colors, and as Anne mentioned in her post, some people are very good at representing themselves just the way the breeder wants them to, even if it's not reality, or they start out fine but then get something into their heads (like being able to make a bunch of $ with a working line puppy mill in the middle of hicksville) and they change. The reality is that no matter how much a breeder may WANT to step in and help the dog, sometimes it is just not possible, especially if dealing with an owner who is more concerned with $$ than the welfare of the dog.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Please excuse me while I use a couple of quotes to stir the pot a little more.











> Quote:But there have been bad moments in the last few years when I agonized over whether I would be able to keep my dogs. <snip> The reality is that some buyers are going to find themselves in a situation where the dog cannot remain with them


Yes, I understand that life happens when you are making other plans and I can certainly imagine how upsetting those situations can be. However, it doesn't seem to occur to many people that breeder's also have a life and things can get rough for them as well. When pet owners have difficulties, there is sympathy but if a breeder does, well, it's because they are irresponsible.



> Quote:If they can't be responsible for all the puppies they breed forever..... Then they should have stopped breeding entirely, until their situation changes.


So, I guess breeders are supposed to be able to control 'when' things go wrong ? The standard for what can go wrong for breeders 'seems' to be much higher than it is for the buyers. It is no secret that the term "breeder" is being turned into a four letter word by animal rights activists and also by what is posted on boards like this one. Believe me, I think about the "what ifs" all the time but I also realize there is only so much I can do to control the future. While I have money set aside, one big health problem could wipe that out in short order and my ability to take a dog back would be gone, just like that.

Here is something else to consider that I touched on in my last post. I'm not expecting full agreement here, just throwing it out there for discussion since it will probably be 100 degrees today and I need to have something to read while I sit in the AC.









Think about what I said about the Europeans. If people didn't offer guarantees/ warranties or make it so easy for a dog to be returned, do you think it is possible buyers would be a bit more diligent in how they select a puppy...or anything for that matter? Maybe they would wait to buy that item until they were in a better position to do so? People have been somewhat brainwashed, (by the way most US retailers operate), to believe that a guarantee means *nothing can go wrong*. Things are being presented as being so EASY. Some companies even advertise all about their "Easy Button". People are being encouraged to not 'think' about buying something they are maybe not in a position to even be considering, and the way US companies have "guaranteed" their products, has created this mind set in people. Maybe you have seen the car commercials now where they are going to make your car payments for you if you lose your job? They will also take the car back. Isn't that nice?! Now, not only do they guarantee their product, they are pretending to guarantee what happens in your life. IMO, this is so you don't have to consider the consequences of that purchase quite so much. Yikes, is all I have to say about that but it is not much different than what breeders are doing or are expected to do. 

When something is presented a certain way and it is repeated over and over, pretty soon, that becomes "the way it is" and affects the way people think and operate. Constantly saying that breeders hold the most responsibility for a dog they sell, could be making things worse, not better. Are we are indoctrinating buyers to a way of thinking that is irresponsible? The idea that anyone else is responsible for a person's decisions and behavior or what may happen in the future is not a mind set that I think should be promoted. I already stated what I do,( only because I can't think of a another way to protect the dogs), as have other breeders, but I won't be responding to these threads with the "oh yeah sure I will" comments. No offense to anyone who may think I am quoting them, I am not. Just making a point about what we might be encouraging, however unintentional. 

Back to the guarantee thing for a minute. What I said about the thinking that nothing can go wrong when there is a guarantee. I run into this all the time when I talk to people who are interested in a puppy. They ask about what I offer and I tell them to read the contract and to let me know if they have questions. Once I tell them there is a warranty, they seem to feel much better about things. Actually, I have learned to find that disturbing. After the way people have behaved when things did go wrong, I now make a point to have a conversation with people about the dreaded "what ifs". I ask people what it is they would want to happen if the dog develops a problem. I can tell you that the majority of the people can't answer that question quickly. They seem surprised and have a great deal of difficulty answering. It suddenly occurs to them that a warranty doesn't cover lots of things, mostly the way they feel about the dog. It is pretty amazing how so many people just don't think about it, even though they know to ask about a "guarantee". I am pretty sure they do not enjoy that dose of reality. I'm also pretty sure I have scared a number of people away doing that and for me, that's just fine.
I'm just saying that what is being offered just might be encouraging people to not 'think' hard enough before buying. The guarantees and "no money down, no obligation" mentality that exists in America has created a whole bunch of people who don't think past the next minute.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: MaggieRoseLee
> 
> 
> > Quote:you have breeders that are probably at their limit with dogs due to homeowner regs or city AC regs - what do those breeders do (or what will they do) if they get a phone call about one of their puppies/dogs?
> ...


I agree - but they are still breeding.....


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Anne, you always seem to express things more eloquently than I do, but we're in the same church and pew! And frankly, I feel good about that because I KNOW you understand the breed and the due diligence to maintain the breed whether it is breeder's responsibility or knowing what a good GS should be.JMO


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think that a breeder should be willing to take their dog back at any time, but they should not be expected to buy their dogs back. 

The fellow that has my male and another female pup of approximately the same age, called me because he feels he needs to rehome the two of them. He would like for them not to be separated. He has $3500 into them with heartgard and training and all and wants it out of them. 

I am doing all I can to keep my lot in food and vet care being unemployed right now. But I agreed to take both puppies to help him out. I have no open runs and a litter coming, but I would be able to figure something out for them. 

No way can I give him $3500, nor should I feel it necessary. 

Right now he has some alternatives, a friend will take the dogs and he will have access to them. He has also said he has offers on them. He says he is in no hurry and will not let them go to just anyone, or let them go to a shelter. 

We left it that I will send him anyone who is looking for an older pup and keep in touch with him regularly. And that he will provide the new owners with my information, so that they can contact me if they need to. 

A breeder should be willing to take a dog back, but then the dog is the breeders to do with what they want. If the dog has a serious medical condition with a poor prognosis, the breeder should not be faulted if they choose to euthanize rather than treat. Also, if the dog is seriously aggressive and the breeder thinks that the dog is a serious liability, than the breeder can choose to work with the dog or euthanize the dog. 

So far, I have taken Tori back, and she has not had a smooth reintroduction into my home. I have to keep her separated from most of my dogs. I have trained and titled her, but because she tends to be crate aggressive with strangers, I do not feel comfortable rehoming her. But she is a loyal and loving pet. She has a place with me. 

As for transportation. It depends. Here in Ohio, I will go and pick up my dog. But if they moved the dog to California, I could not do that. So it would mean shipping the dog. Who pays for shipping? If the owner of the dog will pay good. If the owner of the dog will take the dog to the nearest shelter instead of paying to ship the dog, then I think the breeder should pick up the tab to protect the dog. 

What is legally right, and what is morally right, and what is the ethical thing to do, and what is within the means of the breeder do not always intersect at the most widely accepted decision. I would hope that a decent person would do all that they could reasonably do to ensure that the dog does not suffer.

It really boils down to the fact that the breeder made the decision to place the puppy. If the placement did not work out, then the breeder, because they care about the puppy, should do what they can to make things turn out positively. 

Most of us would bend over backwards to get our dogs out of the hands of an unscrupulous owner, even giving them money to get the dog free of them. But there is not a bottomless checking account to make that happen.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Vandal
> The guarantees and "no money down, no obligation" mentality that exists in America has created a whole bunch of people who don't think past the next minute.


Anne, I would agree with all your points if you would not offer any warranty and do things like Europeans do. I bet that even here in the US you would get wonderful puppy buyers that would think 10 times before committing to a puppy and wouldn't expect you to take the dog back. Obviously, you won't sell so many puppies and would lower the price or breed fewer puppies.

Since you do offer the warranty you are exploiting the American dog buyers mindset created by other breeders (everything is easy, a dog can be returned etc) who do stand by their warranties and take the dog back no matter what. In this case I don't understand all this blaming irresponsible puppy buyers who believe in warranties. I do see some double standards or an attempt to sit on two chairs in such approach.

Disclaimer: Nothing personal, just responding to Anne's post as part of the discussion since I see a somewhat flawed logic in that post, but I do not question a quality of her breeding program etc so please don't blame me for any personal attacks. Thanks!!


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote: If people didn't offer guarantees/ warranties or make it so easy for a dog to be returned, do you think it is possible buyers would be a bit more diligent in how they select a puppy...or anything for that matter? Maybe they would wait to buy that item until they were in a better position to do so?


I think this sounds plausible but probably isn't the case for most people. People buy dogs all the time from pet stores, mill breeders, out of the paper etc. with no waranty and I haven't found those to be "better" or more responsible buyers than the people who seek out breeders that offer more long term support and guarantees.



> Quote:Once I tell them there is a warranty, they seem to feel much better about things. Actually, I have learned to find that disturbing.


Let me offer an alternative explanation - they hear there's a warranty and they think to themselves "Hey, here is a breeder who does such a good job and cares so much about what she's doing that she feels comfortable offering me a guarantee that the dog I'm buying is going to be free of genetic defects to the very best of her ability. She's standing by the dogs she produces. The dogs are her priority not the money. That's the kind of person I want to get a dog from!" 

I don't see what's bad about that!









When my adopters hear that we will take our dogs back no matter what, I don't think they think "oh great! No risk adoption!" I much more get the impression that it makes them feel comfortable dealing with a group who is so clearly not about making money, who is instead about placing dogs in the best homes they can and cares enough about the dogs they place to want to be there for them if something ever goes wrong. It makes them feel good about us which in turn makes them feel good about the dog they're getting - not because they know they can return it, but because they feel like we have no secret agenda and genuinely want them to have a good match with this dog. 

I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that it attracts people who want a risk-free adoption. In fact, people looking for that are usually pretty easy to detect during the application process and we turn them down. Yes, occasionally irresponsible adopters do occasionally slip through our process, but I think that just comes with the territory and doesn't happen more to us than other groups without such guarantees. In my experience, it mainly happens with people who ARE what they say they are at the time they adopt but who change during the time they have the dog. 

