# PooPerfect Poodles and Wendy Tyler?



## Mysticrealm (Jan 31, 2016)

They don't appear to do anything with their dogs in regards to confo or performance, and they don't do all health testing (such as hips are not done). They have a fair number of litters a year and charge more for their standards than some show/performance breeders that spend the money to do all health testing (as well as the money spent to do the showing and/or performance) so to me they are just breeding for money which I don't personally like.


----------



## zooeysmom (Jan 3, 2014)

Good catch, Mysticrealm. I would definitely want to see proof of OFA hips on both parents! And personally, I prefer to buy from breeders who show in AKC conformation. But, this breeder does a lot of other things right. It sounds like the puppies are very lovingly raised, and I think the questions on the questionnaire are perfectly acceptable.


----------



## Saphire (Nov 15, 2013)

That is what has me confused. They seem to make a big deal of their process of interviewing and the questions they ask are more extensive than any I have ever seen for a non co own situation. I have looked at maybe 10 puppy applications in the last few weeks from really good breeders. Honestly why do they expect to get yearly reports when my dog is 10? Then they show pictures of the dogs lounging around?

Assuming I go forward would look at hips, Thank you


----------



## zooeysmom (Jan 3, 2014)

Saphire said:


> That is what has me confused. They seem to make a big deal of their process of interviewing and the questions they ask are more extensive than any I have ever seen for a non co own situation. I have looked at maybe 10 puppy applications in the last few weeks from really good breeders. Honestly why do they expect to get yearly reports when my dog is 10? Then they show pictures of the dogs lounging around?
> 
> Assuming I go forward would look at hips, Thank you


I think they're just trying to weed out people who would have anything to hide. Most likely, you will want to share everything with your dog's breeder, anyway. My dog's breeders can't get me to shut up with brags, occasional questions, photos, etc.


----------



## doditwo (Nov 7, 2017)

zooeysmom said:


> I think they're just trying to weed out people who would have anything to hide. Most likely, you will want to share everything with your dog's breeder, anyway. My dog's breeders can't get me to shut up with brags, occasional questions, photos, etc.



Lol My breeder is probably sick & tired of me. I’m surprised she hasn’t blocked my email yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Saphire (Nov 15, 2013)

No while I have that relationship with a couple of breeders I know, I only contacted my dog's breeder a few times since I got her. 24 hours after we arrived home she contacted me to make sure we arrived well and there may have been some food related emails the first week. Once to send her a picture of a particularly nice grooming when she was a year to show her how nicely puppy had grown. Then to let her know about the illness after she passed. She responded immediately with the appropriate comments each time.

I am happy to provide photographs if they ask, I would absolutely alert them to something potentially genetic that crops up so that it can be investigated but I do not want to feel that I am legally bound to do this after the dog becomes part of my family anymore than I feel I have to give my child's elementary school teacher a copy of his high school report card

As for weeding out crazy, a vet and groomer reference can do that better than getting references from your brother in law and his girlfriend


----------



## peppersb (Jun 5, 2011)

Asking for yearly reports from a vet as part of a contractual obligation is way too controlling for a pet in my opinion.


----------



## zooeysmom (Jan 3, 2014)

peppersb said:


> Asking for yearly reports from a vet as part of a contractual obligation is way too controlling for a pet in my opinion.


I get that, but would any of us have a problem sharing that info? I personally would not, as I have taken exceptional care of my dogs and have nothing to hide. I really think the breeder is just throwing that in to weed people out, though.


----------



## doditwo (Nov 7, 2017)

I’d have a bad feeling about a breeder who demands I send them a yearly report. If they’re truly interested then they’d be more than welcome to call me up and ask. If they don’t trust me enough to answer honestly then they shouldn’t have sold me the puppy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dechi (Aug 22, 2015)

zooeysmom said:


> I get that, but would any of us have a problem sharing that info? I personally would not, as I have taken exceptional care of my dogs and have nothing to hide. I really think the breeder is just throwing that in to weed people out, though.


