# Puppy contracts: My pet peeve



## peppersb

I have seen a number of puppy contracts, and I am amazed at how controlling breeders try to be. One contract says the new owner has to follow a specific vaccination schedule. The breeder gets to choose the vaccination schedule, overriding the opinions of the owner and the vet??? What if the owner wants to board the dog in a kennel that requires certain vaccinations? What if local law requires different vaccinations? Another contract voided the health guarantee if the new owner did not follow the BARF diet. Breeders who provide advice and help are great, especially for new owners. But I think that the people who pay for a puppy and take him/her into their homes should be the ones who get to make decisions for their dogs. 

My biggest pet peeve is a clause that is in almost every puppy contract that I have seen. If the new owner is no longer able to care for the dog it MUST be returned to the breeder! What???!!?? I pay $1500 or $2000 for a dog and the breeder retains rights to the dog if I am no longer able to care for it? I am grateful that most breeders seem to be willing to take a dog back, and that could be a service that some poodle owners would use and appreciate. But telling me that I can’t find a new home for my own dog is entirely unreasonable. My dogs are much loved members of my family. If I got too sick to take care of them, my very top priority would be placing them in a good home. And frankly, going back to the breeder would not be my idea of the best option. And I definitely do not think I should need to get the breeder’s permission. It is MY DOG! I have provisions in my will for my dogs, and have told my friends and family what I want done in the event of my death. When I bought my puppy, I insisted on retaining the right to place her in a new home if necessary. The breeder agreed to the change, but I don’t think that this clause should be in the contract in the first place. Breeders should not routinely have the right to control the process of rehoming a dog. Offering to help is one thing. But a breeder stepping in and claiming ownership of a dog that needs to be rehomed is quite another. 

I expect that there will be lots of opinions on this. I’m looking forward to the discussion.


----------



## fjm

I can understand why you feel this way, but my sympathies are with the responsible breeders who want to ensure the pups they breed do not get passed from pillar to post, often ending up in dire situations. I doubt any breeder would object to a transfer to a carefully selected, thoroughly suitable home - but I would expect them to want to be involved in vetting the circumstances. If you buy a puppy from someone who really cares about the dog rather than the money, you accept that they will continue to care. Think of your own position if you rehomed one of your dogs - how would you feel if the dog was then passed on to another owner without your knowledge or permission?


----------



## peppersb

Hi FJM -- Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I actually find it hard to compare the concern a breeder has for 8 or 10 8-week old puppies with the concern a poodle owner has for a dog that his lived with him/her for years. But if I had to rehome a dog, (a) I would spend a lot more time and effort vetting the new home than breeders generally do for their puppies, (b) I would not require a contractual obligation from the new owner and (c) I would keep in touch with the new owner and thus hope/expect to be kept informed about how the dog is doing. 

I should note that it is not just the exceptionally good breeders that include this clause in their contracts. Marginal breeders and even shelters do the same thing and think that it is the "ethical" thing to do. One friend got a young dog from a high kill shelter years ago. At one point, there was some talk about getting rid of the dog (which I actually think might have been in the dog's best interest due to some complex circumstances). She would not consider rehoming the dog because the contract that she had signed with the high kill shelter required that she return the dog to the shelter if she was ever unable to care for it. Sad. 

So my opinion is that owners should be owners. Breeders should be advisors and helpers, but not with ownership rights.


----------



## Keithsomething

I'm going to assume you're talking about only responsible breeders in this situation in which case I think your feelings may be misplaced...

Those clauses are put in place to protect the breeders investment which in most cases outweighs what they're receiving in puppy sales. They don't need a dog of their breeding out there without the proper care, or worse given or sold by someone inexperienced in finding good homes into a mill!

And I'd also like to point out that I know breeders that would drop everything to go and get one of their dogs back from ten years ago if it was in the dogs best interest...they witnessed these puppies born and watched them develop individual personalities so to say they don't care about the pups as much as the one living with the dog...I disagree


----------



## PaddleAddict

Some contracts are extreme. I think your example of voiding a health guarantee if you don't follow the BARF diet is extreme. 

However, insisting that a dog be returned to them rather than turned over to a shelter shows that a breeder cares about the animals she bred. No, she will not have the bond with each individual like the owner will, but she chose to bring those puppies into this world and it's commendable that a breeder would take back any one of her dogs at anytime to protect them from falling into dire circumstances. You sound like a responsible pet owner, but unfortunately, not all people are.

You say a breeder should just produce the puppies and be done with it. I don't agree. That is what I would call an irresponsible breeder. There are lots of people out there who could care less what you do with a puppy they bred. Breed it, leave it in the backyard, bring it to the shelter... they don't care. They don't want to be bothered. I wouldn't want to buy a dog from someone like that. 

The thing about breeders and contracts is.... YOU get to choose who you buy from. If you don't like the contract, don't buy from that breeder. There is another thread going on right now that talks about a breeder whose contract states the dogs have to be spayed or neutered at a very early age. Guess what, I would never buy a puppy under those requirements. 

If you change your perspective slightly and consider the reasons some breeders have contracts like this, maybe you just might view things a little differently.


----------



## minipoodlelover

peppersb said:


> My biggest pet peeve is a clause that is in almost every puppy contract that I have seen. If the new owner is no longer able to care for the dog it MUST be returned to the breeder! What???!!?? I pay $1500 or $2000 for a dog and the breeder retains rights to the dog if I am no longer able to care for it? I am grateful that most breeders seem to be willing to take a dog back, and that could be a service that some poodle owners would use and appreciate. But telling me that I can’t find a new home for my own dog is entirely unreasonable


This is a good discussion to have, and my opinion on returning the dog to the breeder differs from yours.

I recently paid $1,000 for a pup that had many issues, though none medical in nature. After one week with this pup, I knew there were problems and contacted the breeder in an attempt to return the pup. Not only did she not want to take him back, but she told me she needed the money to pay her taxes. You can imagine how I felt - guilty and upset. At her request, I kept the pup an additional 2 weeks in hopes of turning things around, but saw little to no improvement - and I only became more attached to the pup. At that point, I was in tears as I begged the breeder to find the pup another home where he would be an only pet to a single person, and she reluctantly agreed. I did not ask for, nor receive, a refund. I later found out she sold the pup the next day on a "pups for sale" web site, where you click on the pup and purchase, for DOUBLE the amount I had paid. Supposedly the pup is doing well, though I don't know if the new owner is a single person or someone who doesn't need the pup to interact with any other members of the family.

Had I been dealing with the kind of breeder that you are referring to - the ones who care so much about the pups they bring into this world that they want them back for any reason whatsoever - I would have been extremely grateful.


----------



## Countryboy

Maybe some people don't understand the fierce loyalty that a breeder will attach to their dogs. At our breeder, once a C*****e dog . . . always a C*****e dog! They guarantee u that, no matter what happens to u, your dog will be well homed. I'm sure other breeders feel that way too.

Also breeders often have the spread of contacts to foster or rehome a dog. Many more contacts than owners have. And, in some cases, there's a pre-vetted waiting list of potential new owners.

But all contracts are subject to negotiations. Your's was too. If it's an issue, it can be dealt with.


----------



## minipoodlelover

I signed several contracts when obtaining Angie, and I have no problem with any of them. As far as I'm concerned, this breeder trusted me with a TREASURE of a dog, and my gratitude knows no limits!! I owe this breeder a debt that can never be repaid!


----------



## Sookster

I'm going to speak up as someone who has adopted a dog that came from a breeder that DIDN'T have a contract. I think that the _point_ of a re-homing clause in a contract from a breeder is to make absolutely sure that the dog will not end in rescue, NOT to give the breeder the right to take over the dog. I feel that most responsible breeders with such a clause would be perfectly willing to _work_ with you in finding a new home for a dog you purchased from them. 

Now, I think that clauses in relation to feeding are perfectly acceptable, but requiring a BARF diet is a bit extreme. I would think something along the lines of requiring that a high quality pet food or balanced home-prepared diet would be perfectly acceptable. If I were a breeder, I would want to know that the puppy I bred, raised, and sold would be well fed, but I am also extremely cautious of pet foods and kind of anal about it. 

So, because Nova came from a breeder with no contract she could have a) been bred by anyone who ended up with her to create "doodles" or poorly bred poodles, b) ended up in a puppy mill or c) ended up in a rescue which is what happened. If I were a breeder, finding out that a dog that I produced ended up in any of these situations would break my heart, as responsible breeders strive to produce quality dogs and place them in great homes so as to _minimize_ the number of pets in shelters, not contribute to it. 

In regards to rescues, I tried to apply to a poodle rescue in my home state. They had such contracts as "you are required to feed your dog a specific brand of dog food" and "you are not allowed to have children for the lifetime of the dog" and "you are not allowed to move farther than 60 miles from the rescue facility for the lifetime of the dog" etc etc etc with the unrealistic and unnecessary contractual agreements, so I can see where contracts can be unreasonable. The rescue that I ended up adopting Nova from does have a re-homing clause in the contract. It simply states that if I ever find myself unable to care for Nova, they must be notified before I re-home her and as long as the new home is considered acceptable, then it is fine. Otherwise, they will take her back. I don't find this unreasonable because I know that they have a ton of experience in placing dogs in homes and would make a logical choice, whereas I may make an emotional decision that could possibly not be in the best interest of my dog. 

To close this ridiculously long post, I will just say that I think contracts are necessary to protect the _puppy_, but I do agree that some clauses are unreasonable. I just would never buy a puppy from someone whose contract I was uncomfortable with. Problem solved.


----------



## peppersb

Paddleaddict -- I most emphatically did NOT say that "a breeder should just produce the puppies and be done with it." I think it is terrific if breeders follow their pups for lots of reasons. One big reason is so that they will know about it if the pups bloat or get Addisons. Another reason is to provide advice and help to new owners. This advice can be extremely helpful. But I don't think that breeders should retain what amounts to ownership rights over dogs that have been sold to new owners. I don't think that they should have the legal right to take a dog back if I want to place the dog with a friend or relative or in any home that I judge to be a good home for the dog.


----------



## peppersb

Minipoodlelover -- Interesting story about trying to return your poodle, and it sounds like an incredibly difficult situation. But I don't think that the clauses that I have seen would have helped you at all. None of the clauses that I have seen say anything at all about providing a refund. Your situation seems unique since it happened so quickly. I would think that a reputable breeder should give you your money back if you want to return the dog within some very short period of time. But I don't think I've ever seen a contract that offered a refund and I'm not sure what reputable breeders would think about a breeder's obligation to give a refund under those circumstances.


----------



## DonnaM

People taking time to post on a dog forum are likely to be responsible dog caretakers, but we've all heard of, and/or met some of the many people that buy a dog "for the kids" or "for protection" etc., then leave the dog unattended or tied up in the backyard when the novelty runs out or the puppy requires more training than expected. I've often thought how I could never be a breeder as I'd drive myself to distraction wondering about the lives of these puppies. I personally have heard many people matter of factly say, "Well, we just had to get rid of the dog" in same way as we might say, "Well, it was time to throw out the old couch". A contract stipulating that an unwanted pup be returned to the breeder may prompt such a person to ask that the breeder come and pick up the dog instead of simply dropping them off at any old shelter to an unknown fate. I can't imagine that any responsible breeder would disallow you rehoming a dog to another good home. Ten years ago I was treated with Stage III cancer and at the time I had a highly intense Australian Cattle Dog. I knew that if I became too ill to care for my dog, I would be unable to find a suitable home for her. At that time, I took great comfort in the certainty that the breeder would take her back. The contract works both ways and it was one less worry for me.


----------



## peppersb

DonnaM -- So glad that you are with us 10 years after a stage III diagnosis! Thanks for your useful post. I completely agree that it can be comforting to know that the breeder will take the dog back if necessary. It is the obligation to return the dog that I have a problem with. My contract for Cammie, as negotiated, gives me the right to return the dog if I can no longer take care of her, but not the obligation. 

I also agree that making it clear to purchasers that they can and should return the dog rather than take it to a shelter is a good idea. But this can be done without limiting the legitimate rights of a dog owner to select a new home for their dog if/when necessary.


----------



## outwest

I agree with the original poster that the contracts are ridiculous. You pay for the puppy, then it is YOURS! I, personally, hate the contracts. My goodness, when I wanted to buy a standard 11 years after purchasing my last one, I was appalled at the anal control so many breeders take with the breed. Perhaps it is a backlash of the doodle craze that has developed. Perhaps it is a case of wanted to be 'big brother' and feel the need to control everything they touch. I don't know if other breeds are like this, but buying a nice standard poodle was a pain in the butt. First they 'screen' you to make sure you are a good family. It is the same with the rescue places. Their screening process is absurd, some going so far as to come check out your house! 

Insisting that the puppy go back to them is dumb, too. You can not tell me that a person who breeds dogs spends as much time and energy with their dogs as someone who has one or two. Finding a home for a dog where there is only one or two other dogs is far better for the dog than returning it to the breeder in a kennel situation or one where there are numerous dogs. The option to return to the breeder is terrific, but insisting on it is ridiculous.

When I bought my whippet, all I had to do was ensure that I had him neutered and that was only because he was a cryptorchid and not doing so could potentially effect his health. When I bought my last standard, from a nice breeder, there was NO contract at all. 

Why do people think there are so many poor poodles and doodles? Because it is near impossible to purchase a nice standard otherwise. One breeder I contacted would not sell a puppy to anyone who hadn't had a poodle before because she stated, "Most people do not understand the grooming requirements and I don't want any puppy going to a home that does not understand and take the grooming seriously." 

I also hate the limited AKC registrations. This is what happens:
A coworker of mine has a purebred Labrador sold to him without papers. It was sold that way because the puppies mother only had a limited AKC registration, which says right on the top "No puppies from this dog can be registered". So what? The owner said. Most people don't give a hoot about papers. My coworker bred his girl to another purebred labrador without papers, same scenario. He sold those puppies for $1000 each, of course without papers. None of the buyers gave a crap they had no papers, I asked him about it. 

I prefer written suggestions for the new owner, more along the lines of educating them about poodle ownership. A suggested vaccine schedule and spay schedule would be better. 

I cringe when I think about wanting another standard because qualifying to buy one, signing a legal contract and then forking over a ton of money makes me so annoyed.


----------



## liljaker

Not being a breeder, but having dealt with good breeders, there is a comfort level in dealing with someone who cares very much about their dogs -- obviously, breeders who are in it for the $$$ only, producing lots of litters year round, it might be different; but small home breeders who health test, show and monitor their lines, which is the type I am currently dealing with where I got Sunny -- I think it is great that although I adopted a young guy recently (3 years), she is as committed to him as if I had purchased him as a puppy, and yes, I had to agree to return him to her (or get her approval if I have a suggested rehome for him) if I can't keep her. I guess instead of feeling restricted by that provision, I feel it is a comfort provision for me in case something happens and I can't keep him -- he has a loving home guaranteed. She has worked with me daily on assuring the transition for Sunny is a positive one for him, and for me.


----------



## peppersb

Sookster -- I appreciate your reply. I definitely think that most breeders would work with an owner to find a home for the dog, and they are not trying to take possession of your dog (particularly if it has already been neutered/spayed). But legal agreements are intended to define rights when the parties disagree. Reasonable people can disagree and IMO some (a small minority) of breeders can be unreasonable. So when I purchase a dog, I need full ownership (except that I will agree to have the dog neutered within 12 or 18 months). 

Had to laugh at the rescue contract that you quoted. My Sophie (recently died) and Bob were both adults when I got them and I spent a fair amount of time looking for rescues. I definitely found some crazy control freaks out there! 

Here's another unbelievable clause: One breeder wanted you to be contactually obligated to send photos of the dog that you purchase quarterly for the first year and annually thereafter! I'd be more than happy to send photos of my dog to anyone who asks nicely. But a contractual obligation? No thank you. And the web site warns you to read the contract before coming to see the pups, implying that there will be no compromise.


----------



## fjm

outwest said:


> It is the same with the rescue places. Their screening process is absurd, some going so far as to come check out your house!


Most reputable UK rescues do a home check as routine - it is part of the process of ensuring a good match between dog and home. 

Puppy contracts in the UK are considered probably not enforceable at law - it would mean bringing a civil case, and I don't know of any case law. They do serve a very useful purpose of establishing expectations on both sides, though - and there is always the possibility that a court would uphold the agreement. 

On the issue of restricted registrations - this is why I would only buy a KC registered pup, and always travel to see the pup with its mother. The KC control over breeding through its registration process is pretty minimal, but at least it does impose some standards as to the age of the mother, the maximum number of litters and essential health tests. Anyone selling pups that are not registered - or worse, are registered with one of the "alternative" organisations - waves huge red flags as far as I am concerned.


----------



## DonnaM

outwest said:


> I also hate the limited AKC registrations. This is what happens:
> A coworker of mine has a purebred Labrador sold to him without papers. It was sold that way because the puppies mother only had a limited AKC registration, which says right on the top "No puppies from this dog can be registered". So what? The owner said. Most people don't give a hoot about papers. My coworker bred his girl to another purebred labrador without papers, same scenario. He sold those puppies for $1000 each, of course without papers. None of the buyers gave a crap they had no papers, I asked him about it.


I'm not a breeder and therefore I do not have the experience to look at a litter of six week old puppies and determine which of those are of high conformation standards. I'm certain that there were specific reasons why the labrador in the above example was chosen for a non-breeding/limited registration contract. There was a reason(s) why it was felt that she was not an excellent example of her breed and that she had faults great enough that the breeder felt it important that her genetics not be passed on. It's unfortunate that people spend large sums of money for unregistered pups. My first question about this individual is, "What's up with the $1000 price?" You have no show fees, likely no health testing costs and certainly no time spent to ensure the dam and stud are going to further the breed. It's really no different than the much hated $1000 doodle. Any breeder is more than welcome to come check out my home and pets. I know I'll pass the 'good home' test and I'm darn proud of it!


----------



## peppersb

Of course I agree entirely with Outwest.

I've never met a doodle breeder and have no idea what issues affect their business/hobby. But my guess is that there is no shortage of poodle parents for the reasons that Outwest makes so clear. You'd have to assume that they don't care about conformation or pedigrees (other than perhaps health issues). I think that if people want doodles, then doodles will be bred. I understand that poodle breeders really hate that, but I don't think that restrictions in puppy contracts will mean that there are fewer doodles in the world. 

On the other hand, restrictive controlling contracts might push a would-be poodle buyer into the doodle world if buying a poodle is too annoying. 

Just to be clear: I am not a doodle fan myself. Poodles are my favorite breed and goldens are my second favorite, but I would NEVER want a golden doodle.


----------



## catsaqqara

outwest said:


> You can not tell me that a person who breeds dogs spends as much time and energy with their dogs as someone who has one or two.


This is a sweeping generalization. The breeder I got Jaden from treats her dogs as pets, I can clearly tell she cares a lot for them and spends a lot of time and energy caring for them. She shows and health tests etc.

I signed a contract with a lot of the already mentioned stipulations. Breeders who care about the things already mentioned don't want their dogs to end up in these bad situations. They don't really know the people who buy their puppies. Some people lie and say, oh yea Ill get her fixed, and then turn around and breed her and sell unregistered puppies to people who may or may not do the exact same thing. And there you have the reason why there are so many dogs in shelters and in bad homes. Do you think that the person who lied about promising to fix their dog screens all the people who get a puppy from them? what about all the people who have those puppies, will they breed them, give them away, drop them at a shelter, drop them off to be a stray, tie them in the yard, when they become a nuisance or they become bored with them? 

