Beca Zaun - Meritage Dobermans

[Elaine]

There is some discussion on CD about a young "show quality" puppy that ended up with 6 missing teeth. The buyer wants a full refund (I think immediately). The breeder offered a partial refund to a pet price and to help sell the dog as a pet (resulting hopefully in a full refund for the buyer). Not sure of all the details... seems that folks are pretty heated about it on both sides. I am sorry for anyone going through this...and I am sorry for the dog as well. A few people on CD are chiming in about the lofty standards they have (as though they have actually walked the walk). Some of these paragons of virtue do not own or bred dogs. Their "high standards" are all theory. Talk is cheap... it’s very different when you are actually the buyer or the breeder in this kind of situation. I have been on both sides.

Over the past thirty odd years I have purchased what were presented to me as “show quality” dogs. I had a “Show Quality” Lhasa Apso that matured to be about 15 inches at the shoulder (a disqualifying fault), who was replaced with a “Show Quality” Lhasa that was evaluated as Dysplastic at less than a year. My first “Show Quality” Giant Schnauzer was also dysplastic. I’ve had other “Show Quality” dogs (including a Doberman) that did not turn out).

Based on my 30 plus years of experience, I can offer that not ONE breeder ever refunded my full purchase price. Not one!!!

**The Lhasa Apso breeder called me at work and told me I was “never to talk about her dogs” ... threatened to sue me and hung up.

**The Doberman Breeder promised a refund, but when I went to return the dog (and brought Gladys Lyons and Leland Wehland with me as witnesses) she went absolutely hysterical whacky, shouting and carrying on... and initially refused to take the dog. She eventually calmed down and gave me a partial refund, but then later purportedly told people I’d poured bleach on the dog.

**When told that the Giant Schnauzer was dysplastic, which was evident at about 9 months, the Giant breeder at the Ranch responded that “people in the NorthWest must be nuts, it must be in the well-water in the Northwest.” She actually did replace the “Show Quality” Giant, with a bitch of mixed color Black - Pepper and Salt breeding. I could go on.

I believe that most breeders have good intentions. They really are trying to accurately evaluate their puppies... they mean the claims they make... they have good intentions at the time of sale. Evaluating puppies is tricky business. Many people get it wrong, even the self-proclaimed experts get it wrong. Promising puppies simply do not always turn out as expected.

I think that most buyers truly have good intentions... and high expectations. Buyers of “Show Quality” puppies are truly hoping that they have purchased a really top dog. The problems start when the dog does not fulfill expectations.

I know of very few breeders who have the financial resources to write a full refund check – immediately. It may take them a bit of time.

I can see where the purchaser wants the situation resolved ASAP so that they will be free to go forward and purchase the next dog. And I can see where the breeder might say, "Give me a bit of time here to pull this all together for you."

I really think that the tension we see is ultimately a reflection of financial stress. If both parties remain calm and work together... seems to me that will result in the best possible resolution for all concerned.

Selling dogs is not like selling toasters, where you just return it if it’s faulty. The animal has feelings... so do the people involved. Ripping a poor dog back and forth is not good for anyone, most especially not the dog. That said, 6 missing teeth is a whole lot of missing teeth. Seems that sire, dam and siblings in the pedigree would also have some problems with missing teeth... but that is just a guess.

We do not sell "show quality" puppies... don't even have the phrase "'show quality" on our website. What is happening between Zaun and Patton is one of the reasons I hate selling young young puppies to people who want a competitive show dog. There is just too much that can go wrong with a really young dog, and we do not want unhappy buyers or unhappy dogs that are not meeting the buyer's expectations. We sell individual dogs... to individual people, who express a desire for that individual dog. IF they want to show it... fine... and we all agree on the goals for the dog.

If we want the dog shown, and the buyer does not want to show, then we:

1.) don't sell it;
2.) keep it till it's got a show record or is done being shown; or,
3). sell it knowing the people will not show it.

But since the 2004 litter, we do not sell any young puppy with the guarantee or even the description that it is "show quality" or with the mandate that it be shown. We want the match of dog and owner to be the most important consideration... not some abstract goal / achievement in the show ring.

[Athy]

I've probably already said this before but in horses, there is a saying: Breed the best to the best and hope for the best. Breeding animals is NOT like manufacturing toasters. There is chance and the unknown. Buyers and sellers need to keep that in mind.

I can assure you however that airing an issue like this on public lists is NOT the best way to go about finding resolution - a hard learned lesson to be sure.

I hope that the internet sabre rattling and chest pounding just stops and the two parties can work out a compromise for the sake of the innocent third party.