I wouldn’t either, except if I don’t have reason to go to the vet on a particular year, this would make me have to go and spend money unnecessarily. I don’t vaccinate yearly and I don’t use flea/tick medication unless necessary.

Some years I might go 5-6 times for one particular dog, and then not have to go for 2 years. That’s what would bother me.

Unless you have an aging or chronically ill dog, I don’t think mandatory annual visits are necessary.


----------



## zooeysmom (Jan 3, 2014)

Dechi said:


> I wouldn’t either, except if I don’t have reason to go to the vet on a particular year, this would make me have to go and spend money unnecessarily. I don’t vaccinate yearly and I don’t use flea/tick medication unless necessary.
> 
> Some years I might go 5-6 times for one particular dog, and then not have to go for 2 years. That’s what would bother me.
> 
> Unless you have an aging or chronically ill dog, I don’t think mandatory annual visits are necessary.


I don't think any responsible breeder would want you to vaccinate yearly or do flea meds if you don't need to! Frosty is coming up on a year (knock on wood) of not seeing the vet, a record in our household LOL


----------



## Saphire (Nov 15, 2013)

Yes but if the contract requires it?

It simply make me feel like it is not really my dog, that I have this obligation to someone else 10 years later


----------



## zooeysmom (Jan 3, 2014)

If the contract requires yearly vaccinations, I would definitely move on. But, I would share your concerns with the breeder. I think there are a lot of assumptions being made.


----------



## kontiki (Apr 6, 2013)

I wonder if they are just trying to make sure their lines are healthy over the long term so they don't breed one of their dogs that is passing on some illness that doesn't show up until later?


----------



## Carolinek (Apr 2, 2014)

It strikes me as pretty controlling too...but if you like everything else, as Zooey mom pointed out, sharing information once a year might not be so bad. 

Maybe she just wants to keep track of all her pups- which is not a bad thing, and doesn’t realize how it appears.

Just make sure there are no stipulations that the pup needs to have health care you don’t agree with.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 29, 2016)

You can always negotiate changes to a contract. The breeder can refuse to sell to you, but if you make sensible, reasoned changes the breeder might agree with them. For example instead of vaccinations, you could do titration and/or vaccinations.


----------



## Mfmst (Jun 18, 2014)

Like ZM, I would have no problem sharing an annual vet report. Buck has an annual wellness visit. That said, I would not buy a puppy from a breeder who doesn’t do comprehensive health testing or does not prove their dogs in anything.


----------



## peppersb (Jun 5, 2011)

In a culture where 50% of marriages end in divorce, I am amazed that people are willing to enter into an agreement that gives the breeder substantial ongoing rights over the dog. People say that they are sure that the breeder will be reasonable. But the world is filled with people who think that they are very reasonable while those on the other side of an issue think that they are very unreasonable. 

I think it is fine for a breeder to prohibit breeding and to take steps to enforce that (e.g. mandatory spay/neuter). But other than that, the poodle should belong to the buyer. If a breeder wants to politely ask for info about the dogs health or for a photo, that's fine. I love the idea of keeping a nice relationship with a breeder. But giving them contractual rights to receive vet reports? No! I do not want an ongoing contractual obligation to the breeder.

This breeder has a very hostile anti-buyer agreement. It definitely sounds like she is preparing for disagreements with the buyer and ready to take legal action against them. This attitude is very different from the breeder that is using Sam in her breeding program. She vets her buyers carefully, develops trust, and relies on developing a positive relationship with them. With this approach, she is successful in keeping in touch with almost all of her puppies. 

The clause in the contract that I find most offensive is this: "Should the BUYER wish to relinquish possession of this animal for any reason, the dog is to be returned directly to the BREEDER without refund." This is not stated as an offer to help find the dog a new home. This is an insistence that she still has an ownership right in the dog. I am well aware that some breeders (and others) think that this is reasonable. But I don't. I would never sign such an agreement. If I pay $2,000 for a poodle, then the poodle belongs to me. And if I need to rehome the dog (for example, if I have a terminal illness or severe financial issues), then I will retain the right to choose the new home for my poodle. I do think that the breeder should be available to help, and to take the dog back if that is what the owner wants. The PooPerfect agreement is particularly onerous in that it goes on to talk about a fine of $2,500 if the buyer breaks the agreement, breeder's expense in repossessing the poodle to be paid by the buyer, required arbitration (so you can't sue the breeder), a release of liability (to protect the breeder), and all expenses of any arbitration to be paid by the buyer. And we are supposed to trust that this breeder is reasonable??? I don't think so. I would steer clear of PooPerfect just on the basis of their contract.