When someone breeds, whether or not they take responsibility, they are responsible for all the fallout of that breeding. The ones with a conscience make their puppy owners sign a strict contract. At least that's how I see it. 

Its really just a few that ruin it for the rest of us. But in this case a lot of people are irresponsible with dog ownership.


----------



## Countryboy

catsaqqara said:


> This is a sweeping generalization.


A 'sweeping generalization'? 

I dunno, cat. It's a generalization. And a fairly safe one, at that. No?


----------



## zyrcona

I agree that most of the clauses in the OP are stupid and unreasonable, but I don't think it is wrong that a breeder insist a dog be spayed/neutered in a contract or specify the dog be returned to them rather than handed over to a shelter. Were I a breeder, I would be heartbroken to think of dogs I had bred, dogs that felt like a little part of my soul, being abandoned in a concrete-floored cage away from the human and home they deserve, and I would hate to think of beautiful dogs I had striven to create to the breed standard being ruined in the production of amorphic mongrels for cash by people without the first idea regarding the welfare of a pregnant bitch.

I don't know about the limited registrations they have in the US, but in my country good breeders will often 'endorse' KC registrations, meaning the offspring of the dog can't be registered, but where dogs are sold to breeding homes, there is a clause in which the original breeder agrees to remove the endorsement when the dog is old enough and provided it passes its health tests. I consider this responsible practice. It doesn't, unfortunately prevent the dog from producing offspring, which is why I agree with the spay/neuter clause if the dog is not to be used for breeding.



fjm said:


> Most reputable UK rescues do a home check as routine - it is part of the process of ensuring a good match between dog and home.


Some of them have somewhat extreme contracts. A mutt I know was adopted from a particular (non RSPCA) shelter. This shelter apparently won't allow families with young children to adopt dogs and a few other rather limiting specifications that seem to me rather counterproductive to the intention of finding homes for unwanted dogs. This mutt, a large, robust animal, was left in a secure garden by his owners while they were at work. He had a shed with old sofa cushions to shelter in and toys to play with, and was very happy here, until a twit of a neighbour started interfering by throwing stews over the fence because she 'thought the dog looked thin and starving' and calling the RSPCA and saying the dog was being neglected. RSPCA sent an inspector round, inspected where the dog was living, and said it was fine and there was nothing wrong with how the dog was being kept. But then the shelter the dog had come from found out about this, and told the dog's owners it was against their terms for him to be left in the garden, and they had to shut him in a stuffy kitchen instead.



fjm said:


> On the issue of restricted registrations - this is why I would only buy a KC registered pup, and always travel to see the pup with its mother. The KC control over breeding through its registration process is pretty minimal, but at least it does impose some standards as to the age of the mother, the maximum number of litters and essential health tests. Anyone selling pups that are not registered - or worse, are registered with one of the "alternative" organisations - waves huge red flags as far as I am concerned.


I worry that the recent mutt craze and people selling 'purebred, no registration' is encouraging theft of animals for breeding purposes. Unless you have got to know the owners of the puppy's parents very well and are convinced the dogs are genuinely theirs, I would stay away from this. TBH I think it would be a good thing if it became law that dogs changing hands for money be KC registered.


----------



## minipoodlelover

peppersb - 
Not to be argumentative  but a contract stating the breeder would take back the pup would have helped me tremendously. I would have given the pup back after one week, knowing my family was not a good fit for this particular pup. I would have had the peace of mind knowing this particular pup would have a chance at a happy life in a home better suited for him than mine. It was never about the money for me. A refund was the least of my concerns, and I never asked for one or received one- even after learning the breeder sold the pup a second time and collected an additional $1000.

I'll also add that breeder didn't require me to sign any contracts, and I received full AKC registration (though I never mailed it in). With Angie, it was a limited registration paper and non-breeding contract. Good. I lack the qualifications to breed a poodle, so I'll happily leave that to those who know what they're doing.


----------



## plumcrazy

Breeders and rescues... some have (IMO) unrealistic expectations. I appreciate knowing that my breeder WILL take Lucy back if I am ever unable to care for her (God forbid!!) But I also know that she WON'T insist on taking her back if she knows I will find a home equally suitable (or more so) than my home. She's there as a safety net, and she knows I have years of experience placing animals into good homes (I managed a humane society for 4 years, plus I do on-the-side rescue and foster now as well). I've never had to place one of my OWN four-legged fur children into another home and I pray it will never happen... but I believe that I would do a good job if I had to...

The humane society I managed had a contract... it had many components, but the one relevant to this thread is that any adopted animal MUST be returned to the shelter if the adopter was no longer able to care for it - OR the shelter staff had the option of approving an alternative home chosen by the adopter. There were plenty of times people brought animals back to us when their circumstances changed and they couldn't keep the pets anymore because it was easier for the people, but not once in my memory did we ever deny a home that an adopter recommended as a new placement for their pet. They knew their pets best - they knew what sort of home would be a good fit. They also knew their friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, etc., best and knew who would be good owners. We were OK with that - we just did NOT want any of the orphans to end up in a bad situation...

There are some rescues, however, that are a little more rabid... Does anyone remember Ellen & Iggy?? :angry:


----------



## peppersb

Minipoodlelover -- Thanks for the clarification which you presented in a way that was not argumentative at all! I misunderstood. Seems extremely strange that someone would not take a poodle back after only a week! And especially so if you are not even asking for a refund.


----------



## minipoodlelover

And being forced to adhere to a BARF diet is over the top, IMHO!

Like I said in my first post, this is a good discussion to have. It's definitely not a black or white issue.


----------



## peppersb

Hi Minipoodlelover,

Actually I didn't find the BARF restriction nearly as unreasonable as being required to return a dog. I would have bought from that breeder because she has good dogs, does the proper health testing and seems to know about breeding. The clause about the BARF diet does not say that you have to do the BARF diet, it just says that if you don't, your health guarantee is void. So I made a mental note that if I bought from her, I'd have no health guarantee. But I would stlll get a well-bred dog with health-tested parents.

Which brings me to another point. Do breeders actually think that poodle buyers abide by these terms? I think that people go home with their new puppy and forget about what they signed. 

I have two friends who bought dogs several years ago from breeders who were really insistent on the BARF diet. It wasn't in either contract, but they both felt pressured, so they both agreed verbally to do the BARF diet, or at least start out doing it. Well in both cases, BARF lasted for about 2 weeks. 

Another friend bought a poodle a couple of years ago from a breeder who was highly recommended and she is very happy with the dog. I asked my friend recently what she would do if she was ever unable to keep her dog. She thought for a moment and then described how she would go about finding a new home for the dog. I knew that her contract included the obligation to return the dog. So I asked if that would be something she would consider. She said that she would NEVER give her dog back to that breeder. The breeder has way too many dogs and my friend did not view her as someone who would be able to make a postive contribution to the situation. Also the breeder has not been in touch with my friend, so she'd never know what happened to the dog (and she did not seem to care). Interestingly, my friend felt no obligation at all to abide by the terms of her contract.

My problem is that I am very uncomfortable with signing contracts that contain provisions that I think are unreasonable.


----------



## peppersb

Plumcrazy,

Thanks for the video about Ellen and Iggy. What a terrible story! 

Also the idea of adopting from a shelter and then having to get the approval of whoever happens to be working there makes me shiver. In practice, I bet hardly anyone actually asks for approval. They just do what they think is best for their dog.


----------



## liljaker

Having worked over 17 years in the legal profession, I would like to add, however, that a contract is just that -- a contract. If someone is uncomfortable abiding by the terms of a contract, then I would suggest that perhaps they not enter into a relationship with the breeder and not sign the contract. It's like signing a lease for an apartment and then complaining about the lease provisions that you don't agree with, perhaps giving a 90 day notice if you wish to renew--maybe you think it's ridiculous, and you should be able to let them know whenever and why do I have to give them 90 days? Well, it's in the lease and you signed it. Maybe not a good example, but I guess if you want a particular dog from a particular breeder, then you should be willing to adhere to whatever requirements the breeder asks -- or, just find another breeder. 

I understand there are different reasons for provisions in contracts, but I guess if they are not anything you want to agree to, then you should just let them know and if they won't change it, then find another dog. Make sense?


----------



## Indiana

Wow, the contract said you weren't allowed to have CHILDREN if you got a dog from them? Now, is it me, or are these things going a bit beyond the sane? I think that must somehow be infringing on a human rights issue. I like contracts, but reasonable ones; anyway if you were a dog, unless you had a specific fear wouldn't you love to live in a home with children? I would.


----------



## Sookster

Indiana said:


> Wow, the contract said you weren't allowed to have CHILDREN if you got a dog from them? Now, is it me, or are these things going a bit beyond the sane? I think that must somehow be infringing on a human rights issue. I like contracts, but reasonable ones; anyway if you were a dog, unless you had a specific fear wouldn't you love to live in a home with children? I would.


The poodle rescue that I tried adopting from said that "there must not be any children under the age of 10, and you must not be planning on having any children for the lifetime of the dog". The contract also gave the rescue the right to just "stop by" your home anytime they please, and if any of the conditions of the contract weren't being met, to seize the dog. So you could have children, but if they just dropped in and found out about it, they legally could take the dog back. I found it absolutely absurd. So I found another rescue.


----------



## liljaker

I am probably in the minority here, but then I guess I would not get a dog from them. I don't know, I guess if I had purchased a dog and didn't know about the requirements, then I'd be upset, or if I had my heart set on a particular dog that I couldn't find anywhere else but at one breeder and they required me to have a fenced in yard (which I don't), I'd be angry since I would know I could probabaly give the dog a better home with love than many people who have a fenced in yard -- but, at that point, I might say to the breeder, "hey, I know you have this provision in the contract, but I am a solid person and believe that my lacking a yard will not affect my ability to be a good pet owner and might you agree to strike that from our contract?" Maybe they will; if they don't, I guess I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, and continue looking. 

I am not saying that I don't agree that some of the provisions seem a little random -- but I would guess there are reasons the breeder wants them in there, and I am sure they would be open to discussing with a potential owner of one of their dogs. Just me, I guess.


----------



## jester's mom

peppersb said:


> Hi FJM -- Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I actually find it hard to compare the concern a breeder has for 8 or 10 8-week old puppies with the concern a poodle owner has for a dog that his lived with him/her for years. But if I had to rehome a dog, (a) I would spend a lot more time and effort vetting the new home than breeders generally do for their puppies, (b) I would not require a contractual obligation from the new owner and (c) I would keep in touch with the new owner and thus hope/expect to be kept informed about how the dog is doing.


I would have to assume that you have never produced a litter of puppies (or any other baby animals), because saying that the concern of a breeder for a whole litter of young pups does NOT compare to the concern of the owner of a dog is absolutely ridiculous! Every puppy is loved and is appreciated for its own personality, we do not look at a litter as "a group". Anyone who cares about the breeding they are doing, LOVES each and every puppy!! Those puppies DO NOT ASK to be born, they are brought into the world because we intentionally bred our female to produce them. THUS we ARE responsible for the LIFE of those puppies throughout their lives 

I am sorry you mistakenly think that breeders shouldn't or couldn't LOVE each individual puppy. The person who breeds and does NOT care for each puppy that is born at their hands, then they are puppy millers! You must not realize the time and love that goes into raising the parent(s), doing the breeding, whelping the pups, taking care of mother and pups, then taking care of the entire litter till they are ready to leave. All our heart goes into these precious babies and I'd be darned if I would sell any of our pups without some protection for that pup! 

While we do not require that the pup is returned to us if it cannot be kept for any reason, we DO reserve first option of refusal, thus giving us the option to get it back if we feel the situation warrants we step in to rehome the dog. A conscientious breeder would never just let their babies go out without making sure that certain issues were covered. While we all make the strongest effort to make sure each pup is placed in good homes, sometimes a breeder can be fooled and a pup may end up in "not the best" place.

My feeling is this... if you DON'T like the contract the breeder is asking you to sign, then don't buy from that breeder. SIMPLE. The breeder does have the right to ask what they feel most comfortable with, these are not toys or potato chips!!!! These are living, breathing, loving animals that feel pain and heartache as well as love, just like you do even if it is differently done than a human. I have looked into getting puppies and opted not to as I did not believe in all the breeder wanted in their contract, BUT, that was and is their right. I just say "thank you but I can't" and proceed on. 

Just imagine how you would probably feel if you got a new home for a dog you loved but, for whatever reason, had to rehome it and found out that the dog was either abused or tossed on the street or just gotten rid of a month later and you had no idea if it was a good home or not! You'd be on here complaining for all to read about how awful the person was.


----------



## spoospirit

*Response part i of ii*



outwest said:


> I agree with the original poster that the contracts are ridiculous. You pay for the puppy, then it is YOURS!
> 
> 
> 
> _Of course it is yours! If we have spent the time to interview you, meet with you, check your references, watch you interact with our puppies and feel comfortable with you that you will care for the precious puppy that we worked so hard to bring into this world, then we should have a solid understanding of each other and the expectations, so there should be no problem. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, personally, hate the contracts. My goodness, when I wanted to buy a standard 11 years after purchasing my last one, I was appalled at the anal control so many breeders take with the breed. Perhaps it is a backlash of the doodle craze that has developed. Perhaps it is a case of wanted to be 'big brother' and feel the need to control everything they touch. I don't know if other breeds are like this, but buying a nice standard poodle was a pain in the butt. First they 'screen' you to make sure you are a good family. It is the same with the rescue places. Their screening process is absurd, some going so far as to come check out your house!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Absolutely! Our contract is what protects our breeding program and our puppies that we put on the ground and are responsible for. Without a screening process, my sister and I would have placed two puppies with people who were planning to try to use them in their doodle programs. It was deceitful and is what protected us from having this happen. We have that right as breeders to make sure our puppies are NOT going to homes where they will not be raised properly, vetted properly, not neutered and used to make puppies that are either designer dogs or poorly bred from poodles that do not meet the PCA requirements for a properly bred poodle in either or both conformation and/or temperament. These things are sacred to us. This is not only our right as breeders but our responsibility! We are not some kind of control freaks who just have to meddle in other people's lives._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insisting that the puppy go back to them is dumb, too. You can not tell me that a person who breeds dogs spends as much time and energy with their dogs as someone who has one or two. Finding a home for a dog where there is only one or two other dogs is far better for the dog than returning it to the breeder in a kennel situation or one where there are numerous dogs. The option to return to the breeder is terrific, but insisting on it is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I don't know where you have been or who you are talking about, but we spend an enormous amount of time with our dogs as well as our puppies. Why would you assume that no breeder cares about their dogs outside of breeding? Have you had some traumatic experiences with breeders that would bring you to this conclusion?
> Our dogs are our family. They are our children now that our real children are gone. They are cared for, loved, taught, played with, receive good medical care, and encouraged as any one of our children were. You have no idea how seriously we take our commitment to our dogs and our breeding program. They get love and attention all day long, go for walks, hikes, runs, swimming, therapy work, visiting at street fairs, local stores, outside concerts, picnics, running through snow on lakes frozen over and through our snow covered fields. They are groomed every one to two weeks by us always. They sleep with us. They train for obedience, CGC, therapy certification, conformation and agility with us as their handlers.
> When the puppies come, they get more attention than most children do. They start from the moment they are born being held and talked to. We are with them every step of the way as the weeks pass making sure that every one hits their mile marks. They are started on public socialization, car trips to accustom them to riding (a lot of vomit cleaning!), walks in fields and on trails, basic obedience, introduced to people and other animals for their socialization and well on their way to being potty trained and beginning crate training. During their time with us, they go through their first fear stage. Each one has to be worked with to help them through that stage with positive training. Are you tired yet, because I am exhausted just talking about all the things we do and the time we spend with our dogs.
> Do we want a pup returned to us if the purchaser cannot keep it, absolutely! We have it in or contract as 'first option of refusal.' It is there to protect the puppy/dog. Would we enforce it? Yes! If we felt it was the best thing for the puppy. Is it written in stone? NO! This is where knowing and having a good relationship between a breeder and a buyer is an absolute. If we know that the puppy owner is rehoming the puppy in a home that we would approve of, it is fine. We, of course want to keep tabs on our pups for the good of the breed should there be any health issues that would present themselves later on. The purpose of the contract is to protect us and our pups and the purpose of the screening and a good relationship between us and our buyers is to ensure that we can work together for the good of the puppy. So, would you be able to place your puppy according to your will? Again, if you have passed our screening and we feel confident that your plans will put the puppy in a good home, absolutely! _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I bought my whippet, all I had to do was ensure that I had him neutered and that was only because he was a cryptorchid and not doing so could potentially effect his health. When I bought my last standard, from a nice breeder, there was NO contract at all.
> 
> Why do people think there are so many poor poodles and doodles? Because it is near impossible to purchase a nice standard otherwise. One breeder I contacted would not sell a puppy to anyone who hadn't had a poodle before because she stated, "Most people do not understand the grooming requirements and I don't want any puppy going to a home that does not understand and take the grooming seriously."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I think that your experiences have been unfortunate and that is sad. It appears to have left you bitter.
> It is not, in any way, near impossible to purchase a nice standard, thus forcing people to seek out doodles or byb's. People need to do their homework and find the right breeder for them. This can take a lot of time and effort on the buyers part but will serve them well in the end.
> We don't refuse a poodle to a new poodle owner because they haven't had to deal with the grooming requirements yet. We sold a beautiful, well put together, very good tempered, cream puppy to a family who only owned a yellow lab. Everything about them checked out, they were very loving and very responsible people with a young son who was already showing signs of taking responsibility for his puppy before they even left our home. We sold a lovely blue female to another family who checked out well and are doing a great job of caring for her; they never owned a poodle. We sold the gorgeous white male who is the identical match to the white female I am keeping for show and future breeding to a man who is very outdoorsy and has never owned a spoo before. He spent an entire day with us and our puppies discussing everything he could possibly think of. He loves his boy to death and he emails often to ask for advice and share pics. All of these people bought good quality poodle pups from us having never owned one before.
> But, should a puppy owner of ours ever end up not giving proper grooming
> to keep the puppy comfortable and healthy, we would have to address it. There are many ways to do that depending on the people/person and situation. There is no one answer to any of these things!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also hate the limited AKC registrations. This is what happens:
> A coworker of mine has a purebred Labrador sold to him without papers. It was sold that way because the puppies mother only had a limited AKC registration, which says right on the top "No puppies from this dog can be registered". So what? The owner said. Most people don't give a hoot about papers. My coworker bred his girl to another purebred labrador without papers, same scenario. He sold those puppies for $1000 each, of course without papers. None of the buyers gave a crap they had no papers, I asked him about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _So, it seems here that you would condone people ignoring a signed contract to breed a dog on limited registration because no one cares. WE CARE! That puppy you purchased on limited registration is on that for a reason. Most, but not all, are pet quality and should not be put back into the gene pool!! If you should be lucky enough to get a top puppy as a pet on a limited registration, going out to free breed it willy-nilly is beyond irrisponsible. If you did that to us, I can assure you that we would be coming after that dog and you. Free breeding as you please with no sense of ethics, morals, or concern for what you are doing is deplorable.
> So my question to you is, if your friend jumps off a bridge, will you jump off the bridge too? _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer written suggestions for the new owner, more along the lines of educating them about poodle ownership. A suggested vaccine schedule and spay schedule would be better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _If we have the proper understanding and relationship, our contract is our written suggestions to you, if you get my meaning. Our contract and any good breeder's contract is the best thing we can do for the puppies we produce. If you do not accept this, understand this, then a good breeder is not going to sell you a puppy._
Click to expand...


