# Breeders, Accountablilty and Responsibility.



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Should breeders be held accountable or assume responsibility for every dog they breed? 

I am talking dogs sold into new ownership, sometimes more than once.

If yes then how far should this go? Is this a lifelong thing? Why?

My views on this are pretty much known. Would like to know what others think.


----------



## eric squires (Oct 16, 2008)

I don't believe that a breeder should be responsible for every dog they they may produce. Too much can happen once the dog leaves their care. That being said i have always had a personal policy of taking any dog that i have bred back. I would much rather have the dog back and have to put it down than it be a menace or see it screwed up even more by others. I would prefer that the dog come to me for training before it gets so bad that it has to be given back and i always give this as an option. The problem i have found is it is usually a case of people unwilling to make the changes that are necessary.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

My money, my dog. 

Should a breeder be accountable for what they produce? Sure, on some level this is a reasonable expectation. But for how long and in what capacity? That isn't for me to say or determine. 

My standards or expectations are built off of something a bit different and that starts with me. It's just a personal preference but I typically start early by investing 1-2 years into developing a personal relationship with a breeder before a transaction is ever made. In that time frame and especially since so many people restrict their communication to email these days typically you can get a pretty good feel for whether or not the person is of sound character or not. 

Trust goes a long way with me. I can understand and forgive a lot with the exception of when someone intentionally ****s me over. Is this a sound strategy? Its worked well enough for me that I don't typically need to go looking to buy dogs when I am ready for my next one. Even still, I will if the connection isn't there between me and the person making the offer.

This notion of breeders backing their dogs until reincarnation or whatever people have been ragging on lately is foolish. Give me someone I can trust that's willing to place well suited, strong puppy with me and I'll do the rest. Understand, of course it's a given that the quality of dogs used by the breeder would meet or possibly even exceed my own personal standards.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Nicole Stark said:


> My money, my dog.
> 
> Should a breeder be accountable for what they produce? Sure, on some level this is a reasonable expectation. But for how long and in what capacity? That isn't for me to say or determine.
> 
> ...


I'm glad you typed that, it saves me the need- I agree completely.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Alice Bezemer said:


> Should breeders be held accountable or assume responsibility for every dog they breed?
> 
> I am talking dogs sold into new ownership, sometimes more than once.
> 
> ...


What does your contract say or what do you verbally agree on. Different breeders are different. 

I'd like for all the parents of stupid kids (kids any age to adult) to be held accountable up until they die. Don't think I'll get that wish answered.

Hey, they know what they are breeding. When it goes bad, they should do something about it.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

What I dont get is the people that "feel" that the dogs that they produce are thier children, and expect others to feel the same way.

I used to keep large snakes. I used to by chickens to feed them.

Mostly from farmers, a couple times from a couple people that raised SHOW chickens, that named them, sent me home with stuff and food for them, and often would want to try to keep up a repoire with me after purchase.

The farmers were not emotional about the chickens at all, they produced a good healthy product and sold that product, never got a call back from a Farmer about a chicken. Even though it appeared that the farmers did not love thier chickens like the show chicken people did, they produced good healthy products.

I personally do not put dogs quite on the level of a farm bred chicken, but there is something to be said for not getting so emotionally involved in the production of dogs, or being in the dog business.

Emotional people often let their emotions make decisions for them, which may not be good decisions.

I have put a fair number of dogs down, even puppies. Almost always due to poor nerves, or health issues. 

If a breeder is emotionally attached to such a degree that they will produce and sell pups that will fail the pup tests that Faisal talked about, but they love them all to pieces, and sell them all of give them away, instead of taking responsibility right then and there, how is that helping anything?

There are enough dogs that are majorly defective already.

I have more respect for a breeder that produces a good sound product, even if he would get labeled as not caring about the individual dogs that much that he produced after they moved on, than a breeder that considers all the dogs they produced or sold their children and lets their emotions blind them.

Not quite on the same level as livestock, but also not yer fukking kids either.

I love dogs, and most all animals, but they are not people.

I have taken dogs back a few times, and also not taken dogs back, depending on a few factors.

I have also called breeders and told them that I had made a decision to put down a dog for whatever reason, some of those breeders are mortified, and rush to get the dog back, only to pass that dog off on someone else. I do not make rash decisions about putting a dog down, but real shotty nerves, or major health issues is almost a given for me, why pass that back to someone else? I have lost respect for several breeders that have taken dogs back from me, that should have been put down in my opinion, have seen some of those same dogs causing problems and heartaches for the next guy in line that got them. 

