# Is my friend getting RIPPED OFF??!!!??



## Joel Heffsen (Jul 19, 2010)

Hi all. As you can see I am new to the forum, but also new to working dogs as well. I have a friend who is in what seems to be a pretty messed up situation. Since I'm new to all of this I am not sure how it all works. I'm posting here to get an idea if this is normal or typical.

My friend bought a female puppy about three of four years ago. She is a very nice person and the dog turned out pretty nice considering its her first dog. She has put a lot of work into training her dog and even put a title on her. 

The contract she signed with the breeder obligated my friend to give "one or two" litters back to the breeder before my friend can have full ownership rights to her dog. My friends says it stated one or two litters because it depends on what her breeder needs or wants when the time comes.

Fast forward a few years and the bitch has been bred twice. The breeder kept both litters. The confusion comes from the fact that the first litter only contained one puppy, but the breeder did keep this litter/pup. The bitches next litter was normal size and the breeder kept that as well.

My friend now wants to repeat the breeding to the last stud dog she used. She even has some friends and club members in line for pups. Her breeder insists that she is still owed one more litter because one of the bitch's litter was too small. There was nothing in the contract that mentioned litter size or total number of puppies the breeder gets back. IMO two litters is two litters regardless of the number of puppies especially considering she kept/sold both litters. 

I am confused because I hear so many good things about this breeder. Is this situation normal? My friend is very passive and doesn't know what to do. She is afraid that if she sticks to her guns she will be blackballed or something. I don't know much about sport politics. What do ya'll think


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Joel Heffsen said:


> Hi all. As you can see I am new to the forum, but also new to working dogs as well. I have a friend who is in what seems to be a pretty messed up situation. Since I'm new to all of this I am not sure how it all works. I'm posting here to get an idea if this is normal or typical.
> 
> My friend bought a female puppy about three of four years ago. She is a very nice person and the dog turned out pretty nice considering its her first dog. She has put a lot of work into training her dog and even put a title on her.
> 
> ...


This is politics.....Who is the breeder, alot of people on the forum from all over!


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

might have to sue....LOL..to get the papers...and that will take while...

IF she paid for the dog...that is one hell of a requirement from breeder regardless...usually it is a couple of pups back in my experience...but 2 whole litters? is kinda crazy..
if the dog was free, and the agreement was the breeder has breeding rights, then is seems reasonable.

point is the contract was satisfied period in my book...

I'd put pressure on the breeder, hopefully that works.

that being said...if the dogs are that good, and she wants to breed. she can still tell the breeder to fukk off and just go ahead and breed, papers or not..if she still has a market for good pups without papers...
and sell the pups herself, and let the breeder try to sue...good luck for that one happening...

sound like a real azzhole breeder to me.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Joel Heffsen said:


> Her breeder insists that she is still owed one more litter because one of the bitch's litter was too small. There was nothing in the contract that mentioned litter size or total number of puppies the breeder gets back. IMO two litters is two litters regardless of the number of puppies especially considering she kept/sold both litters.



I would agree that this was the two litters mentioned. I would stick to my guns....

If she does not want to push it that far.....maybe discuss a compromise that the breeder gets a choice of pick male or female? 

I dunno....she has proof that it was one or two litters, no mention on the size of the litters....she has the right to say "nope, you got what you wanted."


----------



## Joel Heffsen (Jul 19, 2010)

I don't know the breeder, but wouldn't post that info anyway. I don't want to cause my friend and troubles. I have many friends who show in AKC conformation and they all say this is unacceptable and that the breeder is breaking the contract. Since my friend does sports and no AKC I thought maybe it works a little different.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Joel Heffsen said:


> I don't know the breeder, but wouldn't post that info anyway. I don't want to cause my friend and troubles. I have many friends who show in AKC conformation and they all say this is unacceptable and that the breeder is breaking the contract. Since my friend does sports and no AKC I thought maybe it works a little different.


contract is a contract period...but dog contracts are a bitch in court most of the time....


