# I don't like my dog...



## helxi70 (Aug 9, 2017)

Ok, I don't have a dog yet but I am waiting for my fence to be replaced and roof and then I am on the hunt.

Anyway, in order to get a realistic view of of dog ownership, I've been reading some posts/articles from people who have really regretted getting a dog. The reasons were varied why they had issues. One of the reasons that was interesting was because the owner didn't like the dog's personality - and many of these people were previous dog owners.

(It's like reading the puppy reality thread but with people not as responsible or knowledgeable.

I was wondering, how many of you, if any, have ever adopted/purchased a dog and it just didn't click. 

Maybe it's because the dogs were not poodles?


----------



## peppersb (Jun 5, 2011)

*In praise of rehoming, part 1*

I have two stories to tell. The first is about Bob.

I got Bob when he was 4 years old. His previous owners didn't like him. That's not what they said of course, but I have heard from others that they really did not like him. From what I have heard, they didn't like his looks and they didn't like his bossiness. They were completely right on both counts. 

Bob had the worst structure of any poodle I have ever seen. See the photo below that compares my beautiful Cammie with my not-so-beautiful Bob. His bad structure meant that he could never run as fast as other dogs, and in the end, he had to be euthanized when he got to the point where he could no longer walk or even stand. 

Also, Bob was one of the bossiest poodles I have ever met. He would tell me when he needed a treat and when he wanted his supper, and he would even go up to complete strangers in the park and ask for a treat (see photos). His previous owners didn't like being bossed around by a poodle, but I loved it and probably did too much to encourage him. He died in May at almost 17 years old. I still miss the way he used to march himself into the kitchen and bark to tell me it was time for me to prepare his dinner. I loved that boy. But if you want a poodle who is eager to please, Bob was not your boy.

Here's more about Bob if you want to read more about how much I loved that boy: http://www.poodleforum.com/5-poodle...rthday-bob-15-years-old-august-12-2015-a.html


----------



## helxi70 (Aug 9, 2017)

Maybe I don't get it but Bob looks beautiful to me. He does sound like a character but I kinda like that about dogs. My son is too and I love him for it...even when he is being naughty.


----------



## peppersb (Jun 5, 2011)

*In praise of rehoming, part 2*

Many years ago, I played an instrumental role in rehoming a poodle that was just not working out in his first home.

This poodle came from a well-regarded breeder and the first owner was very careful in researching breeders. But this breeder bred for agility, and what the first owner didn't know was that this poodle was extremely high energy. He really needed a good 3 hours of vigorous exercise a day. If he got it, he was a great dog. If he didn't, well... there were problems.

His first family was just not in a position to meet these very real needs for exercise. They loved him, but to make a long story short, it just wasn't working out. I think that the time that he ruined a newly upholstered chair by putting his ball under the cushion and digging for it really put the young wife over the top. There were other episodes too. The poor boy was not getting enough exercise and he was ended up spending too much time in his crate.

Fortunately, I ran into a man at the dog park who had just lost his much-loved poodle. He had another dog, but was missing his poodle. We all spent the next month getting to know each other, with the poodle going back and forth between his old family, my house, and what would become his new home. The new owner was in the habit of giving his dogs long walks in both the morning and evening -- walks that included off-leash time running through woods and streams, chasing balls or groundhogs and generally using up a whole lot of energy. And when he wasn't on one of his long vigorous walks, there was another dog to play with. It was the perfect placement. The new owner absolutely loved this boy. The poodle never really calmed down. I remember when he was 11, his new owner described him and "11 years old, going on 6 months." He also referred to him as the "energizer bunny." He was a fabulous dog if he got enough exercise. Frustrated and destructive if he didn't.

And a word to all of those who think that if a poodle owner wants to "get rid of" their dog that the dog "must" go back to the breeder: Let me just say NO NO NO. Breeders can often be very helpful. But each case is different. In this case the first owners loved this poodle, and they NEVER would have sent him back to the breeder. They really needed to see that there was a good option for him and that he was going to a home where he would be happy. It took a full month for the new owner to be ready to say 'yes' and for the first owner to say 'yes.' Watching this beautiful poodle wag his tail when his new owner came to pick him up made all of the difference. So I really think that poodle owners should be completely free to rehome their dog if they think that is best for the dog and for their family.

