Service Certificate

[oakway]

Their wishes are completely unreasonable and I am sure that no one would lease them a bitch under those circumstances. It would have been different if they were prepared to take the bitch, pay all expenses, run the puppies on and do whatever they wanted with them. To expect the bitch owner to outlay all the money, do all the work, run puppies on (god knows why they can't pick at 8 weeks) just to eventually sell all the others as desexed pets, regardless of quality is ridiculous. If the litter was under their prefix they should get a say in which puppies are show quality and where they go, but they need to decide that at 8 weeks. Otherwise they should accept a stud fee and sign the service certificate with an agreement for the option to buy back a puppy.

Teh other two options are abort the litter or have an unregistered litter and make sure you advertise who the sire is and that the owner would not allow you to register the litter. See how they like what that will do to their precious prefix's reputation.

I agree , however, the agreement to lease the bitch has already been made and the mating has already been done. It appears though the SDO has agreed to allow Millie to use her own prefix which means she will need the service certificate but with no money changing hands the service certificate may not be handed to her until the pick pup has been chosen and in their possession. Signing the service certificate at time of mating and giving it to the bitch owner is two different things and still keeps the SDO within the regs.

Fact is some stud dog owners do have conditions in place for people who are using dogs at stud - most in my opinion are unreasonable because I believe that the only issue for the sdo should be whether they think the dog is suitable and that it is registered and so is the owner. If the bitch owner doesnt agree they simply dont use the dog at stud.Where this one has blown up is because the conditions were not discussed and agreed upon and signed off on before the mating took place.

These conditions - though unreasonable in my opinion, are probably quite the norm for the SDO and as the SDO they are entitled to place thiose conditions on. In all probability the reason these werent discussed pre mating is because they thought the dog would be leased to them and therefore it would be in their control anyway and not something which should concern or be approved by the owner. its only changed because the owner now doesnt want to lease the bitch but at the time of the mating she did.

+1

All this discussion goes to show is, get it down on paper before ANY matings ever take place.

Don't forget the owner of the bitch had a good deal going if she had kept her word and leased the bitch.

All the bitches prior owner had to do was feed the bitch and pups(these were her conditions) and then she reaped the reward of the sale price for all the pups but one.

Don't forget people the owner of the bitch IS the one responsable for all the fees no matter what either party may THINK, unless separate arrangements are made and recorded.

[Mille]

Their wishes are completely unreasonable and I am sure that no one would lease them a bitch under those circumstances. It would have been different if they were prepared to take the bitch, pay all expenses, run the puppies on and do whatever they wanted with them. To expect the bitch owner to outlay all the money, do all the work, run puppies on (god knows why they can't pick at 8 weeks) just to eventually sell all the others as desexed pets, regardless of quality is ridiculous. If the litter was under their prefix they should get a say in which puppies are show quality and where they go, but they need to decide that at 8 weeks. Otherwise they should accept a stud fee and sign the service certificate with an agreement for the option to buy back a puppy.

Teh other two options are abort the litter or have an unregistered litter and make sure you advertise who the sire is and that the owner would not allow you to register the litter. See how they like what that will do to their precious prefix's reputation.

I agree , however, the agreement to lease the bitch has already been made and the mating has already been done. It appears though the SDO has agreed to allow Millie to use her own prefix which means she will need the service certificate but with no money changing hands the service certificate may not be handed to her until the pick pup has been chosen and in their possession. Signing the service certificate at time of mating and giving it to the bitch owner is two different things and still keeps the SDO within the regs.

Fact is some stud dog owners do have conditions in place for people who are using dogs at stud - most in my opinion are unreasonable because I believe that the only issue for the sdo should be whether they think the dog is suitable and that it is registered and so is the owner. If the bitch owner doesnt agree they simply dont use the dog at stud.Where this one has blown up is because the conditions were not discussed and agreed upon and signed off on before the mating took place.

These conditions - though unreasonable in my opinion, are probably quite the norm for the SDO and as the SDO they are entitled to place thiose conditions on. In all probability the reason these werent discussed pre mating is because they thought the dog would be leased to them and therefore it would be in their control anyway and not something which should concern or be approved by the owner. its only changed because the owner now doesnt want to lease the bitch but at the time of the mating she did.