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

If what you have stated is indeed factual and he kept the single pup, he is screwing your friend. He has his two litters. The problem is he probably has the dog on a limited registration which only he can release. I never would have gotten into a deal like that in the first place. He probable does that withn the pups he gets in the litters also. Now she titled the dog so he can sell more of them.


----------



## Tammy St. Louis (Feb 17, 2010)

not the exact same but when i bred my schipperke I paid for stud service which was guarnteed 2 live pups or i got a repeat breeding, 


i may not give her the whole litter but maybe a pup or 2 ?


----------



## Joel Heffsen (Jul 19, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> If what you have stated is indeed factual and he kept the single pup, he is screwing your friend. He has his two litters. The problem is he probably has the dog on a limited registration which only he can release. I never would have gotten into a deal like that in the first place. He probable does that withn the pups he gets in the litters also. Now she titled the dog so he can sell more of them.


Indeed the dog is on limited registration that the breeder is now refusing to release. Going to court would be difficult because its not about money. Maybe a judge could force her to release the limited registration but even then maybe the bitch misses her heat cycle by the time its all over


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

If "she" the breeder, is trying to screw you friend she shouldn't worry about what the breeder thinks. Is this a show breeder?


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

That sucks, and which is why I stay away from breeders who try to control things. 

When you pay for a dog....it is YOURS!!! And I don't think the breeder should give the buyer any kind of grief as long as the buyer is doing what is best for the dog.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2010)

Its pretty straight forward. A dog is viewed like a car according to the law, so if the contract does not specify number of pups, then all payments have been made and the contract has been satisfied. The dog now belongs to your friend. If she has proof she paid for the dog and proof that the first 2 litters were relinquished to the breeder, (which sounds insane to me,) then legally your friend is golden. This is probably a small claims court thing so the expense would not be high. I mean, really, is a breeder going to sue your friend for just taking ownership after all this? If so, then they deserve to be called out. What a jerk.


----------



## Joel Heffsen (Jul 19, 2010)

Vin Chiu said:


> Its pretty straight forward. A dog is viewed like a car according to the law, so if the contract does not specify number of pups, then all payments have been made and the contract has been satisfied. The dog now belongs to your friend. If she has proof she paid for the dog and proof that the first 2 litters were relinquished to the breeder, (which sounds insane to me,) then legally your friend is golden. This is probably a small claims court thing so the expense would not be high. I mean, really, is a breeder going to sue your friend for just taking ownership after all this? If so, then they deserve to be called out. What a jerk.



The problem lies in trying to register the puppies. Without the breeder signing off, my friend can not get AKC papers for the puppies


----------



## sam wilks (May 3, 2009)

in my opinion the breeder got two litters. as far as what to do, even though she got her two litters there will be a big hassle trying to fight everything in court. I would say I understand you only got one puppy but it was the entire amount of pups born. I would offer half the puppies from the next litter, but I would also get something in writing that after that, the dog is hers. even though technically she has received two litters, is it really worth the trouble rather than just lose a few pups. in the end it is her dog and she will have to decide what she wants. did she look closer at the contract to see if it specified how many pups made a "litter"? she can also look at it as a lesson well learned.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Joel Heffsen said:


> The problem lies in trying to register the puppies. Without the breeder signing off, my friend can not get AKC papers for the puppies


BUT, if she takes it to small claims and is awarded the rights, the breeder must comply and remove the limited registration. 
I doubt the breeder will push it much after small claims is done and your friend wins.


----------



## Candy Eggert (Oct 28, 2008)

Just getting a Small Claims judgement does not guarantee that the breeder will comply. Unfortunately. There are lots of cases of winning in Small Claims court but collecting (or in this case forcing) judgements become almost unenforceable. And some people know it.

This stinks!