One nice thing about having a purebred poodle is that it is fairly easy to find a new home for a poodle if you ever need to do so.


----------



## peppersb (Jun 5, 2011)

helxi70 said:


> Maybe I don't get it but Bob looks beautiful to me.


Bob was beautiful in his own way. But take a look at Bob's structure in the first photo above, and try to imagine that dog running. Try to imagine that body really moving with speed and grace. Then look at Cammie (the cream girl) and try to imagine the same thing. Believe me, there is a huge difference. Bob never had that beautiful poodle gait. He always had bad hips, and that caused a lot of trouble as Bob got older. I am quite confident that when Cammie and Sam get old, we will not have to deal with the difficult mobility problems that made his senior years difficult for Bob (and for me).



helxi70 said:


> He does sound like a character but I kinda like that about dogs. My son is too and I love him for it...even when he is being naughty.


He certainly was a character! And I agree -- I just loved his bossy manipulative funny ways of doing things. Remembering him still brings a smile to my face and a tear to my eye. I miss that boy.


----------



## Verve (Oct 31, 2016)

You knew you were going to get some push-back on this, right? Because contracts. I often see poodles being rehomed where the story is along the lines of "breeder was crappy and I would never send him back there..." And that's fine, because frequently in such cases there is no contract at all, much less one stating that the breeder is always to be involved should the original owner not be in a position to keep the dog for any reason. BUT...if you buy from a reputable breeder (and you should!), you will have signed a contract that states that the breeder is to be contacted if the original owner cannot keep the pup for any reason. 

And the pup doesn't necessarily have to go back to the breeder, but a good breeder will want to be in the loop and involved in rehoming. 



peppersb said:


> And a word to all of those who think that if a poodle owner wants to "get rid of" their dog that the dog "must" go back to the breeder: Let me just say NO NO NO. Breeders can often be very helpful. But each case is different. In this case the first owners loved this poodle, and they NEVER would have sent him back to the breeder. They really needed to see that there was a good option for him and that he was going to a home where he would be happy. It took a full month for the new owner to be ready to say 'yes' and for the first owner to say 'yes.' Watching this beautiful poodle wag his tail when his new owner came to pick him up made all of the difference. So I really think that poodle owners should be completely free to rehome their dog if they think that is best for the dog and for their family.
> 
> One nice thing about having a purebred poodle is that it is fairly easy to find a new home for a poodle if you ever need to do so.


----------



## Silver Lace (May 7, 2012)

I have a dog and he just does not click with me and as you said it is because he is not a poodle. I have had other poodles and I was always happy with them and their ways and especially my last poodle who I still miss after 6 years. I am a poodle person after all.


----------



## glorybeecosta (Nov 11, 2014)

I had a silkie terrier for 2 years, that I did no like. He was stubborn and was totally house broken, but if a man was in the house he would lift his leg on my white satin sectional, knowing he would be in trouble. I gave my boyfriend at the time 3 days to find him a home, (breeder did not want to take him back) or I would have had to put him down. I began to hate that dog and today will never have anything with terrier in the name. He was all of 6 pounds. Never had a poodle I did not adore


----------



## peppersb (Jun 5, 2011)

Verve said:


> You knew you were going to get some push-back on this, right? Because contracts. I often see poodles being rehomed where the story is along the lines of "breeder was crappy and I would never send him back there..." And that's fine, because frequently in such cases there is no contract at all, much less one stating that the breeder is always to be involved should the original owner not be in a position to keep the dog for any reason. BUT...if you buy from a reputable breeder (and you should!), you will have signed a contract that states that the breeder is to be contacted if the original owner cannot keep the pup for any reason.
> 
> And the pup doesn't necessarily have to go back to the breeder, but a good breeder will want to be in the loop and involved in rehoming.


