Breeders Beware (permission To Cross Post)

[~Anne~]

I feel very strongly about this topic.

As a Breeder I would always take my own back, desexed or not, and I would expect to be given that opportunity.

What irks me is that whilst rescues and shelters are crying out for assistance, and whining about too many animals and not enough resources to take them, they will not knock back the purebred ones and many do not allow the Breeder to take them back. Makes no sense to me, why not ease your burden by giving the Breeder the responsibility for their own when they are willing.

As far as microchipping goes the whole system is BS, when push comes to shove the system fails, it fails the dogs, it fails their owners and it fails their breeders. It lulls people into a false sense of security and often people learn this the hard way.

We also have too many data bases and too many instances of human error with data input.

This.. I feel the same way.

Don't cry poor and whinge for help, when you don't /won't give/sell dogs back to the breeders who would take them.

I feel very strongly about this topic too and was horrified when I found out how many registered breeders didn't care when their dog was surrendered to the group or was at risk of it being surrendered - I was also saddened by how many were happy for the rescue group to rehome the dog without offering assistance. Its fair enough that not every breeder of every breed can just take an unknown adult dog into their pack but those breeders were the ones who offered help in referring homes or a donation for the dog in question.

Don't get me wrong - I've come across some great breeders but the greater majority of registered breeders contacted didn't want to know or help. It was so rare to see one who DID care that I actually nominated them for an MDBA award because of the effort that they went to to get the dog of their breeding back, safe, with them.

I'm personally aware of THREE local registered breeders who were contacted by Albury Pound about dogs of their breeding that had been impounded. One didn't return two phone calls about an entire dog surrendered with main register papers (but then accused the pound of doing the wrong thing when the dog was rehomed with those papers) and the other two said that they wouldn't be coming to get their dogs. All three show their dogs.

I must say that I found the opposite with Pug breeders. Many wanted to assist in some way, although some didn't and some appeared to react as though the idea of assisting a dog in need that they had bred as being a very foreign concept.

Running a breed specific rescue, I spoke to a lot of breeders whose dogs had eneded up in my care for one reason or another, so I feel I got a reasonable idea od how Pug breeders felt and or reacted to their dogs ending up in rescue.

Edited September 6, 2011 by ~Anne~

[Trisven13]

I feel very strongly about this topic.

As a Breeder I would always take my own back, desexed or not, and I would expect to be given that opportunity.

What irks me is that whilst rescues and shelters are crying out for assistance, and whining about too many animals and not enough resources to take them, they will not knock back the purebred ones and many do not allow the Breeder to take them back. Makes no sense to me, why not ease your burden by giving the Breeder the responsibility for their own when they are willing.

As far as microchipping goes the whole system is BS, when push comes to shove the system fails, it fails the dogs, it fails their owners and it fails their breeders. It lulls people into a false sense of security and often people learn this the hard way.

We also have too many data bases and too many instances of human error with data input.

This.. I feel the same way.

Don't cry poor and whinge for help, when you don't /won't give/sell dogs back to the breeders who would take them.

I feel very strongly about this topic too and was horrified when I found out how many registered breeders didn't care when their dog was surrendered to the group or was at risk of it being surrendered - I was also saddened by how many were happy for the rescue group to rehome the dog without offering assistance. Its fair enough that not every breeder of every breed can just take an unknown adult dog into their pack but those breeders were the ones who offered help in referring homes or a donation for the dog in question.

Don't get me wrong - I've come across some great breeders but the greater majority of registered breeders contacted didn't want to know or help. It was so rare to see one who DID care that I actually nominated them for an MDBA award because of the effort that they went to to get the dog of their breeding back, safe, with them.

I'm personally aware of THREE local registered breeders who were contacted by Albury Pound about dogs of their breeding that had been impounded. One didn't return two phone calls about an entire dog surrendered with main register papers (but then accused the pound of doing the wrong thing when the dog was rehomed with those papers) and the other two said that they wouldn't be coming to get their dogs. All three show their dogs.