Produced a few dogs with bad hips myself, if they are bad, the dog gets put down if it ends back up with me. I consider that my responsibility, like someone else said, you produced them, you take the responsibility for them, that to me however does not automatically mean that I am responsible for providing or for finding every dog a forever home if stuff doesnt work out.

I have had people tell me I was breeding only for the money, and did not care about the dogs at all, after it became known that I culled a whole litter of shotty pups, that to me was ludicrous, if I did not care, and was is in it for the money, I would have sold the litter..


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Alice Bezemer said:


> Should breeders be held accountable or assume responsibility for every dog they breed?
> 
> I am talking dogs sold into new ownership, sometimes more than once.
> 
> ...


Not in my opinion. Responsibility for the dog lies with the person who owns the dog.

By the same token, when I buy a dog, I buy the whole dog, including it's reproductive organs, the dog is mine, to do with as I please, to sell, to breed, whatever.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

This ^^^ is one of my pet hates- co-ownership with the breeder, if they want it or endorsements on breeding I walk away, if they wanna breed the dog so much they should keep it.


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

Alice this is the US. Everyone is to blame but me. If I decide the dog is not right for me the breeder needs to fix it. I want a dog that is a top sport dog, able to be a seal dog, will love my children, able to be dressed up as a reindeer and be brought to petsmart, show excellent food drive while a toddler plays with his testicles, and have no health problems. If not the breeder should take it back. Also you can't charge more than $1000 or your jjust in it for the money.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

jamie lind said:


> Alice this is the US. Everyone is to blame but me. If I decide the dog is not right for me the breeder needs to fix it. I want a dog that is a top sport dog, able to be a seal dog, will love my children, able to be dressed up as a reindeer and be brought to petsmart, show excellent food drive while a toddler plays with his testicles, and have no health problems. If not the breeder should take it back. Also you can't charge more than $1000 or your jjust in it for the money.


Jamie you left off that said breeder better take that dog back and pay for the shipping, board and care, all expenses AND refund my money because otherwise he/she's a "bad" breeder and I'll prove it and do everything I can to ruin his/her reputation by lying and crying all over the Internet about how I was ripped off. 
](*,)


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

Also you can't have more than 1 litter a year. Because everyone knows only hobby breeders have professional results. They also have to be born in your bed because dogs cannot live outside.


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

The way I see it: Once pup is sold, the responsibility transfers to the new owner. If the pup came with a written guarantee then it applies as worded. Should be simple/black/white.


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

jamie lind said:


> Also you can't have more than 1 litter a year. Because everyone knows only hobby breeders have professional results. They also have to be born in your bed because dogs cannot live outside.


Hehe, looks like someone rattled your cage pretty good!


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

Faisal Khan said:


> Hehe, looks like someone rattled your cage pretty good!


No, just flinging my shit because I'm bored.


----------



## Jami Craig (Jul 5, 2010)

Holy long post is long...sorry about that..

tl;dr- if there is an issue with the dog you bred that makes it so no one qualified wants to take the dog do something about it, even if it's putting the dog down, do something. And take a look at your breeding program if this happens a lot...

I posted on the original thread, and it seems my stance isn't the common one....

I believe that breeders should always be prepared to take back (however indirectly) what they have bred. If that dog is getting dumped a pound in danger of euthanasia or bouncing from home to home unwanted because of some health issue or behavioral problem that no one wants to deal with I do think the breeder should step in. Euthanize the dog if that is what's best but the breeder should make the effort if they're contacted. In a pound/shelter situation that can include arranging transportation if the dog is to be returned alive or pulled for evaluation. In the very least is should be checking into the adoption policy and euthanasia methods for the shelter and pulling the dog for alternative euthanasia/adoption if needed. 

