July 2005


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Gina Bisco <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Farm Collie Breed Conservancy and Restoration <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:15:04 -0400
text/plain (41 lines)
On Sunday 17 July 2005 8:34, jana lashmit wrote:
> Do you think the breeder ought
> to be responsible for progeny testing, or should that fall on the new puppy
> owners?

The breeder has ultimate responsibility to know what needs to be done and make
it happen, but it must be a shared responsibility because the information
gathering has to be done by the person in possession o fthe dog.

> What about a puppy contract with a clause that the breeder pays a
> portion of the costs for OFA, thyroid, and CEA testing, or makes it a
> condition of even being able to buy the pup in the first place?

That's fine as far as it goes. But the legal status of puppy contracts is
questionable; they may not be legally binding or enforcible. It may be the
only way a breeder can in the retain the legally enforcible right to ensure
certain tests get done  is to retain ownership until they are done.

Beyond the legalities, I think puppy buyers have NOT traditionally thought of
their role as one of participating in the breeders breeding program or in the
maintenance of a breed. Involvement in this sort of new relationship is
basically bending and changing whatever concepts they had. Breeders and dog
clubs have to really think things through and then help owners understand
what it expected of them now and why.

The puppy-buying-concept is infused with assumptions carried over from other
realms of purchasing.  People without experience breeding anything at all
don't really grasp the need for and importance of their long term
participation even when it is explained verbally and also laid out in a
contract, I think, in part because it is inconsistent with the "buying"
concept, the additional requirements may seem sort of optional to them like a
survey for car owners from GM. The continuity of obligation on the part of
the new puppy owner may actually be more in line with cultural expectations
associated with "lease" concept rather than "purchase".

Anyway, it is all something that needs to be worked on by breeders, owners,
and dog clubs. I think of this as evolution of dog ownership and dog
breeding. It can be uncomfortable for everyone because things are new,
expectations are different and everything has to be worked out all over
again. Roles are not clearly defined anymore.