Local Border Collie Breeders

[Debbie Meier]

It's kinda funny, it's getting to be a trend to have a contract that tries to cover everything, then you get the "Pet Lemon Laws" that some states have been presented with, that would hold a breeder responsible for future defects through out the life of the dog. Haven't people figured out that pet's aren't machines? Come on, contracts and warrenties that apply to goods and services just don't work on pets. We construct leather goods, yeah we warrenty our work but it's a fixed product not a living breathing being, we can make our products whole again or salvage bits and pieces of them if needed.

 

For some reason some buyers are drawn to the best contract and the best marketing making the assumption that it represents proper breeding selection or will lead to the best puppy, guess it's just a product of our current society.

 

As a breeder of one litter now and then, of which I keep more pups then I sell, I wonder what buyers would think if I put requirements on them in my contract such as, their vet has to be approved by me, all monies spent on the dog has to be approved by me, you have to administer the shots, wormer and frequency I say, you have to seek out training for your dog with a professional that I suggest or approve of, if you don't my contract with you is null and void and I reserve the right to take my dog back, at your expense. Heck, it would mediate my risk, if you don't care for the puppy/dog I sold you in a manner I agree with then your out of luck.

 

I understand that there are breeders out there that just don't care, and then there are others that just make breeding mistakes, some foreseen others not. But by selecting a pup from a breeder that is using their dogs themselves, is developing a breeding program based on their own demands not on the demands or whims of the current market I think you will increase your odds of ending up with a good one, or atleast getting a pup the meets expectations.

 

As far as agility and other sports, any time someone comes to me looking for pup for agility I strongly discourage the puppy route unless they are prepared to care for it when they discover that the pup is not maturing into the agility champion they envisions. Go find an adult dog that you can temperment test, be able to judge their athleticness and has a personality that you can get along with and train with. Even when it comes to purchasing a pup for stock work, you can end up supporting multiples that just don't have what you were looking for or needing in that effort to find the one that takes you where you want to go. When riding/training horses we would encourage an owner to sell a horse that is holding them back, the horse could be holding them back due to health, lack of trainability or just flat out lacks talent. It comes down to the fact that it costs just as much to feed and care for a good one as it does a bad one. When dealing with people that refuse to sell the bad ones, that's their choice.

 

Deb

[Lenajo]

I can see both sides of this one.

 

On Jen's side..... as a breeder I do believe in refunding the *purchase* price (not extortion for training and vet bills for injuries sustained while not in the breeder's care ) if the agreed upon adult dog characteristics are not met because of significant genetic flaw. And if the whole litter went bad as this one apparently did, I would have refunded simply as an act of good faith. Really, would this be an internet issue if the breeder simply said "I'm sorry, that didn't work" and made reasonable effort to make it right? I doubt it.

 

Insisting on the return of a dog for such issues is not reasonable. People love their dogs. If the person can provide the dog with a good home and wants too, then I would certainly let them keep the dog. Why not?

 

On the other side.... Pups *are* a crapshoot, even if this was the best and brightest of breedings . If you can cannot tolerate the potential failure of a pup then you should not get one. Buy/adopt an adult with the required charateristics already present instead.

 

I wouldn't sell Jen a pup either....and before you jump it's not because I feel she is a bad home, but because I feel what she wants cannot be determined in a puppy. Plus she does not have the tolerance for more risk in her dogs at this time.

 

The exact opposite of this breeder does exist. They don't do the hoopla websites, or even the elaborate contracts. Rarely do they have more than a litter or 2 a year.

They simply, with compassion and integrity towards *both* species, stand behind what they produce.

 

You don't hear about those people on the internet very much. Huge #s of Board pages are more likely to be dedicated to the opposite.

[juliepoudrier]

Jen,

This is the comment I was responding to:

 

Mine remains that this should not be a question of whether the breeder "should" be or "contracturally is" responsible for this dog, but should be a question of the breeder wanting to support and take responsibility for what has happened with a dog they have bred no matter what the age. Many genetic conditions can't even be confirmed until the age of 2 or older, like hip dysplasia or epilepsy.

 

In your most recent post you state that you're talking about just this one breeder, but the comment above implies that you think all breeders should be responsible for dogs they sell for that dog's entire life (what else can "no matter what the age" mean?). I won't keep trying here, because I think we're talking at cross purposes, but I will say that I think you'd be wise to do as you said and buy a young adult whose family history you can research and whose health status you can check at the time of purchase.