From the rescue/shelter side, I DO understand that it can be hard for even the best breeder to get a dog back when the new owner is fighting it - but I hope that, as Chris did, they're staying in touch with buyers and making a real attempt to do right by the dog. I think breeders who refuse to take back a dog that is freely available in a shelter or held by a owner who _wants_ to give the dog up are more common than many people realize. And I'm including in this breeders who are well thought of not just bybs etc. We get a lot of questions about the condition and adoptability of the dog. If the dog has behavioral issues or problems a lot of breeders will refuse to take the dog because they don't want to be stuck with it or can't easily resell it. This, to me, is not "responsible" breeding.


----------



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

I wouldn't buy a puppy from someone who had no guarantee, but that doesn't mean I'd invoke that guarantee at the drop of a hat. In fact, If the guarantee required returning the puppy to the breeder I wouldn't do that under any circumstances. To me, the guarantee is more an indication of the confidence a breeder has in their breeding program than something I hope to cash in on if things go wrong. Of course a guarantee is only worth more than the paper it's written on if a breeder truly stands behind the puppies they produce, but hopefully a good breeder will very rarely need to live up to terms of their guarantee. That they will if the circumstances truly warrant it means more to me than any satisfaction I might get if I were to pursue them for some sort of compensation, because I understand that you can't guarantee against everything. 

We lost two dogs in a row at 4 years old due to diseases that were not just devastating to us emotionally but also quite expensive. I spent almost $6000 in three weeks treating Dena, even more on Cassidy, but that was over a longer period of time, more than a year and a half. It never occurred to us not to spend whatever was necessary, nor did it ever occur to us to ask for anything from the breeders we got the dogs from. It's not their fault things happened, and they were my dogs at the time, my responsibility.


----------



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

> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> > Quote:Once I tell them there is a warranty, they seem to feel much better about things. Actually, I have learned to find that disturbing.
> ...


Thank you Hannah, that's exactly what I was trying to say!


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

You did! And in far fewer words.











> Quote: To me, the guarantee is more an indication of the confidence a breeder has in their breeding program than something I hope to cash in on if things go wrong.


I totally agree with you







Barring some completely extreme catastrophe I would never return one of my dogs but I would want to buy a dog from a breeder who cared enough about her dogs to want to stand by them in the event of a problem.


----------



## LindaHupf (Jul 16, 2009)

Guarantee, warranties. None of it means anything to me. Once I adopt a dog it is mine. In less than two years our German shepherd has been diagnosed with discoid lupus, spent three days in intensive care with a mesenteric torsion, and scarcely eats. However, once we brought him into our home we loved him. The breeder we received him from guaranteed his health but I would never return my beloved dog to her now. Being that she is an honorable breeder, she returned my money to me without my asking for it. It is unfortunate that there are people who will take a dog into their homes without thinking what the word "commitment" means.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I agree! To me a warranty is more about the kind of breeder or rescue I want to support. But from a rescue perspective, the reality is that sometimes adoptions/purchases don't work out, people don't do what they say they will, don't follow through on their commitment and a dog finds itself without a home. When that happens the question is not what's fair or ideal but simply what is going to happen to the dog. IMO, responsible breeders take them back - Not to help out the buyer but because they care about the dog.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Quote: To me, the guarantee is more an indication of the confidence a breeder has in their breeding program ....


I am wondering what this means. Most breeders in the US have only bred one or maybe two generations of their breeding stock. Many simply keep starting over with imports. How can they have "confidence" in something they have seen so little of?


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

Called breeding focus, not breeding program. It is what I have posted before: very few people in the states have a true breeding program, but it is one of those buzzwords.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

This is what is so frustrating; people will use these "buzz" words that in many cases they have no practical application in the use or development of. (ie working terms, working uses, breeding terms, breeding history, etc.). Then we state strong opinions based on this lack of understanding of the practicality of these words. To people who have "actually" worked extensively in these areas or the breed, you instantly see the internet/book/gossip type opinions because they often do not relate to the functional aspects of what they are saying.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

Cliff, I didn't claim I am an expert, I just asked why those who have the 'understanding' so happily exploit the mentality of those without the 'understanding' (selling them puppies, selling them breeding stock) but at the same time feel so superior to them? I don't even say it's frustrating, it's kind of amusing to observe.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Sorry - I had no idea "breeding program" was a buzzword. What I meant was "this person has confidence that she is doing everything she can in terms of screening and breeding dog selection to create dogs that are free of known genetic problems and that represent, to her at least, a good GSD (or whatever breed). She is breeding dogs because she loves dogs and wants to create great GSDs, not because she saw this as a way to make a quick buck. She wants her buyers to be happy with the puppy they buy and in turn, she wants to make sure her puppies go only to homes where they will be well cared for." 

I just thought "confidence in her breeding program and not about the money" was a shorter way to get that across. Apparently not. 

I do rescue - I don't have a "breeding program" and I'm not making dogs, but I do have a desire to place dogs in loving homes and what I get in adoption fees is simply there to cover at least some of the vetting I get the dogs while in my care. My willingness to take the dogs back in the event of a problem speaks to my _concern for the dogs_, not my desire to give any potential adopter a risk-free experience and I think they get that. There are, unfortunately, people in rescue as well as breeders, who discover that selling dogs is a way to make money. They typically make a profit by skimping on care and are highly unlikely to offer any kind of guarantee or warranty because their priority is to bring in money and keep it. If a dog they sold gets sick or has a problem or later needs a home, they aren't going to do anything about it because what happens to the dog after its sold is none of their concern (unless they think they can resell it or use it to breed - I do see those situations a lot). 

And of course there are lots of breeders who occupy the middle ground. They do somewhat care what happens to the dogs they've produced but are not going to take back a dog that will be difficult to place or one with expensive medical issues. 

I don't know if that's any clearer about what I mean by the confidence idea, but I'm just trying to say that it implies a different set of priorities, at least in this country, than someone who doesn't offer one. And I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that it differentially attracts people who are more likely to dump their dogs. And when those people do show up they are usually pretty easy to identify because of their preoccupation with that particular facet of the contract.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

For the record, I was not commenting on the term" breeding program" or really what other breeders are doing , I was talking about the word confidence. The reason I pointed that remark out is because the definition of confidence and because both pupres and Cassidy's Mom seem to be agreeing with what I am saying without really realizing it. I always hesitate to quote someone because it seems like I am directing things right at them, I wasn't trying to put anyone on the spot or to hold myself up as somehow better, just using it to support my point is all. I do breedings with dogs I don't "know". You can't avoid doing that if you breed for a while. I will tell you though that my confidence level is low when I do. Why? Because no matter how healthy the dog is or how many health tests, I have no way to really "be certain" if that "chosen course of action is the best or most effective" or what that combination will produce. 

Definition: Confidence is generally described as a state of being certain either that a hypothesis or prediction is correct or that a chosen course of action is the best or most effective. 

Again, a state of being certain is really rather difficult when you are dealing with genetics. Might be more possible with machinery etc and machinery/cars can be "repaired", dogs really can't be. Both of the posts discussing what you think a guarantee "says to people" seemed to agree with the point I was making about them in my post . 

You just said this about what a guarantee says:
"this person has confidence that she is doing everything she can in terms of screening and breeding dog selection to create dogs that are free of known genetic problems and that represent, to her at least, a good GSD (or whatever breed). She is breeding dogs because she loves dogs and wants to create great GSDs, not because she saw this as a way to make a quick buck. She wants her buyers to be happy with the puppy they buy and in turn, she wants to make sure her puppies go only to homes where they will be well cared for." 

You are putting an awful lot of meaning into that warranty if you ask me and that also goes back to my point. I really don't want to re-type my last post, you can scroll back and look if you care to. I think it was clear enough, although GD07 seems to not quite understand the tone of it. BTW GSD07, I mentioned the conversation I have with potential puppy buyers, so if you are directing that last exploitation comment at me, you didn't read my post slow enough. I am not accusing anyone else of that either since most breeders in the US are offering a warranty and I said in my post that perhaps we are creating a mind set unintentionally. I talked about how that conversation I have with buyers really seems to make them think in a way that simply reading the contract didn't and is why I talk to them about what it does NOT cover. If people are reading all the things that Cassidy's Mom and Pupres are into what a warranty "says" about a breeder, I think discussing "the rest of the story" is important. This is what I do now as a breeder because of my experiences with puppy buyers and after reading posts on boards where it is clear that people really didn't quite understand what a warranty would do for them, i.e. the emotional impact a sick dog can have on them that a replacement pup or money back just doesn't cover.

I asked the question here to stimulate a conversation, that's it. I don't use these boards for "other purposes" or to sell puppies, obviously. After this thread, I am sure I will be avoided like the plague. lol.

Let's just try to have a discussion without taking all these comments so personal. I didn't get all bent about the rather insulting post from GSD07 and I could have taken it that way, even with the disclaimer at the end. I gave her the benefit of the doubt that she was responding to the discussion and not simply attacking me, although now I am not so sure. Let's just have a discussion and leave the personal stuff out of it.

Let me try asking this question since we seem to be headed down the wrong path here :

Are the Europeans being more "honest" about the realities of dog breeding by not offering warranties ?


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I think exactly what you're discussing happened in your interpretation of my post - I didn't mean only to reply to your post, was trying to discuss the succession of posts dealing with buzzword, your's was just the one I clicked on to reply to. I'm not taking anything personally, just trying to clarify my meaning because I wasn't using any of those terms with an intention for them to be loaded, just speaking in the common vernacular. 

Obviously I wouldn't conclude a breeder was doing everything right just because there was a warranty, the warranty would be one of many things among them health screening, titling, general knowledge etc. that would go towards telling me the kind of operation I was dealing with. My greater point about the warranty is that while it isn't the be-all end-all of responsible breeding, it also isn't my cue to think that dogs are exchangeable nor does liking to see one mean that I would ever necessarily use it nor enter into buying a dog with less than a fully committed mindset. 

