Breeders' Conditions When Selling A Puppy

[Black Bronson]

^^

I agree with the above as well.

I am all for the limited register. I have some lovely show worthy pups on the limited register. They were sold as pets only and therefore pet only goes on the limited register. I am very cautious of selling any pup on the main register for many reasons including protecting the breed.

I cringe when I hear of whole litters being sold on the main.

I always had the understanding that the wisdom of the limited register was designed for non breedworthy pedigrees, not as a tool to place restrictions upon quality puppies...........perhaps I am wrong???

[Zug Zug]

Thanks for all your replies. It has been very interesting reading the different viewpoints and I think I have a clearer understanding now what is going on here.

First thing - one of the breeders we spoke with lives on a different planet to my friend and I (but that's ok - there are other fish in the sea)

Second thing - she was almost certainly talking about 'breeder's terms' rather than selling a pet (which is what my friend and I are talking about) so we were probably at cross purposes to begin with.

I'll certainly keep looking around and meeting other breeders, and I hope my friend does not resort to a pet shop option.

I should also clarify that in this case (for my friend) we were talking about a male puppy, for a pet only. She intends to get a pup and have it desexed. Just looking for the right pup now.

I should also clarify that the list included in my original post came from discussions with 2 different breeders (one for her, one a few months ago for me). So while this latest phone call yesterday was a bit overwhelming, that person was not responsible for the entire list of conditions in my OP (which is probably obvious because some of them contradict each other).

ETA - just to clarify yes it was a condition not to vaccinate for anything, ever. The breeder in question was strongly opposed to any form of vaccination.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Zug Zug

[kirst_goldens]

Restrictions tells me that the breeders are not confident of the quality they are breeding and personally wouldn't purchase from those breeders.

Not necessarily. If a breeder is using imported stock....stock that they paid a premium to import, I can definitely see why they would want pet pups to be desexed.....because they would not want their imported lines used indiscriminately.

They would want to be the ones to engineer the use of the genetic material being used as they obviously imported with a view to the future.

And I suppose the same can be said of any breeder who puts a lot of time, effort and forethought into their program and maps out the future carefully. They would not want just anyone using their lines, and who can blame them?

Of course we know why breeders place restrictions on their puppies, but if they have such a keen desire to do so, they could always keep the litter for themselves. As a purchaser for me, there is no in between.........either sell the whole puppy unrestricted or don't sell them at all. Personally, I am just not interested in restricted puppy sales and provides absolutely no benefits to the purchaser whatsoever :D

Unrestricted dogs sold can be used to breed with - yes i know that they cant be registered but hell most BYB dont care - they see a really nice dog they scooped up entire with no legal contract binding them to anything and off they go to shepherds with crappy hips and oodles and god knows what else.

If the dog is a pet why does it need to be on a main register?? this register is for entire dogs which are to be used for breeding and showing?!

As the rottie breeder mentioned earlier - sorry name has evaded me - there are plenty of dogs that were pick in their litter and show quality dogs in pet homes on the limited register - doesnt mean the dog isnt fantastic just means its a pet and will be desexed - i dont see a problem here and i can understand it completely

As for the other conditions hell no to the whole return of the dog thing - if u sell to a pet home then commit to it u cant have it back in 2 yrs time cause u changed ur mind!! by all means ask to show it on behalf of the owner but its the dogs owners decision not the breeders.

Diet i too would give reccomendations and information then its up to the owner, same with Vet and Grooming. I fully support breeders rescrictions and their right to select their dogs future homes but i think that the breeder u are talking about here is not really wanting to sell this puppy to a pet home. Keep looking lol

[Black Bronson]

Restrictions tells me that the breeders are not confident of the quality they are breeding and personally wouldn't purchase from those breeders.

Not necessarily. If a breeder is using imported stock....stock that they paid a premium to import, I can definitely see why they would want pet pups to be desexed.....because they would not want their imported lines used indiscriminately.

They would want to be the ones to engineer the use of the genetic material being used as they obviously imported with a view to the future.

And I suppose the same can be said of any breeder who puts a lot of time, effort and forethought into their program and maps out the future carefully. They would not want just anyone using their lines, and who can blame them?

Of course we know why breeders place restrictions on their puppies, but if they have such a keen desire to do so, they could always keep the litter for themselves. As a purchaser for me, there is no in between.........either sell the whole puppy unrestricted or don't sell them at all. Personally, I am just not interested in restricted puppy sales and provides absolutely no benefits to the purchaser whatsoever :D

But why? As repeated.