You can call it anthropomorphizing but that breeder is the reason that dog exists and while it may not be their "fault" the dog ended up in the condition or situation it did (after all, the breeder is not the owner of the dog once they sell it) if that dog is going to be put down because of it there needs to be some acknowledgment by the breeder that something went wrong in a life they are responsible for creating. Euthanasia at a quiet vet's office, or more affordably in a field with a bullet after a game of fetch is better than in a crowded shelter on a stretched budget's dime. This may be to much of an "emotional attachment" thing but this is a living creature, and if it is going to be put down for a problem it shouldn't be scared and panicked in a shelter after living the last few weeks in a loud unfamiliar kennel. If contacted by the owner of the dog trying to get rid of it a breeder should be prepared to take the dog back (for free, assuming no defect covered in contract). If the owner wants payment for the dog (and the defect is not something covered in whatever agreement was attached to the sale of the dog) then of course the breeder can refuse, but if that owner is legitimately desperate to be rid of the dog that has to big a problem to handle for whatever reason, many will jump at the chance to get rid of them for free once they realize many shelters charge intake fees.

If the breeder adopts a more "cull the dog" line of thinking (which is fine!) and the owners object to the dog being euthanized by the breeder; assuming whatever is wrong going to cause harm to the next person getting the dog off (for example, managable health or behavioral quirk someone with experience offers to take on vs unrelenting pain and vicious man eater rehomed with a soccer mom who's previous dog experience includes a lazy obese beagle) the owners are welcome to find other arrangements. If they're unwilling to do this they can't complain that the breeder stepped up and took responsibility for the dog by putting it down humanely, there are not enough homes for problem dogs. Some dogs are lucky, the have received the emotional attachement of a human willing to fight for them, but I understand that not all people feel that way and not all dogs have someone who is willing to do that or may meet a criteria in which their person will do that. 


On the quality product note. Let's pretend YOU BRED this dog, why the heck wouldn't you want to at least see if it is salvageable? If an owner contacts you with the intention of being a dog you bred down wouldn't you at least want to see why? You don't need to rescue the dog off the vet's table but you should at least see is the problem is the dog. I can understand not wanting to pour resources into actually fixing the dog when there are many no-broken dogs to work....but if the dog is truely a solid dog who has issues that are purely handler/training related why wouldn't you want to try to give the dog a second chance or in the very least know that it wasn't the dog YOU produced that was the problem? I don't care if you don't have an emotional attachement to the animal itself, if you're breeding for quality I'd think a rejected dog could give some insight on the type of dog you produce (positive or negative). I have a dog who despite having an incredibly crappy start with some rather questionable handling has a great temperment and a good head on his shoulders...I think that says a lot about the type of dog he is and someone did a good job.

If you sold a dog who wasn't solid in the first place that's even MORE of a reason to take it back (even if it is to euthanize it). I don't think I'd be able to put down young puppies baring some very serious health or temperament issues so if I did adopt out or sell that puppy (with full disclosure about whatever weakness I'd noticed) and that puppy grew up and needed a place to go I'd be embarrassed not to take it back....


If it is too difficult for a breeder to take back the dogs they bred and euthanize, rehome, or resell them they need to either re-examine their breeding program or the people they selling too....every breeder will have dogs/buyers who don't work out, but if they're overwhelming that person with returns (or they're not overwhelming but everything that comes back or is re-evaluated needs to be euthanized) maybe it's the breeder doing something wrong...


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Faisal Khan said:


> The way I see it: Once pup is sold, the responsibility transfers to the new owner. If the pup came with a written guarantee then it applies as worded. Should be simple/black/white.


Agreed + a billion!


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Jami Craig said:


> Holy long post is long...sorry about that..
> 
> tl;dr- if there is an issue with the dog you bred that makes it so no one qualified wants to take the dog do something about it, even if it's putting the dog down, do something. And take a look at your breeding program if this happens a lot...
> 
> ...


eh, I think each situation is individual, and breeders look at each situation accordingly. It's not the breeders job to have some sort of tracking system for the life of every dog he/she bred. Do you also think the breeder should be responsible for all puppies bred from a bitch they sold but that was subsequently bred by the next owner or the next?


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

susan tuck said:


> Agreed + a billion!


Me too. I'd like the offer to take the dog back, as a breeder. But it's not my dog. I ultimately cannot control what the buyer does or does not do with said dog. Some buyers are going to disappear off the face of the earth. Some you'll never hear from again. It's not my job to hunt them down.


----------



## Jane Jean (Sep 18, 2009)

Faisal Khan said:


> The way I see it: Once pup is sold, the responsibility transfers to the new owner. If the pup came with a written guarantee then it applies as worded. Should be simple/black/white.