As far as what Europeans do or don't do, I think there are so many different things about their system and ours, I'm not sure a comparison that just deals with warranties can be interpreted by itself.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

Vandal, I put the disclaimer there for a reason because I didn't want anybody to read more in my post than I put in there. I thought you really wanted to discuss the topic so I responded but I guess everybody is so self centered nowdays that it makes it impossible to discuss any issue without personal attachment. 

Again, I don't know you, your breeding goals, your breeding philosophy, the puppies you produce, I was just interested in the discussion so I responded to your post. If I didn't understand your views then please elaborate a bit instead of telling me that my reading speed is too fast (or I am too slow). You don't know me either.

I would appreciate addressing my points without accusing me of personal attacks. I also give Vandal the benefit of the doubt that she didn't mean to insult me with her last post. Thank you.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Ok, I'll do that. What point do you want me to address?

BTW, I said you weren't reading my post slow enough not that you were a slow reader.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

OK, let's please keep this discussion civil. 

Thank you,

Admin

********


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Hmm...you edited your post....ok nevermind.


----------



## WiscTiger (Sep 25, 2002)

Would I buy from a breeder who doesn't have a warranty/guarantee on the contract. Well it would depend on the pedigree of the pup and what I know of the lines. 

My first 3 GSD's have had some type of problem, not one of the breeders really gave a crap, let alone offered any money back. My fourth GSD was purchased without a contract at all and that is just fine with me. I want my Vehicles or products I purchased to have a warranty or guarantee, but realistically how can you guarantee a living breathing thing.

I think more buyers should be made aware that geeze I hate to use this phrase but I will "buying puppies is a crap shoot". The breeder should have a good idea what the pup is capable of, but since the pup is only there for 8 - 10 weeks there is no way they can be 100% certain. All puppies are not the same, genetics just don't work like that. If they did my 4th GSD whose dam was a SchH3 and sire a VA SchH3 would be at least a decent dog for SchH, nope that wasn't her genetic makeup. Does that mean I care for her any less, nope.

I also believe there are times when a puppy buyer is in way over their head and/or the pup is not a good match for them, their family or situation. I encourage those people to contact the breeder because there is no reason the pup has to grow up in a house that isn't a match for them, everyone is just miserable. I get bashed because I want the owner to return the pup. Just because you love something doesn't always mean that it is the right situation.

Val


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

I got that









Thanks! What I was interested was the possibility for American Hypothetical Breeders (AHB) who are frustrated with the 'no obligation' mentality that is powered by warranties to abandon the offering of warranties. 

The warranties seem to encourage people who have no business owning a puppy or a dog to go to the AHB and get a puppy because they know that they don't need to deal with the concequences. It seemed to me that by still offering the warranties AHB are loosing a part of their integrity because they understand that they attract the undesirable irresponsible puppy buyers but continue to do so. 

What do you think? It's a discussion, I just really like to hear other people's reasoning and have some intellectual discussion. Thanks!


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

This is where I think that makes some intuitive sense but I don't actually think it's happening. In general the breeders who offer warranties are also the breeders who screen buyers so there are hoops to jump through on both sides. The majority of irresponsible owners/owners with an easy buy mindset just don't want to go through that. They want to go to the store, pick their puppy, and go home. So I would argue that ease of purchase is far more of a factor in attracting undesirable irresponsible puppy buyers than the existance of a warranty as a general rule.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Ok, so you agree with my initial thinking on this but wonder why I or any other breeder still offer a guarantee/warranty.

Well, I am wondering that myself and have gone back and forth with it over the years. My solution is to have that conversation with people because I really believe they do not really "get it" without me explaining it further. Even the "good buyers" don't quite understand how unpredictable genetics can be or what owning a GSD "really" entails. I am pretty sure that some of the people I talk to start to wonder what is wrong with my dogs because of how long I go on about this stuff. 

Most of the time, things go well, the dogs are fine, fit in, work out, don't have health issues whatever. However, the times they do go wrong it is hard on the people and believe it or not, on me as a breeder and that is when you 'really' see WHO you sold the dog to.

I am usually just as upset and disappointed as they are but I also understand the reality of breeding dogs and unless you breed dogs for a while, it is very difficult to understand those realities. For example, people seem to think that OFA on the parents mean the pups will have good hips. Yes, I still explain that one a lot. Like Val said, genetics just don't work like that, it is not that simple but many buyers don't understand because they are not dog breeders. 

I started this because of the way people are saying that "breeders hold the ultimate responsibility for the dogs for their entire lives" and it just struck me what those words are saying to people. I still want to protect my dogs though but wish people would maybe just come up with another way to describe what breeders are doing or why they are doing it. Words have power to persuade and I think people need to understand that buying a pup is a commitment, where THEY are "ultimately responsible" and that the warranties only cover so much. Returning the dog should not be so "easy" but how do you still protect the pups when you make it difficult? There is a dilemma there for sure. 
I just want people to understand that the responsibility for that pup moves to the buyer once they take possession, even if the breeder is willing to help them if something goes wrong, it does not mean that responsibility for the dog then falls back to the breeder.

I go back and forth because I do realize that things can go wrong. My warranty is not about how confident I am, its about what I know to be the reality of the situation, because these are not cars, they are living things.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

I think too, understanding how we have seen it played out-that this is really the crux of the issue, and why people are saying 'til death do us part. 

Here is how it often happens. Dog ends up in shelter, rescue goes to check the dog out-maybe they have room, maybe they don't, but whatever, they recognize the dog as coming from a certain breeder somehow. They call the breeder and say your dog is at this shelter-and of course the hope is that the breeder will say, oh good heavens, I am on my way, or can you transport her/him to me, or something that shows that they want the dog back and would do whatever they can to get it there and to save that dog from death. Total cost, pull fees, maybe vetting/speutering by the shelter (depending) $150ish? Rescue and breeder work it out-either to help the breeder get the dog, place the dog, do something positive for the dog and the dog lives. 

This is the situation we are referring to, I think, originally. 

So many times, we don't get that response or anything like it from the person who is contacted. 

We often are not dealing with what I call breeders either. We are dealing with PUPPY PRODUCERS. 

I am not so sure it's a warranty thing (I don't think-maybe others do), but this scenario happening time and time again.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I totally agree. And I think the warranty thing is a different issue than the willingness (or not) to take a dog back down the road, which is what started this thread. 

I believe that the person who placed the dog bears some responsibility for the longterm welfare of the dog and I believe that is especially true when you're talking about the person who created the dog. Do they bear exclusive responsibility? No, of course not. I don't think anyone on here would argue that once sold, the buyer is not the first line of defense responsible for the care and upkeep of the dog. Obviously they are. However, I DO think that the breeder is the second line of defense responsible for the dog, should the first line of defense fail. And I believe that this holds true (or should hold true) for the lifetime of the dog. So to me, a "responsible" breeder takes his or her dogs back should the buyer renege on their responsibility. Not because the breeder wants to provide the buyer with a safety net but because they want to provide one for the _dog_.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I do not think a warranty means a person is standing behind their dogs at all. For some, a warranty is simply a business decision and practice. 

So, you are selling dogs. Yes you did the health screenings, but frankly there are no guarantees when it comes to puppies and genetic problems. But people feel more confident if there is a warranty -- usually ANY warranty. 

So some breeders make a calculated decision based on risk. They jack the price up on the puppy to cover the possibility of the owners choosing to come back about a problem. Often they require the dog to be given back, which usually improves their risk considerably because by the time there is a problem, the dog is already bonded with the owners. The owners know the breeder will probably euthanize the dog. And they choose to simply deal with it on their own. 

Others put a time line on their warranty, and other qualifiers: crippling hip dysplasia by 12 months. Even if you breed two dysplastic dogs, the chances of "crippling hip dysplasia by 12 months is pretty slim." How much will you pay for such a warranty, and how much confidence does it instill. 

But even the warranties that are on the up and up, and seem to be a reasonable deal. Are just the difference between the price increase and the chance of someone calling them on it. If you charge $1200 for a puppy and you decide to offer a warranty. You think one in 10 puppies may have a problem that is covered under the proposed warranty. You are offering a replacement puppy -- usually no money will change hands. So you figure that you really need to up the price by $100. 

So the question is, would you be willing to pay $1300 for a pup with a warranty, would you be willing to pay $1200 for a pup with no warranty?

I think that a warranty has a lot less to do with confidence in what they are producing and a lot more to do with what the buyers are looking for.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

Of course the warranty in itself does not necessarily separate a good breeder from a bad one. It does come down to the ethics of the breeder, in how much effort they put into researching and planning their breeding, and how willing they are to honour their warrenty. 



> Quote:So the question is, would you be willing to pay $1300 for a pup with a warranty, would you be willing to pay $1200 for a pup with no warranty?


I really don't get the reasoning behind this question. 

As others have said, the warrenty is only but a small part of the overall package that a breeder brings into the breeding and placing of the pups. For me, the decision of buying a dog would not rest on the difference between prices, or the availability of a warranty on paper, but on the reputation of the breeder, and seeing and researching the breeder's dogs, past dog owners, and the dogs being produced themselves. 

I have read on this board of people who told of buying pups from breeders who offered NO warrenty, but then went above and beyond what most breeders would do to help out and fix problems and issues that may occasionally arise, and we have all seen the many posts of new puppy owners whose breeders refuse to honour their warranty, blame the new owners for the pup's obviously genetic issues, and then cut off all contacts even threatening legal action against the new owners.

But baring such extreme behaviour, I'm with the majority here. Going with a breeder that does offer a warranty does tell me a lot about the breeder, but how the warrenty is worded is also very important. I.E. dog with crippling hip displaysia must be destroyed or returned in order to get a replacement puppy or refund - SURE!!! how many people would be willing to do that? Like Anne said, people aren't buying merchandise, they are buying a friend, a family member, a dream, and future plans, hopes and dream. You can't just "destroy" it, and the breeders who word their warranty like that are playing cruel mind games, and they know it! They know that they are manipulating the situation to their advantage, and the existance of a warrently alone does not a good breeder make.