If the dog is not to be bred from, why?

And I'm also confused as to why a breeder should keep an entire litter regardless of individual pup quality, just because otherwise they'd go on limit?

I also might add, Limit is not designed to benefit the buyer. It is designed to keep breeder's lines safe and help ensure that any random, indiscrimiate breeding doesn't take place.

I don't think that was ever the intention of the limited register???. I still have the papers for my old dogs back from the early '80's. They either were sold papered and the lesser quality puppies back then were sold without papers. The limited register was a recognition of pedigree for an non breedworthy example I recall was it's intended purpose???.

[Zug Zug]

Blackbronson for our purposes the limited register is fine. I do think it depends what you want the dog for. I don't see myself showing (well, I dream occasionally but it's delusional) and I don't see myself breeding.

I do competitive obedience, my friend is looking for a pet. We don't care if the ears sit funny or the tail is carried wrong or there are mismarked colours or whatever. We want healthy, sound puppies with a temperament that suits obed (in my case) and family life (in both cases).

So for me, limited register fine, desexing fine, limitations on health care and grooming options not quite so fine.

But yes I understand it depends on what you see yourself doing with your dog.

[Christina]

^^

I agree with the above as well.

I am all for the limited register. I have some lovely show worthy pups on the limited register. They were sold as pets only and therefore pet only goes on the limited register. I am very cautious of selling any pup on the main register for many reasons including protecting the breed.

I cringe when I hear of whole litters being sold on the main.

I always had the understanding that the wisdom of the limited register was designed for non breedworthy pedigrees, not as a tool to place restrictions upon quality puppies...........perhaps I am wrong???

[Christina]

^^

I agree with the above as well.

I am all for the limited register. I have some lovely show worthy pups on the limited register. They were sold as pets only and therefore pet only goes on the limited register. I am very cautious of selling any pup on the main register for many reasons including protecting the breed.

I cringe when I hear of whole litters being sold on the main.

I always had the understanding that the wisdom of the limited register was designed for non breedworthy pedigrees, not as a tool to place restrictions upon quality puppies...........perhaps I am wrong???

Yes you are wrong. My puppies are desexed before sale. They are top quality & many are show worthy, the main thing with a few is that they have gone over size, which is very common with toy poodles from some wonderful lines.

Do you actually realise how many dogs, especially my breed are sold on limited register & then bred from or cross bred ?

It is the most common breed used for this purpose & in puppy farms.

Pet people deserve a health tested, quality pedigree purebred dog too. They don't have to have a dog with a fault.

How are we to promote ownership & pride of our chosen breed if we expect all to go in the show ring or be bred from ?

Many of the public still think a pedigree dog is only for this purpose, a snob/status thing or only for the wealthy.

This image has to be changed. Limited register does not mean inferior. Dogs SA are allowing desexed dogs to be shown from July this year. In the cat world neutered cats are shown, do well & are very popular with those who love to show but not breed.

[Black Bronson]

Restrictions tells me that the breeders are not confident of the quality they are breeding and personally wouldn't purchase from those breeders.

Not necessarily. If a breeder is using imported stock....stock that they paid a premium to import, I can definitely see why they would want pet pups to be desexed.....because they would not want their imported lines used indiscriminately.

They would want to be the ones to engineer the use of the genetic material being used as they obviously imported with a view to the future.

And I suppose the same can be said of any breeder who puts a lot of time, effort and forethought into their program and maps out the future carefully. They would not want just anyone using their lines, and who can blame them?

Of course we know why breeders place restrictions on their puppies, but if they have such a keen desire to do so, they could always keep the litter for themselves. As a purchaser for me, there is no in between.........either sell the whole puppy unrestricted or don't sell them at all. Personally, I am just not interested in restricted puppy sales and provides absolutely no benefits to the purchaser whatsoever

Unrestricted dogs sold can be used to breed with - yes i know that they cant be registered but hell most BYB dont care - they see a really nice dog they scooped up entire with no legal contract binding them to anything and off they go to shepherds with crappy hips and oodles and god knows what else.

If the dog is a pet why does it need to be on a main register?? this register is for entire dogs which are to be used for breeding and showing?!