----------



## snow0160 (Sep 20, 2016)

Yikes, this does sound troubling to me too. Perhaps the person is really picky about the homes her dog goes to and has unrealistic goals. 

As strange as this sounds, I like to keep my breeder in my contact list. Why? I want to stay on their good side if I want to adopt another dog from her in the future. This is particularly true for Kit but Lucky’s breeder often text me on holidays. She really cares about her dogs. I update them on titles, training, Health, funny stories...etc. maybe I am the only one doing this. I really enjoy talking about the dogs and how happy they make me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## reraven123 (Jul 21, 2017)

Not to be a devil's advocate, but I do know a breeder (not poodles) who had a "return to me" clause in her contract. She had one buyer who did not live up to this but placed the dog herself, and the dog ended up in a bad home and then in rescue. The breeder found out about it and then had a very hard time getting the puppy back, and finally had to go to court. She now has a co-ownership clause in her puppy sales, which I personally would never agree to when buying a puppy.

Some breeders feel they have a lifetime responsibility for the puppies they produce, and I think this is a good thing. I would have no problem with a "return to me" clause. I think insisting on co-ownership is going too far, tho.


----------



## snow0160 (Sep 20, 2016)

reraven123 said:


> Not to be a devil's advocate, but I do know a breeder (not poodles) who had a "return to me" clause in her contract. .



All of my pets that are from breeders have this clause. This includes Lucky, Kit, and Donald (cat). The rest of my pets are rescues and even some rescues has the return the pet clause. I actually thought it was a common practice to return the dog to breeder nowadays. I also thought that only animals that show also have the co ownership clause but not pet quality animals.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## peppersb (Jun 5, 2011)

snow0160 said:


> Yikes, this does sound troubling to me too. Perhaps the person is really picky about the homes her dog goes to and has unrealistic goals.
> 
> As strange as this sounds, I like to keep my breeder in my contact list. Why? I want to stay on their good side if I want to adopt another dog from her in the future. This is particularly true for Kit but Lucky’s breeder often text me on holidays. She really cares about her dogs. I update them on titles, training, Health, funny stories...etc. maybe I am the only one doing this. I really enjoy talking about the dogs and how happy they make me.


Keeping a breeder in your contact list does not sound strange to me at all. I bred one litter 4 years ago (with the help of the breeder that I mentioned above). I am in touch with all of the puppy owners and all of the puppy owners are in touch with each other. One of the puppies lives in NC right on one of the barrier islands. So I emailed as Florence was approaching to make sure that they were OK and they emailed back to me and all of the puppy owners with an update. Fortunately, they are fine. The breeder that I worked with has a private Facebook page and people from all of the recent litters post photos and stories about their puppies (Sam has sired the most recent two litters.) It is really fun to see how the "family" is doing. One person bought one of Cammie's puppies (one of Sam's littermates) and also one of Sam's puppies and I love hearing about their very different personalities. So I am very much in favor of puppy buyers keeping in touch with breeders. If an owner needed help with rehoming a puppy, Michelle and/or I would be more than willing to help in any way including taking a poodle back and finding a new home for him/her.

It is the idea that a breeder is entitled to reclaim ownership of a dog and the hostile, litigious nature of the sales agreement that I find offensive.


----------



## glorybeecosta (Nov 11, 2014)

I got Sage at 5 years old with the clause, she has to go back to the breeder, and I was very happy as she is lovely and her place in neat, clean as is the dogs. I send her pictures of sage's new hair cut, dressed up in her clothes, and how she is doing as she was very shy when I got her. I would go back to this breeder in a heart beat


----------



## peppersb (Jun 5, 2011)

snow0160 said:


> All of my pets that are from breeders have this clause. This includes Lucky, Kit, and Donald (cat). The rest of my pets are rescues and even some rescues has the return the pet clause. I actually thought it was a common practice to return the dog to breeder nowadays. I also thought that only animals that show also have the co ownership clause but not pet quality animals.


