We recently bought a purebred golden retriever pup, and encountered something we considered curious. If you are looking for a purebreed, you will meet a small number of breeders who all seem to know each other and appear to pretty effectively control the market of high quality dogs. (For this thread I don’t think we need to debate “high quality.” Nor am I interested in explaining why we did not go the “rescue” route.) To get one of these breeders’ dogs can require interviewing, putting down deposits, and getting on waiting lists.
A breeder will sell a pup as either a pet, or as a show dog. If sold as a pet, they generally will require that it be spayed/neutered and never bred. The dog will also come with a limited registration, which means any offspring can not be registered.
This kind of struck me as an odd situation - almost a restraint of trade from a legal perspective. Do you think these spay/neuter clauses are enforceable? What would the damages be for breach?
What happened with us was we ended up going with a backyard breeder - a broad category in between puppy mills and professional breeders. This guy had bought high quality pets from some of the breeders we had spoken with, but had not fixed them. (He said he had fixed a previous dog, but felt it adversely affected her personality.) This litter was an accident when he failed to keep his dogs apart when the bitch went into heat.
So we bought a pup from him for far less (as much as 50%) what the breeders were asking. And although we cannot have our pup registered (and have no desire to), we have the papers for mom and pop, and know the bloodlines, health clearances, etc. If we changed our mind and wished to breed our dog, we would not be allowed to register the offspring.
It just struck me as a kind of kinky situation all around. I was wondering what you folks thought of it. Did anyone do anything wrong? Us? The guy we got the pup from? The breeders of his dogs?
The reason some of the higher-end breeders sell either “show” or “pet” dogs is precisely because they know the bloodlines and conformations of the litter. They know if the coloring is just right or deviates from the breed standard. If they take the pups for a health check, they probably know which ones are predisposed to health problems in the future, or which ones have congenital problems. IOW, they give out “pet” animals is because they don’t consider those animals fit enough, good enough, to maintain as a bloodline in the breed. Those animals have a “fault” (by breed-standards) that the other littermates do not show. The littermates that do pass (the “show” ones), are considered OK to breed, and the breeders are confident that their descendants will either improve the line or at least don’t damage it (by bringing in congenital problems, for example).
Not that I’m in favor (generally) of breeders, but I think in this case, done right, it is a good thing.
Also, generally accident litters are considered “pet” category as a whole, and are sold at a much greater discount (or even given away for free) by many breeders, high-end or not. That is because it is an unwanted litter to begin with, the owners just want to get rid of the animals.
Some relatives bought a beautiful Golden Lab from a breeder. All his littermates were stillborn. Therefore, he was not considered good breeding stock.
I don’t know whether he was fixed before or after he became a pet. (And he made a great pet.) But breeding him might have had unfortunate consequences. Like a bunch of dead puppies.
Going the rescue route might have been better than getting a pup from One-Step-Above-A-Puppy-Mill.
Yeah, I know. These are the reasons they give. But I tend to be a cynical kinda guy, and the actual effect of their practices seems to reserve to them a large portion of the top of the market. Many times you will hear of a breeder keeping one of a litter, or selling for breed/show and pet from the same litter. And I’ve read/spoken with many people who say there is really very little a breeder can tell about how the pups will end up at 7-8 weeks age. For example, many conformation champs were intended to be sold as pets.
From a legal perspective I’m trying to come up with similar “products” where the seller is able to dictate the manner in which a buyer uses the product. Most of what I come up with involve products that are patented or licenses - such as seed grain or media. Trying to come up with a legal or public policy reason why the seller should be able to effectively retain control over the product after they sell it.
Bridget, I hope you intended your 3d paragraph to be as unpleasant as it came across.
You do know that littermates aren’t necessarily identical twins, right? In cats, at least, they don’t even necessarily have the same father. It’s not at all surprising that littermates’ suitability for breeding should differ.
Duh. Of course I do. Heck. In my pup’s litter they would have had to be identical sextuplets! The boys and girls both!
I posted that in response to what I now see was probably a misinterpretation of an aspect of KG’s post. I mistakenly got the impression he was distinguishing between one particular litter that was bred for show and another litter that was bred to be pups.
In practice, I’m pretty sure that under certain conditions most breeders would agree to sell the identical puppy either as a pet or show dog/breeding stock - with the main difference being that they would charge a heck of a lot more for the latter. As I said, from everything I’ve read/heard, assessing the breeding quality of a pup at 8 weeks or less is - at best - a terribly imprecise science.
That’s not necessarily true. My experience is in rabbits, but I could tell by the time they were old enough to sell that some of the litter did not conform to the breed standard. There are a lot of visual parts to the standard that be determined by then, like coloring, even toenails that can be disqualifications. Maybe they didn’t feel it has the temperament to be a showdog. If it’s breeding quality I doubt they would let it go for a lower price to be a pet if they could sell it to someone else who shows and will pay a show dog’s price.
Yeah. Fine. But the title of my thread - and what I intended the tenor of my OP - inquired as to the legalities of various aspects of the practice. Perhaps I should have posted it in GQ instead.