But if I didn't know the breeder, and was considering buying a dog, I would ask about a warranty, and I would carefully go through the wording, and ask questions about "what if's". If I didn't know the breeder, and they did not offer a warranty (even if the pup is at a reduced price- but I would not base my decision on the price - a reputable, responsible breeder will price her puppies fairly, and if they are selling really low, to attract the customer who "only wants a pet", or really high, to attract the customer who wants the "super-duper world-class champion-lines-three generations back puppy, I would pass). 

I think that people that use these tactics (because I believe that is what they are), are not getting people who are educated, knowledgeable about the german shepherd breed as customers, but the general public. Not even that long ago, if I had been interested in buying a German Shepherd, I would not have known the difference between BYB, a glorified BYB with fancy website, and a serious, reputable, responsible, ethical, breeder, with a breeding program, or breeding focus







.

I agree with a number of other posts on this thread, which is very interesting reading. I enjoy the depth and breath and insight and debate that many people bring into the discussion. 

Adding to the discussion, I agree that a breeder's responsibility ends when the breeder says it does. So up to the buyer to pick a breeder carefully, and avoid those that give up responsibility all too easily. If nobody buys pups from them, they will stop breeding (well, one can only hope!).

So to me, technically, the breeder's responsibility ends when they sell the dog. But a breeder that ACCEPTS responsibility for the life of the dog, is a reputable, responsible, ethical breeder. Otherwise, champion show-lines or champion SchH lines or not, they are puppy producers, gloryfied back-yard-breeders, down-scaled puppy mills, selling their dogs as merchandise, warranty or not.


----------



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

Anne, I'm going to go ahead and quote your posts because there were some specific things you mentioned that I want to respond to. As you said in your post, this is not necessarily directed at you. 



> Originally Posted By: VandalI do breedings with dogs I don't "know". You can't avoid doing that if you breed for a while. I will tell you though that my confidence level is low when I do. Why? Because no matter how healthy the dog is or how many health tests, I have no way to really "be certain" if that "chosen course of action is the best or most effective" or what that combination will produce.
> 
> Definition: Confidence is generally described as a state of being certain either that a hypothesis or prediction is correct or that a chosen course of action is the best or most effective.
> 
> Again, a state of being certain is really rather difficult when you are dealing with genetics. Might be more possible with machinery etc and machinery/cars can be "repaired", dogs really can't be. Both of the posts discussing what you think a guarantee "says to people" seemed to agree with the point I was making about them in my post.


If we're talking about the strict definition of the term "confidence", then no, there are no certainties in genetics. I do understand that. But obviously you and most other ethical breeders are _reasonably certain_ that you've done enough research, checked the pedigrees, and made the best choices you can based on the information available to you at the time. You're not just breeding willy nilly, there has been much care and thought put into breeding decisions. I'm going to take leap here and make an assumption - you would not intentionally do a breeding where you think there is a reasonable likelihood that things WILL go wrong, yes? Does that mean everything will always go as planned and that the puppies will all be perfect? Of course not. As Val said, puppies are a crap shoot. 



> Quotesnip) ....most breeders in the US are offering a warranty and I said in my post that perhaps we are creating a mind set unintentionally. I talked about how that conversation I have with buyers really seems to make them think in a way that simply reading the contract didn't and is why I talk to them about what it does NOT cover. If people are reading all the things that Cassidy's Mom and Pupres are into what a warranty "says" about a breeder, I think discussing "the rest of the story" is important. This is what I do now as a breeder because of my experiences with puppy buyers and after reading posts on boards where it is clear that people really didn't quite understand what a warranty would do for them, i.e. the emotional impact a sick dog can have on them that a replacement pup or money back just doesn't cover.





> Quote:My solution is to have that conversation with people because I really believe they do not really "get it" without me explaining it further. Even the "good buyers" don't quite understand how unpredictable genetics can be or what owning a GSD "really" entails. I am pretty sure that some of the people I talk to start to wonder what is wrong with my dogs because of how long I go on about this stuff.


I get your point about the mindset, but as I specifically said in my earlier post, a guarantee is only worth more than the paper it's written on if the breeder actually stands behind it, and that's where reputation comes in. It's part of the picture, it's not the entire picture. And personally, I appreciate the honesty from a breeder about what a guarantee does and does not cover and understand all too well the emotional impact of a sick dog, I understand far more about that than I ever wanted to know. The heartbreak of losing Dena suddenly at 4 years old was devastating to both of us, as was Cassidy's long illness. For puppy buyers who don't understand that, and have unrealistic expectations, that is a good conversation to have. If they're deterred by your frankness, then they should go elsewhere. That's all part of making sure that the puppy and the potential home are a good fit.



> Quote:I just want people to understand that the responsibility for that pup moves to the buyer once they take possession, even if the breeder is willing to help them if something goes wrong, it does not mean that responsibility for the dog then falls back to the breeder.


I totally agree. My dogs are my responsibility, not their breeders'. I think most people here get that too.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Castlemaid
> So to me, technically, the breeder's responsibility ends when they sell the dog. But a breeder that ACCEPTS responsibility for the life of the dog, is a reputable, responsible, ethical breeder. Otherwise, champion show-lines or champion SchH lines or not, they are puppy producers, gloryfied back-yard-breeders, down-scaled puppy mills, selling their dogs as merchandise, warranty or not.


I started writing a long response but then I really couldn't put it better than Lucia already did in her post. That is my view on the breeder/puppy buyer relationship. The above quote has to be framed on the wall at any breeder's office or home.

The only thing I wanted to add is that I do not agree with looking down on the general public and saying that they do not understand and are not up to the job to own a GSD. GSD is a very versatile solid dog and if a regular person can't handle a properly matched GSD then something is not right with the 'breeding focus' or puppy selling practices.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

[/quote]
_The only thing I wanted to add is that I do not agree with looking down on the general public and saying that they do not understand and are not up to the job to own a GSD. GSD is a very versatile solid dog and if a regular person can't handle a properly matched GSD then something is not right with the 'breeding focus' or puppy selling practices._ [/quote]

The only problem with that is defining "regular." 
"Regular" as compared to an informed, educated people, or "regular" in regards to the many numbnuts I see every day 

A German Shepherd is indeed, a versatile, solid dog. One that has inherent aggression, prey drive and intellect.

Gotta say, the vast majority of people I see that work all day, come home, and are too tired to do anything but sit and watch _*Idol*_ on TV with their pre-prepared dinner from Publix, are NOT going to be able to handle a German Shepherd.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

It isn't exactly about "looking down on" the general public so let me just clarify that one. My harshest comments were directed at the most irresponsible of that group. Most people really cannot FULLY understand how things work unless they are doing it themselves and I said that as well. There are things that need to be explained to even the most responsible of people so that they are not surprised some miles down the road.

Again, what I was commenting on is more about sending the message to the general public that there is a huge responsibility and commitment in owning a dog. It's that "subliminal message" for the lack of a better term, that we may be sending by saying that someone else is forever resonsible for what happens to THEIR dog. That was mostly what I was commenting on, although I acknowledge I may not have been totally successful at making that clear.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Quote: GSD is a very versatile solid dog and if a regular person can't handle a properly matched GSD then something is not right with the 'breeding focus' or puppy selling practices.


I totally disagree with this comment. GSDs with the required drive, temperament etc, are not dogs for everyone or for the majority of people out there. They require much more than what lots of people are capable of providing, especially when they are younger.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Great post Lucia! I think that's exactly what several of us have been trying to say. We're using certain words like "confidence" or "breeding program" that may be getting interpreted differently than we intend, but yeah - what you said!









As far as the issue of who "should" own a GSD - I'm not sure there is a general public as far as that goes. There are people with lots of different levels of dog knowledge and dog experience, there are also people with lots of different levels of commitment to their pets. I adopt dogs to plenty of people who don't belong to forums like this and aren't among the "obsessed" the way some of us are, but they can make great and devoted dog owners. I don't adopt to people who aren't committed to having a dog hopefully as a member of their family, but depending on the dog I'm placing, I may be looking for someone with a ton of dog experience or perhaps a first time dog owner would be just fine. Depends on matching the dog with the people. There are GSDs that I simply do not think are going to do well with most newbie dog owners but would be the dog of a lifetime for someone with more knowledge and/or a certain personality type (as experience isn't everything if it's the wrong kind of experience). Conversely, I have fostered GSDs who would fit easily and seamlessly into the home of someone who has a lot of love to give but no experience at all with the breed. GSDs are an extremely diverse breed; some of my easiest fosters have been GSDs as have some of my most challenging.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

I have a new question for you now because I think we are kind of beating the horse dead here. It's sort of on the same topic but maybe looking from a dfferent angle.

I think anyone who has been alive for the last 40 or 50 years can see the shift in how people view/care for their pets. They are now more like part of the family for many more people than simply something that they tie to a pole in the back yard.

So, what, in your opinion caused this shift? Who do you think is the _*most *_responsible for this change in mentality?


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote: GSDs with the required drive, temperament etc, are not dogs for everyone or for the majority of people out there. They require much more than what lots of people are capable of providing, especially when they are younger.


I would tend to agree with you here. While I think there are GSDs out there for almost any kind of committed and caring home, and _as a breed _they're diverse, I don't think that every breeder is creating them nor should they be. I would expect that, for example, most (although not all, as there's variability within every litter but most) well-bred working lines pups are going to have a higher level of drive and energy than most pet homes are either looking for or prepared for. And I think that's okay. The same qualities that would drive those people nuts are the ones I'd be looking for. So I don't think breeding dogs with higher exercise needs, drive etc. is a bad thing. Quite the contrary in fact, as to me that's what I love most in GSDs. 

For people wanting an easier or more laid back dog, they're out there. Just from different sources.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote: So, what, in your opinion caused this shift? Who do you think is the most responsible for this change in mentality?


Hmm...