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Joel Heffsen said:


> The problem lies in trying to register the puppies. Without the breeder signing off, my friend can not get AKC papers for the puppies


Joel,

The way I understand limited registration is "puppies from the parent are NOT registrable" until the limited registration is changed.
That should mean the breeder can't register any of the puppies from the first two litters until the registration is changed either.
Have your friend check with AKC, but if I'm right just have her tell the breeder, You have your two litters there is nothing about how many puppies are in a litter. I suspect the puppy buyers for the first litters will be asking for their paperwork pretty soon


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Joel,
> 
> The way I understand limited registration is "puppies from the parent are NOT registrable" until the limited registration is changed.
> That should mean the breeder can't register any of the puppies from the first two litters until the registration is changed either.
> Have your friend check with AKC, but if I'm right just have her tell the breeder, You have your two litters there is nothing about how many puppies are in a litter. I suspect the puppy buyers for the first litters will be asking for their paperwork pretty soon


Very good Thomas. Surprised I didn't think of that. The limited registration is probably already lifted if the girl calls AKC and checks on it. If it is, the girl is already home free and just didn't realise it.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Thinking a bit farther about what Thomas said, The owners of the sires has to sign off on the litters. Did the friend get papers filled out and give them to the breeder along with the pups? If not, maybe she is putting papers with them that aren't theirs to sell them. The sires owners have to fill out part of the litter registration papers.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Okay, I'm scanning through this but are you are saying the dam was on limited registration when they bred the litter?? Unless its through the new administrative registration process, the point of limited was so that no puppies produced would be registered. 

T


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

I don't know AKC but doesn't the owner of both the sire and dam have to sign the litter reg? If that is the case are you sure its "limited" and not just registered in the breeders name until contract is satisfied?

I would say it is satisfied. I'd also assume the breeder paid for the litter and took care of the litter? If not I would argue that should be worth some pups to your friend. I would straight up ask the breeder right now what they consider a "litter". If its 3 live pups... Then its def satsfied as the breeder already rcvd, how many? 8??!!!

T


----------



## Anne Jones (Mar 27, 2006)

Can't imagine why anyone would pay money for a dog that has a limited registration. Basically you are paying for something that you don't own. 

If you get the dog for free & you agree on co-ownership, that's different. But why in the world would anyone want to throw money away like that. Not to mention that if I wanted to take the risks involved in breeding MY dog, I want it to be my decision & my pups. 

So, not only did she pay for the dog, she also basically paid for whatever all the pups were sold for. So how much is she into this dog for at this point?!


----------



## Joel Heffsen (Jul 19, 2010)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The dog is on a co-ownership not limited registration.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Oops I meant breeder paid stud fee and all exp of the litter/ breeding.

T


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Very good Thomas. Surprised I didn't think of that. The limited registration is probably already lifted if the girl calls AKC and checks on it. If it is, the girl is already home free and just didn't realise it.


While the dogs limited registration has certainly been lifted (so the breeder could sell the puppies from her two previous litters with registration) this bitch is probably still on a co-ownership.

Which sucks and means that if the person who owns the dog breeds her, she cannot register the puppies without the asshole breeder signing off on it. 

This is why I don't do co-ownerships or limited registration. If I pay for a dog, it belongs to me, and it is my discretion on what is to be done with it.

Yes, sounds like the breeder isn't happy with the fact they got 1 puppy to begin with, but if the contract says 1 or 2 litters. Well that singleton puppy was the first litter, if you want to get technical. 

Unless she got this dog for free in exchange for the 2 litters, your friend got ripped off like a blind man at a strip club.


----------



## Adam Rawlings (Feb 27, 2009)

Ashley Campbell;207651) your friend got ripped off like a blind man at a strip club.[/QUOTE said:


> Unless the club offered lap dances.
> 
> Sorry couldn't resist, carry on.


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Adam Rawlings said:


> Unless the club offered lap dances.
> 
> Sorry couldn't resist, carry on.


Even then, strippers won't let you touch them, so it's not like he can braille it out...and then hand her a tip that was a $50 instead of a $20, lol.


----------



## Harry Keely (Aug 26, 2009)

paperwork, paperwork, paperwork who gives a shit about papers:-({|=. More importantly are the puppies and the parents worth a crap or not is the most important thing of all. Many of us on here sell adults / pups with no papers and solely on gentics & workability. People need to wake up and relize a piece of paper does' nt make or brake a dog.

