register for free
View our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
AnneUK
Almost a Veteran
AnneUK is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,247
Female 
 
10-06-2007, 09:36 AM
Originally Posted by Hewey View Post
Well, coming at it from the other direction, personally, I would not pay several hundred pounds for a dog that someone else continued to own.
The dog is owned by the owner, however the rescue has the right to enforce the terms of the contract. People adopt from rescues all the time with adoption contracts in place.
Reply With Quote
AnneUK
Almost a Veteran
AnneUK is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,247
Female 
 
10-06-2007, 09:39 AM
Originally Posted by dollyknockers View Post
Most do anne yes but not all i myself adopted from a very well known and well respected animal welfare society in the north and i never had a home check
Like I said before dollyknockers we're not talking about individual cases. If you'd like to start a thread about rescues intermittently home checking I'd be happy to add my comments to the thread
Reply With Quote
scorpio
Dogsey Veteran
scorpio is offline  
Location: Old Leake, UK
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,080
Female 
 
10-06-2007, 09:41 AM
Originally Posted by AnneUK View Post
So it comes back to money Nobody should make money out of selling animals, if you can't afford to breed a litter then you shouldn't be breeding.
If money is the only reason to stop them adopting their pups on a contract to me that says a lot about the breeder.
It does come back to money, but not in the way you are suggesting, to breed a litter doesn't just cost about £100 and you get to keep the rest, not if it's done properly anyway.

I agree that you shouldn't breed a litter if you can't afford to do it. I strongly believe that you shouldn't breed a litter if you're not prepared to keep them all or have them back if things go wrong.

I also agree, no-one should make money out of breeding, but are you saying that they shouldn't recoup anything that they've paid out?

What if you have a litter of 8 pups, they go to their new homes at 8 weeks having been reared on the best food money can buy, the mother has been given extra food and supplements. What if the mother has also been under the vets care for three days and ends up having a c-section?

The last litter I had consisted of 8 pups, Bramble was 3 days overdue so was taken to the vets both morning afternoon and night for scans and a check up for those 3 days. As she started to dehydrate on the 3rd day she was given a C-section. On day 4 one of the pups started to go downhill. He was taken to the vets everyday for treatment, he was hand fed and given every chance I could give him. Sadly I had to have him pts at 10 days, the pm revealed a hole in the bladder, something he was born with and couldn't have been treated. Can you imagine the vets bill I was landed with for that lot? It was horrendous but nothing I wasn't prepared for and had made prior arrangements with the vet to cover financially if and when they happened.

As I was keeping one of the pups anyway, (and I could have easily sold him as I still didn't have enough pups for my waiting list), by the time the vets bills had been paid, food etc for the pups,(not mum as she gets fed anyway), KC registration etc., was accounted for, once the six pups had been sold I came out of it with a minus balance.

I don't breed for the money, I only breed when I want to keep something which is why I've only had the two litters in over 20 years of owning the breeds.

I know this has taken your original thread off topic so won't continue. My answer to your original questions would be yes, breeders should carry out as stringent checks as rescues albeit there will be some differences. I personally do not think puppies should be put up for adoption rather than sold.
Reply With Quote
Sal
Dogsey Veteran
Sal is offline  
Location: gloucestershire
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,432
Female 
 
10-06-2007, 09:41 AM
Originally Posted by AnneUK View Post
The dog is owned by the owner, however the rescue has the right to enforce the terms of the contract. People adopt from rescues all the time with adoption contracts in place.
Rescues may have the right to enforce it,but I know the puppy sales agreement are not legally binding and Breeders can't enforce them,so how could they enforce an adoption contract?
Reply With Quote
dollyknockers
Dogsey Veteran
dollyknockers is offline  
Location: With the fairies in the garden
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,519
Female 
 
10-06-2007, 09:43 AM
Originally Posted by Nursey View Post
Well yes sort of....

Breeders should satisfy themselves that their puppy is going to a home that is suitable, whatever that entails. No doubt the details will vary from breeder to breeder.

I would think that breeders doing actual home checks on every home would be a bit unrealistic though. I've bought puppies from Blackpool, Manchester and Nantwich, Cheshire. I live in Northumberland, so physical checks would mean 3-4 hour drives each way for the breeders, a bit prohibitive I think.