 

I am on a puppy list right now. I know the owners of the sire and dam and have seen both dogs work and because of that chose to be on the list. I know that both owners have done a reasonable amount of research into the lines being crossed and have checked for those genetic issues that might be a problem (CEA, hips, adult-onset deafness, etc.). I also know that while they've done everything they could reasonably be expected to do, there could still be a pup with a problem that crops up a few years down the line. If I happen to be the person who owns that pup, I just don't see how I could hold them accountable for the problem. Like Ooky says, you choose a breeding you like, breeders you know and trust, and hope for the best. You don't expect perfection in the result of any breeding. It's just not a reasonable expectation.

 

The bottom line is that you bought from a breeder whose dogs are known to have problems and you ended up with problems. I even understand you wanting to extract *something* from the breeder because their careless breeding practices have cost you a lot of money and heartache. But it still comes down to a bad purchase decision in the first place. And if folks take from this discussion that they need to be very careful whom they buy a pup from, then at least you will have created some good out of a bad decision you made and its resulting bad outcome.

 

J.

[jenkshipley]

Really, would this be an internet issue if the breeder simply said "I'm sorry, that didn't work" and made reasonable effort to make it right? I doubt it.

 

Oh, I would still be warning people not to buy a related dog. Absolutely, but my conversation would definitely include - I had A, B, C, D, E, and F problems with my dog, but the breeder stood behind the breeding and refunded me my purchase price.

 

Insisting on the return of a dog for such issues is not reasonable. People love their dogs. If the person can provide the dog with a good home and wants too, then I would certainly let them keep the dog. Why not?

 

Ahh, the voice of reason.

 

 

On the other side.... Pups *are* a crapshoot, even if this was the best and brightest of breedings . If you can cannot tolerate the potential failure of a pup then you should not get one. Buy/adopt an adult with the required charateristics already present instead.

 

I agree!!!!

 

 

I wouldn't sell Jen a pup either....and before you jump it's not because I feel she is a bad home, but because I feel what she wants cannot be determined in a puppy. Plus she does not have the tolerance for more risk in her dogs at this time.

 

 

I don't blame you. I also would not consider a puppy at this time or at any known time in the future unless it was bred by someone I know personally whose dogs I know well and like. I am considering a five month old puppy at this time who is not a purchase and who I will have x-rayed in a few weeks and whose parentage and lineage I am familiar with.

 

I do think that laying the blame on the purchaser and not on the person who chose to breed and sell puppies is wrong. Sorry the breeder should be taking responsibility for dogs they chose to create just as much if not more then the person who agreed to purchase that puppy.

 

Best,

Jen

[jdarling]

I do think that laying the blame on the purchaser and not on the person who chose to breed and sell puppies is wrong. Sorry the breeder should be taking responsibility for dogs they chose to create just as much if not more then the person who agreed to purchase that puppy.

 

And I still think this comes down to whether or not the breeder guaranteed the pup as if sold to you wrapped in bubblewrap with the genes already mapped out so as to not develop any diseases. Was it in the contract?

 

What is "taking responsibility" and how does the definition differ from person to person?

 

I have purchased quite a few pups. Out the door, the only thing I would "expect" (and I use the term loosely) would be for the breeder to take the pup back for any reason ... for free ... so that it doesn't end up in the shelter. Would I ever need a breeder to take a dog back? God, I hope not.

 

There are plenty of good, reputable working breeders that would not refund the price of any pup because it ended up with some awful genetic diseases, developed behavioral issues, or whatever. Would I still consider them good and reputable? Absolutely. If they are the type to refund my money somewhere down the road, or offer me an additional pup at some point, because of problems with the pup they sold me, that would be because they offered it up to me ... not because I asked them to do it, expected them to do it, or laid public pressure on them to do so by posting on a public message board saying they haven't done it. Would I make a judgment about their ethics and morals or whatever because they didn't do it? Nope.

 

And you'd be very surprised to know who you're excluding otherwise.

[jenkshipley]

In your most recent post you state that you're talking about just this one breeder, but the comment above implies that you think all breeders should be responsible for dogs they sell for that dog's entire life (what else can "no matter what the age" mean?).