To answer your questions if it does not state size of litter in the first two litters I would have to say in my eyes your ridiculous obligation of the entire two litters has been met. JMO


----------



## Adam Rawlings (Feb 27, 2009)

Ashley Campbell said:


> Even then, strippers won't let you touch them, so it's not like he can braille it out...and then hand her a tip that was a $50 instead of a $20, lol.


I won't ask how you know so much about the rules at strip clubs.:-\"


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Adam Rawlings said:


> I won't ask how you know so much about the rules at strip clubs.:-\"


LMAO. Which reminds me Ashley....how is it a nice girl like you would know John Henry down in AZ. I meant to ask earlier but it slipped my mind until this stripper thing came up. JH fancies those slick dales that run from those 25lb coyotes. Calls em tolling dogs. Coyote gets after one of his dogs and they run back to him so he can shoot em. Sorry about the slight O/T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Ashley Campbell said:


> Even then, strippers won't let you touch them, so it's not like he can braille it out...and then hand her a tip that was a $50 instead of a $20, lol.


I worked security/driver with an entertainment company in chicago for 5 yrs...you could touch...but not get crazy....lol...or they'd put a heel in your forehead...or whip you with a belt in front of your friends...while I was saying "the more you tip the harder she whips" 

but that wasn't a club either...LOL

back on topic...pretty much covered it...contract is satisfied...pressure breeder or sue...and like I said dog contracts is a bitch and small claims is a joke usually....have her two big mean brothers go to the breeders house with her...LOL

or just breed the freaking dog....and sell the pups...with NO papers...I's breed the dog and if I felt like it I would trade a pup for the paperwork...

sometimes co-ownerships are not worth the effort..., if the people are rational and mature and reasonable they can be fine....but not everyone is rational...


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

A litter is defined as the offspring produced at one birth by a multiparous mammal. One offspring is not a litter. 

This is most likely a very reputable breeder that has an understanding of the English language better than most of you.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Christopher Smith said:


> A litter is defined as the offspring produced at one birth by a multiparous mammal. One offspring is not a litter.
> 
> This is most likely a very reputable breeder that has an understanding of the English language better than most of you.


touche' so what then...? breeder gets next litter minus 1 pup?


----------



## Anna Kasho (Jan 16, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> A litter is defined as the offspring produced at one birth by a multiparous mammal. One offspring is not a litter.
> 
> This is most likely a very reputable breeder that has an understanding of the English language better than most of you.


Nowhere in that definition does it say "more than one" offspring, now does it??

I will never buy a dog onlimited reg, or coownership, or involved contract, just not worth it.


----------



## Tyree Johnson (Jun 21, 2010)

Ashley Campbell said:


> Even then, strippers won't let you touch them, so it's not like he can braille it out...and then hand her a tip that was a $50 instead of a $20, lol.



Unless you go to the 'A' anything goes in atlanta ...... so i heard....

back on topic!


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Is obvious that we are dealing with a hustler. This breeder is obviously a scumbag taking advantage of a novice. To even come up with this outrageous contract shows this person is pretty F'ed up. Personally I feel that it's up to the more experienced people in the dog game to protect people like this girl. We are the ones that need to call these people out and shame them into doing the right thing. But most people are really sheeple , and won't do a damn thing. Just think what would happen if 10 or 15 people called or emailed this breeder? But how many of the people here would be willing to do that?


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

If the breeder doesn't consider it one puppy then it should have been spelled out in the contract AND they shouldn't have taken said puppy. To me its no different than if you take a puppy instead of a fee on a stud... Its a risk you take, if pup doesn't work out too bad. If if you don't spell out what constitutes a litter AND you take the puppy well too bad, one pup litters happen all the time... Any breeder knows that.

Any case sounds like a ridiculous contract... 2 entire litters!!
I'm all for breeding rights, pups back, co-owns etc but I would NEVER consider asking anyone for two entire litters back... And definitely not three given the first produced only one puupy which I took?? How many times ya gonna breed a bitch? Four times? and the breeder gets three stud picks and ALL the puppies???