I must say that I found the opposite with Pug breeders. Many wanted to assist in some way, although some didn't and some appeared to react as though the idea of assisting a dog in need that they had bred as being a very foreign concept.

Running a breed specific rescue, I spoke to a lot of breeders whose dogs had eneded up in my care for one reason or another, so I feel I got a reasonable idea od how Pug breeders felt and or reacted to their dogs ending up in rescue.

Ours was across quite a variety of breeds but never Pugs so that is quite possibly true. Also nearly all of the registered dogs we saw were larger breed dogs.

[bullmighty]

I feel very strongly about this topic.

As a Breeder I would always take my own back, desexed or not, and I would expect to be given that opportunity.

What irks me is that whilst rescues and shelters are crying out for assistance, and whining about too many animals and not enough resources to take them, they will not knock back the purebred ones and many do not allow the Breeder to take them back. Makes no sense to me, why not ease your burden by giving the Breeder the responsibility for their own when they are willing.

As far as microchipping goes the whole system is BS, when push comes to shove the system fails, it fails the dogs, it fails their owners and it fails their breeders. It lulls people into a false sense of security and often people learn this the hard way.

We also have too many data bases and too many instances of human error with data input.

This.. I feel the same way.

Don't cry poor and whinge for help, when you don't /won't give/sell dogs back to the breeders who would take them.

I feel very strongly about this topic too and was horrified when I found out how many registered breeders didn't care when their dog was surrendered to the group or was at risk of it being surrendered - I was also saddened by how many were happy for the rescue group to rehome the dog without offering assistance. Its fair enough that not every breeder of every breed can just take an unknown adult dog into their pack but those breeders were the ones who offered help in referring homes or a donation for the dog in question.

Don't get me wrong - I've come across some great breeders but the greater majority of registered breeders contacted didn't want to know or help. It was so rare to see one who DID care that I actually nominated them for an MDBA award because of the effort that they went to to get the dog of their breeding back, safe, with them.

I'm personally aware of THREE local registered breeders who were contacted by Albury Pound about dogs of their breeding that had been impounded. One didn't return two phone calls about an entire dog surrendered with main register papers (but then accused the pound of doing the wrong thing when the dog was rehomed with those papers) and the other two said that they wouldn't be coming to get their dogs. All three show their dogs.

I must say that I found the opposite with Pug breeders. Many wanted to assist in some way, although some didn't and some appeared to react as though the idea of assisting a dog in need that they had bred as being a very foreign concept.

Running a breed specific rescue, I spoke to a lot of breeders whose dogs had eneded up in my care for one reason or another, so I feel I got a reasonable idea od how Pug breeders felt and or reacted to their dogs ending up in rescue.

Ours was across quite a variety of breeds but never Pugs so that is quite possibly true. Also nearly all of the registered dogs we saw were larger breed dogs.

The dog in question this time is a large breed , also we run the Bullmastiff club rescue here in SA neither the RSPCA or AWL will recognise this breed rescue .

Edited September 6, 2011 by bullmighty

[Trisven13]

Yep but as others have said the RSPCA don't send dogs back to breeders (or rescuers) once a dog has been surrendered by its owner (the person on the microchip generally). I don't know why it wasn't scanned for a chip - what State was the dog in, is it a State that has compulsory microchipping? Once the dog is sold outright (not a lease situation) then the person can do what they want with the dog and those rehoming the dog can only hope that their screening procedures have worked. Most breeders (and rescuers) will find that at some point in their breeding/rescuing career that they will be lied to. It sucks but I would be addressing my ire at the person who breached your arrangement, rather than the organisation that it was surrendered to.

[Erny]

... isn't it time to test it? As animals are considered goods and chattel then the contract is no different to a contract for a car or a house.

Its been tested several times and contract law says you cant make someone promise something into the future once its their own property and you cannot put punishments on if they breach into the future because its no longer your property - basic contract law.