 

Julie,

My dog does not have one problem. She has many. This breeder knew that the temperament issue could potentially occur and has had then occur multiple times. She advertises, promotes and lists the accomplishments of her dogs as sports propects. She neglected to inform me of the potential issue. I did not find that information out on my own before I had problems with my dog. My bad, but that certainly does not absolve the breeder of any responsibility to inform me of the potential problem before selling me the puppy. The dog also has major health issues that keep her from particpating in herding or agility.

 

I think any breeder, yes, any breeder who bred a dog that has this many problems should refund the person who bought the dog. I absolutely do. I never said every little problem should be refunded. I never said that any hiccup with a dog should be refunded.

 

A lot of genetic issues do not show up until a dog is an adult. So, that absolves the breeder of any responsibility? What if the breeder was informed of the issue in a previous breeding, has experienced the issue multiple times yet continues to breed the lines, has been informed that the issue exists in the past, has a litter where multiple dogs have serious problems etc.? Is the breeder still not responsible when the problem shows up six months, one year, three years later?

 

They should be. If you don't agree, fine by me. We can agree to disagree.

 

 

Jen

[juliepoudrier]

A lot of genetic issues do not show up until a dog is an adult. So, that absolves the breeder of any responsibility? What if the breeder was informed of the issue in a previous breeding, has experienced the issue multiple times yet continues to breed the lines, has been informed that the issue exists in the past, has a litter where multiple dogs have serious problems etc.? Is the breeder still not responsible when the problem shows up six months, one year, three years later?

 

They should be. If you don't agree, fine by me. We can agree to disagree.

Jen

Jen,

The point I've been trying to make and apparently not succeeding is that if the breeder has in good faith made careful choices with the breeding and then an unforseen genetic problem crops up *I* would not consider it the breeder's fault. As in my previous example, if a breeder uses a sire and dam with OFA excellent hips and a pup ends up with only fair hips at two years of age, how can anyone say it's the breeder's fault? Or at least *entirely* the breeder's fault? The breeder didn't go in and manipulate those genes himself. The breeder did the reasonable tests and didn't deliberately breed from anything less than excellent hips. If you really believe it's the breeders fault that a pup from such a litter ends up with something less than excellent hips, then yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

If the breeder is breeding dogs with known problems, then certainly the breeder is at fault and should be held responsible. In your specific case, I think it's fair to say the breeder is at fault. And yet, apparently for all these well-known problems, folks are still buying dogs from this breeder. Why is that?

 

What I have taken exception to all aong is the blanket statement that breeders should be responsible for all possible health issues that might crop up at any age. I don't think anyone can be held to such a strict standard. It's breeding and no one can control how the DNA and RNA operate, nor whether mutations and the "find and repair" correction mechanisms that exist in the reproductive process will always operate successfully. If the breeder has researched the lines looking for potential genetic problems and has conducted the tests that are available and applicable for the breeding pair in question, then I think the breeder has done about as much as can be reasonably expected and I wouldn't hold them responsible for a problem that comes up a few years down the line. To me, holding the breeder responsible is like saying the breeder did something deliberate to create a problem or at the least willfully ignored the potential for problems (e.g., by breeding two CEA carriers which then resulted in a CEA affected pup).

 

As I stated before, careful choice of a breeder, while it may not guarantee *no problems* would certainly reduce the likelihood of problems. In my mind, if a puppy buyer makes an ill-informed purchase from a less-than-reputable breeder with a bad result, there probably is enough blame to go around to both of them.

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

I was just thinking about this thread some more when I was out feeding dogs, the worse thing you could do in a case such as this is not return the dog. By not returning the dog at the time of the first onset you take responsibility for any future problems. When you return the dog either for a refund or a replacement (which ever was in your contract), you put some financial loss in the lap of the breeder, either they need to cough up the purchase price or sacrafice a future sale in order to give you a replacement pup.

 

Also, by returning the pup/dog it gives the breeder a chance to evaluate the problem first hand as opposed to going by the word of someone that is unhappy but not unhappy enough to exercise their option to return. Personally if someone had an issue with one of our pups I would want it returned so that I can verify that it is truely a problem with breeding, not a dietary issue, training issue or environment related, some dogs just don't do well in some situations, heck I've heard rumors that Hartz Flea and Tick control has been blamed for epilepsy, whether it's true or not I don't know, but is there a law that states that all manifestied forms of epilepsy is strictly genetically linked, doesn't every person or animal have the predisposition to have one problem or another if environmental conditions are right? If the purchaser is not willing to return the dog so that I could evaluate it I'm not going to refund or send them another pup, it's just plain and simple, they are not willing to uphold their end of the contract. I could see some breeders continuing a cross that developed a problem even though they have been alerted to a problem, unless they see it for themselves there is little to no credibility in the complaint.