I am all in favor of breeders being involved in rehoming, and I think that a good breeder can be a fabulous resource. But I strongly disagree with the idea that the breeder should have ultimate control over what happens if/when a dog is rehomed. It would just kill me to get a terminal diagnosis and not be able to make the final decisions about what happened to my dogs. 

In this area, the SPCA requires that you sign a contract saying that you will return the dog to the SPCA if you ever need to rehome. Really! So you can't give the dog to your relative or friend -- just back to the SPCA. And lots of dog people think this is "ethical" and "responsible" behavior on the part of the SPCA. I just think that it is nuts.

I am well aware that many breeders, including the better breeders, feel strongly that they should have ongoing ownership interests in the dogs that they sell to thoroughly vetted families for $2,000 or more. Let me just say that I very strongly disagree. My dogs are MY DOGS. I've provided for them in my will. And Cammie is not going back to her breeder. No offense to her breeder. But I've made other, better plans for her. (I'm Sam's breeder, so it is not an issue with him.)

With regard to the puppies that I bred and sold (Sam's littermates), they are now fully owned (limited registration) by their new owners. I am in touch with all of the owners, and they all know that I would take any of these fabulous poodles back in a nanosecond, or help in any way that I could. I just think it would be wrong for me to tell them that they needed my approval to make arrangements for their dogs. And I think that the relationship that I have with them makes more difference than any contract -- and makes it more likely that I actually would be involved in helping with rehoming.

And yes, I know that you disagree. I guess I could never buy a dog from you.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

peppersb said:


> I am all in favor of breeders being involved in rehoming, and I think that a good breeder can be a fabulous resource. But I strongly disagree with the idea that the breeder should have ultimate control over what happens if/when a dog is rehomed. It would just kill me to get a terminal diagnosis and not be able to make the final decisions about what happened to my dogs.
> 
> In this area, the SPCA requires that you sign a contract saying that you will return the dog to the SPCA if you ever need to rehome. Really! So you can't give the dog to your relative or friend -- just back to the SPCA. And lots of dog people think this is "ethical" and "responsible" behavior on the part of the SPCA. I just think that it is nuts.
> 
> ...



Why should a breeder not have ultimate control over where the dog ends up? They are responsible for pouring their heart and soul into whelping and raising. They select, out of many candidates, a home that they feel is a good match for one of their puppies. And they want to be involved in the rehoming process if it needs to happen. That is a standard part of any responsible breeder's contract and anyone looking for a puppy from a responsible breeder should plan to accept those terms.


----------



## peppersb (Jun 5, 2011)

CharismaticMillie said:


> Why should a breeder not have ultimate control over where the dog ends up? They are responsible for pouring their heart and soul into whelping and raising. They select, out of many candidates, a home that they feel is a good match for one of their puppies. And they want to be involved in the rehoming process if it needs to happen. That is a standard part of any responsible breeder's contract and anyone looking for a puppy from a responsible breeder should plan to accept those terms.


I understand that breeders pour their hearts and souls into whelping and raising. Do you understand that dog owners pour their hearts and souls into every aspect of training, cherishing and loving their dogs from puppyhood to adulthood to old age? Do you never get to the point where you trust one of your carefully vetted families to make decisions that are in the best interest of the poodle? I am all in favor of the breeder being involved in rehoming. But if breeder and owner disagree about what should be done, the owner's opinion should prevail. I think it is just wrong for a breeder to claim ownership of a dog that has been loved by his/her owner for many years. The heart and soul invested by the owner is much greater. I know that you disagree.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

peppersb said:


> I understand that breeders pour their hearts and souls into whelping and raising. Do you understand that dog owners pour their hearts and souls into every aspect of training, cherishing and loving their dogs from puppyhood to adulthood to old age? Do you never get to the point where you trust one of your carefully vetted families to make decisions that are in the best interest of the poodle? I am all in favor of the breeder being involved in rehoming. But if breeder and owner disagree about what should be done, the owner's opinion should prevail. I think it is just wrong for a breeder to claim ownership of a dog that has been loved by his/her owner for many years. The heart and soul invested by the owner is much greater. I know that you disagree.