Athy

[Elaine]

I so agree. These people are not unique... many of us have been on one side of the situation or the other. If both sides remain calm... and re-connect to the good feelings they had early on... and their mutual desire that the dog have a loving home and a happy healthy life... they could work together to place the dog properly and go forward... possibly even as friends.

Life does not always go smoothly; there are bumps in the road. We are all going to disagree from time to time; that is a given. It is the easiest thing in the world to go off in a huff in the momentary heat of anger. When you have people on the side lines cheering you on in your anger, you're screwed and the situation becomes hopeless. The challenge is to remain connected to our values, our wisdom... our good judgment... and stay the course, making sure that our conduct reflects the best of who we are, especially when the going gets rough.

[Athy]

Good points, Elaine. A friend and I were discussing this situation and it seems to us that this boils down to two core questions:

1. What should the breeder have done with the dog?
2. Should the buyer receive a refund, and if so, how much?

For #1, we all agree breeders should take back their dogs. But the reality of life is that the breeder may not have space at that VERY SECOND. For all we know, the breeder could have taken the dog back next week, next month - would it have been a hardship for the buyer to wait a short time? And while the breeder may have been able to stash the pup in a kennel, we didn't get the impression that's what the buyer or the breeder really wanted to do. [As a side note, recall a recent situation in which a breeder was unable to keep returned dog in the home, but took the dog back with the intention of keeping it in a kennel. The Cyber-verdict was GUILTY and in fact accused that breeder of mistreating the dog.]

The breeder in this case proposed the buyer retain custody while the breeder and buyer looked for a puppy buyer. That's not a bad solution. If the buyer
demanded they take the dog back and they refused, that would be wrong of the breeder. But that's not what happened as far as we can tell. Looks like there was a compromise offered - keep the puppy for now, we'll work on re-selling him together while he hangs with you. Certainly less disruptive for the puppy.

It appears however that the proposed workaround for #1 was rejected because of Issue #2. This buyer wants a full refund of her purchase price of $2,500 - right now. Reading a little between the lines because we don't actually have the signed contract in our paws, it appears that the contract says that the buyer is only entitled to the difference between show puppy and pet puppy price. If that's what they agreed to, she's not entitled to anything else. Of course, if the buyer exercised the compromise offered up by the breeder (to work to re-sell the puppy using the breeder's network), she would have probably recouped the difference (or most of it) after the puppy was re-sold.

The only way we could convince ourselves that she was entitled to more was if it could be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, that the breeder knew, or should have known, that the puppy was missing the teeth when the buyer bought it. This is another way of saying, was there fraud, which would cancel out the limitation of remedies to what was provided in the contract.

It appears to us that the buyer rejected a reasonable solution with a vitriolic demand for more. The breeder is now off the hook as far as the buyer's money is concerned - the buyer rejected the offer in a public manner, leaving little room for compromise on either side.

While some may want to condemn the breeder for "abandoning" the dog, there is certainly the other perspective in which the buyer may be equally condemned for demanding that she be allowed to "abandon" the dog.

I'm not convinced that either party here is entirely pure or entirely evil - both dropped the ball one way or the other. Maybe there was a chance they could have worked it out eventually. But taking a dispute like this to the National Enquirer of the Doberman fancy virtually ensures that it's all gonna end in tears.

[andyhilt27]

A genetic lottery, I learned this the hard way. Breeders should make buyers aware that they are buying a lottery ticket. This holds true for conformation, working ability, and not at all least health. The common problem with this is in the hands of both breeders and buyers. Buyers want a gurantee and breeders never sell anything "defective". This is of course a generalized statement and I mean no insult to anyone.

This is a very slippery slope indeed. Elaine you seem to have a good plan of attack to resolve future problems. I don't like the terminology of "show quality." Show potential or show prospect would be a better choice of words in my opinion.

[Dobemaid]

Elaine wrote:
A few people on CD are chiming in about the lofty standards they have (as though they have actually walked the walk). Some of these paragons of virtue do not own or bred dogs. Their "high standards" are all theory. Talk is cheap...