The kennel name on the dog is always associated with the breeder....so responsibility of someone breeding their dog with my kennel name/ breeding to a shit dog would be detrimental. 
IF I were a breeder, I'd be screening potential buyers carefully so my kennel name wasn't tarnished due to someone F'ing up my lines with poor breeding matches. 
One reason many breeders put a limited on pups is to protect their kennel reputation. But then few breeders are carrying on generations of their own breedings and showcasing the lines they carefully produce. 

More often, they are buying imports and breeding for the sport world/ so their kennel reputation(lines) isn't as important.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Jane Jean said:


> The kennel name on the dog is always associated with the breeder....so responsibility of someone breeding their dog with my kennel name/ breeding to a shit dog would be detrimental.
> IF I were a breeder, I'd be screening potential buyers carefully so my kennel name wasn't tarnished due to someone F'ing up my lines with poor breeding matches.
> One reason many breeders put a limited on pups is to protect their kennel reputation. But then few breeders are carrying on generations of their own breedings and showcasing the lines they carefully produce.
> 
> More often, they are buying imports and breeding for the sport world/ so their kennel reputation(lines) isn't as important.


Can you give me an example of a working line GSD kennel either in Europe or USA who's reputation has been marred or tarnished within the working dog community because of poor results related to the dogs purchased from those kennels then bred by their subsequent owners?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Jane Jean said:


> The kennel name on the dog is always associated with the breeder....so responsibility of someone breeding their dog with my kennel name/ breeding to a shit dog would be detrimental.
> IF I were a breeder, I'd be screening potential buyers carefully so my kennel name wasn't tarnished due to someone F'ing up my lines with poor breeding matches.
> One reason many breeders put a limited on pups is to protect their kennel reputation. But then few breeders are carrying on generations of their own breedings and showcasing the lines they carefully produce.
> 
> More often, they are buying imports and breeding for the sport world/ so their kennel reputation(lines) isn't as important.


To me, this seems more like an excuse to assert control freak behavior. Expecting to be paid for a dog or a pup then still be able to control to whom the dog is bred, or when the dog is bred, or even attempting to control who that person can subsequently sell the dog to...seems crazy to me, and they don't do this in Europe, when a dog is sold, it's sold 100% for the buyer to do with as they please. Yet at least to my knowledge, these European working line GSD kennels reputations have not been besmirched or their lines sullied because of the breeding practices of people who have purchased puppies or dogs from them. I don't know anyone who would consider a line poor based upon dogs not bred by that particular kennel.


----------



## Jane Jean (Sep 18, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> To me, this seems more like an excuse to assert control freak behavior. Expecting to be paid for a dog or a pup then still be able to control to whom the dog is bred, or when the dog is bred, or even attempting to control who that person can subsequently sell the dog to...seems crazy to me, and they don't do this in Europe, when a dog is sold, it's sold 100% for the buyer to do with as they please. Yet at least to my knowledge, these European working line GSD kennels reputations have not been besmirched or their lines sullied because of the breeding practices of people who have purchased puppies or dogs from them. I don't know anyone who would consider a line poor based upon dogs not bred by that particular kennel.


I didn't make myself clear, sorry! It is more about the breeder and what they've produced wanting to keep their lines going strong. Not being 'sullied' because one of their buyers decides to breed the dog they bought from them with something that isn't complementary. When a breeder puts their all into their dogs/and what they produce they want to be careful where those pups go? I don't think that is control freak behavior, but responsible breeding. Maybe if more did so, the GSD wouldn't have so many fearbags and poor representations to the breed. But then stud owners don't seem to be very discriminate...so I guess it is what it is.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Jane Jean said:


> I didn't make myself clear, sorry! It is more about the breeder and what they've produced wanting to keep their lines going strong. Not being 'sullied' because one of their buyers decides to breed the dog they bought from them with something that isn't complementary. When a breeder puts their all into their dogs/and what they produce they want to be careful where those pups go? I don't think that is control freak behavior, but responsible breeding. Maybe if more did so, the GSD wouldn't have so many fearbags and poor representations to the breed. But then stud owners don't seem to be very discriminate...so I guess it is what it is.


The GSD probably has some of the most control over what dogs should be bred. We have the breed survey, the working titles, etc. That's what has made poor representations.

Sure, I wouldn't want my kennel name tarnished. But I don't know of any that have been...in working or show dogs. You just can't have that kind of control over people and their property. When it comes down to it, dogs are property.