Yes...I do understand that...the best pet owners pour their hearts and souls into every aspect of raising a dog. But. Things happen. Remember that a first right of refusal clause in a contract is there to protect a puppy in a worst case scenario. It is not there to prevent a puppy buyer from appropriately rehoming a puppy in a better case scenario. You may feel that you will never encounter a worst case scenario, but with experience, it can happen. In that scenario, you want a responsible breeder to have a right to their puppy.


----------



## galofpink (Mar 14, 2017)

We have two dogs - I absolutely love and adore my ole guy and in general am a dog lover. 

Shae (spoo pup, our first poodle) entered our lives in late March this year. DH loves her; her and I have a love-hate-some-days-I-don't-even-like-you relationship. A second dog was all my idea; DH didn't want anything to do with it. Some days I really enjoy her, other days I don't; at first I didn't like her at all. But daily I make a commitment to her to do the best I can to love, nourish and provide to her what she needs and I think that she is well suited for our house. It has taken a long time for the "good" days to outweigh the "bad".

Shae is independent, impulsive, smart and willful with boundless energy and I think the manufacture forgot the on-off switch. She really assesses whether commands are worth her time to obey, pushes every limit and challenges every facet of my being. She has made me into a much better trainer and a much better person in the almost 6 mos she's been with us. But, the experience has been so very different from my happy-go-lucky, easy going, low drive, compliant and pleasing Rocky.

I do see the beautiful dog that she will be one day: she is kind, gentle, affectionate, resilient, intuitive and great with kids. So despite the challenges I have training her and loving on her, I can't see my life without her - life would be very empty without her.

I also have a dog lover friend very involved in dog sports, and she confessed to me that it took her a very long time to warm up to her rescues. You wouldn't have ever guessed that; I certainly didn't.


----------



## peppersb (Jun 5, 2011)

CharismaticMillie said:


> Yes...I do understand that...the best pet owners pour their hearts and souls into every aspect of raising a dog. But. Things happen. Remember that a first right of refusal clause in a contract is there to protect a puppy in a worst case scenario. It is not there to prevent a puppy buyer from appropriately rehoming a puppy in a better case scenario. You may feel that you will never encounter a worst case scenario, but with experience, it can happen. In that scenario, you want a responsible breeder to have a right to their puppy.


No. In the worst case -- for example I am diagnosed with late stage cancer -- I want full control over what happens to my dog. And even if I die, I have arrangements in place for my dogs. I believe firmly that I have more of an interest in what happens to my dog than any breeder or SPCA or rescue organization ever could. I might very much want a breeder's input and help. But the idea that a breeder would think that they have a "right" to "their" puppy is something that I find arrogant and offensive. In the worst case (and in the best case) my dogs belong to ME.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

And...here is another way to think about it. When a breeder sells someone a puppy, it's not for them to resell. If it was, then the criteria for selling the puppy to the first family a puppy would be a lot different than it is. It would include screening their ability to evaluate and place dogs. When a responsible breeder sells a pet family a puppy, they expect them to love and cherish the puppy forever. But, things happen. Loving pet buyers rehome puppies for all sorts of reasons. Behavior issues, health issues of the puppy, health issues of the owner, circumstance changes for the owner, etc. In some situations, it would be appropriate for the pet owner to rehome the puppy, with the breeder's involvement, of course, to protect the puppy because mistakes can happen. In other situations, it really would not be appropriate for the pet owner to rehome that puppy and the puppy really should go back to the breeder ASAP. And when designing a contract, you cannot predict the future of every family you might work with. Always preparing for the worst and protecting the puppies we are responsible for being in this world is a responsible breeder's obligation.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

peppersb said:


> No. In the worst case -- for example I am diagnosed with late stage cancer -- I want full control over what happens to my dog. And even if I die, I have arrangements in place for my dogs. I believe firmly that I have more of an interest in what happens to my dog than any breeder or SPCA or rescue organization ever could. I might very much want a breeder's input and help. But the idea that a breeder would think that they have a "right" to "their" puppy is something that I find arrogant and offensive. In the worst case (and in the best case) my dogs belong to ME.