----------



## spoospirit

*Response part ii of ii*



> I cringe when I think about wanting another standard because qualifying to buy one, signing a legal contract and then forking over a ton of money makes me so annoyed.


[/QUOTE]

_Since you find this whole process so annoying, why are you considering trying to purchase a standard poodle at all? You will not qualify with a good breeder with the attitude that you have expressed here. We would not sell you one of our precious babies. So you won't have to worry about 'forking' over a 'ton' of money for one from our dogs. Your view is very narrow minded and negative. We would never place a pup in a home where the buyer had this view.
We sold six puppies for $1,200 apiece with a very nice puppy packet included and a solid foundation for the new owners to build on (that would include the new poodle owners) to exceptional homes and we are very proud of that. It's like sending your children off to college and wishing them the best life they can possibly have. But, a good parent is always there to help out when it is needed.
Just for your information, the money made from those sales did not even put a dent into the thousands of dollars invested in our program to date. It wasn't even enough to cary us through to another breeding next year. That will come out of pocket because we do it for the love of the breed and our dogs_


----------



## jester's mom

minipoodlelover said:


> And being forced to adhere to a BARF diet is over the top, IMHO!
> 
> Like I said in my first post, this is a good discussion to have. It's definitely not a black or white issue.


While I do agree that trying to force an owner to adhere to any feeding program is a bit much, again, the breeder must have their own reason(s) and it is their right if that is how they want their pups to live. Again, it is the breeder who brought the pups into this world and if they feel that anything less than what they consider a wonderful diet is not good enough for their pups, then that is their choice. I understand how/why they may feel this way as I know how we feel about the pups we bring into this world and know we want them to live long happy lives. 

While we do not require a specific diet, we do require feeding a quality food. Let's say that a person who buys a pup from us feeds Big Red dog food and then comes back to us saying that they are not happy because their dog is having allergies and what will we do about it. Well, we would ask what they feed, if they are feeding dirt cheap food, then we will not be happy and thus tell them they need to change their food. 

Same as shots, we do ask for minimal shots for our pups. If minimal shots are not followed, then our health guarantee will be null and void. It is proven that over inoculations in all dogs (but especially in certain breeds of which poodles are one) can cause various health problems. So, for us to give a health guarantee, the owner should be required to follow what we feel is in the best interest of the puppy to avoid health problems.

While most breeders ask/require certain things in their contracts, if you talk to them about some of the items and have a good reason not to follow said item, and the breeder feels they trust your reasons, then they may well decide that will work with you on it. 

It really boils down to, what the breeder feels is in the best interest of their puppies and what the buyer is willing to agree to. If they don't mesh, then you move on. I would be more concerned about the breeder that did not care. Unless you have produced litter(s) of puppies, you cannot understand the feeling of putting your precious, loved puppies into their new homes.


----------



## spoospirit

Indiana said:


> Wow, the contract said you weren't allowed to have CHILDREN if you got a dog from them? Now, is it me, or are these things going a bit beyond the sane? I think that must somehow be infringing on a human rights issue. I like contracts, but reasonable ones; anyway if you were a dog, unless you had a specific fear wouldn't you love to live in a home with children? I would.


_Indiana, again this seems a bit over the top. There may be a valid reason for the clause. One possibility would be that their poodles are not good with children and they could incur a liability if one were to be injured by their puppy. I have heard about poodles who are not good with children. If this were the case, I would not buy a puppy from them anyway. But, until someone actually speaks with this person, the reason for the clause cannot be known.

I don't know who this is or the reason why they have this clause, so I don't want to put any negativity on them. This is where potential buyers need to do their homework and make their own assessments, check their comfort level and make a decision that is good for them. It is a two way road._


----------



## minipoodlelover

Jester's Mom, read my earlier posts on this thread. I wholeheartedly support breeders and am grateful for the fantastic puppies they produce, that we animal lovers have the privilege of cherishing for hopefully many, many years. I signed the non-breeding, limited registration, etc. contracts willingly. Even if I hadn't, I would never breed my girl for all the reasons repeatedly stated on these threads!

However, there are such things as moderation and common sense. I think forcing a specific diet, especially one that might be hard for some people to adhere to, is going too far ...though quite frankly, I also can't understand feeding most of the junk products that currently pass for dog food.

I don't disagree with any points you make in your post.


----------



## outwest

_Since you find this whole process so annoying, why are you considering trying to purchase a standard poodle at all? You will not qualify with a good breeder with the attitude that you have expressed here. We would not sell you one of our precious babies. So you won't have to worry about 'forking' over a 'ton' of money for one from our dogs. Your view is very narrow minded and negative. We would never place a pup in a home where the buyer had this view.
We sold six puppies for $1,200 apiece with a very nice puppy packet included and a solid foundation for the new owners to build on (that would include the new poodle owners) to exceptional homes and we are very proud of that. It's like sending your children off to college and wishing them the best life they can possibly have. But, a good parent is always there to help out when it is needed.
Just for your information, the money made from those sales did not even put a dent into the thousands of dollars invested in our program to date. It wasn't even enough to cary us through to another breeding next year. That will come out of pocket because we do it for the love of the breed and our dogs_[/QUOTE]

I have a lovely puppy. I think your puppies are terrific. I signed a contract. Every breeder I researched had a contract. I am a good poodle owner and I love the breed. My dogs are my best friends. Contracts are the way it is now. I just was so surprised that there were these contracts. The limited registration is new, too. 

I never said I would not abide by and sign a contract because I did. I am abiding by a contract. I do think that the doodle craze, which I am against as I am sure you are aware, is at the root of these contracts. I think it is terrific that breeders want to place their babies in the best homes they can. I would expect to be questioned and I would expect to ask questions, too. I also think it is right that the breeder offer to take a puppy back if things don't work out. I have trouble with this legal contract thing. 

I think contracts have gone way overboard. When I had boxers I would request that new owners spay or neuter them if they had a conformation fault. In all cases they gave me verbal assurances that they planned to do that. I didn't check up on them. Anyone going the extra mile to search for a nice puppy is going to have researched and looked for a puppy. Contracts, to me, are overkill. It is hard enough to find a nice poodle let alone meet all the criteria required by some contracts. 

Finding a nice standard poodle puppy is not easy. There aren't that many of them and most people have to travel far to find one. 

I do think the doodle craze is at the root of this. I also think there are a lot of great owners out there that are shoved into doodles because buying a standard requires a lot of persistance and effort, not to mention meeting someone elses idea of a good dog owner. It is a little insulting to the prospective owners to not respect them as a dog owner. 

I think education on the breed, suggestions for spay/neuter and food are all things the breeder can and should do. I don't think a contract is necessary. 

The limited registrations is pushing people into designer dog breeding and breeding unregistered dogs. That is my feeling after talking to my coworker. He still thinks I am crazy when I got on his case about what he was doing. I told him he shouldn't be breeding unregistered dogs and he called me snobby for thinking only registered dogs should be bred.

I am a terrific poodle owner as are so many people, many of whom think the contracts are offputting.I am sorry you would find me a poor poodle owner. I would sign your contract and abide by it. Most breeders of nice poodles like yours have contracts. My attitude is not towards the puppies or the poodles or the breeders, just the written contracts.


----------



## jester's mom

minipoodlelover said:


> Jester's Mom, read my earlier posts on this thread. I wholeheartedly support breeders and am grateful for the fantastic puppies they produce, that we animal lovers have the privilege of cherishing for hopefully many, many years. I signed the non-breeding, limited registration, etc. contracts willingly. Even if I hadn't, I would never breed my girl for all the reasons repeatedly stated on these threads!
> 
> However, there are such things as moderation and common sense. I think forcing a specific diet, especially one that might be hard for some people to adhere to, is going too far ...though quite frankly, I also can't understand feeding most of the junk products that currently pass for dog food.
> 
> I don't disagree with any points you make in your post.


Yes, I did see that and was not referring to you on breeder support. Sorry if I wrote that wrong and made you think that. I was just replying to the part about feeding RAW or BARF as another example. As I stated, I agree with you that it seems extreme, I agree that I would not agree to it, but I still feel that the breeder has the right to choose what makes her/him feel comfortable with placing their puppies. As long as what the breeder is asking is meant to be for the better of the pups, then it is his/her choice. I don't have to agree with it to understand where they are coming from in doing so. 

Yes, it is more difficult for some people to do the BARF or RAW diets unless they buy the pre prepared ones, and even then, it can be hard, as the person must realize that you cannot feed just one type of raw item and think all is good. They have to have a balance in their food to get the right nutrients they need. So, for us, if a person wants to use either of these raw methods, all the well for the puppy, but if they want to use a good kibble, that is totally fine. Just NO cheap crap food that would also lack in proper nutrients.


----------



## jester's mom

outwest said:


> I do think the doodle craze is at the root of this. I also think there are a lot of great owners out there that are shoved into doodles because buying a standard requires a lot of persistance and effort, not to mention meeting someone elses idea of a good dog owner. It is a little insulting to the prospective owners to not respect them as a dog owner.
> 
> I think education on the breed, suggestions for spay/neuter and food are all things the breeder can and should do. I don't think a contract is necessary.
> 
> The limited registrations is pushing people into designer dog breeding and breeding unregistered dogs. That is my feeling after talking to my coworker. He still thinks I am crazy when I got on his case about what he was doing. I told him he shouldn't be breeding unregistered dogs and he called me snobby for thinking only registered dogs should be bred.


Limited registration is NOT a reason for anyone to go into breeding designer dogs nor into getting a designer dog AND absolutely NOT why they go into breeding unregistered dogs! A person does this because they WANT to, because they don't care!! You want me to believe that because a person can only purchase an unregistered dog, they are FORCED into breeding them? THE REASON THE DOG IS NOT REGISTERED IS BECAUSE THE BREEDER DOES NOT WANT IT BRED! This could be for various reasons... the dog is not the quality TO breed, the breeder does not want their line used in back yard breeding, if a breeder sells a dog for breeding purposes, you can be assured they will want to make sure the person they are selling it to is responsible enough to do so. SO, the person who has this unregistered or limited registered dog and is using it to breed back yard puppies with is STEALING! 

The designer dogs have NO registration, no proof of anything, so to say that it is used due to no registration is crock. People breed designer dogs for THREE reasons... the first and most is MONEY... there is LOTS of money in them as it is the craze now and it is considered cool to have one. The second reason is because they just want to breed something different, something not the same as the other breeds. And the third, and this can only be applied to hunting people, they are combining for attributes of two hunting type dogs to get something they feel will work better in the field... but this reason is the least used type. 

And, as to why people buy doodles. Because it is 'cool' or because of 'hybrid vigor'. I have talked to various people who have them and many got them because they were fed the bull that because they were NOT pure bred, they had "hybrid vigor". That they would live longer lives and have less chance of a hereditary disease. This is a bunch of crock! All they get is a dog that can have the diseases from each breed passed down to it as well as other problems never seen in either breed that can crop up from genes normally not combined, making another genetic disease for said dog. Also, there is NO guarantee on looks, on hair type, on size, on temperament. When we breed pure bred dogs together, we pass the "information" from that breed on to its offspring. Thus, all poodles play together the same way, they have poodle talk. If you have ever watched different breeds interacting with their own breed, you will note that their play rituals are all the same in that breed, but can be vary different from another breed. This goes for any other breed specific attributes. That is why a person will get, and then continually get, a certain breed, sometimes only that breed throughout their lives. The attributes, personality types and such of that breed "work" for that person. 

Now, you mix two different pure breeds together... well, the pups are neither a poodle nor a lab. They will not have consistent hair type. Some get poodly type hair, some get lab type, some a mixture. BUT, most shed. AND, they pay more for their designer breed than one of either of the pure breeds. Temperament is also a hit and miss, no consistency. Some people will end up with a very poodly type, low shedding one with similar personality to a poodle and the love them immensely, some very lab type, but others end up with an extremely bad shedding dog that can be hyper, stubborn and smart all in one, now that is a trip for a personality and not easy to work with. We spoke to a lady who runs a shelter and she said they are seeing lots and lots of doodles coming into shelters now. Why? Because they are not consistent in looks or temperament and as they get bigger and are not what the person expected, off to the shelter (if they are lucky) or dumped on the roadside.

BTW, does this fried of yours who breeds his dog that was sold from a dog with LIMITED REGISTRATION have any contract with his puppy buyers at all, even if it is minimal, does he know where his pups are now, is he sure they are all safe and still in loving families? AND, did he bother to make sure the parents to his dog had any health screening at all, did he bother to find a male that would help improve on the temperament and quality of his bitch, did he get his bitch tested for any health screening and did the male he use have any? If the answers are NO, then he is nothing more than a person who does not care about the health of the puppies he is producing, does not care about the structure (which also denotes if the puppies will grow up having structural health problems) does not care where the pups go. If the answer to those questions are NO, then they are nothing but BYB's! Why should he care? Why should the person who got the original dog on LIMITED registration care?? The first person did not give a crap about what the breeder required of the purchase, so why should they give a crap about the homes they go to or the future health of the puppies!


----------



## outwest

For the record, I agree with much of what Jester says about the doodles. Doodle breeders do not care if their poodles are registered or not. There will be people supplying substandard poodles to them. This was about contracts. A piece of paper does not make a person a responsible, loving dog owner. 

Limited registration is hurting the AKC because many people don't bother registering their dogs anyway or ignore the limited registrations. Limited registrations imply an inferior specimen to me. Why bother even registering an 'inferior specimen'. Why pay as much for this puppy as someone does with full registration? It makes no sense to me. If we don't have the AKC to keep things on track we will be a land of mixed breeds in no time. 

The original poster made a great point that the new owner should make the decisions about diet, vaccinations, spay/neuter and whether to find a new home if they are unable to care for their dog at some point in the future. Those should be the rights of the new owner. My breeder was terrific and gave my puppy a wonderful start in life. I appreciate that and keep the breeder updated because it is fun to share the wonderful dog the breeder produced. I didn't need a contract to ensure my pup was vaccinated, well fed and loved. Those are my decisions. 

I believe I have a right to have this opinion and not be bashed, even going as far as being told I will never get a puppy from someone because of a 'poor attitude' because of my thoughts on contracts, insinuating that I am a terrible poodle owner at the same time! Just because I disagree with contracts? Sheesh.


----------



## JE-UK

outwest said:


> I also hate the limited AKC registrations. This is what happens:
> A coworker of mine has a purebred Labrador sold to him without papers. It was sold that way because the puppies mother only had a limited AKC registration, which says right on the top "No puppies from this dog can be registered". So what? The owner said. Most people don't give a hoot about papers. My coworker bred his girl to another purebred labrador without papers, same scenario. He sold those puppies for $1000 each, of course without papers. None of the buyers gave a crap they had no papers, I asked him about it.


I think that is *precisely *the scenario good breeders are trying to avoid for their puppies. Someone who doesn't care about papers, doesn't care about improving the breed, doesn't care about abiding by a contractual agreement, is not going to care very much about the homes the puppies go to. Hence more dogs in bad homes, hence more dogs in shelters, hence more dogs dead.

If I bred (which I don't and never will), I would be gutted at letting any pup I'd bred out of my hands, and would definitely be one of those trying to tie puppy buyers up in enforceable contracts.


----------



## zyrcona

jester's mom said:


> And, as to why people buy doodles. Because it is 'cool' or because of 'hybrid vigor'.


Ignorance and 'inverse snobbery' I think. People like to go about saying they have a healthy 'designer' dog and not an 'inbred'. In reality, they paid £1,000 or more for an unpredictable mongrel whose parents were not health tested.

Somebody recently said a very silly thing to me. He is a friend of a friend I sometimes meet, and he said hi to my dog, and then she smelled his hand and bounced excitedly around the room. He then remarked that I should have had a litter from her rather than having her spayed, because it would make her 'calm down', even if it was 'just with a lab'. This is ignoring the fact that I generally travel 400 miles a week with my dog. I replied that this was irresponsible and that there are plenty of mongrels in shelters if people want them. He said, 'Ya, but people pay good money for them (mongrel puppies).' Ignorant on so many levels. My dog bounces around because she's a young dog of an energetic breed. She doesn't need to be used to make products that people pay good money for in order to make her stop bouncing around, and puppies are not byproducts of an exhausting hormonal treatment done because someone doesn't like that a bitch is energetic.


----------



## spoospirit

*Part i*



outwest said:


> For the record, I agree with much of what Jester says about the doodles. Doodle breeders do not care if their poodles are registered or not. There will be people supplying substandard poodles to them. This was about contracts. A piece of paper does not make a person a responsible, loving dog owner.
> 
> Limited registration is hurting the AKC because many people don't bother registering their dogs anyway or ignore the limited registrations. Limited registrations imply an inferior specimen to me. Why bother even registering an 'inferior specimen'. Why pay as much for this puppy as someone does with full registration? It makes no sense to me. If we don't have the AKC to keep things on track we will be a land of mixed breeds in no time.
> 
> The original poster made a great point that the new owner should make the decisions about diet, vaccinations, spay/neuter and whether to find a new home if they are unable to care for their dog at some point in the future. Those should be the rights of the new owner. My breeder was terrific and gave my puppy a wonderful start in life. I appreciate that and keep the breeder updated because it is fun to share the wonderful dog the breeder produced. I didn't need a contract to ensure my pup was vaccinated, well fed and loved. Those are my decisions.
> 
> I believe I have a right to have this opinion and not be bashed, even going as far as being told I will never get a puppy from someone because of a 'poor attitude' because of my thoughts on contracts, insinuating that I am a terrible poodle owner at the same time! Just because I disagree with contracts? Sheesh.



_From your point of view with your relationship with your breeder and your willingness to do the things of your own accord that are usually laid out in a contract, I understand why you would feel this way.

The HUGE problem I see is that many people are not coming from where you are coming from. You volunteered to the things that are found in many contracts today. Some people are ignorant to the dog world and spoos in particular, some are outright deceitful as we found through our screening process and their intentions are not good and so on. There are all sorts of people out there coming from many different angles than you are coming from. To protect and ensure that our puppies are placed in the best homes possible, we believe that a screening process and a contract are invaluable. Without the contract, what is there to keep some people honest and also give the breeder something concrete to act on if it becomes necessary? Can you see this as a stop gap to the very problems you mentioned if it is enforced by the breeders? 

A pice of paper certainly does not make a person a good, loving dog owner, but it does go a long way toward keeping us honest. Please remember that we, the breeder, have made promises to the buyer in that same contract that we also must abide by. You get a health guarantee, your puppy becomes ill and is disabled or passes on, we are obligated to provide you with another puppy or your money back. You would be asked to report any reportable health issues to the PHR. We would have to step back and take a closer look at our program and make adjustments to prevent it form happening again. Again, it is a two way street.

You did not state that you did all of these things in your other post despite the fact that you hate it. I had no idea that you had complied with a contract and are keeping your breeder up to date on their puppy. I commend you for doing that despite your personal feelings.