That's an interesting question. As a person who lives in a state where plenty of dogs are still living as objects in the backyard, it presents an interesting dichotomy even as you travel around. When I was living in another part of KY I had perfectly nice people ask me routinely why I was walking my dog (at all, much less on a leash). I also get a lot of requests for "house dogs" which means "small dog" as the idea of keeping something like a GSD in the house is still very shocking to a lot of people. But I do know what you mean - in this same state I can go to a doggy bakery where my dog and I can have brunch. 

Gotta think about that one. 

ETA: I don't think it was commercialism/advertising that started the ball rolling, but I definitely think all the products and stuff for pets being promoted has got to be part of the equation. Probably more of a symptom at least at first but it has seemed to me like the availability of things like doggy purses and doggy accessories does seem to motivate people to purchase dogs to put in them. It becomes a sort of juggernaut.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Perhaps something to do with land use? As people have moved into increasingly dense housing/cities/apartments where keeping a dog outside is impossible, the dogs have come in and with them a cultural shift? And that shift stays with the people even as some move back out to suburbia. 

There's definitely some kind of pattern where you are more likely to find dogs living outside in rural areas where the people living there have always lived in a rural area (versus people going 'back to the land' on ranchettes etc).

I'm sure that's not the whole story but perhaps part of it?


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Good thinking. You are very close. 

Now I will ask this. 



> Quote: As people have moved into increasingly dense housing/cities/apartments <snip>
> 
> There's definitely some kind of pattern where you are more likely to find dogs living outside in rural areas


If you were going to open a store to sell lots of products, which area would you chose to build you store in?


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

Depends on the products. 

quote: They are now more like part of the family for many more people than simply something that they tie to a pole in the back yard. /quote

I don't know how it was here but dogs were always a part of the family in the rural or city areas in the place where I grew up. The 'part of the family' didn't mean 'fur kids' though. They were partners and companions, people and dogs shared responsibilities, work and free time with each other so dogs were not on chains, quite the opposite. The dogs used to roam in country areas and now they are enclosed behind fences.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

What Kentucky needs is more Petcos, Petsmarts, etc. in order to change that culture you just talked about because THAT is what their advertising has done. Unfortunately, there is not enough money to be made there, so, they are not going to bother trying to chage anything in that state until there is. It is in their business interest to promote the "pets are family" kind of mentality because then you will take better care of your pet, which results in the purchase of their products, i.e. food, grooming tools etc. Now, that is a very positive by- product of advertising that has resulted in changing people's mentality . Also, once lots of people start thinking that way, more do, since it becomes the acccepted norm.

IMO, it is big business that has changed our mentality about pets the most. Like you said in your post about populated vs rural, this newer mentality is more common in densely populated areas because that is where these companies operate the most. They are the areas where they flood the market with TV images. They sure aren't going to start out saying this is what we want you to believe so you will buy our products. It is all much more subtle than that but people see/hear it over and over and their thinking starts to change without even realizing it. It is the images that get into people's heads and the words they use in their advertising that change minds. People go to college to learn how to influence us with words and images so that we feel 'good' about buying their products, it's called marketing. 

Big chains build in areas where there is a dense population base or where they think one is going to form. I worked for a large retail chain for 25 years starting in 1976, same year I started training dogs in SchH. Since I was interested in both dogs and how retail works, I was always paying attention to the sale of Pet Products and would read every article about that subject in the industry trade paper. I remember the articles discussing the potential Pet market and the billions of potential dollars that could be made. It all started to excelerate in the 80s and early 90s and that is whan we really started to see a big shift in mentality concerning pets. Take a look at when some of the bigger companies really started to kick into high gear. 

PETCO Timeline
1965 First PETCO store in San Diego 
1980 First PETCO store opens outside San Diego 
1988 Acquisition of WellPET and The Pet Dept. boosts PETCO over 100 stores. PETCO expands into Washington, Oregon and Texas markets 
1990 Brian Devine joins PETCO 
1992 First East Coast stores open 
1994 PETCO goes public 
1995/1998 PETCO acquires 21 chains totaling over 200 stores as the company expands its national footprint. 
1999 PETCO Foundation formed 
2000 PETCO goes private in leveraged buyout, hits $1 Billion in sales. PETCO breaks 500 store threshold 
2001 Millennium store concept introduced 
2002 PETCO returns to stock market, PETC on the NASDAQ. PETCO operates 565 stores in 42 states 
2003 PETCO and the San Diego Padres announce naming of the San Diego downtown baseball park, PETCO Park 
2004 PETCO Park Opens 


PETSMART
PetSmart was founded in 1986 and opened its first Pet Food Warehouse stores in the Phoenix area. Through several mergers and acquisitions, PetSmart expanded in the early- and late-1990s across the U.S. and into Canada, and entered online retailing through a partnership with Idealab in 1999.

In early 2000, PetSmart remodeled most of its store in a plan they called "Eagle" which changed many of its stores from a front-half storefront, back-half warehouse feel to an all-over standard retail market, in hopes of not intimidating customers.

In August 2005, the company announced that it was rebranding its name from PETsMART to PetSmart. This move is designed to emphasize its evolution from a pet supply store to a solutions-oriented company.[1]

As of November 2007, PetSmart operated approximately 1,000 stores and about 150 locations with PetsHotels and Doggie Day Camps. Some PetSmarts are co-located with Banfield Pet Hospital veterinary offices.


IAMS
The story of The Iams Company goes back to the 1940s. Back then feeding of companion animals was predominantly home-made food, usually the remnants of the table. Paul Iams, an animal nutritionist, decided to take a different approach. After graduation from Ohio State University in 1938, he worked for a number of companies, including his father’s feed business in Dayton, Ohio.

He founded The Iams Company in 1946 – in a small feed mill near Dayton – and developed the world’s first animal-based protein, dry dog food in 1950. He called it Iams 999. In 1969 Paul formulated a new dog food to be named Eukanuba.

During the Arab oil embargo in fall 1973 the costs for meat and bone meal tripled but sales prices were frozen by a nation wide wage and price control by President Richard Nixon. But Paul Iams did not cheapen the product formula in the hope that it would be over soon. It was a financial disaster and the company nearly went broke. However for the founder: “it was the best thing that could have happened” as it maintained its reputation.

In 1975, however, after weathering the price freeze, the company was reeling. Paul Iams, feeling that he had taken the company as far as it could go, decided to close the company rather than try to grow the business any further. Clay Mathile, who joined Iams in 1970, wanted to save it and purchased half of the company in 1975[1][2]. He became the sole owner and president in 1982.

Growing from a $100,000 company in 1970 to $900 million in 1999, Mathile sold the company to Procter & Gamble (P&G) in September 1999. In July 2006 Procter & Gamble re-organized the Pet Health & Nutrition division into P&G Pet Care (consisting of the Iams and Eukanuba brands)


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Vandal
> 
> 
> > Quote: GSD is a very versatile solid dog and if a regular person can't handle a properly matched GSD then something is not right with the 'breeding focus' or puppy selling practices.
> ...


I still hope that the majority of people here are not the uneducated clueless non-dog population. I understand your point but I disagree that a GSD with the correct temperament regardless of the drive is way to much of dog to handle for a regular normal person or family. I did mention that the puppy has to be a good match for a family, though.

The correct temperamented dog will herd all day, protect the property all night, babysit the children, welcome invited guests, go anywhere with their family members including woods, city, store, train, bus you name it. That's the GSDs that my family, my extended family and my grandparents always owned that I knew and loved. They were dogs that required respect and taking them into account but they were very easy to handle for anybody. That's the temperament I am looking in a dog for myself.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

Anne, I think I understand what you are saying about the unintended message a warranty may send to new owners, and the mind set this creates in the general public. Though I don't know if that offering a warranty is what is _creating_ the mindset. People are responsible, or they are not. Being responsible is something people learn to be, and choose to be. I don't think that it is a product of how Anne Kent or Mr. Good Breeder or Mrs. Bad Breeder does business. But I understand that you dont want to send the message, even unintentionally, that a warranty relieves new owners from responsibility. 

And that is a valid point. But NOT offering a warranty isn't going to turn irresponsible dog owners into responsible ones. 

But I haven't had those interviews and conversations that you have with your potential clients, so I'm really just talking theorhetically. 



> Originally Posted By: Vandal
> I think anyone who has been alive for the last 40 or 50 years can see the shift in how people view/care for their pets. They are now more like part of the family for many more people than simply something that they tie to a pole in the back yard.
> 
> So, what, in your opinion caused this shift? Who do you think is the _*most *_responsible for this change in mentality?


LOL, can't talk from personal experience going back that far, and I'm not Pupresq, but I may have a theory as to the shift, and I'm just guessing: would it be the shift from the majority of the populaton living rural and agricultural lifestyles declining, and an increase in urban population?

Usually, (and I'm generalizing - refering to people that I have known personally which is far from being a balanced statistical sample), people that have grown up on farms and agricultural/rural environments considered dogs as livestock. Farm dogs were working dogs, and their job required them be outdoor animals. I've had many people who have grown up on farms tell me that they would have NEVER considered having a dog in the house, that just wasn't done. Horses, Cows, pigs, dogs: all animals. Animals live outside, or in barns. People live in houses. Period. 

And even if they moved to urban areas, they were still ingrained with the idea that dogs (especially big dogs) belong outside. But fewer and fewer people today still have to rural/agricultural connections, so are more comfortable and accepting (and expecting) their dogs to be house dogs and cherished family members.
Edited to add: _ I was too slow typing! You guys already identified a lot of the issues!_


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom
> But obviously you and most other ethical breeders are _reasonably certain_ that you've done enough research, checked the pedigrees, and made the best choices you can based on the information available to you at the time. You're not just breeding willy nilly, there has been much care and thought put into breeding decisions. I'm going to take leap here and make an assumption - you would not intentionally do a breeding where you think there is a reasonable likelihood that things WILL go wrong, yes? Does that mean everything will always go as planned and that the puppies will all be perfect? Of course not. As Val said, puppies are a crap shoot.