As the rottie breeder mentioned earlier - sorry name has evaded me :D - there are plenty of dogs that were pick in their litter and show quality dogs in pet homes on the limited register - doesnt mean the dog isnt fantastic just means its a pet and will be desexed - i dont see a problem here and i can understand it completely

As for the other conditions hell no to the whole return of the dog thing - if u sell to a pet home then commit to it u cant have it back in 2 yrs time cause u changed ur mind!! by all means ask to show it on behalf of the owner but its the dogs owners decision not the breeders.

Diet i too would give reccomendations and information then its up to the owner, same with Vet and Grooming. I fully support breeders rescrictions and their right to select their dogs future homes but i think that the breeder u are talking about here is not really wanting to sell this puppy to a pet home. Keep looking lol

That's a theory on the BYB, but the BYB will breed regardless so isn't it better for the BYB to have some quality more healthy dogs to breed with than using the products of other BYB breedings. Desexing clauses doesn't stop the BYB, it forces them to use crappy dogs in their programs instead of good ones........but BYB breedings are another story

[Black Bronson]

^^

I agree with the above as well.

I am all for the limited register. I have some lovely show worthy pups on the limited register. They were sold as pets only and therefore pet only goes on the limited register. I am very cautious of selling any pup on the main register for many reasons including protecting the breed.

I cringe when I hear of whole litters being sold on the main.

I always had the understanding that the wisdom of the limited register was designed for non breedworthy pedigrees, not as a tool to place restrictions upon quality puppies...........perhaps I am wrong???

Yes you are wrong. My puppies are desexed before sale. They are top quality & many are show worthy, the main thing with a few is that they have gone over size, which is very common with toy poodles from some wonderful lines.

Do you actually realise how many dogs, especially my breed are sold on limited register & then bred from or cross bred ?

It is the most common breed used for this purpose & in puppy farms.

Pet people deserve a health tested, quality pedigree purebred dog too. They don't have to have a dog with a fault.

How are we to promote ownership & pride of our chosen breed if we expect all to go in the show ring or be bred from ?

Many of the public still think a pedigree dog is only for this purpose, a snob/status thing or only for the wealthy.

This image has to be changed. Limited register does not mean inferior. Dogs SA are allowing desexed dogs to be shown from July this year. In the cat world neutered cats are shown, do well & are very popular with those who love to show but not breed.

Desexed showings are a specific category aren't they???................It's not permitted in the ANKC top shelf breed exhibits I didn't think???

[Gayle.]

That's a theory on the BYB, but the BYB will breed regardless so isn't it better for the BYB to have some quality more healthy dogs to breed with than using the products of other BYB breedings.

Sell them the pups that you breed then. I can't see any ethical, ANKC registered breeder who takes pride in their work voluntarily handing over entire stock to a BYB so they can breed better quality pups.

Desexed showings are a specific category aren't they???................It's not permitted in the ANKC top shelf breed exhibits I didn't think???

It's a seperate class, but there's also been talk that there will be neuter titles sometime in the future. I am not up on the dog show gossip lately so maybe someone esle can fill in the gaps.

Most speciality champ shows have a neuter class and if that's not top shelf, then I dunno what is!

Edited May 16, 2010 by GayleK

[stormie]

I think some breeders get too carried away with their own perceived importance really :D When I purchase a quality bred puppy, I want it on main register with no restrictions. Unless a puppy has obvious faults, my 3 year old is on limited register due to a coat fault in the breed, fair enough, but a well bred puppy may turn out very good and very breed worthy and shouldn't be restricted with desexing clauses or limited registers as you never know until it matures. Restrictions tells me that the breeders are not confident of the quality they are breeding and personally wouldn't purchase from those breeders.

Wow. I am of the total opposite. I'd stay clear of any breeder who puts all their puppies on main register. You only have to look at what's being bred by novice breeders in all breeds to see why it's dangerous to put everything on the main. There is variance in most litters and I think it's important to still scrutinize the litter to only pick 'the best'. I'm not sure how you can say that by putting some pups on limited, means the breeder isn't confident with their breeding. In one well planned litter, you could get a very high quality, well put together dog, but yet it's littermate may have different qualities which doesn't see it as well conformed, and thus should be placed on limited. Doesn't mean that it's not 'quality'.

The others may still be of very high quality and better than many being shown, but to put them all on main with no restrictions on breeding will only see them end up in the hands of novices who will ruin the lines.

To me, breeders who put restrictions on their dogs are being responsible for their breed.

well said Stormie.