T


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Anna Kasho said:


> Nowhere in that definition does it say "more than one" offspring, now does it??
> 
> .


mul·tip·a·rous :Giving birth to more than one offspring at a time.


----------



## Candy Eggert (Oct 28, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> mul·tip·a·rous :Giving birth to more than one offspring at a time.


May be the literal translation as in having the 'ability' to give birth to more than one offspring at a time. But most of us know that one live puppy born is considered a litter ;-)


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

he is right...litter=offspring born from animals that "usually" produce 2 or more offspring....

that aside...I WOULD BE HAPPY TO CALL OR EMAIL THE BREEDER...LOL


----------



## Candy Eggert (Oct 28, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> he is right...litter=offspring born from animals that "usually" produce 2 or more offspring....


I'd like to see where you got that information Joby.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Since the contract doesn't spell out what a litter is, I would think any live birth would count as a "litter". Some contracts do say a "litter" is 2 or more pups, but if this one doesn't then ...

As far as breeding her without the papers, if she's a DS or Malinois that might work when it came to selling the pups, but I don't think there is much, if any, market for unregistered GSD. So what breed this is would play a big role in it. There is also the issue of the breeder trying to claim the pups from that litter are their's, personally I'd get the ownership issue straightened out before I'd breed her for a 3rd litter.

As for the rest, "fair" is between the parties involved. What one person thinks is unfair another person has no issues with. They must have thought the terms of the contract were fair when the got the dog, or they wouldn't have done it. Or they thought they weren't fair, but wanted that specific dog badly enough to agree to whatever the breeder put forth. Either way, that's between the two parties involved.

Someone mentioned going to court, someone else mentioned just because you get a decision doesn't mean the breeder will honor it. In this case, that doesn't actually matter. If you get a court decision, and send that to AKC, they will honor it, what the breeder wants won't matter at that point, if AKC will put the dog in your friends name based on the courts decision.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

On the definition the multiparous is referring to a sire/dam/ species that produces more than one pup at a time. Its not referring to what constitutes a litter.... For that it is saying "the offspring" (at one time) which offspring is both singular and plural, like "fish" it means any number...including one.

T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Candy Eggert said:


> I'd like to see where you got that information Joby.


GOOGLE

*Mirriam-Webster*
*Litter:*
...
3. offspring at birth of a multiparous animal.

*Multiparous:*

1) Having two or more offspring at one birth. 2) Related to a multipara.


*Webster's New World College Dictionary*

*Litter:*
5. the young borne at one time by a dog, cat, or other animal which normally bears several young at a delivery.

*The American Heritage Dictionary*

*Litter:*
2. The offspring produced at one birth by a multiparous mammal. (for defintion of multiparous see above.)

Among others..... I just said usually...normally and usually are interchangable in my book...

It's all symantics...like I said in MY mind contract is satisfied...although the first litter was not "normal" or "usual" by "defintion"


----------



## Anna Kasho (Jan 16, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> On the definition the multiparous is referring to a sire/dam/ species that produces more than one pup at a time. Its not referring to what constitutes a litter.... For that it is saying "the offspring" (at one time) which offspring is both singular and plural, like "fish" it means any number...including one.
> 
> T


Exactly! It does NOT say a litter is "more than one" offspring produced at one birth by a multiparous mammal. Just that the mammal itself is capable of producing more than one offspring. If ya wanna argue about the english language... :razz:

One pup or many - A litter is a litter, IMO.


----------



## andreas broqvist (Jun 2, 2009)

I can understand the breeer. That one pup is just a cost for him/her. But ither you have wery good contact with the persen you co own the dog with and sort this type of stuff out ore you write a number of pups in you contrackt. So he/she ither nead to work somthing out with your friend, And hope that she can split a liter with split costs ore somthing like that ore just let her do her breeding.


----------



## chris haynie (Sep 15, 2009)

"contract law is 75% semantics, and 100% pain in the ass. " 

-my lawyer eddy, in reference to a contract on store branded products for a nation wide chain.

i dont know shit about working dogs yet, but i do know i'd never enter into a co-ownership contract because it would leave me open to nasty messes like this one. hope your buddy and the breeder get it resolved before they both hate each other.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: Just think what would happen if 10 or 15 people called or emailed this breeder? But how many of the people here would be willing to do that?