Basically I have little or no complaint with breeders such as I describe. I readily acknowledge that it is not a way to get rich, and the price they charge for their dogs undoubtedly does not cover all the costs involved in creating the product. But am I alone in thinking that - viewed from a market perspective - it is a tad unusual?
Legally - for most purposes - a dog is a good/chattel/a personal possession. I’m sure this particular analogy will fall apart upon, but the local gas station doesn’t go through a screening process before agreeing to sell me some gas, and attempt to restrict me from siphoning a gallon or two out of my car and using it in my lawnmower. Nor could they if they wished to.
Perhaps a breeder’s position would make more sense if I considered it more like an artist, who reserves the right to sell or not to whom he wishes. But still, once an artist sells me a painting, I can burn it or resell it if I wish. There would be restrictions on my right to reproduce it, tho.
One other aspect in which breeding practices are distinct from legality - I have read/heard many times where a breeder says deposits are non-refundable. Well, fine. But under the law, if you do not refund one buyer’s deposit, then you are not legally entitled to sell that pup to another buyer.
You are right, some things are not yet known at 7-8 weeks of age. Tests for predisposition to hip dysplasia, for example, are not accepted until the animal is at least 2 years old (OFA, although PennHIP is an earlier assessment). By that time, though, the animals may have already been bred.
And if you have a purebreed that ends up having some congenital problem down the line, the responsible thing to do is also contact the breeder. They may not help you then to pay any expenses, but giving them a heads up may make them (should make them) do some changes as to their breeding lines.
Other variations and congenital anomalies (coloration, eye abnormalities) can vary within a litter. Those things can be assessed early and can determine whether a particular animal or litter is sold as “pet” or as “show”.
And no, I was not making a distinction between litters (although that can happen), but among littermates. Certainly, for many breeders, they keep the ones they think are the finest and will be the finest (as much as they may know by 7-8 weeks) as show dogs, and the ones that fail to do so as “pets”. They’re being selective in that, since they want to safeguard the breed standard.
And accidental litters being what they are, those animals end up in the “pet” category, since they were not bred intentionally to make a good genetic match (in the breeders’ mind).
“Show”, “pet”, rescued, mutt, all of those of course can make excellent pets.
I do not see any fines or any really problem to you not spaying/neutering the pet, other than you won’t be able to give “papers” to the offspring (and you don’t care about that). I’m guessing the extra hassle is a way to deter/make it more difficult for indiscriminate breeders from getting a lot of hold in the pedigreed group. Only show dogs can breed and their offspring recognized. If others breed, their offspring won’t be recognized (or if it is, only after extra paperwork).
There are also restrictions in many shelters about adopting out unfixed animals. Their reasoning, though, is different from the breeders. They want to curb population growth, so many shelters either give out already fixed animals (no unfixed pet may get out of the building) or require animals to be fixed ASAP.
I guess, to me, having a pedigreed puppy is not unlike having a degree accredited by a particular organization. One can have a puppy who appears to be a lab, for example, just like one can have practical business knowledge based on experience. One can also have a puppy who has paperwork that promises you that this is a genuine pedigreed lab, and even though you know darn well that their is little difference as far as the value of the pet to your family, some people will pay a heck of a lot more for that puppy. And thus someone asking about which grad school she should go to was recently advised to pick the high-prestige one, it’ll open more doors for her.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the organized breeders trying to corner the market on the highest priced puppies by trying to convince people that their puppies are the highest quality puppies. At least in principle.
In practice, there are sometimes interesting quirks–I know just enough to be dangerous about thoroughbred racing, and so find it amusing the degree to which the value of the sire of the latest Kentucky Derby winner increases in value after that race is run.
But I’m not seeing why breeders shouldn’t be able to put limits on your ability to take a dog they view as not worthy of their elite club and make money selling its puppies.
I’m not sure I’m making sense, either, but I am running away from the internet until tomorrow, at minimum, and probably later.
This may not be an exactly right analogy, but it sounds like a similar product is music, such as itunes - where you are sold the product for your own specific personal use, but restricted from ‘breeding’ it for others to get from you.
I imagine if you did want to breed the dog and sell the pups with the potential to be showdogs, you would have to negotiate a higher price for the animal up front (as you are in it for commercial purposes), and your selection criteria would be different. I imagine you would need to be much more selective for example about any congenital illnesses, which may not show up in your gen 1 dog, but could evident themselves further down the track.
You can be as cynical as you want, but the intent is not to keep their “corner” on the market–if for no other reason than it’s not simply the dogs and their genetalia that make them the elite kennels. It’s the name, it’s their campaigning and showing and titling, their tremendous knowledge of their dogs’ bloodlines and pedigrees, faults and strengths, and how all of those things combine in individual breedings to produce the quality of dogs they produce… so on and so forth.
The reasons they give are legitimate and ethical. Were you to not spay your dog, you would not receive a complete registration, and any puppies resulting would not be registrable. You could still backyard breed your dog, but you wouldn’t be able to command the same prices or find the same homes for the pups that the big name breeder would, and your name would be mud amongst the “in crowd”.