You are most certainly entitled to your opinion and your reasons. 

I did not respond to your post to bash you as a terrible poodle owner. I have no idea what type of poodle/dog owner you are. I responded to clarify where some of us breeders are coming from and why in response to what you think we are all about; which was not flattering in the least, but is your opinion. I felt very strongly that it needed to be addressed. Reading your very outspoken opinion of contracts made me very uncomfortable with you, so I stated my reasons why, but it in no way did I intend to insinuating that you are a terrible poodle owner. 

Limited versus full registration has completely different intonations to us than it has for you. A top pick, show quality dog being sold on a full registration to a show home and for breeding purposes is not going to go for what you pay for your pet quality poodle. That puppy is going to be near perfect to the standard and worthy of passing on its genes to the next generation. That is a whole other thread's worth of information. We don't see our pet quality puppies as inferior like a bad product that ends up in the seconds bin. Even the pups that scored lower than our picks still scored well. They are just as precious as the best of the litter and as entitled to a guarantee of as good a life as we can give them. 

Breeders who are ignoring the fact that the pups they sold on limited registration are not being altered and ending up in bad breeding programs are not good breeders and are hurting the breed. When you become a breeder, you take on the full responsibility that goes with it. That includes doing your best to make sure that limited registrations are complied with. We have a provision in our contract to cover that. The owners MUST provide us with a spay/neuter certificate between the age of 9 to 10 months. Upon receiving that certification, we send them a gift. If we do not receive the certificate, we will find out why and deal with it.

The fact is, doodling has only a portion to do with the fact the we have a screening process and a contract; it is not and never was the sole reason for a contract. Nor do I believe that it is the engine that runs the contract machine. I know that a lot of good breeders have been burned by buyers along the way who were not as ethical as you are. This is what I believe runs the contract machine. We do these things because we believe it is the right thing to do for the welfare of our puppies. This is the opinion of just one breeder. Other breeders may have other opinions that are different than ours. Perhaps some will weigh in.

Again, as my sister, Jester's mom said, we have a contract but deal with each person on an individual basis. In discussions with a person, if we find that we are comfortable with what they want to do, or that they have good reason for wanting to amend something in the contract, we will bend and it will be noted.



_


----------



## spoospirit

*Part ii*

_I agree with some of the posters here who have pointed out some contract clauses that I also feel are over the top for me. Each breeder has to decide for themselves what will be in their contract and why and be prepared to explain that to their buyers. The best you can do as a potential buyer is screen your breeders that you are interested in and then choose the one that most closely matches what you are comfortable with. Contracts run the gamut from the very basic to several pages of legalize.

I believe with my full heart that to take contracts out of breeding programs altogether would be a huge step backward for breeders and their dogs.

You see things from a completely different point of view than we do and you have clearly stated your reasons why. We disagree on some key points, and we have clearly stated why. I think it best that we agree to disagree on this one._


----------



## jester's mom

outwest said:


> For the record, I agree with much of what Jester says about the doodles. Doodle breeders do not care if their poodles are registered or not. There will be people supplying substandard poodles to them. This was about contracts. A piece of paper does not make a person a responsible, loving dog owner.
> 
> Limited registration is hurting the AKC because many people don't bother registering their dogs anyway or ignore the limited registrations. Limited registrations imply an inferior specimen to me. Why bother even registering an 'inferior specimen'. Why pay as much for this puppy as someone does with full registration? It makes no sense to me. If we don't have the AKC to keep things on track we will be a land of mixed breeds in no time.
> 
> The original poster made a great point that the new owner should make the decisions about diet, vaccinations, spay/neuter and whether to find a new home if they are unable to care for their dog at some point in the future. Those should be the rights of the new owner. My breeder was terrific and gave my puppy a wonderful start in life. I appreciate that and keep the breeder updated because it is fun to share the wonderful dog the breeder produced. I didn't need a contract to ensure my pup was vaccinated, well fed and loved. Those are my decisions.
> 
> I believe I have a right to have this opinion and not be bashed, even going as far as being told I will never get a puppy from someone because of a 'poor attitude' because of my thoughts on contracts, insinuating that I am a terrible poodle owner at the same time! Just because I disagree with contracts? Sheesh.


No a piece of paper does NOT make a good owner, that is the responsibility of the breeder to screen their potential buyers. But, have you ever heard the idiom "Good fences make Good neighbors?" This a commonly spoken idiom and says it all. If you have no idea what it means, it is stating that no matter how good friends you are with your neighbor, a fence is best as it keeps both sides knowing where the lines are and keeps either side from "accidentally" crossing that line. As I said, all care is taken by good breeders to place their pups in good home, the contract just spells out what type of home the breeder is wanting for their pups and is the good fence between the breeder and the owner.

No one is bashing anyone. This is an argument from both sides of the situation. If you want to use the word 'bash', then those on your side are bashing the fact of contracts, calling them ridiculous, etc. We are showing our side and why we do not agree with this view and feel some of what you state is ridiculous. 

Your outright attitude about breeders who want to make sure their puppies are not used by byb breeders, doodles, or just plain poor care; by what you have said, it is right, you would not be accepted to purchase one of our pups... simple as that. Not saying you are a bad person or a bad owner, but we would not take the chance with you as an owner of one of our puppies, that's all.


----------



## Chagall's mom

*Quoted from jester's mom:*
_"When we breed pure bred dogs together, we pass the "information" from that breed on to its offspring. Thus, all poodles play together the same way, they have poodle talk. If you have ever watched different breeds interacting with their own breed, you will note that their play rituals are all the same in that breed, but can be vary different from another breed. This goes for any other breed specific attributes. That is why a person will get, and then continually get, a certain breed, sometimes only that breed throughout their lives. The attributes, personality types and such of that breed "work" for that person." _

*jester's mom*:_ Thank you! _You just answered my question as to why Chagall plays so_ extremely _well with other poodles, and well but _differently_ with other breeds or mixes. I always say he has a "fondness for fellow poodles," but (_duh!_) hadn't thought out why that would be!! Mystery solved, thanks to you, and now I can 'splain to others what you've so well demystified for me!!:highfive2:


----------



## Rayah-QualitySPs

peppersb said:


> I have seen a number of puppy contracts, and I am amazed at how controlling breeders try to be.
> 
> One contract says the new owner has to follow a specific vaccination schedule. The breeder gets to choose the vaccination schedule, overriding the opinions of the owner and the vet???
> 
> Another contract voided the health guarantee if the new owner did not follow the BARF diet.
> 
> My biggest pet peeve is a clause that is in almost every puppy contract that I have seen. If the new owner is no longer able to care for the dog it MUST be returned to the breeder! What???!!?? I pay $1500 or $2000 for a dog and the breeder retains rights to the dog if I am no longer able to care for it?
> 
> Breeders should not routinely have the right to control the process of rehoming a dog. Offering to help is one thing. But a breeder stepping in and claiming ownership of a dog that needs to be rehomed is quite another.
> 
> I expect that there will be lots of opinions on this. I’m looking forward to the discussion.


Dear Peppersb;

I understand your frustration.

The laws for Canada are different from the United States and even then the laws may change from state to state/province to province.

In *Canada* when you *pay* for a dog you *own* the dog. Like buying a car. Once paid for it is yours to do what you wish with it. 

When the car is in your possession you must follow the manufacturers directions for the warranty to be valid - oil change every 5 to 10,000 kilometers etc. If you choose not to follow the manufacturers directions then you void the warranty.

You may sell the car to whoever you want but the warranty must be transferred to the new owners name and they must still follow the directions for the warranty to still be valid.

It is kind of like that in dogs - if you sign a contract that states you will follow certain stipulations than you should be *prepared to follow* through with *the stipulations* or *accept* your *warranty* will *not* be *valid*. 

If you want to *rehome* the dog you own *or sell* it that is *your right* and you can do so. In Ontario, Canada it is not legal to make you give the dog back to the breeder - whether you signed a contract or not. 

When you do not follow the contact all that can be done by the *breeder* is to *sue* you for *breach of contract*. If the contract is written by a lawyer is should be fairly straight forward which makes it easy for the breeder to *sue* for an *amount of money* to compensate him/her for the breach. They can not sue for the dog back unless they are still co-owners.

Compensation to the breeder for the owner placing a dog in another loving home will be neligible. Probably no money would change hands. Compensation to the breeder for the owner breeding a litter could be in the thousands of dollars as they sold you a pet not a breeding dog.

The breeder must start the lawsuit. 

You may ask the *breeder*s you are looking at if they have ever had to *enforce their contract*. The majority of contracts are meant to *protect the breeder* not the buyer nor the puppy. 

A breeder can not make you feed a certain food or provide less vaccinations than you wish. All they can do is then not guarantee the puppy which if they are a poor breeder they will not do anyway. It would be like a car manufacturer telling you that you may only use high grade gas. If you choose to use low grade gas the car manufacturer can not take the car back from you.

Many puppy *sellers do not* have their *contracts* even *vetted by a lawyer*. To be on the safe side take the contract you are thinking of signing and have a contract lawyer look at it. You will then know what is legal and what is not.

Good luck with your search for an *ethical breeder* so you can buy a new standard poodle.


----------



## PaddleAddict

outwest said:


> I think contracts have gone way overboard. When I had boxers I would request that new owners spay or neuter them if they had a conformation fault. In all cases they gave me verbal assurances that they planned to do that. I didn't check up on them. Anyone going the extra mile to search for a nice puppy is going to have researched and looked for a puppy. Contracts, to me, are overkill. It is hard enough to find a nice poodle let alone meet all the criteria required by some contracts.


It sounds to me like you are living in the past, back in the day when all business transactions were sealed on a smile and a handshake. This just isn't how modern day things are done anymore. Every time you use your credit card you enter into a contract. Contracts are not horrible things, like Spoospirit said, they protect your investment as much as the breeder's. You are spending $1,000 or $1,500 or more on a purebred dog that is supposed to have a health warranty. God forbid your poodle got sick or died, how would you proof that warranty without a contract (this is rhetorical, I know that you did sign a contract on your current poodle).

[/QUOTE]Finding a nice standard poodle puppy is not easy. There aren't that many of them and most people have to travel far to find one.[/QUOTE]

This is just an absolutley ridiculous statement. Unless you live in a very remote area of this country, it is not difficult to find a good poodle breeder with good poodles.

[/QUOTE]I also think there are a lot of great owners out there that are shoved into doodles because buying a standard requires a lot of persistance and effort, not to mention meeting someone elses idea of a good dog owner. It is a little insulting to the prospective owners to not respect them as a dog owner.[/QUOTE]

Oh PLEASE. It's too difficult to buy a poodle, so people "have" to buy doodles? Again, another ridiculous claim. People buy doodles for lots of reasons, but if someone wants a well-bred poodle, they can obtain a poodle. 

[/QUOTE]The limited registrations is pushing people into designer dog breeding and breeding unregistered dogs.[/QUOTE]

You really must be joking. Limited AKC registration has been around for YEARS... it's not about making it difficult to breed. People who want to do it right can and do get into breeding purebred AKC registered dogs. Just look at Spoospirit. Look at ChocolateMillie with her new show dog who is almost halfway to his championship. People who are lazy or not in it for the right reasons will breed designer dogs or unregistered (and untested, unproven) dogs.

The bottom line is this. If you don't like the terrms of a contract, don't sign it and find a different breeder. I signed a contract with my breeder (a well-known, respected breeder who produces beautiful show dogs) and it was simple and had no outrageous requirements. It protects her and me. And I have no problem with it.


----------



## outwest

Contracts do go both ways. I think buyers who expect a refund on a puppy who doesn't work out are unreasonable. I think telling someone when to vaccinateand spay is unreasonable. I disagree with limited registration because I think it is hurting the AKC. Someone should not pay the same amount for a limited registration puppy that they would for a full registration puppy. Buyers should not expect a 2 year health guarantee. Anything can happen and life is not always perfect. 

A written list of suggestions and recommendations from the breeder is far better than a contentious legal contract. Unfortunately, nice poodles are hard to find. Those of us who want a nice poodle will have to sign a contract and abide by it. 

Who has the power here? The puppy purchaser certainly doesn't. The puppy purchasers are all looked at as a potential doodle breeder. Demand far exceeds supply, which causes many puppy mills to sprout up. It wasn't that long ago (10 years?) that standard poodle puppies cost a few hundred dollars, all on full registration. Now they can cost thousands. Unless someone is willing to rescue, only people with money will be able to own a standard. Even the rescues cost more than a puppy used to cost! Inflation is not the reason for the huge markup in cost. These lovely puppies have turned into a product to be sold for as much as the market will bear. 

It is a sad state of affairs that purebred dogs have sunk to with legal contracts, limited registrations, buyer scrutiny, high prices and lack of trust between buyers and sellers. I think I am older than many of you. It did not used to be like this. I sold a boxer puppy once to a young couple at a deep discount because they were a wonderful couple just starting out and couldn't afford the full price. Nobody does that anymore. 

I think it best I do not post on this thread again.


----------



## PaddleAddict

outwest said:


> I believe I have a right to have this opinion and not be bashed, even going as far as being told I will never get a puppy from someone because of a 'poor attitude' because of my thoughts on contracts, insinuating that I am a terrible poodle owner at the same time! Just because I disagree with contracts? Sheesh.


You have a right to your opinion, but your opinion is a strong one and if you're going to make statements like you have been, expect that many others here will disagree with you. It is not "bashing" as you say. I don't remember reading anywhere that someone said you are a terrible person.


----------



## PaddleAddict

outwest said:


> Contracts do go both ways. I think buyers who expect a refund on a puppy who doesn't work out are unreasonable.


I agree with you, in some cases it is not reasonable, however, if the puppy has a serious temperament problem or a health issue, the puppy should be replaced or returned for a refund.



outwest said:


> I disagree with limited registration because I think it is hurting the AKC.


I find it funny that you are worried about the AKC being hurt since you have clearly stated how many times you object to AKC showing.



outwest said:


> Buyers should not expect a 2 year health guarantee.


Maybe not, but if they want it, they can choose a breeder who writes this in the contract. My poodle has a lifetime guarantee against genetic breed disorders. 



outwest said:


> It wasn't that long ago (10 years?) that standard poodle puppies cost a few hundred dollars, all on full registration. Now they can cost thousands. Unless someone is willing to rescue, only people with money will be able to own a standard.


Years ago, we did not have the genetic tests and other tests we have today. Those tests cost money. The cost of living has also gone up. It is not cheap to champion a show dog. If you are buying from a good breeder, you are getting something for that money. I know some backyard breeders also charge big money for untested, unproven dogs, but I would never buy from someone like that. If someone would like to take a gamble, there are plenty of backyard breeders who sell poodles for a few hundred dollars.



outwest said:


> I think it best I do not post on this thread again.


Outwest, it sounds like are you getting your feelings hurt in this thread. I don't think you are a bad dog owner, nor do I think you are a terrible person like you mentioned. However, you are making strong statements and even at times sort of insulting breeders (I am sure you didn't mean to). By saying that breeders can't care for a returned dog as well because they all have too many dogs to pay them enough attention, that is going to upset some of the wonderful, caring breeders on this forum who darn well DO provide their dogs the utmost care, love and attention. 

You know that old sayng, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." Don't think that people are not going to respond to the things you are saying.


----------



## outwest

Yes, and other have very strong opinions, too. Having just went through the ringer trying to find a nice puppy that met all my criteria is still raw. What should have been an exciting time turned into a grueling time. The end result was happy for all, but the process was not pleasant and did not have to be that way.


----------



## PaddleAddict

outwest said:


> Yes, and other have very strong opinions, too. Having just went through the ringer trying to find a nice puppy that met all my criteria is still raw. What should have been an exciting time turned into a grueling time. The end result was happy for all, but the process was not pleasant and did not have to be that way.


I'm sorry you had such a difficult time finding a poodle puppy. That was not my experience, but I know it has been hard for others too. I don't think it's specific to poodles, it can be hard to first educate yourself about responsible breeding and breeders, then actually find someone you like and who likes you. 

I am sure you also learned a lot in your quest for a poodle puppy. It sounds like you found a breeder you are happy with and a puppy you adore. 

Times are different than they used to be. In all aspects of life I have found it's easier to accept change and grow with it rather than hold on to the past and resist the present.


----------



## outwest

PaddleAddict said:


> I'm sorry you had such a difficult time finding a poodle puppy. That was not my experience, but I know it has been hard for others too. I don't think it's specific to poodles, it can be hard to first educate yourself about responsible breeding and breeders, then actually find someone you like and who likes you.
> 
> I am sure you also learned a lot in your quest for a poodle puppy. It sounds like you found a breeder you are happy with and a puppy you adore.
> 
> Times are different than they used to be. In all aspects of life I have found it's easier to accept change and grow with it rather than hold on to the past and resist the present.


Yes, and then after I had gone through the process, found a terrific puppy from health tested, good looking parents, loved the breeder and signed a contract and was SO excited, people here had the audacity to say my breeder was bad! 

Sometimes I just want to forget about this forum.


----------



## spoospirit

_As I had mentioned earlier, I suspected you may have experienced some sort of trauma over contracts and such. You see, it really is important for those of us who breed to be able to read our buyers. Now that you are revealing more about what is behind your feelings, it is easier for me to understand where you are coming from.

You also say that you are probably older than most of us, so that bears out Poodleadicts suspicion that you are coming from old school. No wonder you are shell shocked!

I am 58 and Dianne is 53. Dianne has been breeding for 30 years. She has seen many changes over those years. She also sold her pups on basically a spoken agreement and a handshake back when. We didn't live in a sue happy society back then, but we do know.

There is always reason for change. Many things have come about in those years that prompted those changes on how breeders operate on all levels. When I am speaking of breeders, I am referring to those who are running good programs with the good of the breed and their particular dogs at the top of their program; not all the other type of breeders you have mentioned in this thread. 

Unfortunately, along with the economic decline, we are experiencing the ever increasing prices for everything related to running our program. Health tests are now available for many of poodle specific diseases; they are not cheap by any means. Most buyers are well educated today and want to see the test results of the breeding pair. We like to see buyers who are looking for tested parents and we include copies of all tests results in every puppy packet. One PennHip test for one breeding dog costs $500. Getting your dogs titled shows that your dogs have earned their place in the breeding arena. Classes, shows, handlers, products, groomers, travel and equipment cost a LOT of money and require a great deal of time and dedication from the breeder. 

On a thread on PF sometime back, I posted a whole list of what good breeders do and the cost of each of those things x's the number of dogs in their program. The results was quite an eye opener. Hence, the reason why small time breeders like us rarely if ever see a profit. Money from puppies come in and and is turned right around back into the program. We breed because we love the breed and love raising good quality puppies.

As unpalatable as you find the myriad and confusion of the contracts, they are now there to protect both seller and buyer. We don't have a contract because we are paranoid about every person who approaches us for a puppy. We actually tend to give the benefit of the doubt more often than not. I prefer to trust people rather than expect the worst form everyone I meet.

It is obvious that you walked into something that you had no idea existed and your navigation of the new process became overwhelming and very upsetting to you. I am truly sorry that you had such a terrible experience with searching for a new puppy. 

As much as you dislike the process, it is not going to go away. All can I say is that it would be nice if you could judge each breeder and their process on an individual basis rather than lump us all together in a negative light.

