Dragoon 45 Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 I saw an ad tonight about selling Labradoodle pups to "Guardian Homes" at reduced prices for the pups. My first inclination is this is some type of scam to sell more pups from a BYB. I have seen the term used once before in a local newspaper ad for "Borderdoodles". What the heck is a "Guardian Home?" I still think this is some type of scam connected to BYB's, but thought I would ask here for more info in case I am making a misjudgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Journey Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 It's the whacky nut jobs in CA They're no longer *owners* but they are *guardians*.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptJack Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 It's the whacky nut jobs in CA They're no longer *owners* but they are *guardians*.... Could be that, too, but in this context I think it's my original statement: Basically the puppy being raised and living with the family, but the puppy remains property of the breeder for breeding purposes and remains so until the breeder decides they're done breeding. Which basically means your dog isn't your dog, it's just living with you when not being bred/whelping/raising puppies. (Or, apparently, even while it is - just the breeder profits from it) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gideon's girl Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 It's a popular thing now days to claim we don't own our dogs, we're just guardians of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptJack Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 http://www.laurelmountaindoodles.com/id33.html http://www.trailsendlabradoodles.com/what-is-a-dog-guardian-home/ http://shadylanekennel.net/guardian_home_info__available_pupsdogs Notice how these are all doodles? Yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentleLake Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 It looks to me like it's a profit making scam to get other people to raise pups and breed them for others. http://www.oceanstatelabradoodles.com/html/guardian_home_info.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragoon 45 Posted October 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 Thanks everyone. You pretty much confirmed my suspicion that this is a scam pure and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Coyote Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 Boy, that's a new one for me. Never heard of either one of those ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 Backyard breeding or puppy milling by proxy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfisher7151 Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 I've heard of this before, but I don't think it's restricted to byb's. We have a family friend who is a "guardian" of a male labrador. While I hate the AKC, I must say this show bred dog is one of the most fantastic labradors I've ever met, both in temperament and in looks/body condition. The dog is a year old and thus isn't "proven enough" or whatever is required in that show arena to breed yet, but he lives full time with the family and will be gone for a week or two should he ever be bred. There's a pretty high chance of this dog never being bred, the breeder uses this process to wait and see which dogs mature to be the best breeding specimens. I think this practice is most common in the doodle breeders. But in a few cases I could see where it might be beneficial for the dog. I'd rather see a breeder that has "guardians" rather than kenneling up a large quantity of dogs. It can certainly, though, provide a system that allows for lots of puppies and little responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d112358 Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 This sounds like co-ownership with retention of breeding rights, just by another name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waffles Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 This is really common in high end show kennels. Large volume kennels that sell expensive show dogs or just show lines. A friend bought a Doberman at a kennel that does this. Their pups sell for $3,000 (?!?!!!!) and she got her female at a reduced rate because it had a line on her neck from the laser from having her ears cropped. The kennel also sold female pups at cheap prices where you agree to bring her back to be bred and whenever they decide they're done breedin you get full ownership. Another friend who used to be a handler for some high end show kennels said this is a common practice. It helps keep the number of dogs on site down and reduces costs. Most of the dogs though, in these "guardian" homes aren't even show dogs themselves but are from champion lines and still bring in big bucks. It's a strange world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShoresDog Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 ...Their pups sell for $3,000 (?!?!!!!) and she got her female at a reduced rate because it had a line on her neck from the laser from having her ears cropped. The kennel also sold female pups at cheap prices where you agree to bring her back to be bred and whenever they decide they're done breeding you get full ownership.... Ugh, there is so much wrong with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz P Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 I've seen $15,000 for a Dobie pup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentleLake Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 This sounds like co-ownership with retention of breeding rights, just by another name. Except to me it sounds like a higher volume, commercial version of it. Many breeding contracts end with one litter, and they're not advertizing the process like this. This just sounds to me like a way to capitalize on breeding as many dogs as you can without turning into the stereotypical puppy mill with deplorable conditions. Better for the dogs involved, I guess, but still a commercial enterprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RemsMom Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Why would someone spend $15,000 for a puppy? Even if I could afford to spend that much I just can't imagine doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RemsMom Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Back on topic. I can't imagine paying for a dog, feeding it, caring for it, loving it, but allowing someone else to make the decisions. When I get a dog I want it to be mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalahundur Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Agree with last post. Here there is something called a "foðurssamning" meaning "food contract". It is a contract offered by a (usually conformation) breeder offering pups for cheap or even free under the condition he/she can show and breed them a certain number of times. Not really a scam. It is a deal (not one I would ever be interested in). Thing is when you live in a town/city the number of dogs you are allowed to keep is often very restricted (often just two per household). This kind of contract circumvents this problem for a small time breeder who wants to have more than that number of studs/bitches to work with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