Why can't a Covenant be put into place? They place Covenants on Title and these regulate what people can and can't do with their property beyond the initial date of their ownership.

[Steve]

... isn't it time to test it? As animals are considered goods and chattel then the contract is no different to a contract for a car or a house.

Its been tested several times and contract law says you cant make someone promise something into the future once its their own property and you cannot put punishments on if they breach into the future because its no longer your property - basic contract law.

Why can't a Covenant be put into place? They place Covenants on Title and these regulate what people can and can't do with their property beyond the initial date of their ownership.

O.K. Lets look at this . You were recently sick and had to consider what was best in your opinion for Mandela if you could no longer look after him. You made choices based on what you know of the people involved and your dog. What if it was possible for the breeder to hold you to an agreement where Mandela had to go back to them? How would you feel about that? Do you think that would be in your dog's best interests? Shouldnt you have the right to choose that if mandela is your property without fear of being sued ?

Things change, circumstances change and you cant make a promise now and be sure that in 5 years time all the things which were in place when you made a promise are still the same - they arent .

Dogs arent like land or businesses they are moveable property and different laws apply.

[AmandaJ]

... isn't it time to test it? As animals are considered goods and chattel then the contract is no different to a contract for a car or a house.

Its been tested several times and contract law says you cant make someone promise something into the future once its their own property and you cannot put punishments on if they breach into the future because its no longer your property - basic contract law.

Why can't a Covenant be put into place? They place Covenants on Title and these regulate what people can and can't do with their property beyond the initial date of their ownership.

My understanding is that where a promise is part of the contract there has to be an expectation of some type of "consideration" in return. That consideration could be what is known as a "peppercorn" consideration (a token consideration). Without some type of consideration in return then to be valid it needs to be executed under seal or deed. So where the promise is to return the dog to the breeder the breeder needs to promise something in return - that could be a promise to return to the original owner any difference between the financial consideration received by the breeder from the new owner less the cost of housing and caring for the animal until that time - or even a token $10.00 This then allows the breeder to include penalty clauses if the promise is not kept. That's how I understand it.

[Erny]

Yeah - I getcha, Steve. And those very same thoughts ran through my mind as I wrote my previous post. No - I would not want my dog to go back to his original breeder, was my first thought.

But on the otherhand, let's hypothesise that it wasn't about me being ill and preparing just in case of the worst. What if my dog somehow through some misfortune made his way into the hands of the RSPCA? Would I rather him be under their jurisdiction and his fate in their hands? No sirreee, I would not. Better chance, I think, if he were returned to the Breeder.

But, if a Covenant was possible, then a general standard one to be accepted might be something along the lines of the dog being returned to the Breeder in the absence of the rightful owner being able to name an alternate owner. Obviously I've worded this as basic context - it would need to be worded more thoroughly so that intent could not be misconstrued.

[AmandaJ]

... isn't it time to test it? As animals are considered goods and chattel then the contract is no different to a contract for a car or a house.

Its been tested several times and contract law says you cant make someone promise something into the future once its their own property and you cannot put punishments on if they breach into the future because its no longer your property - basic contract law.

Why can't a Covenant be put into place? They place Covenants on Title and these regulate what people can and can't do with their property beyond the initial date of their ownership.

O.K. Lets look at this . You were recently sick and had to consider what was best in your opinion for Mandela if you could no longer look after him. You made choices based on what you know of the people involved and your dog. What if it was possible for the breeder to hold you to an agreement where Mandela had to go back to them? How would you feel about that? Do you think that would be in your dog's best interests? Shouldnt you have the right to choose that if mandela is your property without fear of being sued ?

Things change, circumstances change and you cant make a promise now and be sure that in 5 years time all the things which were in place when you made a promise are still the same - they arent .

Dogs arent like land or businesses they are moveable property and different laws apply.

