[animalcraker]

We're having a disscusion on a breed group I'm on about co-ownerships, specificaly co-ownerships with pet homes. There's a basic consencious for co-ownerships wiht show dogs, but the opinions get a bit heated disscusing co-owning family pets. A pet home is where the dog is/will be sputer and in most cases won't be used for anything other than being a family companion.

So as pet owners, what are your opinionsand thoughts on Co-owning a dog with it's breeder. Would you consider it? Could there be any benifits for co-owning a pet? Would it turn you away from getting a pup from that breeder?

 

[Xie]

I could understand a breeder who co-owns a pet dog until it is speutered. At that time though I think full ownership should transfer to the family. Anything above and beyond that I would look for a different breeder. I know it can be hard to let puppies go to a new home but there has to be some sort of trust between breeders and families and if there isn't I just can't see it being a good relationship.

 

[Dogstar]

I'm planning on offering puppy people a choice- co-ownership or papers stay in my possession until the dog is spayed or neutered at 10-12 months.

 

[rosborn]

ok ... maybe im not understanding this ... but, i would never want to co-own a dog ... and if the person paid for the dog ... shouldn't they get the papers and spay/nuter only if they choose too? maybe that person that bought the dog wants the papers and start breeding as well ....

 

[midnight mojo]

I understand co-ownership for a show dog but after a spay/neuter I see no reason to co-own a family pet. Unless there was some benefit in it for me as a pet owner I wouldn't consider it and would find a different breeder and I'm not sure what benefits there might be beyond what I would expect in the contract. The only thing I could see tempting me is if the breeder were willing to accept responsibility for vet bills--but I can't imagine why a breeder would choose that option in exchange for co-ownership.

 

[Curbside Prophet]

I think it's a great way to track long term health. As long as the breeder can not take the dog back on a whim, and the genetic health-guarantee is written, I don't see why it would be an issue.

 

[Dogstar]

I don't see any reason after s/n but since I feel strongly that it's better for dogs to be altered at maturity rather than younger but I *do* want to make sure my pet puppies get altered and aren't bred, it's just one more way of ensuring that.

In the spitz, I have nightmares about the person I screw up screening, who takes a puppy of Lizzie's and uses him/her as foundation stock for a puppy mill, and that it is MY FAULT that the GS ends up as a popular puppy mill breed. *shudder* Good incentive to be careful.

 

[DobManiac]

I'm planning on offering puppy people a choice- co-ownership or papers stay in my possession until the dog is spayed or neutered at 10-12 months.

I am just wondering why you don't use limited registration? Is it becasue you want to keep the incentive of spaying/neutering on their minds?

 

[PatriciaLynn]

I would absolutely not co-own a pet dog. For any reason. I wouldn't want my signature on a piece of paper that may give the breeder any chance of taking my dog away. Even if the agreement stated conditions, etc., I would worry about it being argued in court.

 

[Dogstar]

I am just wondering why you don't use limited registration? Is it becasue you want to keep the incentive of spaying/neutering on their minds?

That, and the fact that UKC (and the various PM registries) doesn't respect AKC limited registration.

 

[Inga]

I guess I really don't get the point. IF you have a relationship with your breeder you can share any health information with them without them having partial ownership. I know that I would NOT do it. When My ex and I broke up he wanted to do a joint parenting thing with our current dog. I didn't want to do that because I thought it would be too hard for the dog and I was trying to get rid of the ex, not see him weekly during co parenting times. What other reason would there be to co-own a pet? Maybe I am missing something else.

I am just wondering why you don't use limited registration? Is it becasue you want to keep the incentive of spaying/neutering on their minds?
My only issue with that is for the fools that will breed without papers. We see that here often in the classified " purebreds no papers $500.00" or something like that.

 

[txcollies]

I don't, and won't place a pup on co own with a pet family. I'll use a contract, and that's enough.

Really, contracts are very hard to enforce, limited is the best bet, and then a good contract.

 

[DobManiac]

That, and the fact that UKC (and the various PM registries) doesn't respect AKC limited registration.

Hmmm...thats interesting. I'm guessing this is in concern to the various performance events and competitions they offer. Or do they just not offer their own form of limited registration?

 

[JohnnyBandit]

I would absolutely not co-own a pet dog. For any reason. I wouldn't want my signature on a piece of paper that may give the breeder any chance of taking my dog away. Even if the agreement stated conditions, etc., I would worry about it being argued in court.

The registered co ownership is something that is common in show and performance circles. Its very common in conformation especially.

My dog Merlin that is in my avatar is co owned by the breeder. What is on the AKC papers is not nearly important as what is in the purchase contract.

If it is spelled out and everyone understands the contract their part of the bargain.

My contract clearly states that the dog is to live, be trained, cared for, etc with me for life.

That I am to make my best effort to show him and attain his AKC Championship. AS TIME AND FINANCES ALLOW. There are no time lines, no demand that I have him in the ring every weekend. etc.