+1

All this discussion goes to show is, get it down on paper before ANY matings ever take place.

Don't forget the owner of the bitch had a good deal going if she had kept her word and leased the bitch.

All the bitches prior owner had to do was feed the bitch and pups(these were her conditions) and then she reaped the reward of the sale price for all the pups but one.

Don't forget people the owner of the bitch IS the one responsable for all the fees no matter what either party may THINK, unless separate arrangements are made and recorded.

Keeping word works both ways. I had it all down on paper before any matings took place. The dog people offered no contract. I TRIED to reach a contractual agreement.

[Mille]

I am unclear on this, what was going to happen to the pups? The SDO gets pick and the bitch owner only gets to keep a desexed pet??

It seems reduced to that.

[oakway]

Below is the rules for aquiring a prefix.

This process may take many months and MAY also require the member of Dogs Queensland being a member of Dogs Queensland for a cetain period of time before applying.???? It does not automatically give you a prefix as the ones you submitted may be rejected and the whole process starts again.

This means the pups could be at least 6 months old "or more" before you would be able to register them.

Also should your membership to Dogs Queensland have lapsed and a time frame "is" required before sitting your Open Book Examination

I would also add that to the time before you could register your puppies.

If you should wish to go ahead with the whelping my only sugestion is contact the stud dogs owner and ask if there is a mutual party that you would both be agreeabe to leasing the bitch to and get all down in writing.

Prefix

A registered prefix shall be part of a dogs name and must always be used when registering a dog bred by the

owner of such prefix, and no further or other prefix shall be added in respect of such dog.

58. On payment of the fee set out in the scale of charges, a member may apply for the registration of a prefix. Such

application shall be made on the form prescribed by the CCC(Q) and must be accompanied by a completed

Open Book Examination based on the VCA Guidelines for Breeders Booklet. All prefixes must be owned

by individual members or a partnership of members. No prefix will be issued to a business or company name.

59. The use of “apostrophes” at the conclusion of a prefix (e.g. Example’s) will not be allowed.

60. The CCC(Q) reserves the right to object to, and reject, all or any of the names applied for as prefixes.

61. A registered prefix shall not be transferred without the prior consent of the CCC(Q). A jointly owned breeders

prefix may be transferred between members of immediate family or from joint to either party owning the prefix

upon receipt of such application accompanied by the written permission of the party surrendering their rights to

the prefix.

62. No member or other person other than the member in whose name a prefix is registered, shall use such prefix in any

way and in particular, no member or other person shall be entitled to use a registered prefix or part of a registered

prefix as the whole or any part of his business name unless such prefix is registered in the name of that member.

63. Should there be any inconsistency with the application of Rule 63 then Prefix Rules 57 to 62, to the extent of

such inconsistency, will apply but in all other cases Rule 63 will apply.

a. The holder of a breeder’s prefix (“the transferor”) may only transfer the prefix to another person (“the

transferee”) in accordance with the provisions of this Protocol.

b. An application to transfer a breeder’s prefix must be submitted to the CCC(Q) on the approved form,

specifying:

(i) The prefix to be transferred;

(ii) The name/s of the transferor/s;

(iii) The name/s of the transferee/s;

(iv) The nature of the relationship between the transferor/s and the transferee/s; and

(v) The circumstances leading to the proposed transfer.

c. The application form must be signed by the transferor (or, if more than one, each of the transferors) and the

transferee (or, if more than one, each of the transferees).

d. If the transferor (or, if more than one, any of them) is deceased, the application form may be signed by an

executor or other legal personal representative, or by the next of kin, of the deceased transferor.

e. By signing the application form, the transferor/s and the transferee/s must agree and acknowledge that:

(i) The transferee/s are taking over the whole, or the greater part, of the breeding stock previously

used by the transferor/s.

