As someone who has been a victim of this trap, I must say that Dave's words ring out as being the absolute truth! I applaud him for his courage and eloquence in laying out point by point why people wanting to get started in our breed need to look at the situation objectively and RESIST the temptation of entering into either a Co-ownership or some other situation which endlessly obligates the buyer and , in *most cases* benefits only the breeder. People faced with this situation need to be cognizant that entering into a co-ownership subjugates them to the authority (read POWER) of the breeder for a term that could be as long as the life of the dog. Unless there is a written legal contract that covers any and all situations that may occur and specifies a solution for each, the breeder is free to do and say whatever she or he chooses to, regardless of what they may have initially promised. For those of you thinking that if you are dealing with a CKCSC, USA member-breeder, that you will somehow be protected by the "Code Of Ethics", please know that this thinking is MISGUIDED at best!!! Believe me, when I say I speak from experience .... And, I am grateful to Dave for addressing this issue so thoroughly.
All the best, Susan [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: I left his post in its entirety in case some of you missed it because I feel his words are so important. Needless to say, this represents MY opinion. ><<If it isn't to my advantage why would I let it go? >What's wrong with a co-ownership until the puppy has finished its CH and >health >clearances? What's wrong with the breeder wanting to have a say in who she >gets bred >to for her first litter and taking a puppy back?>> > >Wow where to start. How about first with why does every action have to be >for profit? Why does everything have to be for someones advantage? What >happened to the day and age where people just did nice things for each >other you know actually wanting to help in a fair manner.. like helping >someone who has a serious interest get a nice show dog or get started in >the breed. This is what is wrong with the world today everyone has a "whats >in it for me" attitude that takes precedence to a level I believe it should >not. > >I'm not saying give a dog away but charge a fair price and let it go. >Thats fair. Puppy back strings, determining who it is bred to etc ... >these are all characteristics of puppy pyramids where EVERYTHING is in it >for the breeder. Whats in it for the buyer? Lets see ... they get to pay >a couple of thousand dollars for a puppy, the breeder gets the best puppy >or puppies from the litter (another couple of thousand dollar value not to >mention non-monetary value) and the breeder gets to dictate who you breed >to and sometimes when. Whats in it for the buyer is the better questoin? >Maybe a couple of litters later if they are lucky they get to keep a good >puppy that they actually own? This is ridiculous, however many people fall >into this ridiculous trap each day. There is a tight group who preach this >is the only way you can get a good dog to try to increase the pressure for >people to go this route and many horror stories from people who fell >vicitm. > >I bought all of my dogs outright and own them. Thats buying a dog... not >leasing or renting where you really don't have many rights. Where do many >of the big name breeders buy their dogs these days? Imports. There are >many reasons why but one is they get to buy them outright. They preach >co-own and puppy back but buy outright. Hmmmmmmmm Why do you think so many >people now want imports after talking to Americans who lay out the puppy >payment plan? Maybe some who fall victim to irish puppy mills do so trying >to escape the unfair terms and lifetime restrictions imposed by many >breeders? > >I'm not saying everyone should sell everything outright or without any >restrictions. But make them fair not very lopsided "to the breeders >advantage". > >Some people like co-ownerships as they say they provide protection. How >much protection do they really provide? If the buyer wants to mill your >dog that co-ownership and ability to register with AKC or CKCSC means >little. How many people sell dogs especially breedable show dogs to people >they have not gotten to know well enough to trust? So if you are that >confident in them why all the restrictions? Puppys back? Because it is the >way it has always been done? >If you need to force someone to do the right things, or if they have not >learned enough to do the right things, or if you do not trust them >enough... maybe you shouldn't be selling them a breedable dog. > >There are many excuses for overly restrictive deals and puppy pyramids. > >There are also breeders who want some of these benefits but do it in a fair >way. They take a puppy back INSTEAD of cash for the dog. This way you >still are paying only for ONE dog not TWO (or more in some cases) as you do >when you pay a fee AND a puppy. The right way to have input into the >breeding is to develop a relationship with the buyer so that they will WANT >your input not to force it on them. Co-ownerships that are disolved after >a buyer has proven themselves are not a bad thing if that is where your >comfort lies but how many co-ownerships are NEVER dissolved? Many are >forever and more to keep the breeders name and kennel in the limelight then >anything else unfortunately. > >There are ways to protect what you sell and still keep a deal fair. >Breeders should once in a while actually want to help someone who would be >an asset to the breed get started not always say "whats in it for me". If >a breeder feels a buyer won't listen to their advice and input maybe they >shouldn't sell to that person. AND a breeder needs to realize that SELLING >a dog means it is no longer yours. If this is not the case your just >renting it in reality not selling it. > >Any deal that is endless, where the buyer can not ever obtain full >ownership, requires puppys back AND a fee that in total are over the market >value of ONE puppy and/or leaves the breeder the ability to dictate (not >advise) what you can or can not do with YOUR new puppy in my opinion is a >deal that is NOT fair to both parties, should not have been struck, and is >usually crafted by those trying to take advantage of someone attempting to >get into the breed. (usually because someone did it to them years before). > >Because this is how it has always been done is not a justification. > >Dave >CastleMyst Cavaliers >http://members.aol.com/CMystCavs _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ========================================================= "Magic Commands": to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL to start it up gain click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance. Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 1999 by its original author.