 

In reality the only answer for a breeder if we had to be accountable for all potential problems regardless if we anticipate them or not would be either don't sell or give your dogs to anyone or flat out don't breed. I suppose a hold harmless agreement might work, depending on the laws at the time. Guess after this thread we may see a few more "To Proven Working Homes Only" clauses.

 

BTW, the word "Prospect" came up earlier, too many people put to much weight in that word, a prospect is just that, the dog might be able to do it and it might be competitive, it is not a guaranty. Not too long ago I had someone complaining about going out to look at a rope horse prospect, they said the horse had no training, how can you call that a prospect? I had to explain that prospect is based on what ever the seller wants, might be the breeding decisions/pedigree, might be the body style, heck to some it could be a simple as the color, thinking way back when "Parade Horse Prospects" were either palomino or b/w paints. No guaranty that they are trainable, or that they won't blow up under pressure, they just would look right color wise on the parade route. To me, a prospect is subject to all the stars falling into alignment.

 

Deb

[jenkshipley]

Jen,

The point I've been trying to make and apparently not succeeding is that if the breeder has in good faith made careful choices with the breeding and then an unforseen genetic problem crops up *I* would not consider it the breeder's fault. As in my previous example, if a breeder uses a sire and dam with OFA excellent hips and a pup ends up with only fair hips at two years of age, how can anyone say it's the breeder's fault? Or at least *entirely* the breeder's fault? The breeder didn't go in and manipulate those genes himself. The breeder did the reasonable tests and didn't deliberately breed from anything less than excellent hips. If you really believe it's the breeders fault that a pup from such a litter ends up with something less than excellent hips, then yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

I agree with your point. However, we were never talking about a careful breeder or a breeder that did not deliberately breed dogs who had produced known issues in the past. People were referring to my contract, and stating that the breeder should only have to do what the contract says. I replied to that comment by saying that I think the breeder should be held accountable regardless of contract. I am not nor was I ever willing to return my dog. I was referring to the topic that I started about this dog from this breeder. It was never a blanket statement about all breeders and this is a converstation that was started about ONE particular breeder.

 

If I purchased a puppy from one of my friends who breeds or someone I know who rarely breeds and sells to people they know, etc. I wouldn't demand a refund or air my issues with the breeder publically. I do not breed nor will I ever. Things happen. I have no desire to deal with them. I think there are too many people adding too many dogs to the world as it is. This is not the case here, Julie. This breeder has a pretty website, brags of the accomplishments of a few of the many, many dogs she breeds, has faced issues with past progeny many times and will not take any responsibility or even acknowledge the problem. Do you think she'll warn people of the issues I have had with my dog when she goes to sell puppies out of her mother next year? Hmm, somehow I doubt it.

 

I am confused as to how this topic became a defense of everyone who breeds. If you are a truly responsible breeder no one would be warning others about buying from you.

 

If the breeder is breeding dogs with known problems, then certainly the breeder is at fault and should be held responsible. In your specific case, I think it's fair to say the breeder is at fault. And yet, apparently for all these well-known problems, folks are still buying dogs from this breeder. Why is that?

 

 

I don't know. I certainly am no longer doing so. I do not believe that learning the lesson should not absolve the breeder of responsibility when producing dogs with these kind of problems. In fact, I posted the original email in the hope of preventing other people from learning the lesson the hard way.

 

What I have taken exception to all aong is the blanket statement that breeders should be responsible for all possible health issues that might crop up at any age. I don't think anyone can be held to such a strict standard. It's breeding and no one can control how the DNA and RNA operate, nor whether mutations and the "find and repair" correction mechanisms that exist in the reproductive process will always operate successfully. If the breeder has researched the lines looking for potential genetic problems and has conducted the tests that are available and applicable for the breeding pair in question, then I think the breeder has done about as much as can be reasonably expected and I wouldn't hold them responsible for a problem that comes up a few years down the line. To me, holding the breeder responsible is like saying the breeder did something deliberate to create a problem or at the least willfully ignored the potential for problems (e.g., by breeding two CEA carriers which then resulted in a CEA affected pup).