(ii) The transferee/s intend, in good faith, to continue the breeding programme of the transferor/s; and

(iii) The transferee/s will use their best endeavours to ensure that all puppies produced by the

transferee/s are of a standard and quality as least as high as that of puppies previously produced

by the transferor/s.

f. Except with the approval of the Committee, a transfer will only be approved in the following circumstances:

(i) A transfer of a breeder’s prefix to a transferee who is a lineal descendant (that is, a son or a

daughter, or grandson or granddaughter) of the transferor; or

(ii) A transfer of a breeder’s prefix to a transferee who resides permanently as a member of the same

household as the transferor.

g. In the case of a breeder’s prefix held in joint names by persons who were previously in an intimate

relationship (whether married or de facto, and whether of the opposite or the same sex), the prefix may be

transferred into the sole name of one of them if:

(i) Both parties consent; or

(ii) One of them is deceased.

h. In the case of a breeder’s prefix held in a person’s sole name, the prefix may be transferred into joint

names where the parties are in an intimate relationship (whether married or de facto, and whether of the

opposite or the same sex).

i. Save in exceptional circumstances, and with the approval of the Committee, a breeder’s prefix may not be

transferred more than once in any period of twelve months.

j. Despite any other provision of this protocol, the CCC(Q) may refuse to approve a transfer if the Committee

is of the opinion that:

(i) The proposed transfer is contrary to the spirit of this protocol, or of the Rules of the CCC(Q); or

(ii) The proposed transfer is likely to result in purchasers of puppies from the transferee being misled

or deceived regarding the quality of such puppies; or

(iii) It is otherwise contrary to the best interests of the public, of the CCC(Q), or of members of the

CCC(Q) generally, that the transfer be approved.

k. The Council, in its absolute discretion, may in special circumstances approve the transfer of a breeder’s

prefix in circumstances which do not otherwise comply with the provisions of this Protocol.

[dancinbcs]

Their wishes are completely unreasonable and I am sure that no one would lease them a bitch under those circumstances. It would have been different if they were prepared to take the bitch, pay all expenses, run the puppies on and do whatever they wanted with them. To expect the bitch owner to outlay all the money, do all the work, run puppies on (god knows why they can't pick at 8 weeks) just to eventually sell all the others as desexed pets, regardless of quality is ridiculous. If the litter was under their prefix they should get a say in which puppies are show quality and where they go, but they need to decide that at 8 weeks. Otherwise they should accept a stud fee and sign the service certificate with an agreement for the option to buy back a puppy.

Teh other two options are abort the litter or have an unregistered litter and make sure you advertise who the sire is and that the owner would not allow you to register the litter. See how they like what that will do to their precious prefix's reputation.

I agree , however, the agreement to lease the bitch has already been made and the mating has already been done. It appears though the SDO has agreed to allow Millie to use her own prefix which means she will need the service certificate but with no money changing hands the service certificate may not be handed to her until the pick pup has been chosen and in their possession. Signing the service certificate at time of mating and giving it to the bitch owner is two different things and still keeps the SDO within the regs.

Fact is some stud dog owners do have conditions in place for people who are using dogs at stud - most in my opinion are unreasonable because I believe that the only issue for the sdo should be whether they think the dog is suitable and that it is registered and so is the owner. If the bitch owner doesnt agree they simply dont use the dog at stud.Where this one has blown up is because the conditions were not discussed and agreed upon and signed off on before the mating took place.

These conditions - though unreasonable in my opinion, are probably quite the norm for the SDO and as the SDO they are entitled to place thiose conditions on. In all probability the reason these werent discussed pre mating is because they thought the dog would be leased to them and therefore it would be in their control anyway and not something which should concern or be approved by the owner. its only changed because the owner now doesnt want to lease the bitch but at the time of the mating she did.

+1

All this discussion goes to show is, get it down on paper before ANY matings ever take place.

Don't forget the owner of the bitch had a good deal going if she had kept her word and leased the bitch.

All the bitches prior owner had to do was feed the bitch and pups(these were her conditions) and then she reaped the reward of the sale price for all the pups but one.

Don't forget people the owner of the bitch IS the one responsable for all the fees no matter what either party may THINK, unless separate arrangements are made and recorded.