There are, on the other hand, plenty of kennels I wouldn't take dogs from. Most of them produce good dogs, but the breeders are sneaky assholes. Has nothing to do with what they have produced and/or how those dogs have been handled.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Jane Jean said:


> I didn't make myself clear, sorry! It is more about the breeder and what they've produced wanting to keep their lines going strong. Not being 'sullied' because one of their buyers decides to breed the dog they bought from them with something that isn't complementary. When a breeder puts their all into their dogs/and what they produce they want to be careful where those pups go? I don't think that is control freak behavior, but responsible breeding. Maybe if more did so, the GSD wouldn't have so many fearbags and poor representations to the breed. But then stud owners don't seem to be very discriminate...so I guess it is what it is.


Unfortunately placing restrictions on purchasers has not one thing to do with whether or not a breeder is a crap breeder or a good breeder. I only wish it were so easy. I promise you I can point you to a plethora of American breeders who breed nothing but crap and proudly sell every pup on a limited registration or brag about how they insist on a "screening process" for their puppy buyers.

Again, I know of no European breeder who sells pups with strings attached and yet they seem to manage to limp along, reputations intact.


----------



## Jane Jean (Sep 18, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> Unfortunately placing restrictions on purchasers has not one thing to do with whether or not a breeder is a crap breeder or a good breeder. I only wish it were so easy. I promise you I can point you to a plethora of American breeders who breed nothing but crap and proudly sell every pup on a limited registration or brag about how they insist on a "screening process" for their puppy buyers.
> 
> Again, I know of no European breeder who sells pups with strings attached and yet they seem to manage to limp along, reputations intact.


I'm aware, sadly because I have two dogs from crap breeders....rescues 
I'm not a fan of restrictions, but do understand why some breeders only sell on a limited type contract. Whatever, the dogs are the ones to suffer regardless.


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

Jane Jean said:


> The kennel name on the dog is always associated with the breeder....so responsibility of someone breeding their dog with my kennel name/ breeding to a shit dog would be detrimental.
> IF I were a breeder, I'd be screening potential buyers carefully so my kennel name wasn't tarnished due to someone F'ing up my lines with poor breeding matches.
> One reason many breeders put a limited on pups is to protect their kennel reputation. But then few breeders are carrying on generations of their own breedings and showcasing the lines they carefully produce.
> 
> More often, they are buying imports and breeding for the sport world/ so their kennel reputation(lines) isn't as important.


Keep it simple is my motto. Train, title, have a good time. No need to go into "what if's" and "what not's" or it becomes a never ending story and at the end of the day nothing changes anyway.


----------



## Jane Jean (Sep 18, 2009)

LOL, try training an unstable dog from a crap breeder... 
You manage their issues and try to keep them from failing. 

Having a dog from good genetics and a couple from not so good, wow, what a difference in biddability and confidence. 

You can only take a dog with problems so far. So trying to train and title is a futile challenge. 
I don't believe the breeder should take back their problems or even take back a good dog that the owner screwed up, but I do think if you are putting pups on the earth, there should be more motivation in doing so than $. 

Good breeders don't make $ like the ones that take the shortcuts. They put any profits back into training, titling and health tests...and spend time and money to travel to the stud dog because of the great breeding match that can be had. Never convenient.


----------



## Kevin Cyr (Dec 28, 2012)

Jane Jean said:


> LOL, try training an unstable dog from a crap breeder...
> You manage their issues and try to keep them from failing.
> 
> Having a dog from good genetics and a couple from not so good, wow, what a difference in biddability and confidence.
> ...


 
a good breeder can have unstable crappers too.....how was the pup raised/developed probably is more important then the genetics anyway

im curious what names would fall under good breeders and how many would actually agree with that. do you think the majority would agree?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

The breeder can only try and get the pups with the right owners. Even with a contract I don't think there is much can be done after that if the owner chooses to ignore that contract. Of course a dog abuse situation, if proven, can hopefully be attended to.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Jane Jean said:


> LOL, try training an unstable dog from a crap breeder...
> You manage their issues and try to keep them from failing.
> 
> Having a dog from good genetics and a couple from not so good, wow, what a difference in biddability and confidence.
> ...