 

 

We aren't talking about a breeder that has been careful to avoid problems here, are we? So why are we defending or arguing about those who have? What relevance does it have to the issues I have had with this breeder with this dog? Would a responsible breeder have risked creating Fever in the first place knowing what the potential temperament problems were, never mind the health issues that have appeared in not just Fever but in other litter mates?

 

 

 

In my mind, if a puppy buyer makes an ill-informed purchase from a less-than-reputable breeder with a bad result, there probably is enough blame to go around to both of them.

 

 

Yes, making the right choice of the right breeder is definitely important. And again, were aren't talking about one problem or a minor problem or any issue that might arise with a dog. We are talking about multiple problems. We are talking about problems that have arisen multiple times at least as far as temperament in multiple dogs produced by this breeder.

 

I think I have shouldered my share of the blame here. I'm the one with the dog with temperament issues and health issues. It has been quite a hard road at times with her because I care deeply for the dog and hate to see her endure her issues.

 

So, where is the breeders share of responsibility in this? Oh, wait. She told me I could send my two year old dog back to her. Intact at that point no less. Not an option for me, sorry.

 

Jen

[jdarling]

Intact at that point no less.

 

Wow. How very typical. Has your dog been spayed/neutered now? If so, is the breeder still wanting you to send your dog back?

[jenkshipley]

Wow. How very typical. Has your dog been spayed/neutered now? If so, is the breeder still wanting you to send your dog back?

 

 

Oh yes, she was spayed! I held off spaying her because she was very slow to mature and very slow to come into heat and then a bit during the worst of her behavior problems to avoid the experience making her worse. No, the breeder has not asked again that she be sent back.

[Debbie Meier]

Oh, wait. She told me I could send my two year old dog back to her. Intact at that point no less. Not an option for me, sorry.

 

 

Wait a minute, regardless of who the breeder is or what the reputation is of that breeder, if you were a breeder and had someone contact you with a 2 year old dog with claimed behaivoral issues, and they as of yet had not altered the dog, how much creditibility would you put in their complaint?

 

My first question is why is the dog still intact even though she has all these issues and darn right if I'm going to take her back she better be intact when she get's here, I'm sorry, red flags at full staff. I can only think of one reason to have a 2 year old female with "Issues" intact, the complaintant would like to reserve the right to produce offspring and still get their money back. Why would you not have her altered way earlier in life in an effort to short circuit his "issues"? At the age of 2 arn't you way past the "waiting for structural maturity"

 

 

Deb

Edited May 12, 2009 by Debbie Meier

[juliepoudrier]

However, we were never talking about a careful breeder or a breeder that did not deliberately breed dogs who had produced known issues in the past. It was never a blanket statement about all breeders and this is a converstation that was started about ONE particular breeder. <snip> I am confused as to how this topic became a defense of everyone who breeds. If you are a truly responsible breeder no one would be warning others about buying from you. <snip> We aren't talking about a breeder that has been careful to avoid problems here, are we? So why are we defending or arguing about those who have? What relevance does it have to the issues I have had with this breeder with this dog?

I think the confusion comes in because back a ways you said "Anyone who breeds should be willing to refund for health or behavior issues." The word anyone certainly implies that you are talking about more than just the breeder you got your dog from. I am not so stupid as to believe that your main focus isn't Rising Sun and the dog you got from them, but the quote (and it's quoted exactly) certainly implies that you think all breeders should be held to the standard you name. For the sake of all the people who read this forum and don't post, but who might be considering buying puppies at some point in the future, I thought it was important to point out that some standards are just about impossible.

 

I'm done here. As I said several times, I think you've succeeded in doing what you hoped to do, which was get the word out that you are extremely disatisfied with this breeder. I have made my point, as stated above.

 

Debbie,

A lot of folks don't neuter a dog until it has reached physical/structural maturity. So neutering at 2, regardless of any other issues, shouldn't be a red flag to anyone. If I plan to neuter a dog, I would wait until it's two or older to do so.

 

J.

[jdarling]

... if I'm going to take her back she better be intact when she get's here ...

 

Just out of curiosity ... why?

[Lenajo]

Just out of curiosity ... why?

 

I'd like to know that too.

 

The dogs got temperament issues, epilepsy, etc. If anything the breeder should be making sure she's spayed, not asking for her back intact.