There is a lot more to raising a litter than just feeding the mum and puppies. How about a minimum of 8 weeks work including losing sleep, then the costs of feeding, vaccinations, worming, microchips, vet bills including a caesar if needed. Then being expected to run on the litter for months until the SDO makes a choice. Not a good deal at all if you only get to keep a desexed pet and cannot even sell the others as pets until the SDO makes a final choice. There is no point in breeding a litter of pets, it is a complete waste of time. What if they want her to run them on for 12 months? More vaccinations and lots more food not to mention the work involved. If they can't pick at 8 weeks then they will not be able to make a proper decision until they stop growing and that could be a year later. Is the bitch owner supposed to hold them all that time? This is one of the most ridiculous lease agreements I have ever heard of.

I have had several litters by leasing bitches with them staying with the owner. I have never had a problem because I am not greedy and do not expect them to do it all for nothing. The SDO owner in this case wants everything their way but don't want to do any of the work.

[Greytmate]

Thanks Greytmate, excellent point. They said the stud dog had been tested recently so maybe there is a possible fertility issue.

How old is the dog Mille? We have only ever tested one of our boys prior to a mating and that was because he was an older dog that had never been used at stud. He'd been in four homes prior to coming to us so we wanted to make sure he still had swimmers

The dog is 9 years old. They said they tested him in order to freeze sperm and he was ok for sperm count. I did ask about fertility because they originally wanted 3 matings over 3 days.

I guess stud dog progeny record is not open to public view like online studbook AQHA horses? I have been out of dog breeding since 1970s (might be still out of it). Thanks for your comments.

I tried to get information on stud dog's progeny through Dogs Vic but was advised that this information is no longer available due to the privacy laws now in force .

How annoying and illogical.

Somebody should take this up with them.

The privacy laws should cover people very strictly. But dogs should not be covered by privacy laws at all. All information on their achievements, hits and misses should be something available on the register for all to see, as it is conducive to breeding to improve the breed. Hiding information about dogs available at stud is harmful to a breed.

A dog is not going to be able to sue the registry for breach of privacy, and as long as there is no identifying details given about owner or address, there is no breach of anyone's privacy. How ridiculous that privacy laws should be abused in this way.

:rofl: :rofl: Privacy and litters are printed in the Gazette. :rofl:

Good.

The services that result in no litters should all be recorded for everyone to see as well.

[oakway]

Their wishes are completely unreasonable and I am sure that no one would lease them a bitch under those circumstances. It would have been different if they were prepared to take the bitch, pay all expenses, run the puppies on and do whatever they wanted with them. To expect the bitch owner to outlay all the money, do all the work, run puppies on (god knows why they can't pick at 8 weeks) just to eventually sell all the others as desexed pets, regardless of quality is ridiculous. If the litter was under their prefix they should get a say in which puppies are show quality and where they go, but they need to decide that at 8 weeks. Otherwise they should accept a stud fee and sign the service certificate with an agreement for the option to buy back a puppy.

Teh other two options are abort the litter or have an unregistered litter and make sure you advertise who the sire is and that the owner would not allow you to register the litter. See how they like what that will do to their precious prefix's reputation.

I agree , however, the agreement to lease the bitch has already been made and the mating has already been done. It appears though the SDO has agreed to allow Millie to use her own prefix which means she will need the service certificate but with no money changing hands the service certificate may not be handed to her until the pick pup has been chosen and in their possession. Signing the service certificate at time of mating and giving it to the bitch owner is two different things and still keeps the SDO within the regs.

Fact is some stud dog owners do have conditions in place for people who are using dogs at stud - most in my opinion are unreasonable because I believe that the only issue for the sdo should be whether they think the dog is suitable and that it is registered and so is the owner. If the bitch owner doesnt agree they simply dont use the dog at stud.Where this one has blown up is because the conditions were not discussed and agreed upon and signed off on before the mating took place.

These conditions - though unreasonable in my opinion, are probably quite the norm for the SDO and as the SDO they are entitled to place thiose conditions on. In all probability the reason these werent discussed pre mating is because they thought the dog would be leased to them and therefore it would be in their control anyway and not something which should concern or be approved by the owner. its only changed because the owner now doesnt want to lease the bitch but at the time of the mating she did.

+1

All this discussion goes to show is, get it down on paper before ANY matings ever take place.

Don't forget the owner of the bitch had a good deal going if she had kept her word and leased the bitch.

All the bitches prior owner had to do was feed the bitch and pups(these were her conditions) and then she reaped the reward of the sale price for all the pups but one.