It is common practice to have the return to breeder clause. But I think it is a very unfair clause, and I think buyers should resist.

In my area, even the SPCA has that clause. So if I adopt a pet from the SPCA, then I would have to return it to the SPCA if I could no longer care for the dog. Of course, people ignore that and no one from the SPCA is checking up on what you do with your dog. But I do not think that it is ethical for the SPCA to make this requirement. I would never return a dog to the SPCA. I have problems signing contracts that contain clauses that I would not abide by, and I assume that the SPCA workers are not authorized to negotiate the contract with an individual adopter. So I can never adopt a dog from the SPCA. That just doesn't make sense to me. My next dog will probably be an adult that is being rehomed, so I will need to look for a private placement.

It doesn't make sense to me that I would not have full authority to rehome my own dog if I needed to, even if the dog comes from a breeder. There a plenty of breeders that I might consider buying from but would not want to return a dog to. What if you have a dog that does not do well in a kennel situation? Is the breeder going to let your dog sleep on her bed, go for nice walks, and eat home-cooked dinners? My dogs are provided for in my will, and I have friends that have agreed to take them and/or find homes for them.


----------



## chinchillafuzzy (Feb 11, 2017)

My breeder loves my dog as if she were her own, and if I were to die or something happened to me it is super comforting to know that my breeder would take my girl back. I know how carefully she vets puppy homes so if she didn’t keep my dog (which I actually suspect she would keep her) I know that she would be extremely careful with her placement. I believe that most breeders have this clause to keep their dogs out of shelters, bad homes, and the hands of bybs or puppy mills. And I completely agree with that and am comforted that my dog will never end up in one of those places no matter what happens to me.


----------



## spicandspan (Apr 21, 2018)

I agree with peppersb. I am not a dog owner yet, but I will make arrangements for who will look after my future dog should something happen to me. Why put the burden on the breeder if I can arrange a good home for the dog myself? I'm fortunate that I have family and friends who could take in a dog. It does make sense that the breeder can be a back-up home if something goes wrong.


----------



## Mysticrealm (Jan 31, 2016)

peppersb said:


> It doesn't make sense to me that I would not have full authority to rehome my own dog if I needed to, even if the dog comes from a breeder. There a plenty of breeders that I might consider buying from but would not want to return a dog to. What if you have a dog that does not do well in a kennel situation? Is the breeder going to let your dog sleep on her bed, go for nice walks, and eat home-cooked dinners? My dogs are provided for in my will, and I have friends that have agreed to take them and/or find homes for them.


I think most GOOD breeders who have the return clause in their contracts would say ok to someone if they presented the breeder with a great home for one of their bred dogs if the owner could not keep the dog. 
Most breeders are not going to keep their rehomed dogs, they're going to find them new homes. If you present them with a good home I highly doubt they're gonna say no and have to go through the added effort of finding a different good home.


----------



## peppersb (Jun 5, 2011)

Mysticrealm said:


> I think most GOOD breeders who have the return clause in their contracts would say ok to someone if they presented the breeder with a great home for one of their bred dogs if the owner could not keep the dog.
> Most breeders are not going to keep their rehomed dogs, they're going to find them new homes. If you present them with a good home I highly doubt they're gonna say no and have to go through the added effort of finding a different good home.


I totally agree that most GOOD breeders would approve a new home that the owner found. In almost every case, this would go smoothly. But the reason for having a clause like this is to determine what happens if the breeder and the owner do not agree on what should be done. That's what I think is wrong. A person who pays $2,000 for a poodle should have full ownership of the poodle, including the right to choose a new home for the dog if that is necessary.

And remember, this clause is now so pervasive that you see it in the contracts of bad breeders, large-scale puppy producers, rescues and shelters.


----------