border_collie_crazy Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 the general concept is common in Toller breeders so it doesn't strike me as weird lol. the dog lives with a family full time but is just required to remain intact , breeder then takes the dog for health clearances, possibly showing and comes to the breeders place for breeding, the contracts usually have a "maximum" limit for number of times that will happen, then afterwards the dog is spayed/neutered and full ownership is signed over to the family. Toller breeder's contracts already tend to be very restrictive on what you can and cannot do with the dog regardless so it doesn't make a huge difference lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushdoggie Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Thing is when you live in a town/city the number of dogs you are allowed to keep is often very restricted (often just two per household). This kind of contract circumvents this problem for a small time breeder who wants to have more than that number of studs/bitches to work with. And to let the puppies grow up and decide who might be a good breeding choice instead of deciding when they are puppies. Agreed I would not really be interested in that kind of arrangement, but I can see why it might be a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Elle Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Not really the topic of this thread, but I am wondering why anyone objects to the term "guardian" as in, being the dog's "guardian" rather than owner. I have not heard that term before, but I tend to call my animals my companion animals rather than my pets. To me it seems more respectful to the animals. I also tend to avoid saying that I own them for the same reason. Of course I am fully aware that legally I do own them, but I prefer to think of myself as the one responsible for them, in the way one is responsible for human children. Doesn't make any difference to anyone else but me, but I prefer it anyway. Maybe that makes me a nut job; if so, oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentleLake Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 I am wondering why anyone objects to the term "guardian" as in, being the dog's "guardian" rather than owner. I have not heard that term before, but I tend to call my animals my companion animals rather than my pets. To me it seems more respectful to the animals. I also tend to avoid saying that I own them for the same reason. Of course I am fully aware that legally I do own them, but I prefer to think of myself as the one responsible for them, in the way one is responsible for human children. Glen Highland Farm (border collie rescue) always refers to people as the dogs' guardians rather than owners. I agree with you, D'Elle. I find the concept of "owning" animals rather problematic. The way it's used in these breeding contracts, though, doesn't strike me so much as respectful as it does exploitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushdoggie Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 For me its the legal issue. The term guardian actually has a well established legal meaning. If you are the guardian of someone you are required to act in the best interest of your ward. No problem right? Everyone on this board is the type of pet owner who already does whatever possible to act in the best interest of your pet. The problem arises when we consider who, exactly, gets to determine what is best. Is a dog trainer more qualified than you to decide the best way to train your dog? What if you feel a treatment would not be in your pet's best interest because it would cause extreme stress due to his anxiety but a vet thinks that treatment would be most effective in treating the illness. Who gets to decide? Does the tech at my vet who thinks my dogs should take flea meds 12 months a year even if I don't see fleas right or a different vet who thinks flea meds are poison get to decide what my dogs get? No, those choices are mine. If we become legal "guardians" nyone with a self-proclaimed interest or expertise can to use the court system could force a "guardian" or "caretaker" to make the “best” decision.” Someone could take you to court for not deciding to take your pet to a behaviorist because the cost was prohibitive, or take your dog away because they don't think you are feeding them enough. No thanks. No one loves, cares for or enjoys their dogs more than I do, but I own them. And I am fine with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz P Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Legally, it's much better (from my standpoint) to be an owner rather than a guardian. If you are a guardian, the government can step in and start to tell you how to keep your animals. I have known people who went through major grief with rescues because of the term guardian instead of owner. The fine print of their contract basically said they did not own the dog (legally the rescue still owned it), they were just guardians. One adopter was told he could not move from the geographical area the rescue covered and take his dog with him. In another case, the rescue euthanized a woman's dog without telling her. In yet another case, the rescue stepped in and would not allow an adopter to euthanize their dog that was dying of cancer. On a day to day basis, I don't care what people call themselves. At work I tend to call owners I know well "mom" and "dad" when referring to the relationship with their pets (they like it and think it's cute). Other people still get called owners and they prefer it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalahundur Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Not really the topic of this thread, but I am wondering why anyone objects to the term "guardian" as in, being the dog's "guardian" rather than owner. I have not heard that term before, but I tend to call my animals my companion animals rather than my pets. To me it seems more respectful to the animals. I also tend to avoid saying that I own them for the same reason. Of course I am fully aware that legally I do own them, but I prefer to think of myself as the one responsible for them, in the way one is responsible for human children. Doesn't make any difference to anyone else but me, but I prefer it anyway. Maybe that makes me a nut job; if so, oh well. No objection if someone wants to call himself a guardian of his dogs. I do think it is nonsense personally, just like the use of the term "adoption" in relation to animals. In my book you adopt children, not cats or dogs. I own my dogs (and horses, sheep, cat...), and that has nothing to do with a lack of respect/responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.