That is a worst case scenario for *you*, but it is not a worst case scenario for the *puppy*. If you were diagnosed with late stage cancer, and you had purchased a puppy from a responsible breeder who had a first right of refusal contract, what would make you think that your breeder wouldn't WANT you placing the dog with a family member? What breeder would prefer to or has time to go through the trouble of taking back a dog and finding them a new home if the owner could find a wonderful home for the dog?

And you need to remember that contracts have to address everyone. Not all pet owners are going to be like you, as much as we might wish they were. Even with thorough screening, there is only so much that you can predict about someone without knowing them personally for years.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

What would make you think that you have more of an interest in what happens to your dog than a breeder? You might know your dog better, and be more attached, but that I can guarantee doesn't mean that it's more important to an owner than it is to the dog's breeder that that dog is always in a loving home. 

An owner being diagnosed with cancer and having a wonderful home lined up is not a worst case scenario in the world of dogs needing to be rehomed. That is a sort of best case scenario. A worst case scenario is one where the owner turned out to be not as expected and the puppy is in a bad situation.


----------



## HeritageHills (Sep 4, 2017)

peppersb said:


> Verve said:
> 
> 
> > You knew you were going to get some push-back on this, right? Because contracts. I often see poodles being rehomed where the story is along the lines of "breeder was crappy and I would never send him back there..." And that's fine, because frequently in such cases there is no contract at all, much less one stating that the breeder is always to be involved should the original owner not be in a position to keep the dog for any reason. BUT...if you buy from a reputable breeder (and you should!), you will have signed a contract that states that the breeder is to be contacted if the original owner cannot keep the pup for any reason.
> ...


I agree with you peppersb. If you don't trust the judgement of someone enough to allow them to make the decisions for their dog you shouldn't be selling to them to begin with. I also agree that a breeder should go into every breeding with the mentality of being available to support and counsel the owners of their puppies for the life of the dog.


----------



## peppersb (Jun 5, 2011)

CharismaticMillie said:


> What would make you think that you have more of an interest in what happens to your dog than a breeder?


CM -- You have to be kidding! You don't understand how a dog owner could care more about their own dog than the breeder does? Really? It just seems totally obvious to me that the owner cares more, loves more and has the greater interest.

Cammie and Sam are the dogs that I live with every day. They sleep in my bed. They have totally unique and endearing ways of communicating with me. They've been with me for all, or almost all of their lives. There is hardly any limit to how much I care about them. There's no way under the sun that any breeder could care about my dogs as much as I do.

I do have experience in raising a litter of puppies, so I have seen it from the other side too. I care very much about the puppies that I raised and sold -- Daphne, Jonah, Maddie and Toby. I am in touch with all of their owners. We communicate by email, and we have occasional puppy reunions. If I haven't heard from an owner in 6 months or so, I write and ask how they are doing. I'd say that I am more involved in what is happening with these puppies than most breeders. I just delight it getting updates, and I'm even more delighted when I see these puppies (now 3 years old). I'd be more than happy to take one back if something went wrong. But do I care about Daphne, Jonah, Maddie and Toby as much as I care about Cammie and Sam? No. Of course not. Cammie and Sam are my dogs. They are my first love, the joy of my life.

So on the one hand, you have a breeder's concern for every single puppy that she has ever raised, and on the other hand you have the concern that a poodle owner has for his/her own dogs -- dogs that live with them 24/7 for years. I just don't get how any reasonable person could believe that the breeder cares more about the dog than the owner.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

HeritageHills said:


> I agree with you peppersb. If you don't trust the judgement of someone enough to allow them to make the decisions for their dog you shouldn't be selling to them to begin with. I also agree that a breeder should go into every breeding with the mentality of being available to support and counsel the owners of their puppies for the life of the dog.


While well meaning I am sure, that seems like a little bit of a naive comment. There is a difference between trusting someone to make decisions for their dog and wanting to ensure the dog is safe if things turn out poorly. That is why contracts exist. For protection on both sides. If we were able to operate based on trust alone, the world would be a simpler place but I'd rue the day I don't have things in writing for protection in a worst case scenario


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

peppersb said:


> I just don't get how any reasonable person could believe that the breeder cares more about the dog than the owner.