I wish you many years of happiness and poodle love with your puppy.

_


----------



## peppersb

The evidence in this thread that people can have very different ideas about what is reasonable is abundant. It just makes me feel all the more strongly that as a puppy buyer, I would not accept the idea that anyone other than me has final say about what happens to my dog if I can't take care of him/her. The idea that a breeder would feel that they have a right to give final approval or right of first refusal just seems wrong.

To give an example, my family and close friends know that my boy Bob goes to my friend Lee if I die or am unable to take care of him. It is in my will. Lee and family adore Bob. It is the perfect home for him (other than mine of course). But if I had signed a contract to buy Bob when he was a puppy 11 years ago (in this case I didn't), then potentially a breeder might have other ideas. What if the breeder also knew of the "perfect" home for Bob? What if she thought it would be fun to have Bob living with her next door neighbor, so that she could see "her" pup every day? If a breeder is asking for a right of first refusal, they are asking to have the right to be the final decision-maker in this kind of situation. Of course breeders say that they would be reasonable, and in most cases I'm sure they would be. But as I have said, there's a lot of evidence that we have different ideas about what is reasonable. The rescue organization in the Ellen Degeneres case seemed to think that it was reasonable to confiscate the dog. Others think they were unreasonable. For my dogs, I have to have the final legal right to make this kind of decision. No one else gets to make this kind of decision for my dogs.

I would hope that a breeder would be delighted to sell a pup to someone who cares enough to want to control what happens to their dogs and to make provisions for them in her will. Most people who know me think I am pretty close to the ideal poodle owner and I could give great groomer, vet and personal references. But it sounds like I would not be able to purchase a poodle from many of those who have posted. 

I feel very fortunate to have found a perfectly wonderful puppy who came from health-tested parents and has a very good pedigree (according to a friend who reviewed it before I purchased). After reading all of the opinions here that I disagree with so strongly, I feel especially fortunate that my puppy's breeder did not insist on retaining the right to potentially reclaim ownership of my dog. She agreed to my request to add a sentence to her contract giving me the right to place the dog in another home should that ever be necessary. The contract had no feeding or vaccination restrictions. I did agree to limited registration and spaying by 18 months of age--provisions I have no problem with.

I agree with Outwest that it is hard to find a good poodle. What will happen next time I want to buy a puppy? Will I be unable to buy the dog I want because the breeder insists on retaining control of my dog after purchase? I think I'll be a better owner for one of your well-bred pups than the buyer who smiles and says yes to whatever you want. But will I be the one to get the dog? Maybe not.


----------



## spoospirit

peppersb said:


> The evidence in this thread that people can have very different ideas about what is reasonable is abundant. It just makes me feel all the more strongly that as a puppy buyer, I would not accept the idea that anyone other than me has final say about what happens to my dog if I can't take care of him/her. The idea that a breeder would feel that they have a right to give final approval or right of first refusal just seems wrong.
> 
> To give an example, my family and close friends know that my boy Bob goes to my friend Lee if I die or am unable to take care of him. It is in my will. Lee and family adore Bob. It is the perfect home for him (other than mine of course). But if I had signed a contract to buy Bob when he was a puppy 11 years ago (in this case I didn't), then potentially a breeder might have other ideas. What if the breeder also knew of the "perfect" home for Bob? What if she thought it would be fun to have Bob living with her next door neighbor, so that she could see "her" pup every day? If a breeder is asking for a right of first refusal, they are asking to be the right to be the final decision-maker in this kind of situation. Of course breeders say that they would be reasonable, and in most cases I'm sure they would be. But as I have said, there's a lot of evidence that we have different ideas about what is reasonable. The rescue organization in the Ellen Degeneres case seemed to think that it was reasonable to confiscate the dog. Others think they were unreasonable. For my dogs, I have to have the final legal right to make this kind of decision. No one else gets to make this kind of decision for my dogs.
> 
> I would hope that a breeder would be delighted to sell a pup to someone who cares enough to want to control what happens to their dogs and to make provisions for them in her will. Most people who know me think I am pretty close to the ideal poodle owner and I could give great groomer, vet and personal references. But it sounds like I would not be able to purchase a poodle from many of those who have posted.
> 
> I feel very fortunate to have found a perfectly wonderful puppy who came from health-tested parents and has a very good pedigree (according to a friend who reviewed it before I purchased). After reading all of the opinions here that I disagree with so strongly, I feel especially fortunate that my puppy's breeder did not insist on retaining the right to potentially reclaim ownership of my dog. She agreed to my request to add a sentence to her contract giving me the right to place the dog in another home should that ever be necessary. The contract had no feeding or vaccination restrictions. I did agree to limited registration and spaying by 18 months of age--provisions I have no problem with.
> 
> I agree with Outwest that it is hard to find a good poodle. What will happen next time I want to buy a puppy? Will I be unable to buy the dog I want because the breeder insists on retaining control of my dog after purchase? I think I'll be a better owner for one of your well-bred pups than the buyer who smiles and says yes to whatever you want. But will I be the one to get the dog? Maybe not.


_Its a matter of trust. 

I never said that I would not sell a puppy to you. You are making an assumption based on some posts here; not on a personal relationship with us. You sound like a very responsible and sensible owner. You have even provided for your poodle in the event of your death; that is something that is seldom seen. Again, it is a matter of getting to know our buyer and feeling comfortable that they will do the right thing for their dog. As I said before, we do bend in the right circumstances and adjustments can be made. Your breeder did exactly this. So I don't see a difference here.

Right of first refusal does not mean that we own your poodle. It means that if you are not able to keep your dog because (insert reason), and you were not able to find the right home for it (which you have done), we would willingly and happily take it back at any age, and find a good home for it. It just what good breeders do.

You found a good breeder that you are happy with and are doing everything good by your dog, so there is no issue. That is what matters. That is why we encourage people to do their homework before purchasing. We would not be the breeder for you because of the language in our contract; which you are very uncomfortable with, and because you have not worked with us and do not know what we would or would not be willing to do based on a relationship with you. There is nothing wrong with that. _


----------



## 2719

*this is so true*



PaddleAddict said:


> A
> Years ago, we did not have the genetic tests and other tests we have today. Those tests cost money. The cost of living has also gone up. It is not cheap to champion a show dog. If you are buying from a good breeder, you are getting something for that money. I know some backyard breeders also charge big money for untested, unproven dogs, but I would never buy from someone like that. If someone would like to take a gamble, there are plenty of backyard breeders who sell poodles for a few hundred dollars.
> 
> 
> B *********even at times sort of insulting breeders (I am sure you didn't mean to). By saying that breeders can't care for a returned dog as well because they all have too many dogs to pay them enough attention, that is going to upset some of the wonderful, caring breeders on this forum who darn well DO provide their dogs the utmost care, love and attention.


A....read this article from Dogs In Canada Magazine...if you wonder why breeders are charging so much more for dogs than they did 10 years ago. Dogs In Canada Magazine -- Breeding: The money myth

B...I have five standards right now. One is a beautiful brown girl who I am rehoming. My husband drove 3 hrs to get her and 3 hrs home. She is getting a lot of attention and has totally blossomed since coming back to us. She is walked 2 to 3 x a day. She sleeps in our bedroom and she gets a lot of attention. I say that the puppies are part of our family until they become part of yours...and that continues if you can no longer care for your poodle I will welcome it back into my family.


----------



## Chagall's mom

outwest said:


> Yes, and then after I had gone through the process, found a terrific puppy from health tested, good looking parents, loved the breeder and signed a contract and was SO excited, people here had the audacity to say my breeder was bad!
> 
> Sometimes I just want to forget about this forum.


I truly want to help you here! Let this perceived insult about your spoo's breeder go, _do not hold onto this_ _a moment longer__!_ My poodle's breeder, along with a number of other forums members,' has at one time or another been caste in less than a favorable light by some. I don't expect universal agreement on breeders anymore than I do on what people want to eat for dinner tonight.:hungry: I am 57, okay, standing in the doorway of 58, and wear my "big girl" panties very comfortably. I recommend, _with all sincerity_, you just blow this off once and for all. It matters _not_ what others think! Bonnie is as "bonnie" as her name:beauty:, you just go on enjoying her proudly.roud:

Forums are just gathering places for those with similar interests, the people and things that _really_ matter are those under your own roof.:behindsofa: Just give weight to what truly matters.

When it comes to contracts, breeder's or otherwise, I hand them off to my attorney husband to read the fine print and amend them to my satisfaction. I don't sign anything I'm not comfortable with.

My own experience in locating miniature poodle breeders was_ fantastic!_ I ultimately had a choice of two excellent breeders within an hour's drive from me. I was positively delighted with how every phase of the transaction went, and I am head-over-heels in love with my poodle, as you are with Bonnie. I see Chagall's breeder at least half a dozen times a year, and have frequent contact with her in between. I wish you this same kind of good experience when the time comes to add another poodle to your family.

*pepprsb*: Our poodle is also provided for in our Wills. My husband and I know my youngest brother and his family would be Chagall's guardians should anything happen to us. We often use this great privilege as leverage, threatening them if they doesn't do "such and such," my husband is going to open the safe, whip out a pen and change our Wills!:smile-big: Three of our friends have lobbied us (hard!) to get on the guardian list; I no longer feel comfortable eating in their homes for fear they might poison us!!:biggrin1:


----------



## minipoodlelover

Chagall's mom, you say your husband is an attorney, but you have some pretty impressive diplomatic skills yourself  I like the give and take of a lively discussion, and I always learn something. 

Though I've only been on this forum a short time, I tend to think most of the people posting here are not part of the problems in the world of poodle breeding, contracts, etc. Clearly, we all adore our precious babies, no matter how we acquired them, and are committed enough to them to EDUCATE ourselves on an ongoing basis. Sharing with other forum members, asking questions, and learning from the experiences of others, undoubtedly makes us all better poodle owners.

I understand where breeders are coming from - they want the best possible care for the puppies they created and nurtured. I've read over and over again that it's a labor of love, and I believe it. Ideally, the new owner wants the very same things as the breeder. When that is the starting point, most issues can probably be worked out!


----------



## buttercup123

peppersb said:


> I have seen a number of puppy contracts, and I am amazed at how controlling breeders try to be. One contract says the new owner has to follow a specific vaccination schedule. The breeder gets to choose the vaccination schedule, overriding the opinions of the owner and the vet??? What if the owner wants to board the dog in a kennel that requires certain vaccinations? What if local law requires different vaccinations? Another contract voided the health guarantee if the new owner did not follow the BARF diet. Breeders who provide advice and help are great, especially for new owners. But I think that the people who pay for a puppy and take him/her into their homes should be the ones who get to make decisions for their dogs.
> 
> My biggest pet peeve is a clause that is in almost every puppy contract that I have seen.* If the new owner is no longer able to care for the dog it MUST be returned to the breeder! What???!!?? I pay $1500 or $2000 for a dog and the breeder retains rights to the dog if I am no longer able to care for it?* These breeders put more money into producing and raising these puppies then you paid for them. They put their blood, sweat and tears into this litter and finding the right dogs to breed, proving them and doing the necessary test. They can be as picky and controlling of the puppy they produced as they want. They do not want to see these dogs going from home to home and dont trust the new owners to find a suitable home. For all they know they could send the dog to the shelter or give the dog to someone who puts the dog in a shelter. I know I would be very up set to see a dog that I love, raised and am responsible for creating in a shelter. When I breed a dog I am the one responsible for bringing that puppy into this world there for I am responsible for that puppy its whole life, period.I am grateful that most breeders seem to be willing to take a dog back, and that could be a service that some poodle owners would use and appreciate. But telling me that I can’t find a new home for my own dog is entirely unreasonable. My dogs are much loved members of my family. If I got too sick to take care of them, my very top priority would be placing them in a good home. *And frankly, going back to the breeder would not be my idea of the best option*why?. And I definitely do not think I should need to get the breeder’s permission. It is MY DOG! I have provisions in my will for my dogs, and have told my friends and family what I want done in the event of my death. When I bought my puppy, I insisted on retaining the right to place her in a new home if necessary. The breeder agreed to the change, but I don’t think that this clause should be in the contract in the first place. Breeders should not routinely have the right to control the process of rehoming a dog. Offering to help is one thing. But a breeder stepping in and claiming ownership of a dog that needs to be rehomed is quite another.
> 
> I expect that there will be lots of opinions on this. I’m looking forward to the discussion.


I havn't read the other replies, going to do that now.


----------



## tintlet

Peppersb,

I can understand some of your frustrations and believe me, there are many breeders I would not sign a " will return the dog" contract. But I also have the same thing in my contracts. 

Being a breeder is not easy. Litters are planned 4-5 years in advance, having a health issue pop up can set you back 2-3 generations. 
When those puppies are born, it's such a wonderful thing. each and every one is it's own little miracle. We hug them and talk to them, and dream of what they will be. And we love them. I know you said that breeders don't have the "heart investment" in an 8 week old puppy as you would have in an older dog. But that is so wrong. I loved my human children as much when I first saw them as I do today. 
I know we can't compare human love to animal love, but breeders do love their puppies!! And we want the best life they can get. 

If a buyer wants to re-home a dog, the breeders needs to know where the dog is going, how to contact them concerning health issues, etc. 

You might think ________ is a great home, but what happens when they want to re-home the dog? You get the "Where's Spot?".."Oh he peed on the carpet so we took him to the shelter"..

If the most important thing in buying a dog is total ownership, there are many, many dogs available. with Full registration, etc

Contracts can be reworked to suit most any situation, and TRUST is the key.


----------



## buttercup123

> I do think that the doodle craze, which I am against as I am sure you are aware, is at the root of these contracts


How so?
lol I cant believe you are serious about this, I'd love to hear the explanation..


----------



## minipoodlelover

The doodle craze is about * M O N E Y *plain and simple

If there was no money in it, there would be few to no doodles.


----------



## buttercup123

minipoodlelover said:


> The doodle craze is about * M O N E Y *plain and simple
> 
> If there was no money in it, there would be few to no doodles.


Exactly, if someone came up with this ridiculous mix and made little to no money on them people wouldnt be breeding them left right and center.


----------



## peppersb

Tintlet said: "If the most important thing in buying a dog is total ownership, there are many, many dogs available. with Full registration, etc"


So you are suggesting that I should be getting a puppy mill dog? Just because I don't want someone else having the legal right to decide what happens to my dog if I die?


----------



## tintlet

no, just stating there are lots of poodles available that have no 'return to breeder' contracts.
If you find a breeder that does have this in the contract, then try to have that part changed. If they won't, then move on.


----------



## schnauzerpoodle

tintlet said:


> no, just stating there are lots of poodles available that have no 'return to breeder' contracts.
> If you find a breeder that does have this in the contract, then try to have that part changed. If they won't, then move on.


Couldn't agree more! If there's any part in the contract that you don't like but you like everything else, talk to the breeder and let him/her know why you want to change the contract terms. You would find that a lot of them are willing to listen to you.

Since 2010, I have contacted over 70 breeders (all 3 poodle varieties, havanese, miniature schnauzer) and communicated with 55+ of them. I have read around 50 contracts so far.

There is a toy poodle breeder. I like how she raises her dogs and how her pups look. She shows and health-tests her breeding stock. She emailed evidence of health tests without me asking. She provided references without me asking. She paid for the first two years of pet insurance of the buyer's choice. The insurance covers genetic diseases, medical bills and death from illness/accident. For Year 3, if anything genetic cropped up, she gave a full refund and asked the buyer to return the dog. I told her I liked everything else but I couldn't return any of my pets. Then she asked me how my "perfect contract" looked like. I told her I would never return my dog, no matter how sick s/he would turn out to be. I told her I wanted to keep the dog and receive a refund of 50% of the purchase price which would be used to cover the medical bills. She saw how I could provide a good home for one of her pups and agreed to revise the contract and send me the revised contract that evening.

A havanese breeder also agreed to change her contract terms. That was after I went to a dog show and talked to her in person.

The schnauzer breeder that I am working with has also revised her contract after I brought up how I strongly I feel about the idea of returning a sick dog. 

If you don't like about a contract or any part of a contract, tell the breeder and let him/her know how you would like it to look like. Walk away if you are not 100% satisfied. You are the consumer. You decide which breeder you want to deal with. The same applied for those who decide to buy from a doodle "breeder". It's their choice. I don't understand how a contract and/or limited registration has possibly pushed someone to BYB or doodle "breeders". 

Yes, it's not easy to find a well bred puppy (not just poodle). But it's not impossible. It depends on how patience you are, how willing you are to talk to different people, and how willing you are to ask questions, accept new ideas and learn.

Among all the breeders that I have talked to, there are a few of them (2 of each poodle variety, 2 havanese and 2 schnauzer breeders) that I would buy from. Yes, that's 10 out of 72 breeders. That's not many of them but I know I can trust them completely.

Although I am not buying from the above mentioned toy poodle and havanese breeders, we remain in good terms. I respect them as ethical breeders. They see me as a dog owner that can provide a good home for their puppies. There are breeders who want to find good homes for their puppies and care about the breed. There are breeders who are willing to listen to their potential buyers. Unfortunately, there are breeders who only want your money and even worse, there are potential buyers who refuse to stay open minded.


----------



## faerie

if you don't like the terms of the contract, try to negotiate. still don't like it? then don't buy the dog.


----------



## Cynthadia

I'd like to hear the experiences of sellers whose buyers breached the seller's sales contract. 

I'm going on three assumptions here. 

Your home state views dogs as chattel. 
The cost of enforcement (court costs, lawyer costs) is prohibitive, especially if the buyer lives in another state.
You did not use self-help methods (i.e., reposessing the dog absent a court order).


----------



## FunkyPuppy

I'd like to share my puppy buying experience, as I feel it is the exact opposite of the OP's and Outwest's generalizations.

I began researching spoos in December of last year, thinking I had the knowledge to choose a good breeder from a poor one. After contacting a few breeders via Google search results, I decided to start googling (kennel name) reviews. At the time I was looking for a klein/moyen. I came upon poodleforum and quickly became an addict, searching for mentions of breeders i'd found online. I learned good from bad, so then began contacting the "good". 

This may sound odd, but I was specifically looking for a breeder with a screening process. Mygoal was a beautiful, sweet-tempered spoo who was eager to please and social AND moderately experienced on the grooming table. I remember saying "I want a dog that could have been in the show ring, but became a pet instead."

These are ambitious dreams for the full-time creative pet stylist who is also a single mother of a 2 1/2 year old son and lives in a small rental with a modest yard. ALL of these things are huge red flags for breeders and make me automatically blacklisted by rescues. I EXPECTED any good breeder to be wary and immediately crossed out the breeders who replied to my detailed inquiries with "which puppy do you want? the deposit is $200 and non refundable."

Nope, I KNEW that I would have to jump through hoops to be deemed worthy of the poodle of my dreams, and I expected to be grilled on how exactly I planned to care for my Ideal Puppy. 

It took months, but I am the proud owner of one of Amelia's puppies from Desert Reef. I have to put Outwest's claim to rest that 'you have to have money', which I think implies a vast expendable income. You don't necessarily have to HAVE MONEY... you just have to be willing to SAVE money. I make a very decent income as a professional groomer, but nothing to write home about. When I decided I wanted to began researching poodles, I started a savings accout and deposited $150 from every check and deposited every tip I received for the day, even if only a dollar. I padded the account with a few hundred from my tax refunds after depositing my annual $1000 into my son's education fund. When Bonzai was about 5 weeks, I started buying the necessities once a week, a bed here, elevated bowls there, in anticipation of her arrival.