I don't think every pup in a litter is worthy of putting on the mains, and breeders who are objective and selective for their breed's future and maintaining quality in the lines, would not be so quick to send out their pups with mains reg and no restrictions at all.

fifi

I agree, not every pup in the litter are always good examples which are called "faulty" and should be on limited register. However, a "faulty" puppy is hardly of good quality is it???. If the puppy is good quality, it should be on main automatically.

Why should it be put on main if its good quality? Pet owners/newbies to the breed are just as entitled to a 'good quality' dog. A dog should only be placed on the main register if it's going to a responsible home for showing and maybe breeding down the track.

If I was breeding good quality dogs, I'd want to uphold my reputation of my lines. I would only sell main reg puppies to people I knew and trusted and even then they'd probably be on terms, because I wouldn't want my lines out there being used by anyone, to breed with anything.

I see it all the time in my breed. Complete novice breeders that have managed to come across a dog on main reg who has some good lines back there, and putting it to everything and anything, making some terribly conformed dogs, but using the names of the previous lines to 'cash in' and try to say their dogs are of good quality because they've got XXXX breeding.

[oakway]

I've been making some enquiries with a few breeders over the past few months, in the lead-up to possibly getting my next puppy next year. I also made a phone call to a breeder on behalf of a close friend today, because 12 months on from the death of her beloved dog she is now ready to look for another one.

It has been a long time since I've looked for a dog. My 2 are 11 and 12 years old. So I'm not sure if a lot has changed or if I just wasn't aware previously of how many conditions breeders are putting on people who want to purchase puppies from them.

So far, the list (albeit not all from the same breeder) includes:

- it needs to be desexed (fair enough)

- it cannot be desexed until it is an adult and the breeder wants the option to take it back if it is of show quality (if not, then you can desex it and keep it)

- it needs to be regularly vaccinated

- it is not allowed to be vaccinated for anything ever

- it needs to go to the breeder's vet, not yours

- it can never be taken to any vet but needs to be taken back to the breeder herself if anything is ever wrong with it (this one is an absolute deal-breaker for me I have to say - if my dog is sick it's going to my vet end of story - but I digress...)

- it needs to be fed on a raw diet only

- it needs to go to a groomer of the breeder's choice

- no kids

And that's all I can think of for now, but that's just what I can remember and the list goes on.

I expected some conditions to be placed on a puppy buyer, and I am a very responsible dog owner and happy to agree to things like keeping the dog fenced, safe, well cared for, return to breeder if we ever can't keep it etc. But some of the things in the list above make me think 'Who's dog will this be? Yours or mine?'

I'm wondering if this is normal practice now. What kinds of conditions do people think are fair and reasonable? And how much is too much?

If the dog is in your name and your name only and you paid full price for the dog, you can do with the dog as you wish.

I agree.

No wonder we have people purchasing from Pet Shops and BYB's.

[stormie]

I think some breeders get too carried away with their own perceived importance really When I purchase a quality bred puppy, I want it on main register with no restrictions. Unless a puppy has obvious faults, my 3 year old is on limited register due to a coat fault in the breed, fair enough, but a well bred puppy may turn out very good and very breed worthy and shouldn't be restricted with desexing clauses or limited registers as you never know until it matures. Restrictions tells me that the breeders are not confident of the quality they are breeding and personally wouldn't purchase from those breeders. :D

Wow. I am of the total opposite. I'd stay clear of any breeder who puts all their puppies on main register. You only have to look at what's being bred by novice breeders in all breeds to see why it's dangerous to put everything on the main. There is variance in most litters and I think it's important to still scrutinize the litter to only pick 'the best'. I'm not sure how you can say that by putting some pups on limited, means the breeder isn't confident with their breeding. In one well planned litter, you could get a very high quality, well put together dog, but yet it's littermate may have different qualities which doesn't see it as well conformed, and thus should be placed on limited. Doesn't mean that it's not 'quality'.

The others may still be of very high quality and better than many being shown, but to put them all on main with no restrictions on breeding will only see them end up in the hands of novices who will ruin the lines.

To me, breeders who put restrictions on their dogs are being responsible for their breed.

I was offered a puppy in my recent search on limited for $1250. On main, the puppy was $3500 my choice???. I can't see how that scenario was being responsible for the breed and the option was driven by money :D Pay the money and you can do with the dog as you wish, don't pay the money and it's restricted

I don't think that's responsible either. The dog is either worthy of main or its not. If there aren't enough show homes for the puppies you have picked as the best, then I'd put them on limited and sell them as pets. Its those types of suggestions that would make me flee from that breeder and find one who isn't in it for the money.