Well I didn't say that...


----------



## HeritageHills (Sep 4, 2017)

helxi70 said:


> Ok, I don't have a dog yet but I am waiting for my fence to be replaced and roof and then I am on the hunt.
> 
> Anyway, in order to get a realistic view of of dog ownership, I've been reading some posts/articles from people who have really regretted getting a dog. The reasons were varied why they had issues. One of the reasons that was interesting was because the owner didn't like the dog's personality - and many of these people were previous dog owners.
> 
> ...



I have had to rehome two dogs. The first was a Goldendoodle that was scared of the dark, shed, and had nervous/excitement related peeing even past puppyhood, but the reason we rehomed her was because small children scared her so bad she would growl and snap. Since I had/have small children it just wasn't right to her or us to keep her. A year later we got a Blue Heeler x Australian cross and he was waaaaay too hyper for our family plus he had food aggression which once again didn't work with our having young children. He also killed some of our chickens which meant he couldn't be the farm dog we had hoped for. We found the ideal home for each of them (retired lady who loved to travel and a girl who worked with horses). Dogs are pack animals and most of them don't bond to one person exclusively. I think it's crazy when people act like you've given away your child when it's not the right fit for you OR the dog. We finally found our spoos and they are AMAZING with children. Though I honestly didn't care for Cassie at first. She was and still is in that hyper destructive puppy phase, but she seems to be calming down as she gets older







.


----------



## zooeysmom (Jan 3, 2014)

I just reread my dogs' contracts. Frosty's breeder requires first right of refusal and both require approval of placement by the breeder. I'm good with that.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

zooeysmom said:


> I just reread my dogs' contracts. Frosty's breeder requires first right of refusal and both require approval of placement by the breeder. I'm good with that.


Yep! And I've signed a contract with a first right of refusal to repurchase clause with every puppy I've purchased. I'm not offended by it, I know that because I have maintained an excellent relationship with the breeders I've chosen to work with that there is no question that they would be happy for me to rehome my dogs if I could no longer care for them. I also understand that the reason they include that clause is not in an arrogant or offensive way to me, but because they have worked with hundreds of families and eventually, at some point, something can go wrong and a clause giving the breeder first option to repurchase the puppy is there to protect the pup, and for no other reason.


----------



## peppersb (Jun 5, 2011)

zooeysmom said:


> I just reread my dogs' contracts. Frosty's breeder requires first right of refusal and both require approval of placement by the breeder. I'm good with that.


I would not be good with that at all.

What if you encountered a situation like the one that I described in post #4. The original owner's heart is being torn out by the thought of giving up their poodle, but they just could not meet his energy needs. They get to know someone who can meet his needs. They spend a month getting to know him, and finally decide that this is best for the dog. Well what if the breeder has a different opinion? What if the breeder won't approve a home that does not have a fenced yard (the new owner did not have a fenced yard in this case). What if the breeder wants to take the dog, and keep him in a kennel while she looks for a new home? What if the breeder thinks she can make an extra buck by selling the dog (greeders have these clauses in their contracts too).

In the end, who should have the final say?


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

peppersb said:


> I would not be good with that at all.
> 
> What if you encountered a situation like the one that I described in post #4. The original owner's heart is being torn out by the thought of giving up their poodle, but they just could not meet his energy needs. They get to know someone who can meet his needs. They spend a month getting to know him, and finally decide that this is best for the dog. Well what if the breeder has a different opinion? What if the breeder won't approve a home that does not have a fenced yard (the new owner did not have a fenced yard in this case). What if the breeder wants to take the dog, and keep him in a kennel while she looks for a new home? What if the breeder thinks she can make an extra buck by selling the dog (greeders have these clauses in their contracts too).
> 
> In the end, who should have the final say?


It would make sense for the owner to speak with their breeder and give them the option to repurchase the dog as required by the contract before beginning to make arrangements and screen other prospective homes. If the owner has maintained a good relationship with the breeder, the puppy is without severe behavioral issues such as aggression, and the breeder is confident in the buyer's ability to rehome the dog, then it is likely that the breeder would rather the owner rehome the puppy than opt to repurchase, evaluate, train, and rehome the puppy themselves. 