Boy Elaine, you sure hit the nail on the head.!!!!
I really get sick of how the so called "paragons of virtue" (a really good analogy)...are the ones usually ready to throw the first stones....but if the truth were known, they haven't a clue as to what they would do if presented with the same problems. Cause "THEY HAVEN'T BEEN THERE, DONE THAT!!!!!...are probably seeing therapists to help them deal with their other everyday problems, like the septic tank is overflowing..woe is me, or my kid is getting "D's" in school, the teacher doesn't like him/her."...but they always seem to have an answer to someone elses' ethical predicament!
It seems to me they should be trying to get that little (the innocent one) guy a good home, instead of condemning either the owner or the breeder. They both did at the time what they thought was the best (but for who and out of anger???) thing to do!!
You also, commented on the economical aspect of this deal! well, after reading all the CD posts, that seems to be the main paradox of this whole
situation!!! Everyone goes on about how much the puppy cost.... well, unless they have paid to finish one of the parents, paid a stud fee, paid for ear crops, a possible emergency c-section, did all the testing on one or both of the parents, proper food for dam and pups, tails and dews, not to mention other unmentioned things alot of the times, like the cleaning items for keeping the mom and pups clean, (extra laundry soap, extra bleach, etc.....etc...) aspirin or excedrin for those worrying headaches.....now prospective owners want the vwd test done on the pups, AND XRAYING of the teeth for a show prospect, (and it does cost $300 a pup!!) and people think they should get that perfect specimen of a show dog for less than what they would pay for one night at a Rock Concert!!!
And by golly that Breeder better make sure they have picked and bred perfect parents together too, with the perfect temperments or else there will be hell to pay!!! Oh, don't get a puppy from them cause their dogs have bad temperments. (and when all is said and done one puppy ended up in a pampering-to-much and not enough constructive discipline owner/home !!, so when the Dobe community finds out about that particular dog, than that means that ALL the dogs coming from that breeder have bad temperments.!!....)
Get my drift???........
IMO unless you are one of those people that TRY to make a living breeding and selling dogs (puppy mills???), I really believe most breeders of Dobermans, really do try to produce good dogs, but when you are dealing with living animals and their DNA's (which nobody can control except you know WHO!!!), you are at the mercy of ....LIFE!!!!

I'll go back into my cave and lurk again!!!
Lori

[andyhilt27]

IMO unless you are one of those people that TRY to make a living breeding and selling dogs (puppy mills???), I really believe most breeders of Dobermans, really do try to produce good dogs, but when you are dealing with living animals and their DNA's (which nobody can control except you know WHO!!!), you are at the mercy of ....LIFE!!!!

I'll go back into my cave and lurk again!!!
Lori

I see no issues with a breeder "producing" 4 or 5 litters a year to earn a living. One would certainly earn that wage if done humanely. I really don't like that breeders are often automatically stamped with the stigmata of being a puppy mill with these numbers of puppies being produced. They are providing a product/service that is in demand. If one were to have acreage, proper living quarters, plenty of attention to give, and the patience to deal with a lot of dogs, then why not? Sadly this often happens though.

One of my many dreams/fantasies is to one day retire from the grind of working for the man. If I had a good piece of land and made a honest living bringing joy to many families would I be a puppy mill? This is partly theoretical. I would love to have 10 or less dobies running around on some acreage. Hopefully at retirement age I won't need to make a living.:D

Lori, that cave must be cozy, but feel free to pop out any time!!!:D

[Elaine]

Lori makes many excellent points about costs, here’s a review:

Purchase a good quality puppy: $2,500 to $5,000.

Good quality feed, training... and all the fun stuff: Not sure, but it's not free.

Raise it, show it, FINISH IT or do something to establish it’s value: $2,000.00 to $10,000.00 or more.

Health Testing: $500 and up.

Pre Breeding testing: $300 to $1,000 or more.

Stud fee: roughly $1,000.00.

Travel to shows, travel get to stud dog, travel to get to tail docker, travel to get to ear cropper... driving all over hell and back: Not really sure, but it's a whole lot more this year than it was last year!!!

Special feed, laundry, toys, blankets, other supplies for bitch and litter... $400 and up.

Docking each puppy: $50

Cropping each puppy: $350 – $450 per puppy

Vaccinations and worming: depends, but between $40 and $200 per puppy

The “god forbid but something went wrong at some step of the way, including during birth or at any time with the dam or the puppies” $1,500 – the sky is the limit, per puppy. :(

Hours and hours and hours of devotion, time, love, patience, holding tiny puppies on the nipple so that they each get a good meal... hours spent with each individual puppy so that you know them as individuals and they know you love them as individuals. Leash training, house breaking, stacking, bathing, grooming, baiting, grinding nails, taping ears, grinding nails, taping ears, grinding nails, taping ears, grinding nails, taping ears, grinding nails, taping ears. Cleaning the whelping box, cleaning dog dishes, cleaning the whelping box, cleaning dog dishes, cleaning the whelping box, cleaning the whelping box, cleaning the whelping box, cleaning the whelping box, cleaning the whelping box, cleaning the whelping box, cleaning the whelping box.. and did I mention cleaning the whelping box? :eek: Washing bedding, washing bedding, washing bedding, washing bedding, washing bedding,washing bedding... buying a new washing machine.