That's not quite correct - they are still covered by Australian Consumer Law - the same as all goods and chattels

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

As someone who rescues or assists purebreed and crossbreeds find new homes, I've had 5 cases recently where 3 breeders were contacted and asked if they would like their dogs back - the answer from all 3 was no. In 2 other cases, the owners expressed great concern about having their dogs returned to their respective breeders and explained why.

On contacting other breeders I've had them tell me they euthanase anything older as it won't rehome if they are forced to take it back.

Not all rescues grab purebred dogs away from breeders, most have probably made the attempts I have and had the above results.

[Steve]

... isn't it time to test it? As animals are considered goods and chattel then the contract is no different to a contract for a car or a house.

Its been tested several times and contract law says you cant make someone promise something into the future once its their own property and you cannot put punishments on if they breach into the future because its no longer your property - basic contract law.

Why can't a Covenant be put into place? They place Covenants on Title and these regulate what people can and can't do with their property beyond the initial date of their ownership.

My understanding is that where a promise is part of the contract there has to be an expectation of some type of "consideration" in return. That consideration could be what is known as a "peppercorn" consideration (a token consideration). Without some type of consideration in return then to be valid it needs to be executed under seal or deed. So where the promise is to return the dog to the breeder the breeder needs to promise something in return - that could be a promise to return to the original owner any difference between the financial consideration received by the breeder from the new owner less the cost of housing and caring for the animal until that time - or even a token $10.00 This then allows the breeder to include penalty clauses if the promise is not kept. That's how I understand it.

How does this allow the breeder to include penalty clauses? If the owner doesnt want what the breeder has offered they simply dont follow through - how could you penalise me if I decide that what is best for me and my dog is to break the promise? Why would we want to?

We are owners as well as breeders.

[Steve]

... isn't it time to test it? As animals are considered goods and chattel then the contract is no different to a contract for a car or a house.

Its been tested several times and contract law says you cant make someone promise something into the future once its their own property and you cannot put punishments on if they breach into the future because its no longer your property - basic contract law.

Why can't a Covenant be put into place? They place Covenants on Title and these regulate what people can and can't do with their property beyond the initial date of their ownership.

O.K. Lets look at this . You were recently sick and had to consider what was best in your opinion for Mandela if you could no longer look after him. You made choices based on what you know of the people involved and your dog. What if it was possible for the breeder to hold you to an agreement where Mandela had to go back to them? How would you feel about that? Do you think that would be in your dog's best interests? Shouldnt you have the right to choose that if mandela is your property without fear of being sued ?

Things change, circumstances change and you cant make a promise now and be sure that in 5 years time all the things which were in place when you made a promise are still the same - they arent .

Dogs arent like land or businesses they are moveable property and different laws apply.

That's not quite correct - they are still covered by Australian Consumer Law - the same as all goods and chattels

Thats right and can I say what you can do with a DVD player I sell you and have a penalty if you dont ? Its simply not logical ,Breeders dont get to say what happens to a dog once it becomes someone ele's property.

[Little Gifts]

It is negligent for the dog not to check true ownership through the microchip, whether the animal was surrendered by someone saying they were the owner or whether it was dumped. And how would they know it was pure bred if they didn't check the chip? Unless the owner gave them some paperwork when they surrendered the animal? If they have the breeder's info with that paperwork then what possible harm could it do to call and see if they were able to take it back, contract or not? If the point of their 'service' is to rehome rehomable dogs then surely that would be the quickest way to ensure that particular dog was safe?

They are obviously losing sight of their client in need (the dog) by not doing the most basic checks. I would be livid if I lost a beloved pure bred dog and someone was able to pass it off as their own because someone didn't check the chip.

And Steve - wouldn't the chip people have a record of an ownership enquiry being made on a specific dog?

[bullmighty]

My problem with this .. the woman who bought the dog signed the contract and is the reg owner of papers and chip ....is NOT the person who surrendered the dog , the person who surrendered the dog has never been the owner on contract ,registration papers or microchip .Yet he was able to surrender the dog declare it was neither chipped or desexed sign his name and this gave the organisation "effective ownership " no one scanned this dog his word was taken re the ownership chipping and desexing he also did not advise anyone of her risk under anesthetic .