Anne made a comment several pages back about how many breeders are breeding imports that they didn't produce themselves or are on only their 2nd or 3rd generation at most. This makes it very difficult for these breeders to really know what is behind their dogs unless they have worked a lot of dogs over the years. These breeders may feel confident in their knowledge of their dogs, but it is a confidence, for the most part, born of ignorance.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

And it does not matter on the line, per se. It is also the dog and what the dog is producing, how the dog is on and off the field. How is the dog under pressure? How is the training? 

Any issues with health? What lines have they been bred to?

There are certain lines or combo of lines in the males that we stay away from.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but what I meant by "confidence" and I suspect Cassidys Mom did as well, is not an assurance that all things will turn out a certain way because we all agree that genetics are something of a gamble, even if you DO know your lines backwards and forwards, and certainly if you've only had 1-2 generations, but that the breeder is doing everything possible to minimize the chances of issues and will stand by the animals they produce should there be a problem. 

As Lucia and others have said, a warranty is only part of the overall package of things a buyer should look at and some warranties clearly reflect more of a desire of the breeder to stand by the dog than others, so they're not all created equal.

But when I look at a breeder and see that she's doing hip screenings of all her breeding stock and is knowledgable about the genetics of the dogs she's breeding, and acknowledges that occasionally HD can still crop up, but is offering (and has been known to follow through with) a replacement puppy or reimbursement (even if partial) in the event a dog doesn't pass OFA - and does NOT require the return of the original dog... well, that says something positive to me about the breeder's desire and efforts to produce good dogs and willingness to work with a buyer should there be a problem.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Vandal
> People go to college to learn how to influence us with words and images so that we feel 'good' about buying their products, it's called marketing.


I totally agree with that, and with the entire post. We are influenced way too much in many areas not just in dog related fields. I call it 'brainwashing'. The only solution I see is to go to colleges ourselves and have the desire to think on our own.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

Never mind, it wasn't relevant.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Since this thread has gone all over the place anyhow, I have another question that sort of goes along with what Anne has been trying to say. 

Have rescues and shelters made it too easy and guilt free for people to dump their dogs? "I can give Daisy to the shelter and they will find her a good home", because I am a callous SOB who doesn't want to deal with Daisy's old age and potential death. Of course the fact that Daisy is 12 years old, has lived with the family all her life and will probably not find a new home and have to be killed doesn't even enter these people's minds (sorry, I have a huge soft spot for old dogs).


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

What would be the alternative? They don't take the dog, dog is on the street or taken to the vet to be PTS. I think rescues care for dogs more than for such people and they also know that there are good people out there, too.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Quote: Have rescues and shelters made it too easy and guilt free for people to dump their dogs?


Note exactly the same......but.......

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2008/11/a_good_idea_gone_bad_nebraska.html


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

What I am saying is that maybe people wouldn't be so willing to dump their dogs if it wasn't so easy for them to do so. The are able to dump them on the shelters and rescues without guilt and in their own little minds they can go on believing that the dogs will find new people that love them. The reality isn't always so pretty and perfect.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote: Have rescues and shelters made it too easy and guilt free for people to dump their dogs?


I guess the answer would depend on what you mean by "made it too easy"? 

Clearly rescues and shelters need to exist because there are people who are going to dump their dogs regardless of anything else you do or say. As in some of the earlier comments about breeders taking back dogs, rescues typically exist to help the DOGS, not their owners. 

And open admission shelters absolutely must exist because otherwise dogs end up with far worse fates than injectable euthanasia.

Now, that said, I don't think rescues or shelters have to (or should) sugar coat reality so that irresponsible owners can go home happy. Making them feel good about abandoning their pet is the last thing I'm about. And I'm not talking about those truly tragic cases, where you really DO feel bad for the person and you tell them sincerely that you understand and will do everything you can to help. The majority of people surrendering their pets could do something different if they were willing to make the effort but they're not. I'm very honest with those people. When people approach me about surrendering a pet I work really hard to offer alternatives - training etc. When they say "oh, but he's a great dog, I'm sure he'll find a home" I'll tell them how many "great dogs" we saw die just last week. When people return a dog for a dumbass reason I get the dog back before I run my mouth, but I do let them know that by taking a dog when it was a puppy and returning it as an adult they have robbed that dog of it's best possible chance to find a forever home as it is now far less adoptable than it was then. I tell people they should never adopt a pet unless they are fully committed and I encourage them not to adopt in future. 

I'm not rude but I don't sugar coat it. I have to look at all those dead bodies and I'm not going to dishonor their memory by pretending they all lived happily ever after.

I don't think I'm alone in this. So, in general, no, I don't think shelters and rescues have made it too easy for people to abandon their pets. We just run up against people who simply don't care.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote: are able to dump them on the shelters and rescues without guilt and in their own little minds they can go on believing that the dogs will find new people that love them.


Only if the shelter staff or rescuers lie to them and most I know do not. Shelter staff are often somewhat limited in what they can say because they're usually county employees and can get in trouble, but even when I worked at a shelter, I found ways to get the point across.

I also am pretty clear with people that even if their dog made it into a no kill rescue, it took the place of a shelter dog who is going to die instead. 

I wrote a big diatribe about that once... I'll try to find it.

Some people are still going to ignore what you're telling them and live in la la land, but there's not much you can do. Besides being honest, I don't really know what shelters or rescues can do to make it less easy for people besides not exist as an alternative and that would hurt far more animals than it would educate people.


----------



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

> Originally Posted By: pupresqI don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but what I meant by "confidence" and I suspect Cassidys Mom did as well, is not an assurance that all things will turn out a certain way because we all agree that genetics are something of a gamble, even if you DO know your lines backwards and forwards, and certainly if you've only had 1-2 generations, but that the breeder is doing everything possible to minimize the chances of issues and will stand by the animals they produce should there be a problem.
> 
> As Lucia and others have said, a warranty is only part of the overall package of things a buyer should look at and some warranties clearly reflect more of a desire of the breeder to stand by the dog than others, so they're not all created equal.
> 
> But when I look at a breeder and see that she's doing hip screenings of all her breeding stock and is knowledgable about the genetics of the dogs she's breeding, and acknowledges that occasionally HD can still crop up, but is offering (and has been known to follow through with) a replacement puppy or reimbursement (even if partial) in the event a dog doesn't pass OFA - and does NOT require the return of the original dog... well, that says something positive to me about the breeder's desire and efforts to produce good dogs and willingness to work with a buyer should there be a problem.


You can put words in my mouth anytime because that's pretty much what I've been trying to say in all my posts in this thread.



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> > Quote: Have rescues and shelters made it too easy and guilt free for people to dump their dogs?
> ...


I agree with this too. People who care little about the welfare of their pets and casually abandon them have always existed and unfortunately always will. I don't understand these people at all (WHY do they even HAVE pets?!!?!?!), but I don't believe no kill shelters and rescues are exacerbating the problem, they are merely attempting to help control it by providing a safety net for those animals. Even with a nearby shelter available we hear time and time again about people who can't even be bothered to take their unwanted animals there, and instead, just move away and leave them behind. You can't make people care, and you can't make them feel responsible. 



> Originally Posted By: pupresqSome people are still going to ignore what you're telling them and live in la la land, but there's not much you can do. Besides being honest, I don't really know what shelters or rescues can do to make it less easy for people besides not exist as an alternative and that would hurt far more animals than it would educate people.


Exactly. It sucks, but that's the way it is.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

When I was a kid living in Cleveland, (both parents were born and raised in Cleveland), we had a dog in the back yard with a dog house in the garage and a chain. 

My father's mother came with her family to this country. I do not know that she ever had a dog in her home. My mother's family was in this country a little longer but not forever. My grandmother always had a dachsund in her home.

Two of our (my brother and sister's friends) in the city, had dogs and both of them had the dogs in their homes. All the other dogs in the neighborhood that we knew of were outdoor dogs. 

We then moved to a small village. My friend's family had Newfoundlands -- not exactly small and cuddly. They had one after another and both were indoor dogs. 

We had a small shnauzer type dog that was tied in the kitchen when it was not tied outside. Then we had a shepherd mix princess who started out in the house, but she became very ill and eventually, she was put out in the garage chained in and out, and she got much better. She was healthier outside than inside. Then we got Pip. Pip was our first purebred dog. He is an English Setter Llewlyn line specifically bought for a hunting companion for my dad. He has been inside all his life. And now they have Cujo and he is only left outside for minutes at a time. 

I always knew that I wanted my dogs to be inside. But what was the shift? I think that when my parents had a bunch of kids and were struggling just to make the ends meet, and struggling with alcholism, and struggling with being married, etc., very little energy was spent on the dog. Beyond teaching them to potty outside (if they got that far), little to no training happened. When the dogs replaced the children in the family, I think that time and energy was made for the dogs and the dogs became more of a member of the family. Neither of my parents ever set foot inside PetsMart, Petco, or any petstore. 

I will admit though that when Christmas shopping when Cujo was a year old with Mom, I made the cart go down the pet isle and Mom did not object. She got Christmas presents for HER boy. 

But I also think that people's attitudes about training have changed or shifted. People see dogs more than just companions, they see a dog that can be fun to do things with. They join training clubs, and they go to a variety of sports, dock diving, hunting, agility, schutzhund, etc. You have to admit, AKC obedience to the outsider looks at best, BORING! It does not look like something you would LOVE to spend your weekends and evenings on. 

Some of this other stuff looks FUN. 

Of my sibling that have children, the eldest has an outdoor dog, the second eldest has a weiner dog like my grandmother and it is indoors, the third eldest has no dog. I have dogs running my life, inside, walking all over me. My younger brothers have indoor dogs and no children. My younger sister has no dog and is brewing a child. 

I think that many of us follow what are folks do to a point, and maybe it matters at what point in our history, they chose to bring the dogs in. I don't know, I am guessing. And what our experience was with it at that time (i.e. when princess was sick inside, my older sister had the brunt of cleaning up after her, she has no dog now and probably never will.)

For my parents, it was certainly not pet stores or advertising. But it was not training either, unless it was dad's training Pip for hunting.

