working dog breeders

[babyray]

Hi

Flamesuit in place-check
Sarcasm shield activated-check
Patronization barrier up-check

I really would like to hear some comments about what I have been experiencing since I began rescuing working dogs.
These are real cases of mine with the names changed to protect the alleged innocent:

Dog A was bred by a national level officer of one of the United States' largest working rottweiler clubs. He was then sold to a regional level officer of that club, where he was basically neglected until he was given up for rescue, because the breeder had no interest in taking him back. After a little research I found that this dog's sire is owned by the President of one of the largest working rottweiler clubs in the US. When notified that one of his/her dog's puppies was in rescue, s/he asked about working ability. When told that the dog was submissive, s/he did not answer my emails or phone calls again. Dog A becomes part of the rescue burden.

Dog B was bred by 2 members of two of the United States' largest working rottweiler clubs, and then sold to a regional level officer of one of those clubs. This person titled the dog to a SchHIII, decided he needed a better dog and put him up for sale. Unable to sell him, he notified me and I took the dog as a rescue-he is basically unplaceable so he is a lifer in my rescue.
Dog B becomes part of the rescue burden.

Dog C was imported from germany, a son of Doc, by an old and well known kennel known for both AKC and FCI champions and working rottweilers. This dog was sold with an overbite to an unsuspecting owner, and when pressed, wouldn't take the dog back. Since then the owner has gotten into showing and breeding himself and placed the dog in an innapropriate home-at least he was sensible enough to take the dog back and now he is in my rescue program. Dog C is now a part of the rescue burden.

Do a preponderance of schutzhund/working type breeders consider dogs just a commodity and once sold, that is the end of the story? I equate a lot of the trainers I see to a person competing, say, in football, and when the ball you buy isn't just right, or a new kind comes out, you just throw the ball in the trash in lieu of the new, high performance, improved football?
I mean these are just not your newbies to Rotts or the sport, these are the folks that we elect to run our major German style clubs! While these dogs mentioned are the most notable, these are not the only well bred, prominent bloodline, or titled rottweilers I have had in my rescue program. So does this mean that many "german style" breeders require no contract, do not offer guarantees or take back their puppies as a general rule? I have had a few members of my club actually laugh out loud at my stud contract which specifies provisions for the puppies my stud sires. Isn't this as bad as BYB? Where is the accounatbility in all this?
Anyone?

[Leader]

I don't know if I'm sad, angry or depressed. i didn't think it happened to rotts (naive me:o ). It is unforgivable. I wouldn't give away one of my dogs at the cost of my life and I do ringsport! But then there are Mal competitors who do the same thing with their dogs, but they're NOT breeders.

No excuse whatsoever.


VERY ANGRY

[Judi W]

I could add to these stories but will not. You have given sufficient examples. The code of ethics for some of the working groups are not enforced and are quite loose anyway. The results are the same as with a BYB as far as following the puppies sold is concerned. Proud of having breed wardens, but excusing the breeding of HD positive dogs for certain individuals, etc. and no apparant responsibility for the produce of breedings and selling with NO sales contract to specify responsibilities of both parties. To my knowlege, they do not require sales contracts or agreements.

Now, an explanation is also in order. In the US, most code clubs require members to accept responsibility for the get of their breedings without exception. I subscribe to this with mixed feelings in that someone can acquire an excellent puppy and through neglect and ignorance, or because of a new baby/wife/home decide they no longer want it and then expect the breeder to take back a dog that is not rehomeable because it has spent perhaps years being neglected. As Orville once stated, the puppy was not rented or leased, it was sold it to be owned and cared for by the new owner, however, most of these breeders do take the dogs back if only to euthanize them. How sad for a breeder to see a pup they sold with the expectation that it would have a good home for life only to have to take it on one of those oneway trips. I believe that the person who acquires a puppy has responsibilities. On the other hand, when a person purchases a pup (often in these cases for very high $$$) and does not get what they paid for, the breeder at the very least, should refund down to pet price. However, with no sales contract, the purchaser has little recourse as the working clubs do not seem to want to be involved in enforcement of this type of dispute.