I have to say, those questionable stats about people wanting well-bred poodles but being 'forced' into doodles is silly. I believe that most responsible owners who have their hearts set on responsibly-bred poodles will understand the need for patience. The ones who become discouraged easily and settle on an impulse pup from the newspaper may not be the sort who might not have made ideal owners for the typical spoo puppy.

I would never, EVER purchase a puppy without signing a detailed contract. I want to know EXACTLY what is expected of me while raising this fluffy investment. I cherish the thought of a breeder who values her dogs, program, and reputation so much that she invests in proving her breeding dogs in the ring, does thorough genetic and health testing, matches her bitches and studs based on their merits, feeds only the best, and even goes so far as to document the puppies development from final days of pregnancy to 8 weeks old. for god's sake, Karen even took Bonzai's litter to her grandson's daycare to socialize the pups with kids!

With so much love, work, money, time, and effort invested in each little cottonball of poodle puppy, I see NOTHING wrong with there being stipulations. The breeder who doesn't sell to first timers because they often neglect grooming has a VERY good point. She has likely been called upon to tame a terrified, matted 8 month old who is in a frenzy because its his first groom.

At the end of the day, it's THEIR breeding program, they can require you greet your poodle every am while doing a handstand if they want to, and if you don't agree, don't buy.


----------



## papoodles

I do understand how you feel , Pepperb-and I'd feel exactly the same IF I were buying from a breeder whom I hadn't researched carefully, and who hasn't had a long excellent track record of responsible breeding; in other words, someone I wouldn't necessarily trust to do as well by my puppy as I would, if something went wrong and I had to rehome. Then I wouldn't sign such a contract.

BUT...I have done my research and I am now laying the groundwork to become friendly with the breeder of my future puppy, so that I could contact her anytime with a question, or help, or anything that I would need for my puppy's well-being- and that she in turn, would treat me as a member of her far flung poodle family, not just someone who bought a dog, and that's the end of our connection...in other words, I am about to 'adopt' one of her own doggychildren, and not just aquire a 'possession' that can be disposed of at will. This needs some legal protection for her, as well as for me, so I welcome that contract.
And because this is a living creature, she gets to decide what the terms are that would satisfy her if something goes badly wrong and one of her dogs needs re-homing..
When you have establised such a good relationship with your breeder, then that breeder is going to trust YOU to do what you know is in the best interest of your puppy if you have to rehome, contract or no contract.
That contract is just protection for for puppy, seller and buyer..


----------



## Chagall's mom

*Funkypuppy*: _Thank you f_or your post! You may not be able to tell from where you are, but I gave it a standing ovation:clap2:,on every level. The fact that you undertook your search for a poodle knowing you were adding a family member and were willing to wait, save and plan for that four-legged family member, and your determination _not _to be dissuaded by having to jump a few hurdles, well, if I were a poodle breeder, I'd be_ honored_ to have you parent to one of my pups!

Poodle love isn't for sissies; they are dear creatures who require of lot of care, concern, maintenance and devotion. Getting one is but half the battle; living up to the privilege of having one is where it gets real. I was struck so by your comment, coming from you as a professional groomer, about a breeder possibly having to tackle an 8 month old pup scared witless and in desperate need of a groom at the same time. I have come upon more than a few dog owners who did not live up to their commitment to care for their dogs with proper grooming and it sickens me.

Only one thing could have made your post even _more _perfect; if you indicated an interest in moving near me so you could be Chagall's groomer! I cannot imagine how very challenging and difficult it is to be a good breeder, or groomer, but I thank heaven for both. As in any dealing, whether buying a house, accepting a job or buying a car, if the buyer isn't satisfied with the terms and conditions, then it's best they try to negotiate them, failing that, they should just move on. I am in no way equating the life of poodle with any inanimate object. I am, however, saying both buyers and sellers have rights and options. If you're the dry cleaner, you're well within your rights to say, "no tickie, no laundry," if your a breeder, same applies; you don't meet the breeder's conditions (and agree to the contract, perhaps amended), so long! You don't get the right to decide how the breeder chooses to do business. That's my take on things, what an interesting discussion overall!:smile:


----------



## liljaker

I would also like to add the mark of a good breeder. Although I did not wish to start researching poodle breeders to puchase a puppy (again), I did research thoroughly breeders looking for a young adult. When I came across a particular breeder who had young adults she wantec to rehom while mourning for my Jake, I struck up a dialogue with a couple of breeders -- and I must say 2 were much closer than the breeder I did work with -- and would not have required me to fly to another city and drive 9 hours home. However, the concern and thoughtfulness of one breeder came through the phone lines and when she asked me what I was looking for, she started with finding out about me, my lifestyle, what my late poodle was like, and realized that one of her poodles would be a good fit for me. Mind you, this was not one of the poodles listed on her site that she would rehome, and she was not really planning on rehoming him yet, but felt it would be a good fit. That only started the process, and we had many long discussions -- remember, she was not going to make a profit on me, since she was rehoming him, but she put the same concern and care into finding the right home for her poodles. She should have easily rehomed him to someone in Canada, much closer, that would not have required her to drive 6 hours and stay overnight at a hotel to get him on an early morning flight -- but, I seriously believe we connected on the phone and she felt it would be a good fit for him.

For those of you who have seen my posts since I joined in August, you know that this has been a little challenging, requiring lots of patience since at 3, this has been a huge change for him -- from country to city and all that involves. The breeder has spent her time with me on the phone and in emails, sometimes daily with her input and help, and is always available for me. I, too, had to agree to return him to her if I am unable to keep him. I thoroughly respect this breeder and feel that all of her efforts result from her wanting the best for Sunny (and me).

If she had said "I don't think he would acclimate to your lifestyle" or "I don't feel comfortable that you would be the best home for him" -- I know now, that she only had his best interest in mind and I would not fault her for that, because I could imagine saying the same thing to someone. 

Heck, I won't even tell you how many dog walkers I interviewed when I first got Jake before I found the person who walked him for his entire life, and who now will be walking Sunny.


----------



## FunkyPuppy

Chagall's Mom:

Thank YOU for the response! As a professional groomer in what I consider a very rural state, I see a lot of matted pets. The backyard dogs, 3 year old adult shih tzus and poodles who are just starved for attention are usually so grateful to have the heavy, full-body casing of matter hair removed that they don't even consider fighting... they tend to sit quietly and stare with huge thankful eyes.

Now... the puppies... oh god, the puppies. 5-8 month old terrors. Half have been thrown out to the yard because they haven't taught themselves to be potty trained and entertain themselves without destroying belongings. The other half are the spoiled, matted purse-pets whose owners diligently bathe and perfume them weekly, and never fail to argue that their precious isn't matted. These same owners usually recoil in horror when a metal comb and soft wire slicker are produced as an example, as if these were midevil torture tools.

If I were to ever be given the priveledge of helping a breeder write her contract, it would include a very detailed Basic Grooming Requirements, complete with product recommendations, how to properly home bathe, frequency of professional grooming (and how to ask your groomer for what you want), and how to do minor upkeep between grooms. I'm a groomer and I struggle with finding time for Bonzai's comb outs... I can't imagine most typical owners even having an inkling of what they're getting into.
I comb out bonzai about twice a week (yeah, I'm slacking) between her weekly bath, fluff dry, and comb out. She gets her nails dremeled twice a week and her pigtails combed and put up three times a week. By bath day, she is always a dirty, muddy mess that smells like puppy adventures. Today I found mats in her arm pits! So yes, the grooming requirement is HUGE, and its not something you can usually skimp on (unless you care more for cheap than quality). If I were to pay for BonzaiLs weekly baths, nail dremels, monthly haircuts, and expensive Nutrient Masques (another monthly thing), i'd be paying... oh, @60-$300 a MONTH in grooming upkeep. 

Chagall's Mom, where are you located? Any chance it's Seattle? That's my Dream Location. I can't wait to get out of NM!


----------



## Chagall's mom

*FunkyPuppy:* I'm in New Jersey, so I doubt my dream of you grooming Chagall will ever come true, but I hope and know yours of moving to Seattle _can!_ I still can't imagine how you emotionally handle seeing so many dogs suffering from a lack of grooming attention. I can well understand your thinking that a breeder should offer strong encouragement for any of their pups' coat care. I honestly cringe when I think of all the poor, matted dogs roaming around out there. I'd no sooner go without brushing my dog than I would my own teeth!:becky:


----------



## Rowan

*FunkyPuppy*:
I also agree with your thoughts regarding breeder contracts*. Having rescued a number of poodles who weren't so fortunate, if a piece of paper and a thorough screening process can save a dog a life of misery and neglect, then I'm all for it. 

My breeder required an application and a vetting process, much like the rescue organizations. She didn't want to hand her beloved poodles over to just anyone and I respect that, because I'm not sure I could part with _any _puppy. (Good thing I'm not a breeder!)

I think (sometimes) people take the entire application / screening process personally, when it isn't meant to be. You have to realize the person on the other end of the phone doesn't know you, and they're just protecting their "babies." So yes, they have a right to be selective. 

Just look at the number of purebred poodles who end up in rescues or worse, the animal shelter or pound, and this is evident. (Most of the latter are matted and filthy, the result of utter neglect, and often deemed unadoptable.)

*I haven't had time to read the entire thread and I'm heading off to work, but I'm sure I agree with others too!


----------



## peppersb

Rowan (and others):

Just to be clear, I entirely support a careful vetting process which may include whatever the breeder wants in terms of application questions, telephone interviews, personal meetings, house visits, and checking vet, groomer or personal references. 

I also think that it is very good when breeders make it clear to new owners that if there is ever a problem, the dog can be returned to them. This is a wonderful safety net for the dog. I know one poodle breeder who has taken back a few of her pups and I have seen her take wonderful care of them. In one case she groomed a thoroughly matted dog, nursed him back to emotional and physical health, and found a wonderful new home for him. In another case, she actually paid to get a dog back from a very unstable situation (even though her contract required that unwanted dogs be returned, the owners were unwilling to do so without payment). I respect and admire her dedication and her love and commitment to the dogs that she has bred. She makes every effort to keep in touch with those who have purchased her pups and to follow their development. Seeing how her pups turn out affects her breeding program and it makes her aware of any problems that she might be able to assist with. Many of those who have posted here show a similar dedication to the pups that they bred and I think that is wonderful.

So I am all for breeders making it clear that they will take back any dog at any time. I think this policy can help reduce the number of poodles who end up in shelters. I am just against breeders having the legal right to reclaim my dog if I die or if I decide that the dog needs to be rehomed. 

While the breeder I just mentioned and many of those who posted here sound like very responsible breeders, the clause that requires puppy buyers to return dogs that they no longer want or can care for to the breeder is in virtually every contract that I have seen. It is in the contracts of breeders who keep their poodles in kennels. It is in the contracts of breeders who have far too many dogs in their home. It is in the contract of breeders who have trouble finding homes for their own retiring bitches. It is in the contract of one breeder who surgically debarks all of her adult dogs (I don't know how widespread this practice is, outside of puppy mills). It is even in the contracts of high-kill shelters! 

So is returning a dog to the breeder an acceptable option for rehoming a dog? Answer: it depends on the breeder and it depends on what other options are available. I think the owner should have the right to decide what is best for their dog. 

I am in my early 60's, just old enough to start thinking that I might not live forever. I often tell my new puppy that we are going to spend the next 15 years together. I certainly expect to outlive her, but I do think I need to make contingency plans for what happens to her if I die or am unable to care for her. There is no part of my will that is more important than the provisions regarding my dogs. There is nothing that I care about more than making sure that they are well cared for. Depending on the breeder, I might consider allowing one of my dogs to go back to a breeder, but my first choice if rehoming was necessary would be to place the dog with a friend or family member. I do not think that the executor of my estate should need to seek permission from the breeders of my dogs before carrying out my wishes. Maybe I am a control freak, but I need to take full responsibility and have full legal authority for what happens to any dogs that become members of my family.

In my ideal world, contracts would be much shorter and information and advice provided by breeders would be more extensive. So while I think it is entirely inappropriate to include grooming provisions in a contract, I think giving each puppy buyer with a thorough written explanation of how a poodle should be groomed is terrific.

Clearly, I am holding to a minority opinion in this group. I am beginning to feel like a right-wing republican in a room full of left-wing democrats or a left-wing democrat in a room full of right-wing democrats! But I do think that it is good when people who hold opposing opinions can talk to each other. So thank you for this forum and thanks to all of you who have contributed.


----------



## minipoodlelover

Peppersb,
Thank you for a very eloquent and heartfelt post. I think any responsible poodle breeder would be lucky to have you as a human parent for one of their babies.

The other day I took the time to look at all the poodle and poodle mixes (many more of those) in shelters listed on petfinder.com. It was heartbreaking to say the least. I never would have thought there would be so many abandoned or surrendered or unwanted animals. I was also surprised by the sheer variety of dogs being crossed with poodles  

Carefully screening potential dog purchasers/new homes clearly has become an absolute must.


----------



## Keithsomething

Peppersb, I think I understand what you mean now...I still stand by what I said earlier that any breeder would want their dogs back, however every breeder I've ever spoken to about contracts would agree that everything is negotiable! This situation, the breeder could easily take the dog back if you passed away before the dog...and the only reason I'd agree with it would be becasue the breeder would feel more comfortable having a puppy they raised in their home for how ever long it to screen homes (and most breeders would allow your immediate family to be at the top of those lists)

BUT the people I choose to learn from in this breed all agree that depending on the situation they would be happy to leave a dog in a home instead of throwing it completely off kilter...breeding is a game of reputation and the moment you step into someones home (due to a death, or whatever reason) and DEMAND the dog back (if the dog wasn't being properly taken care of that is...) your reputation just took a dump especially if they took someones dog that was happy to tell everyone else!

Talk to breeders about it, I know a handful that would be happy to place a puppy in a home like yours...they would just want a contingency plan in place just for the worst.

an example.
I co-own my puppy Heaven, and in my contract it says that she'll be given to the co-owner if I were to meet my untimely demise...only because I know that my family just isn't prepared (nor want...) an intact bitch. When I'm the one taking the brunt of the care of her fine, but if they had to change panty liners/diapers every hour or so I know they'd go insane! I felt comfortable enough to discuss this with my parents, and my co-owner and it just works out better that IF she is still intact she'd live with the co-owner but if she were spayed my parents would be happy to keep her.


----------



## Rowan

peppersb said:


> Rowan (and others):
> 
> Just to be clear, I entirely support a careful vetting process which may include whatever the breeder wants in terms of application questions, telephone interviews, personal meetings, house visits, and checking vet, groomer or personal references.
> 
> I also think that it is very good when breeders make it clear to new owners that if there is ever a problem, the dog can be returned to them. This is a wonderful safety net for the dog. ...
> So I am all for breeders making it clear that they will take back any dog at any time. I think this policy can help reduce the number of poodles who end up in shelters. I am just against breeders having the legal right to reclaim my dog if I die or if I decide that the dog needs to be rehomed.
> ...
> So is returning a dog to the breeder an acceptable option for rehoming a dog? Answer: it depends on the breeder and it depends on what other options are available. I think the owner should have the right to decide what is best for their dog.
> 
> I am in my early 60's, just old enough to start thinking that I might not live forever. I often tell my new puppy that we are going to spend the next 15 years together. I certainly expect to outlive her, but I do think I need to make contingency plans for what happens to her if I die or am unable to care for her. There is no part of my will that is more important than the provisions regarding my dogs. There is nothing that I care about more than making sure that they are well cared for. Depending on the breeder, I might consider allowing one of my dogs to go back to a breeder, but my first choice if rehoming was necessary would be to place the dog with a friend or family member. I do not think that the executor of my estate should need to seek permission from the breeders of my dogs before carrying out my wishes. Maybe I am a control freak, but I need to take full responsibility and have full legal authority for what happens to any dogs that become members of my family.
> 
> In my ideal world, contracts would be much shorter and information and advice provided by breeders would be more extensive. So while I think it is entirely inappropriate to include grooming provisions in a contract, I think giving each puppy buyer with a thorough written explanation of how a poodle should be groomed is terrific.
> 
> Clearly, I am holding to a minority opinion in this group. I am beginning to feel like a right-wing republican in a room full of left-wing democrats or a left-wing democrat in a room full of right-wing democrats! But I do think that it is good when people who hold opposing opinions can talk to each other. So thank you for this forum and thanks to all of you who have contributed.


*Hello, Peppersb*:
I'm not disputing any of this, and I didn't even address the issue of "rehoming" a poodle, so I'm not entirely sure why you feel like a right-wing Republican in a room full of left-wing democrats.  (Granted, I still haven't had time to read the entire thread, but will later.) Anyway, I was just agreeing with *FunkyPuppy *on the efficacy of contracts--the necessity of _some _agreement between poodle breeder and poodle owner for the benefit and safety of the dogs. 

As *Spoospirit *said earlier, everything is negotiable under the right circumstances. It's a matter of trust, and I feel most reputable breeders would work with a responsible puppy buyer, and most certainly wouldn't begrudge such a person incorporating final wishes for their beloved companions in a will. _Some _owners are well-equipped to find a home for their poodles should something happen to them, including family members or close friends. 

On the flip side, there are situations where the poodle would end up at the shelter or a rescue without such a contract. I've seen and sponsored many that ended up in high-kill shelters because "the owner passed and nobody in the family wanted the dog." Not everyone is as responsible, caring and organized as you and others on this forum. 

Ideally, I think both the breeder and owner should work together to find a suitable home, especially in situations where rehoming is necessary due to sudden death, illness or inability to care for said pup. That way both parties are satisfied and the breeder can keep tabs on their pup. In situations where the owner decides they just can't be bothered with the dog any longer, I feel the dog should be returned to the breeder. (Some people shouldn't even be allowed to own dogs.)

I _can't_ return my dogs to my breeder (it was in my contract but she has since retired). However, like many others here, I've made arrangements for their care should something happen to me because my dogs are part of the family and they'll stay in the family. 

We've all had varying experiences and we all come from diverse backgrounds so it's only natural that our perspectives differ on this issue. I've both purchased from a breeder and I've rescued, so I tend to consider such things from both sides of the fence. (And, I've kept in touch with both the breeder of my two original poodles, and the breeder of the latest rescue poodle.) 

We all have our "ideal world" scenarios and requirements, and while some would include a contractual grooming contingency, others would demand a veterinary care contingency. There are no rights and wrongs--just differing ideals. Personally, I think everything pertinent to the health and safety of the poodle should be included, whether it's veterinary care, grooming or rehoming options. If I didn't agree or couldn't negotiate with the breeder, then I'd take that as a sign and move on.