I currently live in a very rural area. Lots of people still let their dogs roam. But more and more of them have well maintained indoor dogs, big dogs.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

On another forum this topic of the responsibility of breeders is being discussed. Some world class breeders from Europe and here weigh in. The concensus at this point seems to be that the responsibility of the breeder is to provide the best puppy they can to the buyer based on knowledge, breeding stock, and health; after that the responsibility shifts to the owner of the pup although many acknowledge they are there for consultation. Just another perspective though it appears to be in the minority for this list. Again, I see the merit to both sides but I must say i feel better knowing that breeders of this quality have similar views to me.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

The original question was more relating to-
A dog you bred ends up in a shelter...
Someone notifies you of that... 
What do you do...

Wasn't that it? Not all complicated or abstract...or I may just be cutting through to what I thought was the point and it isn't!


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:The concensus at this point seems to be that the responsibility of the breeder is to provide the best puppy they can to the buyer based on knowledge, breeding stock, and health; after that the responsibility shifts to the owner of the pup although many acknowledge they are there for consultation.


So if one of their dogs winds up homeless do they take it back? Never, sometimes, all the time?


----------



## Jazy's mom (Jan 5, 2004)

Thanks Jean for trying to get this back on topic. Yes, my orginial question was should a breeder be responsible for taking a dog back if the person that purchased it is no longer willing to keep it or if it ends up in a shelter. 

I do want to add that even though this thread has gotten a little off topic, I have enjoyed reading everyone's different perspectives.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: cliftonanderson1The concensus at this point seems to be that the responsibility of the breeder is to provide the best puppy they can to the buyer based on knowledge, breeding stock, and health; after that the responsibility shifts to the owner of the pup although many acknowledge they are there for consultation.


Just like Microsoft







They will sell you their software they put together based on knowlegde, hardware and sanity of programmers; after that the responsibility shifts to the owner, no returns but sometimes the owners can get a consultation (online or by phone, free and useless or expensive and often useless as well). Simply business, there is nothing new under the Moon. 

For me dogs are not like software, they are living creatures that deserve a little respect so some different rules should apply. 

Cliff, you know that I respect your opinion a lot and understand what you meant, I just absolutely couldn't resist


----------



## shepherdbydesign (Mar 7, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: JeanKBBMMMAANThe original question was more relating to-
> A dog you bred ends up in a shelter...
> Someone notifies you of that...
> What do you do...
> ...


In all cases the breeder should make every effort to get this dog out of the shelter since they are responsible for bring this dog into the world as I feel it is their poor choice of homes that brought the said dog in its situation to begin with


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Oksana, no problem....actually I have never stated my "specific" position on this because it varies with the situation. I will say I am against "absolutes" in any endeavor. To me nothing is always, never, etc. Actually, in my last 42 puppies I had one dog that was "offered" back as the lady who was a dog trainer and was working on a CDX on this dog had a deterioration in her Lupus condition and her DR. told her she had to get rid of all her dogs. She called and asked if I wanted this dog back as he was pick puppy and she only got him because she was a dog trainer and I knew he would do well. I took the dog back(surprise surprise to some) and a club member begged me for him so he now resides in home of our club member and is working on SDA titles. But, I still evaluate every situation individually.


----------



## dOg (Jan 23, 2006)

I just waded thru this whole thing...holy cow!

Just want to thank the breeders for doing what they do,
and the rescuers for doing what they do. The world is better off for
your effort.


----------



## darylehret (Mar 19, 2006)

How about, it's not that they can't keep the dog, but they no longer _want the dog,_ they are having trouble finding a suitable alternave home for it? The breeder may have the responsibility to _assist them,_ but there should be no obligation to retrieve the dog, unless that contingency was preplanned. There may also be instances, as mentioned earlier in this thread, that they are no longer able to care for the dog. How do you define that? The cost too high, their income too low? What are the parameters? Many of the same people spend twice as much on cigarettes as dog food, and a whole lot more on beer or other NON priority expenses, and they can justify that? I'd go on a case by case basis, as Cliff says.

I recently took in my first ever rescue, not because I was obligated or felt obligated, but because I believed that person made the necessary efforts to try to do the right thing beforehand. She attempted to handle the dog, while her husband was deployed in Iraq, and fell short. She had the dog evaluated at local law enforcement, schutzhund clubs, and a few contacts that I gave her in her local area, that might be interested in a medium-drive strong male. The biggest deterrent? He was neutered! What does that tell you? After 6 months, I consented for the dog to be sent to me, and that I'd do my best.

Luckily, I was able to place him in less than 3 months, but it was not easy by any means. Why? Because anyone who is going to put time and effort in the working requirements of this type of dog, wants to have the benefit of continuing that dog's legacy with breeding rights, and IMO rightfully deserves that option. Selling a neutered working dog is very difficult, near impossible. I know some LEO's flat out refuse to work with a neutered dog, feel that they're a waste of time, and not for the purpose of breeding, but contrary to that opinion, neutering doesn't necessarily take the "fight" or confidence out of the dog.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

My husband just asked me if I knew of anyone who wanted an 8 month old intact female GSD. An 18 yr old decided that this dog is too much for him at this time in his life....too bad the "breeder" sold him a pup in the first place, I am sure there is nothing in the contract about first rights or even a contract for that matter, so sad. Today there is an ad in my local paper for AKC gsd pups for $350.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Evenso, as a breeder, we placed that pup with an individual that fell through our screening practices. No, we should not have to refund money and take the dog, but taking the dog indicates the commitment we have to our dogs. 

Letting pups from our breedings sit in limbo at a dog shelter suggests that we really only care about the bottom line. 

I do not have a problem with offering suggestions to the owner to try to get them to rehome their own dog, but the possibilities are pretty scarey for intact animals. 

No one wants to find out that their dog is stuck in a puppy mill that the humane society has raided three times already and do not have quite enough yet to make an arrest. Approaching the puppy miller and trying to purchase your pup back might be the only route then. But don't worry, its no longer your responsibility.


----------



## darylehret (Mar 19, 2006)

Is your moral superiority somehow being directed at me? I don't know how puppy millers operate, but when the offspring can't be registered with AKC because the dog hasn't yet been accredited in any formal training, I believe that's all the deterrent I need to put in place. They'll find an easier means to support their "business", elsewhere. Maybe your kennel. I don't take people to court, I don't pay private investigators to monitor people's private lives. I don't impose my personal views on anyone.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:I don't know how puppy millers operate, but when the offspring can't be registered with AKC because the dog hasn't yet been accredited in any formal training, I believe that's all the deterrent I need to put in place.


If you think lack of AKC registerability is a deterrant, I've got some bad news for you - In this era of "nothing" registries few mills bother with the AKC anymore. Any breeder relying on that to keep their dogs out of mill and BYB situations is relying on no more than a wing and a prayer.


----------



## darylehret (Mar 19, 2006)

Then your fantasy crusade is basically lost. Why don't you instead, seek to impose legislation that disallows any ownership of pets, unless the person takes a educational course, pays for a liscence, and requires periodical home inspections. Breeders have enough to concern themselves with, to do what their job REALLY is.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm not sure how you're getting from point A to point B. My "crusade" if you want to call it that, is to reduce the number of animals being euthanized in shelters. I do this every day. It's uphill and often discouraging work, but the thousands of dogs saved through our efforts keep me going. Nothing "fantasy" about it. It's real life, real animals.

The point that lack of AKC registerability is NOT going to keep your dog out of a mill or BYBs hands is just a fact. If you're producing dogs, I'd think you'd want to know that.



> Quote: Breeders have enough to concern themselves with, to do what their job REALLY is.


Forgive me! I was under the impression that part of what a breeder's job REALLY is, is caring what happened to the dogs they create. If you don't care what happens to the dogs once you've sold them, that's your prerogative, but I do.


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

Whoa! Where have I been this thread has been going on for a month. 

I just tried to read the whole thing. The first page made me very happy. AND I very much agree with Lies (spelled right? hope so). 

So, many breeders were saying good things. 

Until they die. The answer...the end. 

(Maybe I will kill this thread, I am good at that).


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Daisy1986So, many breeders were saying good things.
> 
> Until they die. The answer...the end.


Kelly, you are right! Until the breeders die. Wait, I think they meant dogs















to our crusade


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

Yes, I meant the dogs!!









But whichever comes first I guess. (Not that I want harm to come to any breeder,







,anyone or animal for that matter.)


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the real problem then is not a breeder's contract/warranty/take-back policy but how dogs are placed in the first place. Good breeders do not have dogs ending up in shelters or rescue, not really because they are taking back unwanted dogs, but because the dogs don't become unwanted in the first place. Of course it's going to happen to everyone at some point, but when I hear about certain breeders' dogs ending up in rescue time after time and then I find out about how/if they screen buyers and assign puppies, it's unfortunately no surprise. So really I think in fairness we should focus more on how puppies are matched and less on the contract because a lot of great breeders tweak their contracts and guarantees based on the puppy and the buyer.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:I think the real problem then is not a breeder's contract/warranty/take-back policy but how dogs are placed in the first place. Good breeders do not have dogs ending up in shelters or rescue, not really because they are taking back unwanted dogs, but because the dogs don't become unwanted in the first place.


I totally agree that care in placement is a big part of the equation, but as you say - even when you place carefully it CAN happen so I do think it's reasonable to ask "what happens then?" Even if a breeder only has a handful of dogs that wind up unwanted over the course of that breeder's breeding career, a handful of dogs adds up. And if those dogs wind up in the hands of BYBs instead of back with their breeders, then the impact that breeder's original decision has on the pet overpopulation problem adds up a lot quicker. Many people are naive and believe that if they screen the homes the dogs won't end up unwanted and I'm here to tell you - and you can read from what other breeders on this thread have said - it DOES happen. 



> Quote:So really I think in fairness we should focus more on how puppies are matched and less on the contract because a lot of great breeders tweak their contracts and guarantees based on the puppy and the buyer.