Don't forget people the owner of the bitch IS the one responsable for all the fees no matter what either party may THINK, unless separate arrangements are made and recorded.

There is a lot more to raising a litter than just feeding the mum and puppies. How about a minimum of 8 weeks work including losing sleep, then the costs of feeding, vaccinations, worming, microchips, vet bills including a caesar if needed. Then being expected to run on the litter for months until the SDO makes a choice. Not a good deal at all if you only get to keep a desexed pet and cannot even sell the others as pets until the SDO makes a final choice. There is no point in breeding a litter of pets, it is a complete waste of time. What if they want her to run them on for 12 months? More vaccinations and lots more food not to mention the work involved. If they can't pick at 8 weeks then they will not be able to make a proper decision until they stop growing and that could be a year later. Is the bitch owner supposed to hold them all that time? This is one of the most ridiculous lease agreements I have ever heard of.

I have had several litters by leasing bitches with them staying with the owner. I have never had a problem because I am not greedy and do not expect them to do it all for nothing. The SDO owner in this case wants everything their way but don't want to do any of the work.

No, thats not what I said.

The owner of the bitch pays not the prior owner. The person named on the papers is the owner.

So if the lease had gone through all the prior owner had to do was pay for some food.

What sleepless nights, there Whippets, you don't have the problems with them, that some breeders do with other breeds.

Unless their is an unforseen problem, and we all have to put up with that it goes with the terrority.

If the bitch had ten pups and the breeder took one that leaves 9 to sell. What with the price of pure bred dogs that SHOULD leave the new owner with all pups transfered but one( to the prior owner) a good little nest egg with only the outlay of some food.

Remember the owner is the person on the papers, and as the owner THEY are responsable for the care of the bitch unless otherwise stated in writing.

The owner is the one named on the papers and if no other prior arrangements have been made in writing then they are responsable for all the fees.

[dancinbcs]

Their wishes are completely unreasonable and I am sure that no one would lease them a bitch under those circumstances. It would have been different if they were prepared to take the bitch, pay all expenses, run the puppies on and do whatever they wanted with them. To expect the bitch owner to outlay all the money, do all the work, run puppies on (god knows why they can't pick at 8 weeks) just to eventually sell all the others as desexed pets, regardless of quality is ridiculous. If the litter was under their prefix they should get a say in which puppies are show quality and where they go, but they need to decide that at 8 weeks. Otherwise they should accept a stud fee and sign the service certificate with an agreement for the option to buy back a puppy.

Teh other two options are abort the litter or have an unregistered litter and make sure you advertise who the sire is and that the owner would not allow you to register the litter. See how they like what that will do to their precious prefix's reputation.

I agree , however, the agreement to lease the bitch has already been made and the mating has already been done. It appears though the SDO has agreed to allow Millie to use her own prefix which means she will need the service certificate but with no money changing hands the service certificate may not be handed to her until the pick pup has been chosen and in their possession. Signing the service certificate at time of mating and giving it to the bitch owner is two different things and still keeps the SDO within the regs.

Fact is some stud dog owners do have conditions in place for people who are using dogs at stud - most in my opinion are unreasonable because I believe that the only issue for the sdo should be whether they think the dog is suitable and that it is registered and so is the owner. If the bitch owner doesnt agree they simply dont use the dog at stud.Where this one has blown up is because the conditions were not discussed and agreed upon and signed off on before the mating took place.

These conditions - though unreasonable in my opinion, are probably quite the norm for the SDO and as the SDO they are entitled to place thiose conditions on. In all probability the reason these werent discussed pre mating is because they thought the dog would be leased to them and therefore it would be in their control anyway and not something which should concern or be approved by the owner. its only changed because the owner now doesnt want to lease the bitch but at the time of the mating she did.

+1

All this discussion goes to show is, get it down on paper before ANY matings ever take place.

Don't forget the owner of the bitch had a good deal going if she had kept her word and leased the bitch.

All the bitches prior owner had to do was feed the bitch and pups(these were her conditions) and then she reaped the reward of the sale price for all the pups but one.

Don't forget people the owner of the bitch IS the one responsable for all the fees no matter what either party may THINK, unless separate arrangements are made and recorded.

