Breeder Rights? Breeder Greed? - Page 1

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Wanda

by Wanda on 02 September 2011 - 01:09

A recent post caused me to question how a breeder who has sold dogs would think that the (SOLD, NOT LEASED) dogs should immediately be returned to the breeder should the owner die or the dogs need to be rehomed for any reason. Dogs that have been trained and titled by the owner are certainly worth more that the puppy price.  It seems that breeders expect the dogs to be returned to them with no compensation for what has most certainly greatly increased their value.  The goal of these contracts seems to benefit the breeder who will likely resell them for a profit.  

The breeder seems to underestimate the dog owner's ability to rehome the dog appropriately.  While it may be more convenient for an owner to turn a dog over to the breeder and be done with it, then both the breeder and owner will be grateful for a contract that will protect a dog from ending up on craigs list or in a shelter.  It is the breeders responsibility to prevent such from happening to dogs that they bred and in this case the contract serves it's purpose. 

A contract that gives breeders the right to have dogs they have bred and sold returned to them without  fair compensation is one that indicates a greedy and unethical breeder. One for whom the dollar and ego rate far higher than the dogs welfare.  And one that I would most certainly avoid.

by Ibrahim on 02 September 2011 - 02:09

I thought a contract states for, in such a case, returning the dog back to breeder/or selling it back to him/her. If the concern of the breeder is that his/her bred dog does not go to a shelter then that is fine but if the contract is made in a way so the breeder makes more profit from the returned dog then that is wrong. And the contract should only give the breeder the priority to buy the dog and not oblige the owner to only sell it to the breeder.

Ibrahim

Jenni78

by Jenni78 on 02 September 2011 - 02:09

Duhhh.................

This is why I have a buyback guarantee instead of a giveback guarantee. You cannot expect someone to GIVE you something back that they PAID for and then spent all that time/money on for all that time. If you truly care about where the dog ends up and want to have a hand in it, then cough up the dough and buy the dog, same as anyone else should have to.

I feel differently in cases of neglect, death, etc., but for just rehoming/selling, I think this is only fair.


by Ibrahim on 02 September 2011 - 02:09

I couldn't agree more to Jenni practice on such a case.

Ibrahim

Wanda

by Wanda on 02 September 2011 - 02:09

Thanks Jenni.  It is good to know there are breeders out there with a conscience.  I have been devestated by the ruthlessness of the breeder of my dear, recently deceased, friend and training mentor as I continue to care for her dogs as she would.

by hexe on 02 September 2011 - 02:09

"This is why I have a buyback guarantee instead of a giveback guarantee"

And this is why the breeder I apprenticed under held to the credo, "Never sell a pup or dog for more money than you can afford to refund on a moment's notice--you never know if you'll need to buy back that dog unexpectedly to preserve the dog's best interests." 

Wanda, I'm surprised the breeder would be pursuing custody of the dogs if he/she knows they're in good hands...did your friend not leave anything in writing that indicated what she wanted for the dogs after her death?  I'd think most breeders would be relieved to learn that the dogs were in no danger and their futures were secure....

Wanda

by Wanda on 02 September 2011 - 02:09

The breeder has never once inquired about the welfare of the dogs. 

On the evening of my friend's death, we received a call from the her, the breeder, who threatened to come get HER dogs.  No condolences whatsoever.  Meanspirited and cold to say the least.

I can assure you they are much better off living in the home they know and being cared for by someone who has known them all their lives than being confiscated and carted off by a 'stranger'.  The owner's wishes are clearly stated in the will and are being carried out under the guidance of an estate attorney.  

Unfortunately this experience had left me bitter toward breeders,  but your comment is restoring some faith..........

by eichenluft on 02 September 2011 - 03:09

In my case, being in exactly this situation right now - I am a breeder whose contract states a first right of refusal to get the dog back should anything  happen causing the owner to have to place the dog - no mention is given in the contract for "buying back" or "giving back" the dogs - this arrangement would be between the owner and the breeder should the dogs need to be (given away or sold).  At that time, arrangements would be made between the owner and the breeder for the breeder to get the dogs back - in my case I would get the dogs back either by purchasing them back, or paying the owner back after the dogs were placed (sold) into another home better suited for them (whatever the case may be, the reason the owner needed to place the dog).  Or, the owner may choose to GIVE the dog back to the breeder.  I've had both happen - and it's up to the owner and the breeder to decide what works best for them depending on the situation.

