Co-ownerships (cringe cringe) A few comments on this thread again I have grouped several to stay WAYYYY under the 15 post limit he he he....
Myra wrote: <<In a lot of cases, Glenn...the breeder wants their name on the puppy no matter what it's quality is, so they get puppies back from you. The puppy pyramiders don't really care all that much about quality; only quantity.>> AMEN and there is a LOT of that out there. Not to mention those who want to assure everybody everywhere has heard of them and their kennel. Free advertising. Pat Barrington wrote: <<> My main reason to co-own a puppy I produced would be to ensure that no > breeding happened that I was not in favour of. This helps to ensure your > input; >> I would say if you don't know the purchaser of a breedable puppy well enough to trust them then don't sell them a breedable puppy. Could someone fool you? Sure. Is there a risk? Sure. I have been told in the past though that the co-ownerships often do little to stop someone from breeding irresponsibly. If they are just out to make money they don't care what body they register with if any and there are ways around papers. I think if you want that much input and can't trust the purchaser to allow you such don't sell them the puppy. I also don't think it is fair when breeders sell a pup for show then demand the right to tell the person who to breed to. Suggest... great.... council... excellent... demand if they disagree? No way. Often times the purchaser on a co-ownership has nothing more then a rental property they can use at the owners direction. For some that is ok, for me... If I pay that much I want to own not rent. > <<Co-ownership agreements also serve as a safety net. IF I were placing a > show prospect puppy with a relative newcomer/inexperienced breeder, I would > always do a co-ownership for that reason.>> > <<Another good reason for co-ownership is to ensure your particular > standards of health > testing, showing prior to a breeding.>> Again. If you need a legal document to get the purchaser of your puppies to listen to you then in my opinion you either gravely misjudged the purchaser or never had the relationship to be successful in that arrangement in the first place. Some people like co-ownerships, I obviously do not. For some people they work out well and in fact some buyers feel better in having them, somewhat of a security blanket that the breeder won't abandon them. In most instances I think they are unneccessary at best and downright unfair at worst. <<> transfer the puppy/adult to the name of > the buyer once your mutually agreed > upon conditions have been met. >> If there is no clause on how/when the co-ownership is satisfied and full ownership is granted then I would be really wary. <<> back, or advertising. >> No they are not always. Some are generally good intentioned and some work out very well. I would say the majority though fall into the categories listed above with the additions of "control" and "thats the way we always have done it" as additional reasons. Jackie wrote: <<Why not ask for a puppy back? I've only ever done two co-owns and both of them were with the understanding that if the bitch had a show potential pup that the co-owner did not want to run on, I would have the option to take that puppy for myself and then the co- ownership would be dissolved>> I think it is unfair to ask full price for a puppy then in any manner a puppy back free of charge. This is asking the buyer to pay twice. An inflated rate for the one dog they get from the deal. Candy Roper wrote: <<I didn't find any breeder willing to sell outright when I went looking for a Cavalier>> A vast majority of the breeders in the USA will insist on a co-ownership of a show quality Cavalier. For a myriad of reasons they require it. Somehow we need to find out the secrets of the overseas crowd who sell splendid specimans here with no such strings and yet still seem to be able to avoid the pitfalls the USA crowd insists they need the co-ownerships for protection from. The good news is there are people who will sell a good dog outright and still do it in a manner that protects the dog as much as any co-ownership. <<By co-owning my girl with her breeder, I have a direct line to information & support if needed. I don't have to struggle quite so much with the "learning curve" of my chosen new breed - I have a "guaranteed mentor" (if I choose wisely - which I did). There are definite plusses to co-owning, & being able to learn from my breeders involvement in the breed is the biggest I can think of!>> As you can see co-ownerships work for some people. If that is you by all means go for it. But don't feel you have to. I think good breeders will be willing to do all of the above, mentor, guide, teach, etc. without being forced into it by the obligation of a co-ownership. Did I mention I feel most are after money, puppies, advertising, control, and or do it because "thats the way it has always been done?" Dave CastleMyst Cavaliers http://members.aol.com/CMystCavs ========================================================= "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 2002 by its original author.