There is a lot more to raising a litter than just feeding the mum and puppies. How about a minimum of 8 weeks work including losing sleep, then the costs of feeding, vaccinations, worming, microchips, vet bills including a caesar if needed. Then being expected to run on the litter for months until the SDO makes a choice. Not a good deal at all if you only get to keep a desexed pet and cannot even sell the others as pets until the SDO makes a final choice. There is no point in breeding a litter of pets, it is a complete waste of time. What if they want her to run them on for 12 months? More vaccinations and lots more food not to mention the work involved. If they can't pick at 8 weeks then they will not be able to make a proper decision until they stop growing and that could be a year later. Is the bitch owner supposed to hold them all that time? This is one of the most ridiculous lease agreements I have ever heard of.

I have had several litters by leasing bitches with them staying with the owner. I have never had a problem because I am not greedy and do not expect them to do it all for nothing. The SDO owner in this case wants everything their way but don't want to do any of the work.

No, thats not what I said.

The owner of the bitch pays not the prior owner. The person named on the papers is the owner.

So if the lease had gone through all the prior owner had to do was pay for some food.

What sleepless nights, there Whippets, you don't have the problems with them, that some breeders do with other breeds.

Unless their is an unforseen problem, and we all have to put up with that it goes with the terrority.

If the bitch had ten pups and the breeder took one that leaves 9 to sell. What with the price of pure bred dogs that SHOULD leave the new owner with all pups transfered but one( to the prior owner) a good little nest egg with only the outlay of some food.

Remember the owner is the person on the papers, and as the owner THEY are responsable for the care of the bitch unless otherwise stated in writing.

The owner is the one named on the papers and if no other prior arrangements have been made in writing then they are responsable for all the fees.

Go back and read the earlier posts.

The agreement was for the bitch to be leased on paper only. She was to stay with her current owner who was to outlay everything, raise the litter and run them on for several months, then hand over a puppy when the SDO eventually chooses one. Only then can she sell the rest as pets. The lessee SDO was only going to lease the bitch to get a puppy under their prefix, they had no intention of taking possession of the bitch at any time or raising the litter.

[Crisovar]

Wow....I would have told the SDO to shove it, sounds like he has tickets on himself and his dog.

You don't need the angst of dealing with arrogance like that, and for what end? He gets a usable pup and you get pets! Let him buy a bitch and breed his own.

There are no shortage of nice well bred Whippets in the country, and I am sure if you wished to you could find one with no strings attached.

I once had a SDO owner approach me a little known breeder from the sticks a service by their dog for an exorbitant sum to help me along and they would take a pup as well, yeah right! How generous!

[oakway]

Their wishes are completely unreasonable and I am sure that no one would lease them a bitch under those circumstances. It would have been different if they were prepared to take the bitch, pay all expenses, run the puppies on and do whatever they wanted with them. To expect the bitch owner to outlay all the money, do all the work, run puppies on (god knows why they can't pick at 8 weeks) just to eventually sell all the others as desexed pets, regardless of quality is ridiculous. If the litter was under their prefix they should get a say in which puppies are show quality and where they go, but they need to decide that at 8 weeks. Otherwise they should accept a stud fee and sign the service certificate with an agreement for the option to buy back a puppy.

Teh other two options are abort the litter or have an unregistered litter and make sure you advertise who the sire is and that the owner would not allow you to register the litter. See how they like what that will do to their precious prefix's reputation.

I agree , however, the agreement to lease the bitch has already been made and the mating has already been done. It appears though the SDO has agreed to allow Millie to use her own prefix which means she will need the service certificate but with no money changing hands the service certificate may not be handed to her until the pick pup has been chosen and in their possession. Signing the service certificate at time of mating and giving it to the bitch owner is two different things and still keeps the SDO within the regs.

Fact is some stud dog owners do have conditions in place for people who are using dogs at stud - most in my opinion are unreasonable because I believe that the only issue for the sdo should be whether they think the dog is suitable and that it is registered and so is the owner. If the bitch owner doesnt agree they simply dont use the dog at stud.Where this one has blown up is because the conditions were not discussed and agreed upon and signed off on before the mating took place.