If an owner has maintained an excellent relationship with their breeder, it would be very odd to spend an entire month screening a new home and not be talking to the breeder about it in the process. And if the owner knows that they purchased their puppy from a breeder who does not sell pups to families without fenced yards, they really should, from an ethical standpoint, discuss that with their breeder.

I don't know many breeders that would want to repurchase a puppy simply because they can.


----------



## Mfmst (Jun 18, 2014)

I have the same clause in my purchase agreement. I believe my breeder would be fine with arrangements that I had carefully made. It's nice to know if I didn't find a good option, she would take him back. A friend of mine had no qualms returning a cockapoo, that she described as nasty and nuts to the breeder who didn't want him back at all. No surprise about that breeder's attitude nor my friend getting a poodle afterwards.


----------



## zooeysmom (Jan 3, 2014)

peppersb said:


> I would not be good with that at all.
> 
> What if you encountered a situation like the one that I described in post #4. The original owner's heart is being torn out by the thought of giving up their poodle, but they just could not meet his energy needs. They get to know someone who can meet his needs. They spend a month getting to know him, and finally decide that this is best for the dog. Well what if the breeder has a different opinion? What if the breeder won't approve a home that does not have a fenced yard (the new owner did not have a fenced yard in this case). What if the breeder wants to take the dog, and keep him in a kennel while she looks for a new home? What if the breeder thinks she can make an extra buck by selling the dog (greeders have these clauses in their contracts too).
> 
> In the end, who should have the final say?


I guess I just trust both of my dogs' breeders 100% since I have a good relationship with them, and I've seen who they place their dogs with! I know with all my heart they would also trust me if I was alive to have a say in the decision.


----------



## wrathfulmom (Aug 9, 2017)

I have rehomed a dog. A pembroke welsh corgi named Kimber. Got her from a ranch where they used the parents to work cattle. Brought her home at 8 weeks. 
She was terrified of life. That fear started turning to fear aggression after 6 months. We did all the socializing, worked for months with trainers and got her stable. She is finally ok with strangers, but not strange dogs. However, we have an rv, we go camping almost every weekend in the summer. She hated it, too many strangers, too much change. She was miserable.
So I gave her to my brother in law. He loves her. He is a total homebody, so no traveling all the time. She also makes him go for daily walks, which was a good change for him.
Not having her made me sad, and our husky missed having a friend. So I started researching what would be the best breed for our lifestyle and ended up with our spoo puppy 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## glorybeecosta (Nov 11, 2014)

My last breeder said if I did not want the dog she wanted it back and she is an excellent breeder. However, if you think that much of your dogs why not leave it in the will. My dogs are to be placed where 3 best friends agree, money is given to the person taking the dog, or dogs (maybe more than one). Inspectors are paid to inspect the dogs every 90 days, and all vet receipts are to go to the executor of the estate. They are all getting paid, so I feel they are taken care of 100% and the 3 best friends have the final say on how they dogs are being treated if they need remove. The dogs are not going to strangers, it is people who are financially secure, do not need the money but want the dog or dogs who are trained. I have people saying if you ever decide 3 is to many I want one, call me. So far 3 is not to many only with grooming and teeth cleaning, but I knew that when I took them on. The last breeder I would clear a new owner with her first.


----------



## Tarot (Oct 26, 2013)

Many years ago, an ex-boyfriend and I broke up when he moved. He had a young boxer pup that couldn't go with him, so I took the boxer. I think of myself as a dog lover...but it just never clicked with me and the boxer. 

She was sweet, goofy, loving, but I didn't feel a strong connection with her. I felt guilty about it and eventually met a young family who lost their boxer and really wanted another. I was relieved to see her adopted. 

Every dog is different, but *in general*, I almost always click with poodles, German shepherds, labs, papillons, corgis. 

I rarely click with chihuahuas. I think huskies, malamutes are so beautiful, but they always feel more distant to me, even when they're affectionate. My mom had a St Bernard that was the most loving creature in history...but oh, the slobber. 