I am sure I’m leaving things out, but I do not see this as a source of income... I see it as a labor of love.

About 4-5 litters a year, I simply do not see how a person could manage it and have any quality of life for themselves or their dogs. But then, I'm getting to be an old geezer, at least twice as old as Andy... or old enough to be his mother or grandma (or what ever, I've forgotten). I think they used to say the memory is the first to go, but again, I've forgotten ) :o ... but I simply could not do 4-5 litters a year. At my age, my energy level is shot.

[Elaine]

About airing this all on CyberDobes... here’s the problem with that... people get backed into a corner... in public... and have no way to back–down, compromise or reach some private mutually agreed upon resolution of the problem. It all becomes too public, and it spins out of control. Seems that initially the parties involved get a bit hot... and let off a bit of steam, maybe say a few things they regret later (or immediately). And then you have some of the CD gang fanning the flames, ‘cause heck , why not, most of the cheering squad over there has no stake in the issue... they see a train wreck coming, grease up the tracks and sit on the side lines and watch the collision and the victims. Then they’re on to the next train wreck.

It might be nice to have some sort of mediation /counseling to get the parties on the same track, working out what is best for the dog and for those involved. I can’t think of a situation in dogs that didn’t start out with the parties being friends and having good feelings towards each other. The parties to this need a calm private space to work this through... for the best interest of the dog.

[andyhilt27]

I am sure I’m leaving things out, but I do not see this as a source of income... I see it as a labor of love.

About 4-5 litters a year, I simply do not see how a person could manage it and have any quality of life for themselves or their dogs. But then, I'm getting to be an old geezer, at least twice as old as Andy... or old enough to be his mother or grandma (or what ever, I've forgotten). I think they used to say the memory is the first to go, but again, I've forgotten ) :o ... but I simply could not do 4-5 litters a year. At my age, my energy level is shot.

I think at your age Elaine you could be either my mother or grandmother!:D Kidding kidding.

4 or 5 litters a year would be very very difficult for one person. Especially dobies! I suspect there is at least one breeder out there making a living breeding and showing the correct way. By themselves is not likely though. I will be 30 this year and decided to wait to breed Tabitha until her next season because we are so worn out from our daughter and my hours at work. This will likely be a litter of 3 or 4 max. I dread the day we breed Eva.:D

I think a person could do it the right way and make money if they lived and breathed for dogs dogs dogs. One would certainly earn that dollar!!!

[Elaine]

One of the articles I wrote for Dog News about a year or so ago was titled something like “Breeders Should Breed.” The thrust of it was that good dogs should be breed, the breed (and subsequent generations) need the genetic contribution of good dogs. And, all these “knowledgeable” people, who can describe in minutia how our breed is going to hell-in-a-hand-basket (and you can insert almost any breed here) should put their money, time and effort where their mouths are and produce the perfection they complain is lacking.

The easiest thing in the world is to sit on the sidelines and criticize, which may be why I object to the pontificating on CD... people like McNealy don’t own or breed dogs, they just criticize those who do. The world from inside the whelping box is a whole lot different than it looks from the outside. (For that matter, when you're actually paying the bills, including the cost of purchasing, raising, breeding, showing, handling fees, etc., you have a whole different perspective on dogs, dog shows and what goes on in the ring and in the DPCA than when you're just sitting around watching).

About breeding dogs in volume, I hear that people with hot stud dogs can make 6 figures in stud fees. I hear that Cambria did that in their heyday. Back when I had Giant Schnauzers, Sylvia Hammarstrom had roughly 100 adult Giants and god knows how many Miniature Schnauzers. She often had ten litters on the ground at once. She shipped Tuesdays (every Tuesday)... I think she even had a volume discount with the Airlines... she’s bred over 1000 champions... but may have bred close to 50,000 Giants (since 1950) to achieve the 1,000 champions. Still, you do NOT see Skansen Giant Schnauzers on every street corner... you do not see Cambria Dobermans on every street corner. The numbers of dogs produced were high, but apparently the dogs were placed well... and both Cambria and Skansen clearly had the energy, drive, discipline and focus to breed at the level they bred and still make a positive impact.

I’m not suggesting we should breed at levels that rival General Motors production... but good dogs are good for the breed, their genetic contribution to the next generation is good for the breed. We need good dogs to balance the contribution made by truly indiscriminate breeders. I have no problem with good breeders breeding 2-4 litters a year... or something in that range. If the litters are of good quality, and the puppies are well cared for and well placed, the overall contribution is good for the breed.