These conditions - though unreasonable in my opinion, are probably quite the norm for the SDO and as the SDO they are entitled to place thiose conditions on. In all probability the reason these werent discussed pre mating is because they thought the dog would be leased to them and therefore it would be in their control anyway and not something which should concern or be approved by the owner. its only changed because the owner now doesnt want to lease the bitch but at the time of the mating she did.

+1

All this discussion goes to show is, get it down on paper before ANY matings ever take place.

Don't forget the owner of the bitch had a good deal going if she had kept her word and leased the bitch.

All the bitches prior owner had to do was feed the bitch and pups(these were her conditions) and then she reaped the reward of the sale price for all the pups but one.

Don't forget people the owner of the bitch IS the one responsable for all the fees no matter what either party may THINK, unless separate arrangements are made and recorded.

There is a lot more to raising a litter than just feeding the mum and puppies. How about a minimum of 8 weeks work including losing sleep, then the costs of feeding, vaccinations, worming, microchips, vet bills including a caesar if needed. Then being expected to run on the litter for months until the SDO makes a choice. Not a good deal at all if you only get to keep a desexed pet and cannot even sell the others as pets until the SDO makes a final choice. There is no point in breeding a litter of pets, it is a complete waste of time. What if they want her to run them on for 12 months? More vaccinations and lots more food not to mention the work involved. If they can't pick at 8 weeks then they will not be able to make a proper decision until they stop growing and that could be a year later. Is the bitch owner supposed to hold them all that time? This is one of the most ridiculous lease agreements I have ever heard of.

I have had several litters by leasing bitches with them staying with the owner. I have never had a problem because I am not greedy and do not expect them to do it all for nothing. The SDO owner in this case wants everything their way but don't want to do any of the work.

No, thats not what I said.

The owner of the bitch pays not the prior owner. The person named on the papers is the owner.

So if the lease had gone through all the prior owner had to do was pay for some food.

What sleepless nights, there Whippets, you don't have the problems with them, that some breeders do with other breeds.

Unless their is an unforseen problem, and we all have to put up with that it goes with the terrority.

If the bitch had ten pups and the breeder took one that leaves 9 to sell. What with the price of pure bred dogs that SHOULD leave the new owner with all pups transfered but one( to the prior owner) a good little nest egg with only the outlay of some food.

Remember the owner is the person on the papers, and as the owner THEY are responsable for the care of the bitch unless otherwise stated in writing.

The owner is the one named on the papers and if no other prior arrangements have been made in writing then they are responsable for all the fees.

Go back and read the earlier posts.

The agreement was for the bitch to be leased on paper only. She was to stay with her current owner who was to outlay everything, raise the litter and run them on for several months, then hand over a puppy when the SDO eventually chooses one. Only then can she sell the rest as pets. The lessee SDO was only going to lease the bitch to get a puppy under their prefix, they had no intention of taking possession of the bitch at any time or raising the litter.

Only if it was put in writing.!!!!!!!!!!!! The owner of the bitch is legally responsible for all fees no matter where the bitch may reside. Isn't this what we are discussing the owners responsibilities. If the bitch had been leased the new owner would be responsible for the all fees unless they had a written agreement.

The only way Mille can legally sell the pups is, if the the owner transfers the pups back to her.

I have just done this with one of my bitches. I did not pay a cent the owner paid all it was their dog and yes the bitch only left my property to be mated.

What sleepless nights ?, the bitch was in the house close to me and I never lost a nights sleep.

I fed the bitch, and don't forget we as breeders are good at sourcing good food at cheap prices.

The owner paid all fees, it's their dog.

The litter never cost me a cent other than the food I fed the bitch and I like you, like to help people in the dog world.

The only reward I have received is to see the pups winning in the ring.

Also I never leased the bitch I transferred the bitch, it's easier that way.

I also never had a written agreement. I am possibly like you, only do business with those that can be trusted, and yes, as you would have found, their is still plenty of us out here including youself that are willing to help.

Also don't forget to some pups are a breeze and to others they can be a long hard grind.

To me they are a breeze.

[Jumabaar]

Also don't forget to some pups are a breeze and to others they can be a long hard grind.

To me they are a breeze.