Anyway, I do think it really impacts your enjoyment of being a dog parent if you don't connect with the breed type and (of course) the individual dog. 

You can't go wrong with a poodle!!


----------



## Verve (Oct 31, 2016)

peppersb said:


> I am all in favor of breeders being involved in rehoming, and I think that a good breeder can be a fabulous resource. But I strongly disagree with the idea that the breeder should have ultimate control over what happens if/when a dog is rehomed. It would just kill me to get a terminal diagnosis and not be able to make the final decisions about what happened to my dogs.


I think "ultimate control" is a pretty strong term that doesn't even apply to co-ownerships, much less standard pet contracts. And this is a hypothetical that strains credulity--I just don't see myself or any reputable breeder pushing you over the edge by ripping your dog out of your dying arms. 

The standard "the dog always has a home with me" clause just really comes down to concern AND a sense of responsibility that a breeder has for every pup she breeds:
1) I don't want a pup I bred to wind up in a shelter, in rescue, or in any other situation where he isn't loved and cared for. 

2) If a pup is rehomed for any reason, I want to maintain contact and be a source of support and information for the life of the pup. 

Let's face it--most contracts are unenforceable. Their real value is laying out responsibilities and expectations of both parties. They work best as an adjunct to mutual respect and shared values, not as a substitute for those things.


----------



## peppersb (Jun 5, 2011)

Verve said:


> I think "ultimate control" is a pretty strong term that doesn't even apply to co-ownerships, much less standard pet contracts. And this is a hypothetical that strains credulity--I just don't see myself or any reputable breeder pushing you over the edge by ripping your dog out of your dying arms.
> 
> The standard "the dog always has a home with me" clause just really comes down to concern AND a sense of responsibility that a breeder has for every pup she breeds:
> 1) I don't want a pup I bred to wind up in a shelter, in rescue, or in any other situation where he isn't loved and cared for.
> ...


Verve -- Thanks for a thoughtful and reasonable post. I totally agree with the "the dog always has a home with me" idea, and I had such a clause in the contract that I used to when I sold Cammie's puppies. I also agree with your points numbered 1 and 2.

But some breeders have clauses that go far beyond "the dog always has a home with me." For example, a “right of first refusal” gives the breeder to the right to take a dog back if the owner is planning to place him/her in a new home. Of course, most breeders would not do that, and I certainly hope that it would be unenforceable. A contract that requires approval of placement would allow a breeder to refuse a placement to a home that did not have a fenced yard or did not meet some other criteria. None of this is an issue if both parties have a good relationship and are in agreement. Unfortunately, my experience is that not all breeders, rescues and shelters are reasonable. When I was looking for Cammie, I ran into more than my share of unreasonable breeders. One breeder of moyens almost drove me crazy (fortunately, I think she is now out of business). One of the worst clauses that I have seen is the local SPCA which requires anyone adopting an animal from the SPCA to agree to the following: “To maintain ownership of the animal or return the animal to the Montgomery County SPCA” (see Montgomery County SPCA - Adoption Information). So if I want to adopt from the SPCA, I am in the position of either (a) signing the contract, knowing that I have other plans for my dogs and would never return a dog to the SPCA or (b) refusing to look at any SPCA dogs. Obviously, no one is ever going to enforce this requirement. But I think it is irresponsible for the SPCA to have this requirement. I am in my late 60’s and the next time I get a dog, it will probably be an adult. So this is not entirely theoretical. Unfortunately, there are those in the breeding and rescue community that think that only the experts should be in charge of placing dogs. So the idea that a “responsible” or “ethical” breeder will retain the right to control any future placements has emerged. That’s what I disagree with.

I agree with you that a contract should lay out responsibilities and expectations of both parties. That means having reasonable clauses like the points that you mention in your post. I also agree with you that mutual respect and shared values is more important than the content of any contract. It is pretty easy for a dog owner to cut off communication with the breeder if they want to do so. But if the breeder has established a positive relationship with the owner, then the owner will want to turn to the breeder in a time of need. This should not be an adversarial relationship.


----------