This is bullshit I'm afraid and something I particularly hear on doberman forums more specifically american doberman forums.
Good 'Hobby breeders' don't make shit on their dogs, good business breeders do, even if both are health testing etc.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

And really, what's wrong with anyone making some money on their dogs? Those that compete and title know the enormous money pit that is on it's own.


----------



## Jami Craig (Jul 5, 2010)

Matt Vandart said:


> This is bullshit I'm afraid and something I particularly hear on doberman forums more specifically american doberman forums.
> Good 'Hobby breeders' don't make shit on their dogs, good business breeders do, even if both are health testing etc.



Do they just breed though? I'd imagine a strong buisness model in the right location over time with a bit of luck (lack of injuries and breeding/welping related issues) would turn at least some profit with breeding alone, but most of the breeders that actually seem to get money from dogs do other dog related things that earn them money and money directly from puppy sales is just the icing on the cake. Obviously I don't know this before but that's just been an observation. I'd suppose the breed(s) you're breeding and what they're bred for may make a difference as well.


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Okay, different opinions all around.

Let me ask the same question but this time with the owner in mind...

What about the owners and their accountablity and responsibility towards the dog?

It seems to me that people are quite easy and happy to shift blame and point fingers anywhere but at themselves. Shouldn't they be accountable and responsible as well. They did afterall choose to get a pup from a certain breeder? I'm assuming they would have checked background and such? That they would have gone into a sale with eyes wide open and well informed? So, where does their accountability and responsibility start?


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

When they buy the dog the responsibility is on the owner 100%


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

imo as an owner and buyer, the breeder has ZERO responsibility for ANY behavior issues once i get the dog since i would know what to expect from the line i was interested in, and i know damn well there are no guarantees, temperament wise  
* my primary concerns would always be health *
- i would definitely get back to the breeder on any life threatening health issue, whenever it came up, especially if it was known to be genetic. but the obvious genetic problems would have been thoroughly discussed before i ever bought it. i would also expect the breeder to be familiar with other health issues in their line such as early deaths from cancers, etc
- can't guarantee health but a breeder needs to know problems whenever they happen

- and i would expect the breeder to give me lots of refs from people who bought their dogs and would speak to me freely. i have had a few breeders who claimed their sales were "private" and they could not "force" their buyers to release their points of contact .... when they start going there, that is an immediate red flag for me

off topic again ....
but actually this is a topic i am very interested in. my dog situation has changed and i may be looking for one more good pup soon. i'm gonna taper back on a lot of training and hopefully have a few good years left in me 

- actually when i first got on this forum, one reason was to look for a breeder. i looked for 2 years straight in Japan for either a gsd or mal and had NO luck. 
- don't know if i ever asked before, but if anyone out there has sold either breed to anyone here in Japan, i would sure like to know about them


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Jane Jean said:


> Good breeders don't make $ like the ones that take the shortcuts. They put any profits back into training, titling and health tests...and spend time and money to travel to the stud dog because of the great breeding match that can be had. Never convenient.


Just to be a fly in the ointment. Unless you are running DNA tests there is the assumption that the stud used is the actual sire of the litter. It is not unknown for another to sire the litter and then have it claimed to belong to that stud. Maybe not a rampant problem, but it exists.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Sarah Platts said:


> Just to be a fly in the ointment. Unless you are running DNA tests there is the assumption that the stud used is the actual sire of the litter. It is not unknown for another to sire the litter and then have it claimed to belong to that stud. Maybe not a rampant problem, but it exists.


I have never understood this, what is the motivation for this?


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Alice Bezemer said:


> Okay, different opinions all around.
> 
> Let me ask the same question but this time with the owner in mind...
> 
> ...


I already mentioned this in another thread. Check the breeder out thoroughly and then if the pup has health issues, check with your vet. If it has behavioural issues, check what you are doing with it. If you have bought from a serious breeder, he will surely help you with your problems but as for him/her being responsible? 

I guess I'm the proverbial "fruit and nut case" but what comes into our family, *stays here*. I've had a lot of good experience because I've always checked out what breed would suit us, what breeder is good, etc. Takes time but is rewarding in the end.

A dog is not just for Christmas, it's for (its) life.

We now have just one dog and he is sometimes a headache but who is at fault? I who didn't recoginize his "potential" early on enough or the breeder who sold him to me? Maybe he thought I was able to handle such a dog. I aways was able to ask questions as he was our protection helper. I have him under control but as he is rather anti-social or, depending on situation, i.e. "friends already sitting at the dinner table" "I LOVE", it's always dicey. He can be over-protective, neutral - it's anyone's guess.