In this situation the owner passed away, and dogs were left in the care of friends, unknown to the breeder.  The owner had agreed to place the dogs back with me (the breeder and also a friend of the owner) should anything happen requiring her to place the dogs.  She had agreed to this and signed the contracts for both dogs agreeing to this.  Payment (or no payment) had not been discussed, of course that would have been something discussed at the time of the need of placement of the dogs.

Now the dogs are with friends who had nothing to do with the contract and agreement between the owner and the breeder, a signed contract agreeing to return the dogs to the breeder (me).  In my case of course I would be more than willing to pay for the dogs.  But pay who?  The owner, who paid for the pups in the first place, and put the work, time, training and titles into the dogs, is dead.  So pay who?  The friends who have kept the dogs for the few months since she went into the hospital?  The estate?  Now the friends get two very nicely trained, titled and promising dogs they themselves paid nothing for? 

Of course offers of payment were made to the solicitor, to pay the person(s) keeping the dogs for their time and expenses in keeping the dogs, and/or to pay the estate for a fair worth of the dogs.  I have not (in my case) been priviledged to the knowledge of who has the dogs or how they are being taken care of, so I have to only assume they are in good hands and appropriate homes for their drives and temperaments, and health needs.   I can't know that they are in appropriate  homes for their needs, being working-bred GSDs they do have certain needs and requirements, and I have no way of knowing if those requirements are being met or not.   This situation of "not knowing what happens to the dogs" is certainly not in my contract or the spirit of the agreement between the owner and the breeder in this case.


by eichenluft on 02 September 2011 - 03:09

Also in the case a person owning a high-drive working GSD who needs to be owned by someone appropriate for their breed and reason they were bred - if the dog needs to be placed for any reason, the very best place the dog should be is back with the breeder, who loves the dogs, who values the dogs, and who is interested in the very best and most appropriate  home for the dogs.  Not knowing that these dogs are in such homes where their needs are met, is a terrible burden of "unknown" for me, who is a breeder who continues to communicate with and keep in touch with owners from the moment the puppy leaves until the moment the dog passes away.  

For these particular dogs to be in homes where they are not the chosen breed of dog, and they are not receiving the care, exercise, training and work that their owner gave them, is not fair to the dogs - and is the reason I continued to communicate with the solicitor, who is the person who made the decisions regarding the dogs, and stopped communication with the (very nasty, self-rightous) friends of the deceased owners, who obviously mean well but are not doing what is best for the dogs.  Returning the dogs to the breeder is best for the dogs, who would be with someone who values them and who is involved in every aspect of their wellbeing including continued training, proper care and exercise and health care for the one who has specific health requirements.  This is what the owner would have wanted for her dogs, and in fact agreed to when she signed her contract and kept in touch with me the breeder until the day before she went into the hospital, certainly not expecting to lose her life before making arrangements for the dogs. 

molly

sentinelharts

by sentinelharts on 02 September 2011 - 03:09

Wanda, I agree with your statement and your theory.  I recognize the amount of time, effort and expense that goes into titling a dog. I would gladly purchase a titled dog of mine should the owner come into problems at some point down the line and have to sell or just decide to sell and start again.  I as the breeder would expect the first opportunity to purchase the dog at a fair price.

Similarly, I will take any dog from my kennel at any time for any reason but they are not all worth the price paid for them as puppies.  Often, (when a dog is to be rehomed) people have not worked with them enough.  Some need obedience work and some are overly playful or have not learned proper house manners.  

I personally have housed a customer's dog for 6 months for less than the price of dog food to help them through a difficult time so that they could keep their dog. I am not in the business of trying to take people's beloved pets from them and I am certainly not one to try to take a dog back from someone for nothing just to turn it around and re-sell it but sometimes people feel that their dog is worth more than it really is and the word "reasonable" is subjective in any contract.  For me, it really is about not losing touch with the dog.  When the dog is sold to a third party that I am not a part of the sale, that third party has no obligation to keep in touch with me.  If I get the dog back and I am the one who re-homes him (even if for a nominal fee) I get to have the new contract with the new first right of refusal signed and therefore, I don't lose track of the dog.  That is my fear. 

I think people should talk to their breeders and discuss the terms of the contract. Ask lots of questions and be very specific as to what happens if you do in fact title your dog and want to sell it etc.  get that in writing.  Often the breeder's contract is very general and can be modified for your specific puppy- I know mine can.
 






 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top