----------



## spoospirit

peppersb said:


> Rowan (and others):
> 
> Just to be clear, I entirely support a careful vetting process which may include whatever the breeder wants in terms of application questions, telephone interviews, personal meetings, house visits, and checking vet, groomer or personal references.
> 
> I also think that it is very good when breeders make it clear to new owners that if there is ever a problem, the dog can be returned to them. This is a wonderful safety net for the dog. I know one poodle breeder who has taken back a few of her pups and I have seen her take wonderful care of them. In one case she groomed a thoroughly matted dog, nursed him back to emotional and physical health, and found a wonderful new home for him. In another case, she actually paid to get a dog back from a very unstable situation (even though her contract required that unwanted dogs be returned, the owners were unwilling to do so without payment). I respect and admire her dedication and her love and commitment to the dogs that she has bred. She makes every effort to keep in touch with those who have purchased her pups and to follow their development. Seeing how her pups turn out affects her breeding program and it makes her aware of any problems that she might be able to assist with. Many of those who have posted here show a similar dedication to the pups that they bred and I think that is wonderful.
> 
> So I am all for breeders making it clear that they will take back any dog at any time. I think this policy can help reduce the number of poodles who end up in shelters. I am just against breeders having the legal right to reclaim my dog if I die or if I decide that the dog needs to be rehomed.
> 
> While the breeder I just mentioned and many of those who posted here sound like very responsible breeders, the clause that requires puppy buyers to return dogs that they no longer want or can care for to the breeder is in virtually every contract that I have seen. It is in the contracts of breeders who keep their poodles in kennels. It is in the contracts of breeders who have far too many dogs in their home. It is in the contract of breeders who have trouble finding homes for their own retiring bitches. It is in the contract of one breeder who surgically debarks all of her adult dogs (I don't know how widespread this practice is, outside of puppy mills). It is even in the contracts of high-kill shelters!
> 
> So is returning a dog to the breeder an acceptable option for rehoming a dog? Answer: it depends on the breeder and it depends on what other options are available. I think the owner should have the right to decide what is best for their dog.
> 
> I am in my early 60's, just old enough to start thinking that I might not live forever. I often tell my new puppy that we are going to spend the next 15 years together. I certainly expect to outlive her, but I do think I need to make contingency plans for what happens to her if I die or am unable to care for her. There is no part of my will that is more important than the provisions regarding my dogs. There is nothing that I care about more than making sure that they are well cared for. Depending on the breeder, I might consider allowing one of my dogs to go back to a breeder, but my first choice if rehoming was necessary would be to place the dog with a friend or family member. I do not think that the executor of my estate should need to seek permission from the breeders of my dogs before carrying out my wishes. Maybe I am a control freak, but I need to take full responsibility and have full legal authority for what happens to any dogs that become members of my family.
> 
> In my ideal world, contracts would be much shorter and information and advice provided by breeders would be more extensive. So while I think it is entirely inappropriate to include grooming provisions in a contract, I think giving each puppy buyer with a thorough written explanation of how a poodle should be groomed is terrific.
> 
> Clearly, I am holding to a minority opinion in this group. I am beginning to feel like a right-wing republican in a room full of left-wing democrats or a left-wing democrat in a room full of right-wing democrats! But I do think that it is good when people who hold opposing opinions can talk to each other. So thank you for this forum and thanks to all of you who have contributed.


_You have posted a very honest summation of how you feel and why. I understand where you are coming from. Having gotten to know you through your posts, I would feel very comfortable in getting to know the family with whom you wished to re-home your puppy should it become necessary. 

Your above post is exactly what I would like to hear in my conversations with a new puppy owner. Put this way, I know that we would be willing to work with you to place a puppy in your home. 

I suppose you can look at this in a political light. But, we truly aren't wanting to eat people up! You first post came off as angry, accusing and defensive. But, through all of this discussion, you have come out with a beautifully stated opinion of how you stand, what you expect and why. It is a huge change from your original post. 

I believe the approach one has to a prospective breeder and the approach that a breeder has to a prospective buyer makes all the difference in the world!
_


----------



## Keithsomething

Rowan said:


> If I didn't agree or couldn't negotiate with the breeder, then I'd take that as a sign and move on.


And I think thats the beauty of this breed! There are literally HUNDREDS of choices for breeders from the most unscrupulous all the way to the most sought after breeders in the world and with all of them if you feel uncomfortable for even a SECOND you should just cross them off the list. because lets face it there's another dozen breeding the same line as them (or pretty damn near!) waiting to pop up the instant you pass on that breeder!

And thats not even including rescues, there are dozens of purebred rescue facilities that could match one up with the dog of their dreams almost instantly!


----------



## Countryboy

peppersb said:


> I am in my early 60's, just old enough to start thinking that I might not live forever. I often tell my new puppy that we are going to spend the next 15 years together. I certainly expect to outlive her, but I do think I need to make contingency plans for what happens to her if I die or am unable to care for her.


How true! And some of the rest of us have to keep things like that in mind too. The younger members have to make plans for 'if' something happens. Others of us have to plan more for 'when'.  lol 

My plans for any contingency are simple. My dogs would never go to friends, or relatives . . . no way. 

If it ever it became necessary, the breeder is the only one I would trust to rehome my guys.


----------



## taem

Ok I have this question. Whatever a contract says, how would a breeder even go about enforcing the terms? Do breeders actually keep careful track of every puppy they sell, and then hire an attorney and go through the legal process to make sure contracts are adhered to? I really can't see that happening. Often a pup will cross state lines which makes the legal process an even bigger hassle. I have no intentions of flouting any contract I sign, but I was thinking I'm bound to it by the honor system and nothing more. I mean seriously, if I just ignore the breeder after bringing puppy home, they'd drive out to check up? Hire a private investigator?

The most ridiculous contract I've seen is one that requires competition in stuff like conformation and agility btw.


----------



## peppersb

taem -- You make an excellent point. The vast majority of puppy buyers IMO, are looking at the puppy (including lots of things that go into evaluating whether they want the puppy or not) and the price and will sign whatever contract they were given. That doesn't mean that they will abide by it. 

One friend who bought a puppy a few years ago told me she definitely would not return her dog to the breeder if she could no longer keep him. She has not heard from the breeder since she purchased and does not think the breeder would play a helpful role in rehoming the dog. 

Nonetheless, I personally do not feel comfortable signing contracts that I do not intend to abide by. And I continue to think that the requirement that a dog must be returned to the breeder if the original owner can no longer keep it is an unfair one. It gives control to the breeder in an area where I believe the owner should be in control. The objective of making sure that the dog does not end up in a shelter could be better served by a clearly stated offer to take the dog back if necessary, and by keeping in touch with puppy buyers. 

But obviously, the prevailing opinion in this group differs quite strongly from the opinions that I have stated in this thread.


----------



## cadeau

*breeder contracts*

My contract states that I have the right of first refusal. I sit down with my puppy buyers and explain to them that all this means is that if they find themselves in a situation where they can't keep my precious puppy, that I brought into this world, that this puppy is welcomed back home to his/her first home. I also let them know that if they find a suitable home for this dog, I am all fine and dandy with that, but no transfers take place without my knowledge. After all, I sold the dog to them, not their friends. I like to keep track of my puppies. It is not my goal to have a dozen companion dogs living at my house, but I do wish to know where they are! My contracts are negotiable to a degree, but I would never negotiate this because I used to volunteer in a kill shelter. No quality or type of dog is safe from that situation unless there are people rallying for them. Some folks just don't realize what goes into producing a high quality litter of puppies. They can go buy a dog off the internet and click the "Pay with Paypal" button and get a "no strings attached dog." In the future, I may void my health guarantee if they don't follow my vaccination protocol. There, you can vaccinate how you and your vet see fit, but if it does not match my beliefs and my protocol (ie, over-vaccination is deadly) be prepared to lose your health guarantee. 

Some people appreciate responsible breeders; some do not. End of story.


----------



## cadeau

I would. I follow up. I'm not playing. These are my puppies that I brought into this world. I threatened to take a dog back before because the buyer told me he had a fenced in yard and posted videos of the dog playing unleashed near the street. In my contract, the buyer agrees to provide a safe, enclosed area for the dog to play in. He had to prove he had a fence or you better believe I was going to get the dog. Maybe I'm an extreme case, but I have no intention of letting a clueless puppy stay with clueless people.


----------



## cadeau

taem said:


> Ok I have this question. Whatever a contract says, how would a breeder even go about enforcing the terms? Do breeders actually keep careful track of every puppy they sell, and then hire an attorney and go through the legal process to make sure contracts are adhered to? I really can't see that happening. Often a pup will cross state lines which makes the legal process an even bigger hassle. I have no intentions of flouting any contract I sign, but I was thinking I'm bound to it by the honor system and nothing more. I mean seriously, if I just ignore the breeder after bringing puppy home, they'd drive out to check up? Hire a private investigator?
> 
> The most ridiculous contract I've seen is one that requires competition in stuff like conformation and agility btw.


Sorry I posted a reply to this earlier but it was unclear.. I'm new here and am still learning how to use the little buttons.. Anyway, in response to this post:
I would. I follow up. I'm not playing. These are my puppies that I brought into this world. I threatened to take a dog back before because the buyer told me he had a fenced in yard and posted videos of the dog playing unleashed near the street. In my contract, the buyer agrees to provide a safe, enclosed area for the dog to play in. He had to prove he had a fence or you better believe I was going to get the dog. Maybe I'm an extreme case, but I have no intention of letting a clueless puppy stay with clueless people.


----------



## taem

cadeau said:


> My contract states that I have the right of first refusal. I sit down with my puppy buyers and explain to them that all this means is that if they find themselves in a situation where they can't keep my precious puppy, that I brought into this world, that this puppy is welcomed back home to his/her first home. I also let them know that if they find a suitable home for this dog, I am all fine and dandy with that, but no transfers take place without my knowledge. After all, I sold the dog to them, not their friends. I like to keep track of my puppies.


Then aren't you selling a license to have possession of a poodle, and not a poodle? Not trying to pick an argument, just musing out loud. I don't have a conceptual problem with spay/neuter provisions but this clause strikes me as qualitatively different. Haven't thought through why I think that though. I just think if you're not allowed to vend a product, then you don't own it, you're renting.


----------



## cadeau

not even sure if I am grasping what you are saying, other than I know what I'm trying to say! Lol. My poodles are not "products" to be "vended." They're living, breathing, loving creatures. When I sell a dog, my buyers understand my loyalty to my dogs. I will stand behind my buyers, though and help them through whatever difficulties they are having, if any. The screening process is extensive because they're not just dogs to me. That said, they're not just buyers, either. They're new family members all around. I would like everything to be sunshine and rainbows, but in the event that it isn't they don't have to feel horrible for dumping a dog at a shelter or worse. If they find a nice home for the dog, hooray. If not, I'm here. It's really not that complicated.


----------



## peppersb

cadeau said:


> Some people appreciate responsible breeders; some do not. End of story.


Cadeau -- I found your comment to be a bit insulting. The point is that we seem to have very different ideas about what constitutes a responsible breeder.

My idea of a responsible breeder is one who selects for good health, good temperaments and good conformation, one who does all appropriate health testing, one who researches pedigrees, understands genetics and chooses breeding dogs carefully, one who does not breed the bitches too often or too frequently, one who provides a wonderful loving home for all her breeding dogs and one who is able to place all of her puppies in good homes and provide new owners with advice and guidance as needed. I also think that it is terrific for a breeder to offer to take back any of their dogs at any time if the owner cannot take care of them. I absolutely think a responsible breeder should keep in touch with people who buy their puppies. IMO, the most important reason for a breeder to keep in touch is so that they will know about any instances of bloat, Addison's or other diseases that should be taken into account in their breeding program. (Sadly, I think many breeders do not keep in touch.) 

However, I DO NOT think that a breeder should have the right to control the disposition of a dog that has become a loved member of the new owner's family. I can assure you that if I ever needed to rehome one of my dogs, it would be a very difficult and emotional decision. If I was diagnosed with a terminal illness, I might or might not want to be in contact with my dog's breeder. But I most definitely would not want to be in the position where a breeder had the final say in what happened to my dogs. All decisions about my dogs' care and possible rehoming are mine and mine alone.

So if you want to say that I just don't appreciate responsible breeders, all I can say is that I disagree with you.


----------



## cadeau

peppersb said:


> Cadeau -- I found your comment to be a bit insulting. The point is that we seem to have very different ideas about what constitutes a responsible breeder.
> 
> My idea of a responsible breeder is one who selects for good health, good temperaments and good conformation, one who does all appropriate health testing, one who researches pedigrees, understands genetics and chooses breeding dogs carefully, one who does not breed the bitches too often or too frequently, one who provides a wonderful loving home for all her breeding dogs and one who is able to place all of her puppies in good homes and provide new owners with advice and guidance as needed. I also think that it is terrific for a breeder to offer to take back any of their dogs at any time if the owner cannot take care of them. I absolutely think a responsible breeder should keep in touch with people who buy their puppies. IMO, the most important reason for a breeder to keep in touch is so that they will know about any instances of bloat, Addison's or other diseases that should be taken into account in their breeding program. (Sadly, I think many breeders do not keep in touch.)
> 
> However, I DO NOT think that a breeder should have the right to control the disposition of a dog that has become a loved member of the new owner's family. I can assure you that if I ever needed to rehome one of my dogs, it would be a very difficult and emotional decision. If I was diagnosed with a terminal illness, I might or might not want to be in contact with my dog's breeder. But I most definitely would not want to be in the position where a breeder had the final say in what happened to my dogs. All decisions about my dogs' care and possible rehoming are mine and mine alone.
> 
> So if you want to say that I just don't appreciate responsible breeders, all I can say is that I disagree with you.


I agree with everything stated above except the following "All decisions about my dogs' care and possible rehoming are mine and mine alone." I never said you didn't appreciate responsible breeders. Many people don't. Obviously, you do.
We agree on what responsible breeding is. I'm sorry if you felt insulted by my comment and certainly in the beginning of any relationship between a buyer and a breeder, you don't know each other well. The clause is in the contract to the protect the puppy - not the buyer's ego, and not the breeder's bank account. I have been on both sides of the fence in buying and breeding. Maybe when I breed half a dozen litters, I will relax. I would imagine that each situation is incredibly individualized and I would also hope that over years of correspondence that I would develop a certain trust about you as a dog owner, however, when 2 people meet for the first time to negotiate a puppy sale, none of this rapport exists. Again, the clause is to protect the puppy. I am a very reasonable person and I make that known. I would hope that my buyers would feel confident to talk to me about any problems. I always say that I want to know the good, bad, and ugly and again, no body is bound by law to buy a dog from me. They can go anywhere else they want to buy a dog. I have seen far, far more stringent puppy agreements than mine!


----------



## taem

peppersb said:


> My idea of a responsible breeder is one who selects for good health, good temperaments and good conformation, one who does all appropriate health testing, one who researches pedigrees, understands genetics and chooses breeding dogs carefully, one who does not breed the bitches too often or too frequently, one who provides a wonderful loving home for all her breeding dogs and one who is able to place all of her puppies in good homes and provide new owners with advice and guidance as needed...
> 
> However, I DO NOT think that a breeder should have the right to control the disposition of a dog that has become a loved member of the new owner's family.


Yeah this is sort of where I am. I don't think I feel as strongly about it as you do. I totally get where cadeau is coming from, and I agree with cadeau that this just isn't that big a deal. I'm just talking the theory of it, I find it slightly offensive. ehh wordy, I'll edit it down.

btw cadeau, have you ever had to exercise this clause?


----------



## cadeau

outwest said:


> Limited registration is hurting the AKC because many people don't bother registering their dogs anyway or ignore the limited registrations. Limited registrations imply an inferior specimen to me. Why bother even registering an 'inferior specimen'. Why pay as much for this puppy as someone does with full registration? It makes no sense to me. If we don't have the AKC to keep things on track we will be a land of mixed breeds in no time.


Limited registration puppies are usually cheaper than show picks. Anyway, I wouldn't want to sell my puppy to someone who was only going to look at it and think "inferior." I had a very sweet couple who wanted me to sell them a black puppy and guarantee it to stay black. 

How about some of the crazy puppy requests breeders are expected to fill?? LOL 

I said, "You know, I cannot guarantee the dog will stay black. Their dam is very black at this age. Their sire is black, but I can't promise that at 7 or 8 years it won't start to fade." They were "disappointed" because they had a 7 yr old dog who they bought as black and it had faded. Well, they could dye it, or get lied to by someone who can guarantee color (which you can't), but either way I said, "You know, I really don't feel comfortable selling a dog. I really don't want to think of this treasured puppy in a family 5 years down the road and all they feel is "disappointed" when they look at him.
At any rate, since when does limited registration limit the potential of the dog other than breeding? Why can't it become an agility or obedience-titled dog? Why can't it get a CGC? Why can't it become a therapy or service dog? There are tons of limited registration standard poodles (and other varieties) that are exemplary specimens of the breed. I don't agree with neutering everything early, because our gene pool is so limited, but you have to think in broader terms than a poodle being "inferior" because it has a conformation flaw. I sold my 2nd and 3rd show picks to pet homes on limited registration because the people who bought them had no interest in breeding. One remains intact and I could easily change his status to full registration if I wanted to and the owners wanted to. I trust them not to breed him unless I give the green light. That's what building a rapport is all about. 
My philosophy is this: If you want to buy a dog and breed one of my hard-earned poodles, then you had better be willing to provide more than a couch and a dog bed. I would expect some kind of participation in the AKC and in the breed than just "I'm paying more money so I should get full registration." All serious breeders laugh at profiting from dog sales. By the time you put money into all aspects of what goes into campaigning and raising a dog and puppies, health testing, diet, etc. you will not see a dollar!


----------



## cadeau

taem said:


> Yeah this is sort of where I am. I don't think I feel as strongly about it as you do. I totally get where cadeau is coming from, and I agree with cadeau that this just isn't that big a deal. I'm just talking the theory of it, I find it slightly offensive. ehh wordy, I'll edit it down.
> 
> btw cadeau, have you ever had to exercise this clause?


nope, I sure haven't...


----------



## taem

cadeau said:


> Limited registration puppies are usually cheaper than show picks... My philosophy is this: If you want to buy a dog and breed one of my hard-earned poodles, then you had better be willing to provide more than a couch and a dog bed.


I've been researching breeders for close to a year now, and I'm pretty sure each and every single one only sold on a limited registration basis. If you want breeding rights, you talk about that; and some say "no never go elsewhere if you need that." Anyway I had come to think limited registration is so much the norm among breeders that it's almost a universal rule, as the default contract. Seems sensible, in more ways than one. I usually rail against restrictions upon the individual but I think I'm fine with this one.


----------



## cadeau

taem said:


> I've been researching breeders for close to a year now, and I'm pretty sure each and every single one only sold on a limited registration basis. If you want breeding rights, you talk about that; and some say "no never go elsewhere if you need that." Anyway I had come to think limited registration is so much the norm among breeders that it's almost a universal rule, as the default contract. Seems sensible, in more ways than one. I usually rail against restrictions upon the individual but I think I'm fine with this one.


I spoke to over 50 breeders when shopping for a poodle. I really had doozie for them. I wanted a breeding and show quality female, but I didn't want to show (didn't know a thing about it). I promised health testing and AKC activities, but I never promised titles or a championship. You wouldn't believe how much I got laughed out of the field. Eventually I came to terms with a very serious, but small and responsible breeder in VA who sold me my angel on full registration (with a co ownership) and some stipulations. I will say that not every dog is going to be on limited reg, but it is entirely reasonable for the breeder to want to remain as co-owner until the stipulations of the contract (whatever is agreed upon) are fulfilled.