Restrictions, IMO, are there usually to protect the lines and the puppy. I don't think it's fair to say that an 'average puppy' shouldn't have restrictions. Breeders have to start somewhere and I think it's nice to see them caring enough about their puppies to have specific wants for them.

Some of the restrictions mentioned by the owner are insane, and I think in general, rather than saying 'YOU MUST/NOT', it would be better for breeders to provide information on the reasons for why they do and don't do things and then let the owners make up their minds. But obviously in the case of breeds sensitive to medications, you would need to be sure they owners new NOT to give them such things.

[Danois]

Fom 1 July the Neuter Championship title will commence into NSW and other states (is Qld still not doing it?).

Neuters will not be eligible to go up against entire exhibits for BOB or Challenge certificates.

Any points gained while entire will not count towards the Neuter title and a dog can hold both a standard title and a Neuter title.

[Tassie]

And it's only neuters on Main Register that can be shown in conformation - Limited Register dogs can't be shown in conformation, but of course can compete in performance disciplines.

[Rebanne]

I agree, not every pup in the litter are always good examples which are called "faulty" and should be on limited register. However, a "faulty" puppy is hardly of good quality is it???. If the puppy is good quality, it should be on main automatically.

a pup that may not be of show quality is hardly faulty, it could be as something as minor as a mis mark, a bit too much white for example. Something that has no bearing on the pups ability to live a long and normal life with it's new family.

[furballs]

Why should it be put on main if its good quality? Pet owners/newbies to the breed are just as entitled to a 'good quality' dog. A dog should only be placed on the main register if it's going to a responsible home for showing and maybe breeding down the track.

Main register pups are not always of good quality, as a pet owner you would like to think that you are getting a very well bred dog, doesn't happen

Edited May 16, 2010 by furballs

[ellz]

Any puppy that I don't keep for myself, or which doesn't go to a known "approved" show home is placed on Limited Registration with a no show/breeding clause in the written agreement that is signed by both myself and the new owner well in advance of the sale of the puppy.

The agreement may not be completely "watertight" in a court of law but because my intentions are clear and the purchaser is clear in their understanding, it would more than likely be enforced.

What many breeders don't seem to understand is that under the law, an agreement must be FAIR to be upheld. Unreasonable conditions will not be enforced. A breeder can write anything they like into an agreement but if there isn't "equal" consideration then they have no chance of winning.

[Mystiqview]

pretty much a statement of good intentions.

Things like Ivemectin (commonly found in heart worm meds) and collies are concerning as collies are sensitive to Ivemectin and it can kill. Not too bad with BCs, but still possible.

High protein diets with Dalmatians are also known issues.

Things like this should be observed by puppy buyers and a responsibility of breeders to inform puppy buyers of known issues within the chosen breed

Our BC boy died from poisoning from the annual heartworm injection. He was a rescue, and we hadn't been told anything about risks involved with certain vaccines. We simply trusted our vet (we didn't know we had any reason not to) when they offered the injection, and after a full year of on-and-off illness, with us having no idea what was going on, he passed 6 weeks after the second injection from a massive haemorrhage (sp).

So, there is validity in vaccination conditions I think. I think going so far as to say you cannot vaccinate your dog ever is going too far, but making a point of educating new puppy buyers (and warning against) certain vaccines and medications can in the end save the dog's life. I wish we'd had the knowledge.

add: I think some of those conditions are rather ridiculous and would ward off many a pet puppy buyer.

I advise my puppy buyers to steer clear of the yearly heartworm injection. I tell them it is ultimately their choice, however as the injection is an *mectin product, some collies may be sensitive to it. I know of BC people who use it without issue. I know of breeders who use it without issue. The company who makes the product of course claim it is safe to use on collies. And people who may have been using the monthly form of it, will not think twice about going to the yearly form for convenience.

I prefer the monthly heartworm. For one, if there is going to be a reaction to it, it is a month base and not a year base if you needed to try to counteract it. It is important to note, the heartworm injection is different to the vaccinations. And like ANY medication, reactions can be individual.

[ellz]

I'm another who would prefer my puppy people stay clear of anything that has the potential to overload the system.

I advise them to stick with C3 unless there is a probability of them needing to put their dog into kennels. I also suggest they avoid heartworm injections simply because once something like that is IN the system, it's next to impossible to get it out if there is a problem.

I'm really very old fashioned when it comes to vaccinations and worming for my animals. I'd rather stick with the tried and true.