I think though that responsible reputable breeders do have personal criteria though. It's puppy farmers and backyard breeders that don't know or care how things are done correctly.

Dawn R.
Well said
Reply With Quote
Hewey
Dogsey Senior
Hewey is offline  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 536
Female 
 
10-06-2007, 09:48 AM
Originally Posted by AnneUK View Post
The dog is owned by the owner, however the rescue has the right to enforce the terms of the contract.
That does not sound like ownership to me :smt001 . Breeders can apply endorsements as regards certain things the KC allow them regarding registrations but they cannot come and take a dog away. Anyone in the land can report you for welfare issues that may result in your dog being taken away by the law but if I have paid hundreds of pounds for a dog I would not wish for this kind of "ownership" that you refer to.
Fair enough if you are rescuing a dog and paying a donation but that rescue will not have spend hundreds, maybe thousands in the course of showing and breeding to produce it.
Reply With Quote
Krusewalker
Dogsey Veteran
Krusewalker is offline  
Location: dullsville
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,241
Male 
 
10-06-2007, 09:50 AM
Originally Posted by AnneUK View Post
Most reputable Rescues thoroughly check out homes before allowing one of their dogs/pups to be adopted, for example; a thorough interview, a Pre homevisit, Post adoption homevisit, Letter of permission from landlords/housing ass/council, Proof a training course has been paid for, reference letter from their vet if they've owned a dog before and follow up to ensure the dog has been neutered.

Should Breeders carryout the same checks? if not why not?
Havent actually read the thread yet, so sorry if this has already been posted.
But there are a couple things on this list which arent so typical of rescues, and are arguably not so vital.

- Proof Of Training Course has been paid for. This isnt practical, as there simply arent enough training classes in UK for pet dogs owners (of course, there 'may be enough' if you count electric shock trainers, Jan Fennell Dog Listeners, Barkbusters, choke push and pullers, etc).
also, classes generally have waiting lists, so cant be timed with rescue adoptions.

- letter from their vet if they have owned a dog before.
what if they havent? Or the vet simply not interested in doing this chore, or takes too long holding up adoption process, or charges for it? Bit unfair. really.

The rest is cool though, for breeders and rescues.
Reply With Quote
AnneUK
Almost a Veteran
AnneUK is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,247
Female 
 
10-06-2007, 10:23 AM
Originally Posted by Sal View Post
Rescues may have the right to enforce it,but I know the puppy sales agreement are not legally binding and Breeders can't enforce them,so how could they enforce an adoption contract?
That's what I'm saying if they adopted them out they could do so under a legally binding contract.
Reply With Quote
AnneUK
Almost a Veteran
AnneUK is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,247
Female 
 
10-06-2007, 10:31 AM
Whoops edited by accident was trying to quote myself not sure which of the below was in this post

There isn't a lack of trainers willing to do training in the owners home, phone the APDT and you'll find many that are prepared to do this, yes they'll charge but if you can't find a training class it's worth it where pups are concerned

You could say the same for the delays caused by homechecking. Additional checks like asking for proof of training for some dogs and vets ref letters, which take a lot less time than homevisiting.

people who are asked to get letter of reference from their vets, our adopters have never had a problem obtaining one, nor have they been asked to pay for this. It's not happened yet but if their vet wasn't interested in giving them a letter of reference, I'd wonder why the vet is not happy to give a refernce. If pure lazyness I advise they change their vet pronto

the problem is blanket rules; 'won't home with children under a certain age' 'won't home to people who work fulltime' etc. Rescues if feasible should deal with individuals on a one to one basis. Doing preadoptioin checks is completely different to set in stone policies, these are in place to ensure the individual dog you are rehoming is going to a suitable home.
Reply With Quote
AnneUK
Almost a Veteran
AnneUK is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,247
Female 
 
10-06-2007, 10:32 AM
Originally Posted by dollyknockers View Post
Well said
So do you think it's necessary for rescues to carryout home checks?
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 7 of 33 « First < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 > Last »


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools


© Copyright 2016, Dogsey   Contact Us - Dogsey - Top Contact us | Archive | Privacy | Terms of use | Top