I was contacted by a worker who saw the dog and literally put her name on her she asked if I knew who would have a dog in the area she was surrendered from it was at this time I advised the worker that if it was one of ours she would be chipped desexed and on contract this was a Friday night .

The Monday morning following the worker went in early scanned the dog herself found the chip it , at was after this that all documentation was sent through including a follow up call from the Practice Manager from the vets who sterilized her to warn of the High Anesthetic risk she posed especially as she was already sterilized.

The solicitor has no problem with my contract holding up against the woman who bought the dog , but it will not compel the return of the dog only a financial comp.

[leroy]

The dog in question, will never be put up for sale, one of the organistaions staff wants her, which was how the breeder found out the girl wound up there in the first place. The staff member thought this girl looked of this breeders "type" and so emailed the breeder letting them know that this dog had been surrendered to the organisation.

They did not find a chip initially or they would have known who the breeder was straight away, as she is second contact on the chip, it wasn't until the breeder was told what area the person who surrendered the dog lived in, that she gave them a chip number of 1 possible dog. Sure enough after scanning the dog the chip numbers matched.

She was informed that the staff member would be taking the girl home once she was desexed. The dog in question had already had a tubal ligation before she left the breeder and had suffered cardiac and respitory distress once the gaseous anaesthetic was turned off, she was however successfully stabilised with intravenous fluids and Dopram. But will remain as "high risk" when it comes to any future anaesthetics.

The organisation did not take the breeder seriously about the risk involved to the dog if she was put under, and do not accept Tubal Ligation as truly sterile. The breeder had to get her vets practice manager to ring and fax through the dogs medical history and a copy of the letter re her anaesthetic issues that was provided to the original owner so they would not put her life at risk with an unnecessary operation.

The person who surrendered the dog is not the person on the chip, they do not even share the same surname. So the breeder got in contact with her states (SA) canine council and had there lawyer fax through to the organisation copies of the dogs micro chip details and her contract with the original owner. She was quite happy to pay the organisation the standard fee to get the dog back, but has now had contact from the organisations lawyer informing her not to contact anybody from the said organisation at all, and any contact or questions about the dog need to go through the law firm hired by the organisation.

She has been told by the lawyer she will not be getting the dog back, it is now the property of the organisation (and soon to be property, if not already of one of their staff members).

I cannot believe that an organisation that relies on donations from the public to survive, can throw away money that is supposed to be used to save dogs lives, so a breeder cant take back responsibility of a dog she bred? I hate to think how much time and money has been wasted in this case, not to metion other "less desirable" dogs that may have been passed over whilst this dog that has had a home to go to all along takes up kennel space, food and other resources.

As a pet owner (I am not a breeder) it scares the crap out of me that one of my dogs could be surrendered by someone who's name does not appear on the microchip. Good breeders really have their work cut out what a nightmare!

[~Anne~]

You can't put a contract on a dog once it is sold. It doesn't matter what law you argue it under and I am not able to name the specific laws and rights that it comes under but it is very similar, for example, to buying a lounge. The person who sells you the lounge can not write a contract that forces you to do anything with it. Once it is sold it is yours lock stock and barrel. Dogs come under a consumer law which is why you can not stop a pet shop from selling a dog.

[Steve]

The dog in question, will never be put up for sale, one of the organistaions staff wants her, which was how the breeder found out the girl wound up there in the first place. The staff member thought this girl looked of this breeders "type" and so emailed the breeder letting them know that this dog had been surrendered to the organisation.

They did not find a chip initially or they would have known who the breeder was straight away, as she is second contact on the chip, it wasn't until the breeder was told what area the person who surrendered the dog lived in, that she gave them a chip number of 1 possible dog. Sure enough after scanning the dog the chip numbers matched.