I will let you take care of my next litter then. I can tell you I have only ever had long hard grinds.....

I feel sorry for you Mille. I understand what Steve is saying but if the SDO wanted all this they should have just been upfront with you in the first place- which I think is what has upset you. Sometimes people can put on a show for a long time to get what they want and when they have leverage you see them for what they truly are. I hope you can come to some arrangement.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Jumabaar

[Steve]

Look I think the stud dog owner is way overboard with theri demands but I dont think it does anyone any good to assume they did what they did with some kind of hidden agenda and a deliberate ploy to take advantage.

It just creates bad feelings and makes it all feel worse than it is.

The mating is done and there is therefore a relationship - like it or not .If everyone just stays nice and gives each the benefit of the doubt - understand it has happened because they didnt communicate effectively from the start

there is a fair chance that Millie will get her prefix, and the stud certificate - though its doubtful she will get it until the pick pup has been chosen. Thats better than a long drawn out war with no winners.

[Jumabaar]

Look I think the stud dog owner is way overboard with theri demands but I dont think it does anyone any good to assume they did what they did with some kind of hidden agenda and a deliberate ploy to take advantage.

It just creates bad feelings and makes it all feel worse than it is.

The mating is done and there is therefore a relationship - like it or not .If everyone just stays nice and gives each the benefit of the doubt - understand it has happened because they didnt communicate effectively from the start

there is a fair chance that Millie will get her prefix, and the stud certificate - though its doubtful she will get it until the pick pup has been chosen. Thats better than a long drawn out war with no winners.

Yes I think it is a communication problem and I do think that the benefit of the doubt will help the situation immensely.

I do think that the OP said they had discussed selling other pups to show homes with the SDO prior to the mating but I am happy to be corrected about that- and I think that would have been the appropriate time for the SDO to tell them that all remanding animals would have to be desexed, rather than at the time of the mating which is what prompted me to say that they had changed their tune. But we don't have both sides of the story so the best I can do is wish Milly has a happy healthy litter.

[oakway]

Look I think the stud dog owner is way overboard with theri demands but I dont think it does anyone any good to assume they did what they did with some kind of hidden agenda and a deliberate ploy to take advantage.

It just creates bad feelings and makes it all feel worse than it is.

The mating is done and there is therefore a relationship - like it or not .If everyone just stays nice and gives each the benefit of the doubt - understand it has happened because they didnt communicate effectively from the start

there is a fair chance that Millie will get her prefix, and the stud certificate - though its doubtful she will get it until the pick pup has been chosen. Thats better than a long drawn out war with no winners.

+1

[Mille]

I am still trying for a reasonable contract.

Thanks Everyone for entering the debate. I will limit further reply, at the risk of repeating all ad nauseum.

Feel free to PM me if you like.

[Andisa]

This is too messy for me - I would be making an appointment at the vets asap to have the litter aborted and tell the stud owner that there was no pregnancy... can't see this ending very well otherwise. .

[Steve]

This is too messy for me - I would be making an appointment at the vets asap to have the litter aborted and tell the stud owner that there was no pregnancy... can't see this ending very well otherwise. .

I guess it depends on how much you want the litter but I cant help but agree with you- I would also abort and cross them off the christmas list . Then its done and experience learned.

[becks]

I'd have the litter and tell the stud owner to take their pick and sign the papers by then or they will be sold as pets and they won't be getting any stud fee or puppy.

[oakway]

I'd have the litter and tell the stud owner to take their pick and sign the papers by then or they will be sold as pets and they won't be getting any stud fee or puppy.

Becks it doesn't work that way in this country.

As the owner at the moment doesn't hold a prefix they can't have a registered litter unless they lease the bitch or transfer her to person that is financial and holds a current financial prefix.

We not only have to pay our membership fees yearly to our states controlling body but we have to pay a maintance fee yearly to keep our Prefix's current.

To obtain a Prefix in this country can sometimes be a long and drawn out process.

[oakway]

I'd have the litter and tell the stud owner to take their pick and sign the papers by then or they will be sold as pets and they won't be getting any stud fee or puppy.

I have re read your comment and may have miss interpreted it.

If so my apologies.

Do you mean sell them as un registered pets ?.