 

All of this is assuming she can be spayed. I know I would be hard pressed to consider putting the dog under for spaying if I could control her reproduction otherwise. Which incidentally...doesn't appear to be a problem in Jen's home. eta - Jen posted she was spayed, so moot point.

[Debbie Meier]

Just out of curiosity ... why?

 

IMO, the dog should be returned to the breeder in the state he/she is in at the time of the complaint. If the complaintent felt the dog should be unaltered for what ever reason to send it back to the breeder in an altered state is not right, but rather could be considered malicious. Basically "fine, I'll send her back to you, but if I can't keep her then you won't be able to use her", regardless if the breeder had that intention. When dealing with behaivor issues, from what I understand at the time of the original return correspondance, the issue was behaivor and aggression, it could very well be an environmental problem of no fault of the dog, imo evaluating the dog in the same physical condition would be important in an effort to discern the root of the problem, breeding issue or environmental issue.

 

Like I mentioned, this line of thinking has nothing to do with the breeder referred to in this post, it has to do with contracts, standing behind them, and the transfer of personal property. Altering the dog inbetween the time of the return agreement and the actual return would be no different then you entering into a contract to purchase a stud dog to find that the owner neutered it after you agreed to purchase it. I feel that if a dog is intact at the time of the complaint it would only be reasonable for the breeder to request that the dog remain that way when returned making it a condition of the return, besides I could see a person complaining about the added expense of having the dog altered and then trying to get that money back also.

 

As to the age of structural maturity, I understand that it is not uncommon to allow a dog to mature, but I was under the impression that 2 years of age is on the high end of the spectrum and would be curious as to why the dog was not altered at an earlier age in an effort to deal with the behavioral issues, regardless of the heat cycle comment.

 

I'm not trying to lay any blame or stand up for anyone, just adding my perspective if at this time I was faced with a simular situation. I approach things by trying to isolate out the problem, you can't isolate it out when changes have been made. Let's say the dog is altered and then returned, the breeder works with the dog to discover that there is not a problem, well then how do you determine what made the problem go away, was it the change in environment or was it physical/hormonal changes that brought on the change in the dog? As a breeder what are you left with? Not knowing, so you have to make a choice, shit can your program based on the chance that it was the spaying that changed the dog or breed again to see if keeping your dogs out of the problem enviroment fixes the problem. A simple change of the way you screen your buyers might be all it takes to match the right dog with the right buyer.

 

I don't know maybe most people don't care and would not look at a returned dog as an opportunity, granted you really don't want to get a return but it will happen. To me it's a chance to see where things went wrong, either in placement or breeding selection.

[Debbie Meier]

I'd like to know that too.

 

The dogs got temperament issues, epilepsy, etc. If anything the breeder should be making sure she's spayed, not asking for her back intact.

 

I was under the impression that at the time that the breeder was willing to accept the dog it was pre-epilepsy stage. But I may have misread an earlier post. I still maintain that the dog should be returned in the same physical state it is in at the time the return is negotiated.

[Lenajo]

I was under the impression that at the time that the breeder was willing to accept the dog it was pre-epilepsy stage. But I may have misread an earlier post. I still maintain that the dog should be returned in the same physical state it is in at the time the return is negotiated.

 

You've made yourself very clear that you think buyers should take the dog "as is" and deal with it. So if you sold the dog, I would assume you did not want it - so what do you care if it comes back intact or not? You already ruled the dog out of your breeding program by selling it to a sport home that nueters. This doesn't make sense.

 

Frankly, a breeder who wanted a (serious health or temperament) problem dog back intact is a red flag to me. I've seen a number of dogs like this returned only to become "ok" magically (though never campaigned or trialed in any public sport or work venue to prove it) and be granted the status of brood bitch. Yeah...that really solved the problem.

 

I've been there myself (another breed), and I can tell you without a doubt that no serious problem dog is leaving me with it's parts intact. And imo no breeder of quality would ask for it.

 

If the dog was ok once back in my hands I would be overjoyed of course, and maybe next time I would learn to screen my homes a little more carefully. I don't think this is the case here.....

[jdarling]

Thank you, Lenajo.

[Journey]

I was under the impression that at the time that the breeder was willing to accept the dog it was pre-epilepsy stage. But I may have misread an earlier post. I still maintain that the dog should be returned in the same physical state it is in at the time the return is negotiated.