She was informed that the staff member would be taking the girl home once she was desexed. The dog in question had already had a tubal ligation before she left the breeder and had suffered cardiac and respitory distress once the gaseous anaesthetic was turned off, she was however successfully stabilised with intravenous fluids and Dopram. But will remain as "high risk" when it comes to any future anaesthetics.

The organisation did not take the breeder seriously about the risk involved to the dog if she was put under, and do not accept Tubal Ligation as truly sterile. The breeder had to get her vets practice manager to ring and fax through the dogs medical history and a copy of the letter re her anaesthetic issues that was provided to the original owner so they would not put her life at risk with an unnecessary operation.

The person who surrendered the dog is not the person on the chip, they do not even share the same surname. So the breeder got in contact with her states (SA) canine council and had there lawyer fax through to the organisation copies of the dogs micro chip details and her contract with the original owner. She was quite happy to pay the organisation the standard fee to get the dog back, but has now had contact from the organisations lawyer informing her not to contact anybody from the said organisation at all, and any contact or questions about the dog need to go through the law firm hired by the organisation.

She has been told by the lawyer she will not be getting the dog back, it is now the property of the organisation (and soon to be property, if not already of one of their staff members).

I cannot believe that an organisation that relies on donations from the public to survive, can throw away money that is supposed to be used to save dogs lives, so a breeder cant take back responsibility of a dog she bred? I hate to think how much time and money has been wasted in this case, not to metion other "less desirable" dogs that may have been passed over whilst this dog that has had a home to go to all along takes up kennel space, food and other resources.

As a pet owner (I am not a breeder) it scares the crap out of me that one of my dogs could be surrendered by someone who's name does not appear on the microchip. Good breeders really have their work cut out what a nightmare!

As any owner you should not have to be concerned that someone can claim to be the owner and surrender it. There are laws which protect us from this but we dont know what they did to have ownership proved or authority to surrender the dog when they accepted the animal . If in fact they just said O>K> we have no evidence that you are the owner and have the right to surrender but we will take it anyway they are in breach of the law and may have recieved stolen goods and therefore its a police issue.

The question that hasnt seemed to be asked is where is the owner who made the agreement and who supposedly still owns the dog and what they have to say? Was the dog stolen from them or did they give written approval for them to have authority to surrender it etc. There are also issues coming up here re privacy surrounding the chip etc which may need to be addressed.

[bullmighty]

You can't put a contract on a dog once it is sold. It doesn't matter what law you argue it under and I am not able to name the specific laws and rights that it comes under but it is very similar, for example, to buying a lounge. The person who sells you the lounge can not write a contract that forces you to do anything with it. Once it is sold it is yours lock stock and barrel. Dogs come under a consumer law which is why you can not stop a pet shop from selling a dog.

The contract has a condition of sale which is legally binding how ever the dog is considered "goods" so you can affix a monetary value only.

[Steve]

You can't put a contract on a dog once it is sold. It doesn't matter what law you argue it under and I am not able to name the specific laws and rights that it comes under but it is very similar, for example, to buying a lounge. The person who sells you the lounge can not write a contract that forces you to do anything with it. Once it is sold it is yours lock stock and barrel. Dogs come under a consumer law which is why you can not stop a pet shop from selling a dog.

The contract has a condition of sale which is legally binding how ever the dog is considered "goods" so you can affix a monetary value only.

But the condition of sale isnt legal. It takes away the right of the owner to have free enjoyment of and make decisions about their own property.

If I didnt want to give the breeder back my dog no amount of contract I may have signed years ago would make me do it. Thank God.

[WreckitWhippet]

It appears to me that there are a huge amount of demands and expectations made on Breeders to do the right thing to provide people with the very best puppy they possibly can. To do this requires heart and commitment alongside the knowledge and experience. Then some of you expect them to just walk away unless of course an unfortunate health issue arises then you want the supportive and caring Breeder and their wallet back back. It stinks.

ain't that the truth