Now, a bit of further confusion. The US code clubs are rather unique in their requirement of breeder responsibility. I know of no other country where clubs have such requirements. In the rest of the world, a purchaser selects as carefully as possible and takes their chances. I believe that this is pretty much how many of the working club members view things here. Are they wrong? Only if they indicate otherwise or make representations that they will take the dog back or that they really care about that dog for its entire life. Again, an issue of responsibility - but whose? I recently read a complaint (not on this forum) from a woman who purchased from a working club breeder and whose dog had to be euthanized due to sever HD. She also stated that she had been cautioned about this breeder before purchasing and that she did not have a sales contract. Hello?????

Some years ago at the IFR conference one of the speakers cautioned against viewing the dogs as a piece of sporting equipment. He was addressing however the selection of characteristics for breeding focusing only on work in the field without attention to general stability that allows the dogs to live properly in the modern urban society. That issue does speak to producing dogs that often end up with one way trips to the vet or in rescue however as they end up in homes that are ill equipped to handle them. It is an issue with many facets.

Now, a hard hearted sounding thought as well. As long as rescue takes these dogs removing all guilt and responsibility from the owner who renegs and the breeder who says goodby at the whelping box no one learns anything. The owner who is dumping the dog who has become the fine fellow they raised it to be (read sarcasm here) does so guilt free as they believe this dog will be rehomed. The breeder is also off the hook. Something to consider.

[babyray]

Judi
I agree and appreciate your post. As far as "the hard hearted" idea at the end- I see your point, but that is precisely why we have rescue-to get dogs out of situations created by irresponsibility.
What else can we do in rescue besides rescue the dog? The irresponsible owner and breeder get off guilt free no matter whether rescue takes the dog or lets it whither on the vine. I would love to think we could educate irresponsible breeders and buyers-but it is nearly insurmountable, especially when overlooked by our clubs. Since the individuals don't suffer any consequences, it seems to me that an organization that claims to have a code of ethics is the best way to get control of the problem. All of your points are excellent as usual, I am just disgusted with people and have to let it out!

[Judi W]

I don't like it either. I was trying to explain "where" it comes from. I believe that in the US, the AKC code clubs are way and above in the area of responsibility by breeders for the breedings' offspring.

[babyray]

Sigh...:( It's so frustrating-no accountability with these people!

[Michele Baxter]

One solution I could suggest would be to have these "clubs" make an ammendment to their constitution/by-laws to include: Should a dog of YOUR breeding (i.e. from your bitch OR dog) come into rescue then you are either A. responsible for rehoming the dog in an appropriate home or keeping the dog yourself or B. responsible for the cost incurred by a reputable rescue organization for fostering/rehoming said dog. Consequences/penalties should be stiff for any violations.

Whether this would be enforced is a whole different question.

With DNA such as it is, and easily available nowadays--along with the microchip there should be no question as to identity of a dog. The next step would be for the breeder to "step up to the plate"
Maybe I'm living in a "dreamworld" but I would like to think that the type of breeders who take the time and effort that they do to work and title their dogs would take just as much effort/concern into knowing where their puppies are??????? :(

[Donnerberg]

Wow, I don't really know quite what to say. You've just determined that most every member of the American Rottweiler Club/ARV and the United States Rottweiler Club/USRC are back yard breeders who do not stand behind their dogs, offer contracts or take back their dogs and so if you belong to any of these awful clubs then you must be just like these people.

Didn't the American Rottweiler Club/ARC President get thrown out a while back for forging OFA papers, switching dogs for the x-ray? I can name a couple members of the American Rottweiler Club/ARC who are both AKC Judges who breed elbow dysplastic dogs and readily admit it, and a judge who also has been well known to breed dysplastic dogs as well as thyroid positive dogs and sells the puppies from those dogs. I can name an AKC judge who offered her stud for services knowing full well he was sterile and did not refund any stud fees which were required to be paid in advance. I think those are also sufficient examples.