 

No, I can't agree with this. I had a dog, paid for him, paid for OCD (shoulders) surgery, paid to have him neutered and still he was beyond mentally sound. Now, his "breeder" knew about everything up front. I took him back, got no refund, no reimbursement whatsoever.....said "breeder" then turned around and sold the damn dog again to a farmer. Farmer has a 8 yo son who was then bit in the face, dog was shot on the spot. Breeder knew all this up front - lesson learned on my part unfortunately this breeder kept going.

 

Jen has said numerous times that there are others in the litter with problems and that RS is still breeding from sire and dam. Why on earth would you want to return a dog, intact, to this breeder knowing what they are doing and evidently that they "knew" about the behavioral issues to begin with?

[Debbie Meier]

What ever, sorry you don't see it the way I do, you don't have to. It appears as if you are focusing on an individual breeder where as I am considering how supporting the views of the poster could effect many other breeders. You know there are people that would demand payment for their dog from a breeder, not give it up and turn around and later breed that same dog. It runs both ways.

 

Deb

[jenkshipley]

My first question is why is the dog still intact even though she has all these issues and darn right if I'm going to take her back she better be intact when she get's here, I'm sorry, red flags at full staff. I can only think of one reason to have a 2 year old female with "Issues" intact, the complaintant would like to reserve the right to produce offspring and still get their money back. Why would you not have her altered way earlier in life in an effort to short circuit his "issues"? At the age of 2 arn't you way past the "waiting for structural maturity"

 

 

I don't breed and never will breed Deb. Breeding the dog was never a consideration.

 

Frankly I find your opinions about what should be done with these dogs a bit disturbing. They aren't cars or appliances. They are dogs. They have feelings, emotions, form attachments, etc. People who own dogs should be emotionally attached to the dogs they own or something is wrong with the person in my opinion. You sound like you consider dogs little more then livestock. Ick is all I have to say. I wouldn't let you pay me to take a dog from you. I find you disturbing.

 

I don't spay my dogs until after their first heat on the advice of Chris Zink and other veterinarians who have studied structure and joint maturity. Fever didn't have her first heat until she was almost 16 months old. She then went completely insane and my veterinarian felt we should work on the behavior before putting her through the stress of being in the vet's office for surgery. I also had found out that there were a good amount of hip issues in the lines and wanted to x-ray to check Fever's hips. We wanted to risk anesthesia once, not twice.

[jenkshipley]

I'm done here. As I said several times, I think you've succeeded in doing what you hoped to do, which was get the word out that you are extremely disatisfied with this breeder. I have made my point, as stated above.

 

And you never answered the question that I asked you several times. What would you do if I had purchased Fever from you and she had developed all of the temperament and health issues that she has developed? Would you say, too bad, you bought her, your problem? If so, I would have no interest in buying a dog from you either.

 

YES. I feel that ANY breeder who I had purchased this dog from who has multiple serious issues which she shares in some variety with at least two of the five litter mates, should have refunded me for this dog.

 

Best,

Jen

[Root Beer]

She then went completely insane and my veterinarian felt we should work on the behavior before putting her through the stress of being in the vet's office for surgery. I also had found out that there were a good amount of hip issues in the lines and wanted to x-ray to check Fever's hips. We wanted to risk anesthesia once, not twice.

 

I just want to say that I commend you for sticking by Fever and doing all that you can to help him to be as healthy as possible - especially given the fact that he can't do the sports that you had planned on. I know first hand that seeing the potential there and not being able to move forward because it's in the best interest of the dog can be a tough, tough thing.

 

Chances of you getting anything from the breeder are, I think, slim, but hopefully the fact that you have shared your experience will steer some people away from this breeder.

 

I wish you the best with Fever, and with finding a fantastic Agility dog next time around.

[Debbie Meier]

BTW, last night when Wayne got home I discussed this situation with him, he has the same stand. The views I'm sharing has nothing to do with bonds, attachments, feelings, it has to do with a buyer/seller contract and what we would do if presented with a behaivoral request for return or refund based on the information you suppiled as of the day of your initial complaint. As for me paying you to take a dog, that's a funny one.

 

I actually am quite surprised that you would consider taking on a dog from another breeder that was already returned for behaivoral problems, why you would set yourself up to fail a second time is beyond me. You already failed with one, so your going to try it again, oh yeah, it was all the breeders fault, I forgot.

 

I wish you well with your next dog.

 

Deb