Just ask.

If you look at it from a different standpoint, this breeder is getting a HELL of a good deal.

If there is the one pup, and 5 in the next, this person paid 6000 dollars roughly for a puppy. Talk about getting bent. over.


----------



## sam wilks (May 3, 2009)

what constitutes a litter has no bearing in this case because the breeder took the puppy from the first litter and by doing that she accepted this puppy as the first litter. thats a good point jeff, 6000 dollars for one puppy not to mention the cost of caring for and raising the bitch as well as the puppies in each litter.


----------



## Jessica Kromer (Nov 12, 2009)

Not to mention the cost of the original pup (if any) and all of the time and effort put into training and titling the bitch. 

One hell of an expensive dog.

Thinking about this last night, hypothetically, could there be a monetary value attached to a lawsuit? I mean if the pups from the second litter sold for lets say $1,000 each and the friend in question was breeding back to the same sire, there would be a proven value for the pups born, especially if the pups were spoken for... If she bred and had and actual number of pups to sell, then the breeder would be preventing her from doing business and that would constitute a monetary loss... Just thinking hypothetically

Bottom line, she should take it to small claims and get a judgement and send said judgement off to the AKC to have the breeder removed from the papers. Being served with papers does a lot to scare bullies into performing, and if not it is a quick process and you can make the breeder pay for it.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

sam wilks said:


> 6000 dollars for one puppy


That's assuming the pups all sold for 1000, there were no stud fees for either litter, no costs in raising the litters (food, vet care, supplies, etc), no cost to transport the pups to the breeder, no costs to market the litter, no pup is ever returned for any reason (ie no refunds of money, replacement pups down the road), no time/money spent supporting the pup buyers through the lifetime of the dog, etc.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jessica Kromer said:


> Not to mention the cost of the original pup (if any) and all of the time and effort put into training and titling the bitch.
> 
> One hell of an expensive dog.
> 
> ...


good post...if the goal is to get the judgement and give it to the AKC, if that works...

but monetary? HA HA

ever try small claims? I have...you can't make anyone pay....you don't get a check LOL you get a judgement to pay...then if they don't pay after whatever time period...you have to pay for and file separately for a discovery of assets,,,,and then pay for and file a lien on said assets (cars,houses, titled property, business assets, if these "official" papered assets are never sold, you don't get paid...you can also pay to track down where they work, and then pay for a wage garnishment...if that doesn;t work,,, you may be able to get a judge to force someone to pay with threat of contempt...maybe...but very rare. 

all these steps cost YOU money...sure they are added onto the judgement, IF you ever get paid you MIGHT get these costs back...
collecting from small claims is not a quick process usually....
I recommend Judge Judy, or Judge Joe...at least you get paid quickly...


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Patiently waiting to see how this one will go over .


----------



## sam wilks (May 3, 2009)

how do you know all that kadi


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

sam wilks said:


> how do you know all that kadi


I don't understand your question? 

Your "6000 for a puppy" was based on an assumption that 6 pups, sold for 1000 each, translated to 6000 profit and meant the person paid 6000 for their dog, plus other expenses. 

I pointed out that 6 pups, sold for 1000 each, does not mean 6000 profit to the breeder unless there are NO costs at all for those pups. The OP already said the breeder covered the stud fees, costs of raising the pups, etc so that's just the expenses now, and doesn't take into account any other expenses this litter can generate down the road.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Ok, you guys I'm going to come clean. I knew who this breeder was since last week and wanted to do a little character and ethics test with you. Lets see how many of you will still walk the walk. 

I heard the breeder is Debbie Skinner.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

still walking.....:neutral:


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Christopher Smith said:


> Ok, you guys I'm going to come clean. I knew who this breeder was since last week and wanted to do a little character and ethics test with you. Lets see how many of you will still walk the walk.
> 
> I heard the breeder is Debbie Skinner.