BUT - he's ours and I regard this is our / my responsibiliy.

No "passing the buck in our house".


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

too many people have too many dogs ... maybe it might also apply to breeders sometimes; who knows ? i'm not a breeder. maybe they breed too fast and get behind the power curve ? or financial reasons limit their resources and breeding ability ?

i still think most dog problems are simply because training is too fast, foundations are not solid, and too much time is spent correcting problems that shouldn't have happened. resulting in too much frustration on both ends of the lead.
same goes for rehabbing/rescuing or any other "temporary" ownership if it's done too fast.
and it's not for everyone; if you rescue or rehab you better be prepared to keep some 

if you get a dog from a reputable breeder and get a BIG surprise you probably didn't do your homework b4 you bought it, but you should certainly expect LOTS of little surprises ... deal with them. dog dumpers are as bad as bad breeders imo. i'm sure there are those who "dump" back on breeders for the reasons explained above

but if you are going to rehab, you should spend enuff time to REALLY know what you are getting into b4 you take it home. of course i don't know for sure, but my gut feeling is too many "near death", "horribly abused", "sked to be PTS", "never socialized" dog pick ups end up going bad, and are poor (emotional) reasons to take in a dog unless you have a great facility and lots of time and money to expend.

i know this doesn't have much to do with breeding or buying, but isn't it obvious that breeders, as well as owners, can't be fortune tellers ??


----------



## Julianne Ramanujam (Jan 15, 2013)

> but if you are going to rehab, you should spend enuff time to REALLY know what you are getting into b4 you take it home. of course i don't know for sure, but my gut feeling is too many "near death", "horribly abused", "sked to be PTS", "never socialized" dog pick ups end up going bad, and are poor (emotional) reasons to take in a dog unless you have a great facility and lots of time and money to expend.
> 
> i know this doesn't have much to do with breeding or buying, but isn't it obvious that breeders, as well as owners, can't be fortune tellers ??


If I had the option to go back in time right now and tell my two-months-younger self anything, it would be this.


----------



## Shade Whitesel (Aug 18, 2010)

Both breeder and owner have responsibility. The breeder brought the dog into the world in the first place and I hope would place the dog according to the dog's potential and what the breeder desires for his/her pups. The new owner has a big impact on the training and the experiences of the dog after acquiring. As a trainer who just bred a litter of pups (probably my last!), I was amazed at how much work there was to be done, but also how much could be done with the litter before I sent them off to their new homes. I really don't think we can separate genetics from training after a certain point. So both parties are fully responsible, if that makes sense!


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Matt Vandart said:


> I have never understood this, what is the motivation for this?


Normally the motivation is money. If you say the sire is a well-titled or Champion So & So, the pups are worth more money then saying that an oops breeding occured. Or deliberate in some cases.


----------



## Jane Jean (Sep 18, 2009)

Katie Finlay said:


> The GSD probably has some of the most control over what dogs should be bred. We have the breed survey, the working titles, etc. That's what has made poor representations.
> 
> Sure, I wouldn't want my kennel name tarnished. But I don't know of any that have been...in working or show dogs. You just can't have that kind of control over people and their property. When it comes down to it, dogs are property.
> 
> There are, on the other hand, plenty of kennels I wouldn't take dogs from. Most of them produce good dogs, but the breeders are sneaky assholes. Has nothing to do with what they have produced and/or how those dogs have been handled.


In the US, there is no control....just reputation or lack of. Ignorant people who will buy from the ignorant or greedy breeders. The 'clik to buy' classifieds has added to the problem.
I am not for control, but responsiblity. It should be a no-brainer.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jane Jean said:


> But then stud owners don't seem to be very discriminate...so I guess it is what it is.


Stud owners I have knows have been pretty discriminate.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Jane Jean said:


> In the US, there is no control....just reputation or lack of. Ignorant people who will buy from the ignorant or greedy breeders. The 'clik to buy' classifieds has added to the problem.
> I am not for control, but responsiblity. It should be a no-brainer.


If there was no control in the US, breeders wouldn't be doing breed surveys left and right...

Shade, the breeder can do their best at placing a dog somewhere. But if the buyer isn't honest with themselves and/or the breeder, it's no fault of the breeder.


----------