As far as your thoughts about some pups from a litter being sold as show quality and some as pets, as others have mentioned, that’s precisely the point of the limited registration. Only a few puppies out of even the most spectacular breeding will be considered show and breeding quality,* and no ethical breeder breeds a litter with the intention of producing more pets–especially in such a breed as the golden retriever, of which there are thousands of people producing fine goldens and no shortage of pet quality pups. There are plenty of pets. Whoever you talked to that said there is “very little” a breeder can tell about the quality of a dog at 8 weeks doesn’t know jack about breeding quality dogs.
You may not be able to tell, and pups certainly do sometimes grow into their conformation better than expected, and sometimes a spectacular pup will turn out to be a dud when they finish growing–breeding after all is more an art than an exact science–but there certainly is a lot to be seen in an 8 week old pup.
So you bought a dog from an unintended breeding, produced with zero forethought by someone who couldn’t handle the responsibility of keeping his intact dogs separate, and by someone who lied to the people from whom he purchased the dog in the first place. A puppy from pedigrees that may or may not be compatible but was certainly produced out of at least one dog with serious enough faults to be considered unworthy of contributing to the gene pool, purchased from a “breeder” that won’t give you your money back if your dog turns out severely dysplastic or with some other congenital defomity. A “breeder” that doesn’t have room in his kennel to take responsibility for any puppies from the litter that may need to be rehomed in the future. Your dog is probably a wonderful pet and the purchase may very well turn out to be a fine one for your needs, but please don’t make the mistake of thinking you got the same deal you would have purchasing the dog from the reputable breeder, and please don’t make the mistake of thinking that breeding your dog is ever a good idea ethically, or financially, or good for the breed as a whole. Like I said, there are plenty of pet golden retrievers being produced by ethical breeders, there’s nothing your dog could contribute to the gene pool that would benefit anyone.
You talk like you believe any dogs out of that particular elite kennel are going to be worthy of breeding, and any pups produced from dogs out of those kennels will be the same quality as pups contentiously and purposely bred by the experts. You’re wrong about that.
I’m sorry if any of that sounds harsh or snarky, but it’s all true, and none of it is meant personally.
*case in point: my dog is out of one of the best breedings of his birth year in the entire breed, in the whole world. His brothers and sisters are tearing up the show ring in Europe, Japan, the US, and South America. Others are great hunters and a few are pets. My dog was bought as a pet, because I wasn’t interested in showing or breeding. He’s intact because his European breeder doesn’t have the same fixation on spay/neuter that US breeders have, and I don’t want you to think I’m against keeping your dog intact, as a matter of fact I’m generally against spaying and neutering for those who can handle the keeping of intact animals–as the person from whom you bought your dog clearly cannot.
Point being, though his litter is uber-elite in the world of his breed, he’s not only “pet quality” but is actively disqualified from show due to an extra spot on his coat. His brother was the world champion one year and another brother the US champion the year after, yet he’s disqualified.
Oh, and about the legality of enforcing the contract, which is as you point out the point of the OP, there’s really not much they can do about it. You are welcome to keep your dog intact and pump out puppies, you just won’t be able to register the dog or their offspring and you’ll lose out on any ability to participate in the ethical breeding community; a serious loss if you have ethical intentions, no real loss if you’re just trying to be a backyard breeder making some extra bucks and contributing to the problems of genetic health and overpopulation.
If nothing else, this thread has reaffirmed my perception that lawyers are hampered by an ability to discuss the “legality” of matters without being overburdened by their personal preferences.
And I guess I have a personal bias against “contracts” or contractual language that is in no way enforceable.
I agree, in general, except that they can enforce it in ways that make it less profitable for you to break the contract, and the intent of the contract is to negotiate ethical behavior from their puppy buyers, as well as to help safeguard the breed against someone like your backyard breeder producing potential genetic time-bombs in ignorance and making them a part of the breed’s genetic future.
Like I said, I’m not generally all het up about spay/neuter, and if I were to buy a US bred dog under such a contract, I wouldn’t fix the dog–on the other hand I wouldn’t, under any circumstances, breed such a dog either.
I can’t see any reason to single out one arbitrary rule in dog breeding. Isn’t the whole system based on arbitrary rules? If you accept the premise that a group of people have set an arbitrary high value on a certain set of dog genes, then it makes sense that they try to limit the number of dogs with those genes. Even to the point of turning a blind eye towards dogs that “unofficially” have the same genes.
Really, everyone has covered your questions, but let me weigh in with the question of – if you didn’t buy the dog for breeding or showing, what do you care if you can have it registered?
I, like many others, loathe backyard breeders as a whole, but my long-haired Chihuahua (who is registered and not neutered, though still a virgin!) was bought from a woman that I would classify as a backyard breeder. Although her dogs were well-kept and treated as pets, she didn’t know an awful lot about the breed. My dog’s health checked and he has been a joy – he could have been a showdog, had I had the patience for the grooming and actually going to those things. Just as you can find an amazing pet at the shelter, even backyard breeders can get it right once in a while. Oh, and of course, just for argument’s sake – we once had a pomeranian bought with the whole spay/neuter contract from a “reputable breeder” for way more than anyone else because he supposedly had amazing showlines – I gave that dog away for free. It was untrainable – the only dog I have ever met that I could label that way.