I am a member of the ARV/USRC/USA, but I'm not currently a member of ARC. I have read the membership agreement to belong to the ARC and I more than qualify to join. I will take back any dog, any time from my breeding and I guarantee all my dogs with a written contract that goes well beyond just a health guarantee which is all the contract must state if you belong to ARC. If you find one of my dogs, contact me and I will pay and arrange to have the dog flown or transported home, to me. Heck, I have approximately 2-3 Rottweilers dumped on my property every year that I'm forced to then rescue. I have whole litters dumped here, usually labs, and kittens and cats. Whoever came up with the idea that they'd drop off their poor animals out in the country to "give them the good life" was insane. These animals are in very poor condition sometimes by the time they get brave enough to wander in for help. I had found one GDS actually tied to a tree out in my orchard. I only knew it was out there because it was screaming and had no food or water. I followed the sound to find it. I have no idea how long it was there, but I nearly got bitten trying to untie it and it got away from me and probably headed for the same cruel owner who dumped him there in the first place. I drove down my long driveway one morning after scraping the frost off the windows and pulled over to get my mail at the end of the road. When I rolled down my window I heard kittens crying in the weeds. It was only 32 degrees outside. They were very sick but I nursed them and found them homes. I found one dog dumped on my property that I thought was a Chinese Crested, how unusual I thought, until I got closer and noticed that it was just missing massive amounts of hair and more than likely had a thyroid problem. Health problems often are dumped out here.

To point the finger at one or two whole clubs because you've found a few bad apples really isn't fair. I'm not the only one in the "German style" who offers a quality commitment to my dogs. I can give you a long list of people I know personally who take responsibility for their dogs and pups, and who belong to the ARV/USRC and who would also qualify to become a member of the ARC.

This thread started out with great points about Officers of clubs who as representatives of their organizations were not setting great examples for others to follow. I agree, we need better representation.

[babyray]

[b]You've just determined that most every member of the American Rottweiler Club/ARV and the United States Rottweiler Club/USRC are back yard breeders who do not stand behind their dogs, offer contracts or take back their dogs and so if you belong to any of these awful clubs then you must be just like these people[b]

Donnerberg, I used as illustration some of the situations I have experienced. I never said ALL members of these clubs are backyard breeders. I, too, am a member in good standing and don't fall into the backyard breeder category. I was simply sharing my frustrating experiences. I am sorry if I offended you, but I certainly did not condemn everyone in USRC/ARV/ARC etc.

It is just supremely frustrating to know that a few such prominent breeders don't care enough about their puppies to keep track of them and provide refuge for them when they need it.

[Judi W]

Those stories are incorrect. The American Rottweiler Club has codified that breeders are responsible for the lifetime of the results of their breedings and that is mandatory to all members. They sign such an agreement upon joining. The MRC, which also has a code of ethics did have a member who falsified OFA ratings and yes, they threw that person out. (MRC, not the ARC president) In other words they took action! When I cited code clubs that is what I meant - clubs who have a mandatory code of ethics and enforce it.

In relating a scandal, it is important that the players be correct and that the results be noted - in other words, bad behavior was punished. Rather than just that someone misbehaved. Misbehavior can occur in any group, it is whether the group takes steps that makes a difference.

[Donnerberg]

babyray, no offense taken. I realize you didn't say "all", you said "preponderance of" and in my response I used "most" which might have exaggerated your point more than you wished, so I apologize for misinterpreting.

Judi W., perhaps I was mistaken in the ARC/MRC incident, after all it did happen a very long time ago and I received my information second hand off the Rottie-L list.

However, your comment, "Those stories are incorrect" only relates to the above-mentioned incident because I have first hand factual evidence on all the rest of what I posted. Those preceding statements were not rumors. I was personally involved, there is a paper trail, therefore my statements in fact are correct on the latter of what I stated.

I agree with your statement, "In relating a scandal, it is important that the players be correct and that the results be noted - in other words, bad behavior was punished. Rather than just that someone misbehaved. Misbehavior can occur in any group, it is whether the group takes steps that makes a difference."

But, in order to do this it requires a grievance to be filed, at least it does with the German style clubs, and evidence to be presented, which many times is not available or obtainable, i.e. records or paper trail, proof other than he said she said. Does the ARC require a grievance to be filed and a fee to file the grievance set at $75.00? I'm curious how the ARC handles these matters.