That once the dog acheives his AKC Championship and is retired (my choice when he stops once the championship is attained) that full ownership is signed over to me.

I am to have the dogs eyes, ears, hips, cardiac, patellas, elbows tested at my expense with a vet she approves of.

The breeder at her discretion has the right to use the dog at stud, once his testing is complete, to any tested female of appropriate breeding age that she owns or co owns. This ageement is for the life or which time he becomes unable or unsuitable for breeding.

I am free to breed the dog, once he has satifactory completed his testing, to any female from any line so long at the female has passed all genetic and health clearances. Any compensation in the form of stud fees, litter picks, etc are retained by me.

IF at any time, the dog is shown to be unsound or less than represented in reference to genetic soundness, he is to be neutered at my expense, and retained by me as a pet. At such time as this occurs the breeder will replace this dog with a specimen that she and I agree is of the quality the original dog in question was represented to be.



Now what does this do for me?

He is my dog, he lives with me, he is cared for by me, etc.

I have assurances that if it is ever shown that he is not the genetic specimen I paid for, then I get to keep this dog, and upon neutering, will receive a replacement animal.

What does it do for the breeder?

She has assurances that I will make an effort to put his AKC championship on him.

She retains access to his Genetics should she ever decide to use him.

What does this do for the dog?

Well if I or someone she was comfortable had not purchased him under such a contract, she would have kept him. And he would have had a good life. But he would have shared time with numerous other dogs, There would have been tighter controls on his free time. As she has a couple of other intact males on the property. Care and rotation would have had to have been used to avoid serious conflicts between the males.

But with me, he gets nearly all of my attention. Gets to go lots of places, meet new people, have fun, does not have to compete with other dogs for my attention, (I have another dog at the house, but he is my wifes dog. He is more devoted and bonded to her and my dog to me. But both get attention from both of us) The other dog is a neutered male, and he is easy going and has no desire to compete with my dog, so no conflicts. They are buds.

I see this working out for everyone.

 

[ACampbell]

For a pet dog, I would not consider a co-ownership whatsoever.
If they want the dog speutered, they can hold the registration papers or register them "limited" until the dog is speutered, that'd be ok by me.

If it's a show dog for breeding purposes, I understand completely the wish to retain a co-ownership of an unneutered animal until it obtains it's championship...that makes sense, but for a family pet, not at all.

At least for me, it runs into the fact that I have to move every few years. What if the co-owner flipped out about me having to move and wanted to take the dog back? Legally they still own half the dog, so they could fight it out and I could lose my dog? Like it has been said, actual contracts don't mean a whole lot most of the time.
However, what if the contract was notarized? I believe that would make it more of a legal binding agreement since it is known that this was agreed to before a notary public. Some people may say that's extreme, but I've never had a notary charge me more than $5 to notarize anything.

 

[lovemygreys]

I dunno...depends on the dog and the situation. I would really prefer not to co-own though. We aren't your typical "pet home" though....

We co-own one of our racing dogs...even that's different than a typical show/performance type "co-own" situation.

 

[Sophie's Mum]

Sophie is co-owned as well, but then it's because she may be shown in conformation. The breeder is the one responsible for the showing and the conformation training, clearances and whatnot. We're responsible for socializing, keeping her healthy and happy and allowing her breeder to do the things they need to do in order to get her into the showring and breeding if it should come to that.

I don't understand why someone would pay full price for a show dog who is co-owned and also have to pay for all their clearances, show entries, handler fees etc. It seems the breeder wants their cake and eat it too at that point. What does the owner get in all this? A puppy? Uh uh, I don't think so.

 

[sheltiemom]

I don't understand why someone would pay full price for a show dog who is co-owned and also have to pay for all their clearances, show entries, handler fees etc. It seems the breeder wants their cake and eat it too at that point. What does the owner get in all this? A puppy? Uh uh, I don't think so.

I would rather show the dog myself even if it means paying for fees and clearances, than have the dog taken out of my care during the time that it is training and showing, so I guess what the owner gets is physical possession of the dog at all times, at least that's my understanding.

I personally would not co-own a pet dog...I don't think I could co-own a dog period.

 

[BoxMeIn21]

Disco was co-owned until I had her spayed and I didn't do that until she was almost two. I didn't find any downside to having her co-owned at the time - it's not like Dizzy had to spend a certain amount of her time with the breeder either so I don't see what the fuss would be about.

 

[Sammgirl]

I've seen a few relationships like that go very, very badly. Especially if the dog in question was originally sold as a pet, but then developed show potential as they aged. OR if the dog was supposed to have show potential, and then grew to be more of a pet quality dog.

The only way I would consider co owning is if I knew the person very, very well and for a long, long time AND I wanted the puppy for show.

If a breeder is that curious about the litter, they can request in contract that updates be sent out on a monthly, or biweekly basis. If the new owner wants a dog bad enough, they'll agree to the terms.

Of couse, most people LOVE sending pictures and updates about their new babies.