----------



## peppersb

cadeau said:


> ...The clause is in the contract to the protect the puppy - not the buyer's ego, and not the breeder's bank account. I have been on both sides of the fence in buying and breeding. Maybe when I breed half a dozen litters, I will relax. I would imagine that each situation is incredibly individualized and I would also hope that over years of correspondence that I would develop a certain trust about you as a dog owner, however, when 2 people meet for the first time to negotiate a puppy sale, none of this rapport exists. Again, the clause is to protect the puppy. I am a very reasonable person and I make that known. I would hope that my buyers would feel confident to talk to me about any problems. I always say that I want to know the good, bad, and ugly and again, no body is bound by law to buy a dog from me. They can go anywhere else they want to buy a dog. I have seen far, far more stringent puppy agreements than mine!


I know that many poodle breeders feel that this clause is to protect the puppy. But I think that the best way to protect a puppy from a bad situation is to keep in contact with the buyers and use gentle persuasion and creative problem-solving. Certainly, a breeder’s sincere offer to take a dog back can help avoid a dog ending up in a shelter (or worse). But I doubt that a contractual obligation adds any value. Certainly a puppy buyer who no longer wants to be in contact with a breeder can just stop returning phone calls or emails. 

But this clause makes it hard for people like me to buy a dog. I am not willing to adopt a living breathing standard poodle into my family and have anyone else controlling what happens to my dog. It is like adopting a child. You do not want the birth parents to have a right to reclaim the child if you die, do you? I think my desire to take full responsibility for my dogs actually makes me a good dog owner, not a bad dog owner. And in many other regards, I think I am a great poodle owner. I have a nice house with a fenced yard, frequent walks and trips to the dog park, work from home, a great dog sitter for the rare occasions when I am away overnight, two dogs so they have doggie companionship, lots of dog toys, good food, good grooming, and good vet care. What more could a dog want? I even had a dog bath built in when I had some renovations done. My dogs are the joy of my life and they are happy happy happy dogs. But I guess I couldn’t buy one of your puppies. How exactly is that in the puppy’s best interest? 

I am sure that many contracts are more controlling than yours. And certainly many of the breeders on this forum support the idea of retaining control over the puppies that they sell. As a puppy buyer, I find it quite depressing that I not only have to find a dog that is bred to my standards, but I also have to find a breeder that I can work with. I get a little nervous when breeders assure me that they are reasonable. We may have different ideas about what is reasonable or what should be done in a given situation. And what if after years of correspondence, I come to the conclusion that I really do not trust my breeder’s judgement? It is hard enough to find a dog I like. Do I really have to enter into a long term contractual relationship with a breeder who retains control over the most important thing in my life? 

Anyway, cadeau, I hope I have not been overly harsh in my responses to you. I wish you every success in your breeding. I am glad that you plan to keep in touch with your puppy people. But I hope that if someone like me wants to buy one of your puppies, that you’ll be willing to compromise on the control issue. As you said, “each situation is incredibly individualized.” But I probably hope for too much....


----------



## cadeau

It keeps giving me an error message that my message is too short. Wow, like that could ever happen!



peppersb said:


> I know that many poodle breeders feel that this clause is to protect the puppy. But I think that the best way to protect a puppy from a bad situation is to keep in contact with the buyers and use gentle persuasion and creative problem-solving.
> 
> When you breed a litter of puppies, you can do what ever you think is best!
> 
> Certainly, a breeder’s sincere offer to take a dog back can help avoid a dog ending up in a shelter (or worse). But I doubt that a contractual obligation adds any value. Certainly a puppy buyer who no longer wants to be in contact with a breeder can just stop returning phone calls or emails.
> 
> Something I would hope would never happen, but you're right!
> 
> But this clause makes it hard for people like me to buy a dog. I am not willing to adopt a living breathing standard poodle into my family and have anyone else controlling what happens to my dog. It is like adopting a child. You do not want the birth parents to have a right to reclaim the child if you die, do you? I kept my children. if I ever decided to pawn them off on some other families, I'm sure I'd have clauses for that situation in place!
> I think my desire to take full responsibility for my dogs actually makes me a good dog owner, not a bad dog owner. I don't disagree!
> And in many other regards, I think I am a great poodle owner. I have a nice house with a fenced yard, frequent walks and trips to the dog park, work from home, a great dog sitter for the rare occasions when I am away overnight, two dogs so they have doggie companionship, lots of dog toys, good food, good grooming, and good vet care. What more could a dog want? I even had a dog bath built in when I had some renovations done. My dogs are the joy of my life and they are happy happy happy dogs. YOU sounds like a marvelous owner, however we are discussing what happens to the dog *I* bred when *you* can no longer keep it.
> But I guess I couldn’t buy one of your puppies. Says who?
> How exactly is that in the puppy’s best interest? A great home like yours is all a responsible breeder could ever ask for!
> 
> I am sure that many contracts are more controlling than yours.Trust me! They are! A
> nd certainly many of the breeders on this forum support the idea of retaining control over the puppies that they sell. I think control is the wrong word. I'd call it a vested interest.As a puppy buyer, I find it quite depressing that I not only have to find a dog that is bred to my standards, but I also have to find a breeder that I can work with. Welcome to poodles!
> I get a little nervous when breeders assure me that they are reasonable. I get a LOT nervous when buyers want my puppy but don't want to adhere to my contract!We may have different ideas about what is reasonable or what should be done in a given situation. Differing opinions and ideas should be addressed before monies are exchanged.And what if after years of correspondence, I come to the conclusion that I really do not trust my breeder’s judgement? You trusted your breeder's judgment to sell you the puppy? Why would you not trust your breeder's judgment to choose a quality home for the puppy you lovingly raised and cared for? It seems that if you built a rapport and bought from a responsible breeder, the goal would be the same. I know that is always my goal - a loving, home for a poodle that will be respected, loved, well-nourished, well-exercised, and well-groomed. It is hard enough to find a dog I like. Do I really have to enter into a long term contractual relationship with a breeder who retains control over the most important thing in my life?
> 
> Anyway, cadeau, I hope I have not been overly harsh in my responses to you. No hard feelingsI wish you every success in your breeding. Thank you!I am glad that you plan to keep in touch with your puppy people. But I hope that if someone like me wants to buy one of your puppies, that you’ll be willing to compromise on the control issue. I don't care for the word "control." I will not compromise on having an interest in my puppies. If you find an excellent home in the unlikely event you can't keep the dog, we have no issues. Remember, breeders like myself are trying to prevent their dogs from ending up in shelters.As you said, “each situation is incredibly individualized.” But I probably hope for too much....


----------



## peppersb

Cadeau,

Your response is absolutely charming. You make me laugh--especially the part about keeping your children. I have a friend who has 2 adopted children, and you better believe she would not tolerate having the birth parents have any continuing control or vested interest (whatever you want to call it) any more than I would tolerate this for one of my dogs. So the bottom line it would appear, is that I could not buy one of your puppies. You won't budge on this and neither will I. So I do find this a bit depressing since you might have nice dogs and I might have a nice dog-home.

I am feeling incredibly fortunate that I not only found a fantastic puppy, but a breeder who was indeed willing to change this clause in our contract.


----------



## peppersb

Interestingly, the breeder that I have more respect for than any other uses no contract at all. She breeds amazing standard poodles--bred for calm temperaments, good health and conformation. She shows her dogs and has won a number of championships. She knows more about poodles than anyone I know. She sells with limited registration and provides plenty of instruction/advice for her puppy buyers. She is still in touch with the owners of the vast majority of puppies that she has bred. All of her puppy owners know that she will take a dog back at any time. She has in fact taken a couple of them back and rehomed them. But all of this happens on a handshake. No contract. No obligation to return dogs if you can't care for them. I asked her about this and she says that she thinks that the relationship that she forms with her puppy buyers means more than the contract and she is perfectly happy with the way it works for her and for the puppies.


----------



## roulette

dear peppersb, So much has been said, and I have an understanding for both sides of this issue. As a small breeder, I must chime in with one added note that I believe you are unaware of. I think you truly have no idea the depth of our hearts and souls and time and work and experience that we breeders pour into these pups we produce. They are all ours, we brought them into this world, they will always have a home with us. In order to sleep at nite, with pups placed in new homes, we must reassure ourselves over and over that they are in a good, happy place. In this day of internet sales, you would never believe the liars and crazies who present themselves as a proper home for a Standard Poodle puppy. Sometimes it takes hours of phone calls and emails for this to present itself- I myself still shudder over pups that were "almost" placed with folks who turn out to be total flakes. In a word, we CARE. So, if someone is scared off by a clause in a contract that says a breeder must approve a transfer, and is not willing to even speak to us about it, good..screen out the half-hearted, they can have someone else's pup. Mine will stay with me until the best home truly commits to my puppy. For me, it is ALL about what is best for the dog.


----------



## peppersb

Hi Roulette -- I think I am aware of the depth of feeling that many (but not all) breeders have for their puppies. I certainly understand that a lot of work goes into breeding dogs properly with little or no financial reward. It is certainly a labor of love. 

I would hope that you would also understand that for many (perhaps not all) puppy buyers, the puppy is destined to become one who is loved by its new owner more than anything else in the world. In a word, I CARE too. 

I don't mind talking to a breeder about what is happening to my dog. I just won't allow the breeder to have the final say in the event of a disagreement.

I guess I couldn't buy one of your puppies either. You can call me half-hearted if you want, but I don't think you can find a dog owner that puts more heart into her dogs. I guess I just don't understand how it could be in the best interest of the puppy to refuse to sell to someone who did not want to give you final say over rehoming. An experienced poodle owner with excellent verifiable personal references, vet reference and groomer reference? Sorry, but I do not believe that that decision is in the best interest of the puppy.

But I am glad we have a forum where we can express our differing opinions. And you certainly have a right to breed and sell your pups in whatever way you want to.


----------



## taem

Peppersb are you from Iowa? You talk like every Iowan I know.



peppersb said:


> I don't mind talking to a breeder about what is
> happening to my dog. I just won't allow the breeder to have the final say in the event of a disagreement.


I hear you. When the mutant apocalypse comes, it'll be just Don Johnson and his dog. It's such a primal, fundamental relationship, can we not have this one thing all to ourselves? Also I can't help but feel this is the dog park scenario all over again. Some of us will be irresponsible. So legal control must be imposed on every single one of us, to prevent the irresponsible from acting out. Not to get too political or anything. But when it comes to dogs, it just seems to me like everything is drifting into lowest common denominator status. Take spaying a dog; there is evidence that you should not spay until the first heat; but irresponsible folks will forget; so they just spay all the dogs at 8 weeks, to the medical detriment of dogs. I just see these types of scenarios playing out over and over, and it makes me resent efforts to control or otherwise modifiy my behavior all the more. I haven't done anything wrong, can we start off by not assuming you need a legal tool to prevent me from climbing up a church tower with a high powered rifle in the future.

Not saying that's what cadeau's clause does mind you, I'm just speaking generally about my frustration with restraints on individual decision making.



> You can call me half-hearted if you want, but I don't think you can find a dog owner that puts more heart into her dogs.


Yeah I don't think this feeling is evidence of "potentially bad dog owner" either. My bro in law (from Iowa...) is like you, he would not accept ongoing custodial rights for the breeder, on the principle of it. Does not mean he's not a good dog person. He's world class when it comes to dogs. For one thing his whole worldview is rooted in personal responsibility, that's why he doesn't like those kinds of clauses. And that means he is super responsible about his dogs.


----------



## peppersb

Taem -- I love you! Finally someone agrees with me. Yippeeeee!!! I was beginning to feel like the only one ... Except maybe Outwest who drifted through this thread quite a while ago. I agree with absolutely everything you said, and I love the way you said it. Makes me laugh. Don't get me started on the dog park issues ...

I'm happily living on the east coast, but from what you say, I'm sure I'd love Iowa.


----------



## liljaker

I think if you are unhappy signing a contract with this provision with a breeder for a dog, then find another breeder rather than beat them up. It sounds like there are enough breeders around to satisfy the needs of all prospective poodle owners and it also sounds like once you make it into a "good dog owner vs. bad dog owner", it misses the point and offends people. The point is that if any of the poodle owners on this PF ever had to rehome our family poodle(s), I'll bet we would not ever want to let someone else decide who would care for our beloved poodles if the person we entrusted them to was unable to keep them for any reason. A breeder feels just as strongly about their poodles. I totally respect the breeders' position here and although I am only a poodle owner, not a breeder, I couldn't imagine not wanting to comply with a provision that would guarantee that my poodle would be taken care of if I was unable to do so. Although Sunny was rehomed to me, I agreed to that provision as well, and I was impressed the breeder insisted on getting him back if I couldn't take care of him. Just my two cents.


----------



## spoospirit

_I'm actually surprised to see that this debate is still going on. I thought that everything that needed to be said form all sides had been said.

Peppersb, you have a puppy from a breeder with whom you are very satisfied. You found what you were looking for and you have the relationship you want and you did not have to sign a contract to get it. I'm happy for you.

I don't understand why this is still being hashed around at this point. It feels to me like you are trying to either say that we breeders who require a signed contract (negotiable) are somehow bad because of that, or that you are trying to force all breeders to conform to your beliefs at this point. 

I am sure we have all gotten your point by now. I would think it would serve everyone if we agreed to disagree on this point and go on our way. You have a puppy to love and raise and we breeders have a lot on our plates with our breeding programs. You are not going to change every breeder to your standards. Be happy and let the rest of us be._


----------



## cadeau

I blame myself. I'd been recommended to come here on this poodle forum but only finally got around to doing so. I saw this as a recent topic of interested and I thought "Well this ought to be interesting!" 
To the OP: Are you still shopping for a playmate for your current poodle? If so, I do have a friend in the area who is looking for a home for her 6 month old male standard (black). I believe she'd be more interested in finding him a good home in the here and now than worried about hypothetical situations in the future.. Might be your kind of breeder. She cares a lot, but would probably be thrilled to let you have her pup.
On another note, I bought my first show puppy without a contract. Good thing I had built the rapport and my breeder was honest, ethical, and respected. That pup did not meet the health requirements of a show/breeding dog. I lost a ton of money, my heart was broken, etc. She is going to give me another puppy and has already started to make it right. I think <again> what it all boils down to is trust, and the inherent truth that all contracts are negotiable! Would I sell you a puppy with that one clause scratched out? Maybe! But you have to understand that you are asking for a lot! What experience do you have in placing dogs? How many dogs have you fitted with owners? Do you understand what happens when a poodle is under stress and has to change homes? Or any dog for that matter that has been acclimated into a pack and a lifestyle and is forced out? Well, I do. But you would not believe how many people take on an adult dog and freak out because the dog is under stress and acts accordingly. You have to have someone to be there to guide them into the transition (dog and owner). If you and I understood each other, again, I don't think there would be an issue. It's a leap of faith on both parts. Fortunately for you, and me, if you (or I) did not want to take that leap of faith, there are dozens of other very nice poodles looking for a home just like yours!


----------



## peppersb

Cadeau,

Thanks for your gracious reply and for your suggestion about the 6 month old puppy. I have decided to wait a while before getting a second pup. One reason for this is that Bob (my 11 year old spoo) is so delighted with his new-found friend. It is as if he has been waiting his whole life for someone to play with. He plants himself in the middle of the room, and Cammie swirls around the permiter jumping out at him from behind a chair or off the sofa. Lots of snarling and growling. Then they curl up on a dog bed together. Bob just loves that little girl! The relationship is very different from Bob's relationship with Sophie (my 14 year old spoo who died in April). Sophie's idea of play was 60 seconds of play according to her standards (very stylized positioning and jumping around) followed by a stern paw over Bob's back to end the brief period of play--yet another reminder that she was the boss lady. I adored Sophie, but Bob's natural playfulness did not get much of an outlet with her. Anyway, if I got another puppy now (that was my original plan), I fear that Bob would be left out. I do want two that are close in age, but I think I'll wait another year or two and let Bob have this beautiful little girl all to himself while he can still enjoy rough housing with her. 

I have actually been involved in a number of re-homings. I got Sophie when she was 6 and I got Bob when he was 4 (an easy transition for Bob, a bit more of an adjustment for the sensitive Sophie). I also played the lead role in finding a new home for the most energetic spoo that I have ever met. He was far too high strung for his first home (which was with a family that I am quite close to) and not working out well with the children. He was not getting enough exercise. Whenever the kids had playdates, he would be locked in the kitchen or sent over to my house where Sophie distinctly disliked him. Even though things were not working out well, his owners and I were both attached to him and the thought of giving him up was a difficult one. Then a friend who knew about this less than ideal situation introduced me to Jim. Jim had recently lost his standard poodle and was looking for a new dog to join him and his other dog. We took a full month to get to know Jim, with the dog going for many overnight visits. Jim was concerned to make sure that the two dogs would get along and we were concerned to make sure that this was the best thing for "our" dog. The transfer was not finalized until the previous owner and I could see the dog wagging his tail and wanting to go with Jim. Jim has a flexible work schedule and gives his dogs two walks a day, each 45 minutes to an hour with ball-throwing and fields and streams to investigate and groundhogs to chase. This high-energy dog really needs this amount of exercise and when he gets it, he is a real charmer. Many years after the adoption, I am still in touch with Jim and I still love to see his sweet dog. Jim recently told me that his dog is now "10 years old, going on 6 months." It is true. That dog has not slowed down one bit. He is a perpetual energy machine. I thank God for Jim. He provided a wonderful solution to a very real problem. Anyway ... I'm rambling.

I do think that our discussion has been more theoretical than practical. New Orleans is a little far for me to go to get a dog, even if everything else was right (not impossible, but something closer would be a lot easier). But I think theoretical discussions have value, and I have enjoyed getting to know you a bit. I'm honored to think that you might be willing to consider the possibility of scratching out that offensive clause for me, even if the discussion is theoretical. I agree entirely with what you say about trust, rapport and ethical relationships and I am glad to hear that your pup's breeder is doing the right thing and replacing the pup that did not meet health standards. Best to you in all of your breeding and showing. And thanks so much for your thoughtful contributions to this thread.


----------



## cadeau

Thanks to you, too. After pondering this for a couple of days, what I really came away with was that it's not so much that I can't trust the person who has had the dog I bred for X years to find it a nice home, it's more that I want to know where the dog that I bred ends up. If you aren't around to help them transition, I'd like them to know who I am, where to find me, how to reach me, etc.


----------



## peppersb

Cadeau -- It really warms my heart to think that you want to keep in touch with all of your puppies wherever they end up. I think your comment about how that is really what matters to you is very interesting and makes a lot of sense to me. I'd certainly be more than willing to let a breeder know anything and everything about my dogs. When I got Bob at age 4, I very much wanted to see his pedigree and know what breeder he came from, but his previous owner couldn't or wouldn't give me that information. My groomer is like you in that she really does keep in touch with all of the pups that she has bred. I've enjoyed hearing her stories about what has happened to some of "her" pups. That gets back to the point that you have made before that it is all about maintaining a positive trusting relationship. My guess is that most poodle owners would be happy to keep the breeder in the loop if they were still in touch with the breeder and if they did not feel threatened by the fact that the breeder had the legal right to reclaim the dog. Your willingness to be there for a transition and/or for any other issues is lovely and it is easy to imagine that this level of commitment could be extremely helpful in all kinds of different situations.


----------