The largest German style club only purports to have around 600 members at most, and in comparison to ARC's membership of over 10,000 (not sure of the exact figures), it is very difficult at the time that the offenses took place to even be aware that one has taken place by the general German style membership. The German style clubs are spread out all over the United States with only these small numbers in their membership, whereas if someone in the ARC were to go against the rules, it would be readily known by their vast network of membership, and frequency of shows at which to carry on that networking. Action can be taken rather quickly, whereas the disadvantage of the German style clubs is a rule that a grievance must be filed within four months of the offense or rule broken.

Do you know what the rule in ARC is for filing grievances, in terms of a time limit to file? I think a lot of positive change could come about in the German style clubs if the period of time to file a grievance were extended, and I have brought that up on a number of occasions to the officials in both organizations. It might be helpful to present the argument with a reference to ARC's time limit.

I would like to say that there are no higher standards held by a Rottweiler club in the United States other than the ARC as far as what they require their membership to honor with regards to breeding and selling puppies and taking dogs back. It is truly an example to follow.

Back to babyray, have you considered bringing it to light what you know of the offences by these officers of the German style clubs you mentioned? I doubt these activities of dumping dogs would be favorably received by the general membership and I sincerely would hope the Boards of these clubs would do something about it. It's usually when offences like these are made known to the general membership that officers like those are removed or not re-elected.

[Judi W]

You are correct that there must be evidence. That would only be fair under any procedure. Another thing in favor of the code clubs however is the requirement that all puppies be sold with a written contract! This helps establish the paper trail as you might expect.

I'd have to look up if there is a time limit, however I believe that the only limit would be that the offense be during a time of membership. A club cannot discipline for something that did not occur at a time when an agreement to abide by the codes is agreed to. It also of course cannot act in reference to non-members. There is a deposit for filing a grievance which is to discourage frivolous complaints but that deposit is returned if the grievance is found to be a valid complaint of violation of the code. This has occured enough that I know it to be adhered to.

The horrible thing about the incident you referred to is that the dog in question has been used for breeding! The club (MRC ;) ) acted very strongly and did not sweep anything under the rug. There was no favoritism shown even though the offender had status.

[Donnerberg]

Originally posted by Judi W
Another thing in favor of the code clubs however is the requirement that all puppies be sold with a written contract! This helps establish the paper trail as you might expect.

I agree, even a very basic contract can start the paper trail. People who don't use contracts don't realize that the contract not only protects the puppy buyer but protects them as well. I've seen the one paragraph contract that covers the puppy for only a couple days to the contract that goes on and on for 10 pages and has so many clauses in order to get your guarantees it makes you wonder.

I'd have to look up if there is a time limit, however I believe that the only limit would be that the offense be during a time of membership.

That to me seems like the perfect limit, whatever occurs during your membership. Please let me know if you discover there is a filing limit for time, otherwise I'm going to suggest this version.

The funniest complaint I've ever heard was a grievance filed against a member for using colored contacts in the dog's eyes at shows. I know the person who owned the dogs and the eyes are quite dark, naturally, on any given day, unannounced, lol.

The horrible thing about the incident you referred to is that the dog in question has been used for breeding!

I'm sorry now that I mentioned that because I remember at the time that incident hurt a great many people who were totally innocent. I apologize, I should have left the dust settled on that one.

[Trinitii]

I believe that it isn't necessarily the clubs that are bad but just certain individuals that make things look bad. I would say if you witness something then make a complaint. I am not part of any clubs but do watch some of their dogs closely. It amazes me how you can watch on a webpage a dog being held in awards then having puppies then being up for sale. Others never put their elder ones up for sale. This is what I look at. I like to believe that they love the dogs and will take care of them forever for accomplishing soo much. Others seem to take it as a business the dogs give them a name and prestige. You can tell those who really care about the animals and havn't lost themselves in the glory and prestige of Titles.


Trinitii


ps Donnerberg's really care for their dogs. I do beleive if they witness something in their clubs they would do something.

[Judi W]

It depends upon whether you wish membership to imply a certain amount of minimal standards in behavior and ethics. You cannot ask members to uphold standards if there are none in place. On the other hand, as I stated above, if a person does not claim to adhere to any ethics or membership in a code club, then they can hardly be accused of deception.