Is there a portion of the contract that states what constitutes a "litter" is more than 1 pup, even if it was and the first pup was kept, and the second litter was kept. I stand by my statements 100%. 
Contract is satisfied in my mind..if all the facts are out here are correct.

If what you heard is "accurate" it doesn't make a difference in my mind who it is. It is still BS. 

If all the facts are out here, and the posted info is accurate....and if it is her, DEBBIE SHAME ON YOU.

Do you stand by this post Chris? or was that just part of the "test".



Christopher Smith said:


> Is obvious that we are dealing with a hustler. This breeder is obviously a scumbag taking advantage of a novice. To even come up with this outrageous contract shows this person is pretty F'ed up. Personally I feel that it's up to the more experienced people in the dog game to protect people like this girl. We are the ones that need to call these people out and shame them into doing the right thing. But most people are really sheeple , and won't do a damn thing. Just think what would happen if 10 or 15 people called or emailed this breeder? But how many of the people here would be willing to do that?


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> LMAO. Which reminds me Ashley....how is it a nice girl like you would know John Henry down in AZ. I meant to ask earlier but it slipped my mind until this stripper thing came up. JH fancies those slick dales that run from those 25lb coyotes. Calls em tolling dogs. Coyote gets after one of his dogs and they run back to him so he can shoot em. Sorry about the slight O/T


Cuz I've known him since I was 17 and grew up in the area? We used to go coyote hunting (not with dogs, with an AR15). He used to date my ex's sister also.

I don't even know what to say about how I know about strippers, just trust me on this one.

~~~~

I don't care who the breeder is, I'm with Joby here. If they accept the first puppy and take it, they've accepted the first "litter" whether it was 1 or 15 puppies. If the breeder had said "no, go ahead and keep the singleton and we'll work out a deal with a subsequent litter" then that'd be all different. But, it's kind of like with anything, if you accept it as it is without stipulation, then you're agreeing to the original contract. Litter 2 was born, breeder took the litter, and as far as I would be concerned, the contract was fulfilled, and the owner should get the co-ownership taken off and be able to do what they wish with the dog.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Theres always two sides to a story, so something maybe missing with this one. 
What if the person who has the female with them was supossed to let the breeder know when the female was in season, but was slack and didnt get around to it quick enough and so the breeder missed out on a full litter because the person with the dog ucked up?
What if they sent the dog interstate, paid a 1500 stud fee, had to pay for a c-section (one pup causes this all the time) all because the owner of the dog was slack?
Now I dont know what happened, but it might not be all one way. Just sayin...


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Ashley Campbell said:


> Even then, strippers won't let you touch them, so it's not like he can braille it out...and then hand her a tip that was a $50 instead of a $20, lol.


If your a drunk, ugly, smelly dude with axel grease on your hands, generally touching is not allowed. If your sober, talk nicely and ask politley, its never been a problem........so Im told.


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Christopher Jones said:


> If your a drunk, ugly, smelly dude with axel grease on your hands, generally touching is not allowed. If your sober, talk nicely and ask politley, its never been a problem........so Im told.



I suppose that depends on what kind of place you go to. In Mexico, it's different by far, but most "reputable" establishments have a serious, no touch policy...touching gets Bubba the bouncer to flounce your ass out the door...

Ya know, I'm just going to quit while I'm ahead, I'm just digging deeper and deeper, lol.


----------



## Steve Strom (May 25, 2008)

Some places, touching is where it becomes prostitution. Bubba the bouncer isnt the problem, its the undercover cop in the next row. Thats what someone told me too.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Ashley Campbell said:


> Ya know, I'm just going to quit while I'm ahead, I'm just digging deeper and deeper, lol.


Hmm, I am actually starting to get a little sus.......lol


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

All this over a simile... what is the world coming to? LOL.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> Do you stand by this post Chris


Yes 100%


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Until the breeder, whomever that may be, decides to give their sid of this scenario I'm closing the thread.

:-k and who the hell wants to touch a stripper?!! That's just nasty......and desperate!


----------