They're all part of the equation. Not only placement and what a breeder does when one of their pups becomes unwanted but also contract issues in terms of how they monitor where the dogs they sell are and what rights to reclaim they have built into their contracts should things go south. 

What you clearly see on this thread is the diversity of opinion among breeders about how you handle these things. I'm sure if you asked every breeder who has responded "are you a responsible breeder?" they would say yes. And yet there's a clear difference in the responsibility that the different breeders feel to the animals they've sold and what they believe their role is. So we have to get beyond statements like "responsible breeders don't contribute to pet overpopulation" and "responsible breeders don't have dogs winding up in shelters" because what a "responsible breeder" is is a highly subjective thing!


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> > Quote:I think the real problem then is not a breeder's contract/warranty/take-back policy but how dogs are placed in the first place. Good breeders do not have dogs ending up in shelters or rescue, not really because they are taking back unwanted dogs, but because the dogs don't become unwanted in the first place.
> ...


Then I think the only realistic answer would be "it depends".


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Perhaps. But again - depends on what? For at least one breeder on the thread, it depends on whether or not the owner has made a good faith effort to place the dog themselves, or whether the dog can be resold, for another it depends on whether or not they have space, for several they've said they would take the dog back no matter what. 

Here again - there's a lot of variability. Given that's the case, surely you agree that your previous statements that "responsible breeders don't contribute to pet overpopulation because they take their dogs back" on various pet overpopulation threads, isn't quite complete. Unless one's definition of a responsible breeder is one that takes their dogs back no matter what. For me that's the case, but I recognize that "responsible" has different meanings for different people. Unless we're defining that term, it's impossible to claim that responsible breeders aren't contributing to the number of unwanted dogs out there.


----------



## CWhite (Dec 8, 2004)

I am fortunate enough to have a wonderful breeder. She is there LIFE of the puppy/dog. 

She answers all my questions, no matter HOW inane and is extremely patient with me.

If for some reason, we have to rehome the dog, we must inform her first. SHe has taken dogs back before. I guess she realizes circumstances change.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Many many dogs are in shelters because of owners inability to handle/train them. Oftentimes this is extreme shyness or aggression. Often this aggression or shyness comes from the breeding. So to my way of thinking responsible breeders would not breed dogs that possess these traits genetically, if the result is going to be a dog that ends up in a shelter or constantly rehomed. Most dogs without "issues" remain in the home for lifetime. Of course their are exceptions, but I do problem solving training and usually the isses are shyness leading to extreme avoidance or extreme aggression. Or the other one is GS with so much drive that they are destructive to crates, homes, furniture, kennels , doghouse, etc. I'm not talking normal puppy growth but extreme dogs. Now my question is,"Are breeders that breed these type of dogs "responsible breeders" if often their dogs are taken back or more often ending up in shelters.?" 
Does a breeders reponsibility extend to the point of not creating dogs that inordinately end up being rehomed or in shelters?
Just curious.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

You might be surprised by how infrequently the reason for surrender actually has anything to do with the temperament of the dog. And even when it does, it's not shyness or aggression as much as things like being high energy or jumping up. Few of the owner turn ins I deal with (like, almost none) are what anyone involved in dogs would call "extreme" dogs. 

I would agree that breeders' responsibility should extend to trying to breed temperamentally sound dogs and to consistantly fail to do so is irresponsible, but again - many of the things that make for a good working dog, are the same kinds of things that lead dogs to end up in shelters, so proper placement is even more important - as is that safety net should the placement fail.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

when I was growing up, even though there was an Animal Shelter, most people didn't take dogs there. They would either take them out along the road and dump them. Or they would take them out and shoot them. That is still the was that most people there do it. Then, they tell their kids that Fluffy went to a new home and how happy she will be there.

I remember when I was about 10, our dog had a litter of puppies. They were a couple weeks old, eyes not even open yet. My mom called the dog catcher to come pick up this stray dog that wouldn't go away. The guy saw the puppies and asked if she wanted them to go to. He said that there were people who came in for them to use as snake food. Mom said "better now than later" and the puppies went in the van too.

I don't think that it's the fact that breeders offer a warranty or guarantee that has created this mindset. American's have a "throw away" mentality that most other countries don't have. I can't remember the song right now, but there is a line that says "what we want is only what we want till it's ours" People are instilling this in their kids from a very early age, giving in to all of their whims. Then they lose interest, toss it in the corner and are on to the next cool thing.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Liesje
> I think the real problem then is not a breeder's contract/warranty/take-back policy but how dogs are placed in the first place. Good breeders do not have dogs ending up in shelters or rescue, not really because they are taking back unwanted dogs, but because the dogs don't become unwanted in the first place. Of course it's going to happen to everyone at some point, but when I hear about certain breeders' dogs ending up in rescue time after time and then I find out about how/if they screen buyers and assign puppies, it's unfortunately no surprise. So really I think in fairness we should focus more on how puppies are matched and less on the contract because a lot of great breeders tweak their contracts and guarantees based on the puppy and the buyer.


I agree, and when certain breeders pump out 6 litters at a time, even if the dogs are at different kennel, but owned by the same breeder, the odds are finding great homes gets smaller. Even when they charge an outragious amount, thinking they get better "owners" due to the $$$$ they charge. And the potential owner feels they are getting something special because they are paying more. Then someone tries to back out from the sale before the pup comes home and they won't refund the deposit(which was over a $1000) so the potential owner feels stuck. 
How in the world can they keep up with all the pups they are producing? The contract may look good,but if you have to have a pup replaced due to genetic faults, what really happens to the poor pup after the breeder replaces it...


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I suppose it that is what you call it, then yes it was directed at you. There was something in your permissive attitude that completely exhonerated you from anything to do with the dog if the yayhoos you sold it too no longer wanted it. 

If you are selling a coffee table, and six months later someone called you and said your coffee table was on the tree lawn, well, ****, who cares. 

But if you are selling a puppy, and six months later it is sitting in a kill shelter and you KNOW it is there, if you won't take the responsibility that you sold it to the wrong idiot and go get the pup, then you should not be breeding dogs.


----------



## darylehret (Mar 19, 2006)

I hope you realize the first paragraph described _theoretical situations._ In all my _actual experience,_ where a person needed relief, I gave it to them.

Various members of this board are pretty quick to jump to conclusions, to the point of ridiculous. I don't even know why I try to explain to "the angry mob".

For the REAL instance I referred to, initially the owner wanted advice on how to handle the dog in their multiple dog household (or the wife did, for her husband's dog while he was deployed). I did what I could describing practice and theory, but my not being able to be physically present to assess the actual situation with only her perception for feedback and details, I advised her to seek professional help in her area, to become a stronger handler, to stop the dog aggression in her multiple dog home (her two older dogs were the instigators).

Failing to do that at all, she attempted to place the dog _(voluntarily her own idea)_ and without my knowledge, but once I learned, I tried to assist in helping her find an appropriate working home (as did other rescue volunteers). That she no "longer wanted the dog," was never the original idea. Her husband did want to keep the dog, but while he was in Iraq, she was under a lot of stress with her current situation. The rescue volunteers struggled as well, but ultimately failed. I took the dog and (maybe) her life's a little better now. My guess, would be otherwise.

So, if I'm expected to bow to all this "holier than thou" crap, think again. You're no better than me. I'm often jumping to help others, unless I'm being taken advantage of. And I'm normally a lot more congenial, to those with better manners. But, if I had to make a choice between breeding better quality dogs, and being on the right side of "popular sensitivity", you can bet your a$$ I choose the dogs.

I look at shelter ads once in a while, since roughly a third to half of my pups are still sold locally in-state. To this date, I've never known a dog of mine to be found in a shelter. It was however, brought to my attention one dog who looked remarkably similar to my breeding late last year, maybe 2 years old, and I emailed the rescue multiple times, stating that I may have information leading to this "abandoned" dog's rightful owner. They didn't have a phone listing, or an address, because it was a network of multiple volunteers. My guess is, someone wanted to keep the dog for themselves. I again emailed a few months later, because the dog _was still posted!_ Y'know what? I didn't get one **** response back, so what do you think about having an "irresponsible rescues" thread?!! 

Other than that, I'd like to say that it seems today this thread has taken a more productive turn, with more _reasonable thinking_ taking place.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: pupresq Given that's the case, surely you agree that your previous statements that "responsible breeders don't contribute to pet overpopulation because they take their dogs back" on various pet overpopulation threads, isn't quite complete. Unless one's definition of a responsible breeder is one that takes their dogs back no matter what.


Taking a dog back and not allowing it to end up in a shelter/rescue are two different things. As I originally said, I have dog that was re-homed to me by the breeder.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Right, but if a breeder doesn't take a dog back and also doesn't help to rehome it, the dog often ends up in the shelter/rescue.

I'm not condemning a breeder who doesn't take a dog back directly but does help the owner find the dog another suitable home. To me that's 6 of one half a dozen of the other. The breeder is helping to rehome the dog either way. 

My point is that clearly there are breeders on this thread and board who consider themselves responsible breeders but do not include in that responsibity the responsibility to rehome a dog of their breeding should it find itself unwanted. And those dogs are then part of the enormous number of unwanted pets that wind up in rescues or shelters (or in the hands of an even less responsible breeder).


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

And let me add to that - not just dogs that find themselves unwanted but that find themselves in a bad situation. IMO responsible breeders will try to intercede if they discover one of their pups being neglected or abused or rehomed irresponsibly, even if the buyer isn't actively trying to get them to take the dog back. I recognize that this isn't always logistically or legally possible, but I think the responsible breeder both has an interest and tries.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I think the breeders on this board are a HUGE step above what you see in the real world. They are here contributing, viewing the rescue threads, bettering the breed and helping others who are passionate about GSD's. 
The ones who are under the radar except for their own website, thinking of themselves only, and really are only in it for themselves are the ones who I would stay far away from.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Alright, I think it's time to close this one. It's been a very informative thread with people expressing different view respectfully for the most part, but now it seems to have run it's course and is starting to take a turn into personal arguments and attacks. 

Admin


----------

