Should breeders spay or neuter dogs they sell as pets?

[dogs4life]

I was thinking about this last night. Here's the story behind it.

I had a roommate with an Australian Kelpie, he was "discarded" by the breeder because he was too "sensitive" to work livestock. My roommate fell in love with him and told the breeder she would trade for vet services (she was a vet)....he gladly handed over the dog.

So she took him home and he was raised as a pet. He was entered into a cattle event but that was just for fun, but he placed. NOt sure what organization but one that recognized Kelpies as working dogs.

He was neutered later....around 3yrs since my housemate wanted to take him hiking and rock climbing with her. She just did not want to be responsible for unwanted pups incase someone took an non-spayed female where she was.

So, should the breeder have neutered this dog? According to the breeder, he was not breeding stock...too sensitive.

Should the breeder be responsible or the new owner be responsible for spaying and neutering dogs considered not worthy of breeding?

I say it's the breeders responsibility and they should be held responsible for any pups produced.

Any thoughts?

[Ritz459]

It is most definitally the breeders responsibility to make sure a pet quality dog is altered. Even if they don't alter them at the age they are giving them their pet homes (around eight weeks) they should have a contract that requires the puppy be altered.
Any breeder who doesn't do this is, in my own opinion, not a responsible breeder.

[dogs4life]

Originally Posted by Ritz459

It is most definitally the breeders responsibility to make sure a pet quality dog is altered. Even if they don't alter them at the age they are giving them their pet homes (around eight weeks) they should have a contract that requires the puppy be altered.
Any breeder who doesn't do this is, in my own opinion, not a responsible breeder.

Do you think they should be held financially responsible?

I do, they should be charged with boarding, feeding, vet bills and a fine to ASPCA or Humane Society. It might make them file for bankruptcy but it would hold them to a higher standard.

[calgal]

Certain agreements should be in a contract at the time of the sale. If there was no contract, then the person who has the dog is responsible for the spay or neuter.

[dogs4life]

Originally Posted by Ritz459

Even if they don't alter them at the age they are giving them their pet homes (around eight weeks) they should have a contract that requires the puppy be altered.

Originally Posted by calgal

Certain agreements should be in a contract at the time of the sale. If there was no contract, then the person who has the dog is responsible for the spay or neuter.

Is a contract good enough, what happens if the new owner doesn't spay or neuter...there is no saying the breeder will check up on that dog. In the Kelpie's case, the breeder has no interest in checking up with the dog and thus has no interest in making sure my roommate neutered him.

I think a contract might just be an excuse or loop hole for the breeder. It's easier to pass responsibility to the next person. Since the breeder is responsible for this dogs own creation, they bred the dogs, they should be responsible, financially responsible for the next generations too.

[calgal]

Personally I wouldn't buy a dog without a contract. If I did, that would be my mistake. Buyer beware. The reputable breeders always have contracts.

[Cassiepeia]

Do you think they should be held financially responsible?

I do, they should be charged with boarding, feeding, vet bills and a fine to ASPCA or Humane Society. It might make them file for bankruptcy but it would hold them to a higher standard.

I wish there was a little 'speechless' smiley, because I would use it here.

Why on earth should a reputable breeder who already spends a fortune on the responsible breeding of their dogs (which is something that is rare now days, due to the plague of byb & puppymills around) be forced to pay for all that?

My opinion...Reputable breeders always have contracts. They always follow up on those contracts. Yes, of course you are going to get the occasional idiot who doesn't do as they're told, but a reputable breeder follows up and makes sure the spay/neutering happens. I do NOT believe that they should pay for the spay/neutering. When you bring a puppy into your life you must be prepared for vet costs and one of those vet costs is desexing. If the breeder, however, doesn't have a problem with early spay/neutering they may choose to desex the pups before they leave for their new homes. In THAT case, yes they should pay for it.

In the case of an adult dog (or one over 6mths) being sold by a breeder. Yes, again I think they really should have the dog fixed prior to it going to its new home. But if they feel they can trust the person they're selling it too, they may not need to and a contract is fine. In which case the costs come down to the new owners (no I don't think the breeder should have to pay).

Forcing the breeder to not only pay for the surgery, but to pay for boarding and feeding AND fining them is ridiculous and is punishing people we should be supporting and celebrating. There are too few good breeders around.

Cass.

[dogs4life]

Originally Posted by Cassiepeia

Forcing the breeder to not only pay for the surgery, but to pay for boarding and feeding AND fining them is ridiculous and is punishing people we should be supporting and celebrating. There are too few good breeders around.

I'm certain that respectable breeders would be safe from such charges and they would cover their bases so they can keep breeding healthy dogs producing healthy pups.

I do think less reputable breeders will be charged and thus taken out of the system because it would not make financial sense for them to continue and breeding program. This money they are charged goes into the animal welfare programs that "clean up" their messes.

[Cassiepeia]

Originally Posted by dogs4life

I'm certain that respectable breeders would be safe from such charges and they would cover their bases so they can keep breeding healthy dogs producing healthy pups.

I do think less reputable breeders will be charged and thus taken out of the system because it would not make financial sense for them to continue and breeding program. This money they are charged goes into the animal welfare programs that "clean up" their messes.

In the end it is always the reputable breeder who is punished, not the byb or puppymill. There is no way you could be sure that reputable breeders were not hit by silly charges like that and backyard breeders/puppymillers can afford to pay. After all they make a mint load of money breeding disreputabley.

The idea of bringing in such costs is madness.

Cass.

[k9hullio_sam]

Even if the breeder did sell the dog on a contract and did follow up on that contract and found that the dog remained intact, what would they do from there? Take legal action? That is more money there than any fine would be. And say the dog reproduces in the time it takes to resolve the issue, is it worth it to the breeder to jeopardize their reputation that much, when they could have just s/n the dog in the first place?

[AVA]

a "responsible" breeder would have done it . A byb wouldn't have cared.

[Cassiepeia]

Even if the breeder did sell the dog on a contract and did follow up on that contract and found that the dog remained intact, what would they do from there? Take legal action? That is more money there than any fine would be. And say the dog reproduces in the time it takes to resolve the issue, is it worth it to the breeder to jeopardize their reputation that much, when they could have just s/n the dog in the first place?

Perhaps threaten legal action or take the dog back?

Originally Posted by AVA

a "responsible" breeder would have done it . A byb wouldn't have cared.

Done what?

Cass.

[Kuchi]

I totally agree with Cass. Why should a breeder have to pay for fixing a pet quality pet? The breeder already has spent money on the litter; deworming, shots, vet visits, etc. I would only buy a dog on a contract. Since contracts from reputable breeders include health problems. If Kuchi has hip dysplasia I do get 50% of my money back. Reputable breeders have the responsible of regulating and controlling their gene pool.

The whole point of the contract is everyone must abide by what is stated or legal action will arise. If the animal stays intact, the breeder can take the dog back to neuter it themselves. You will not get any of your money back, you broke the contract. Its like a lease, if the lease says you pay $500 a month and you decide not to pay, you will be evicted. Contracts are legally binding, if you have a contract and don't punish those who don't follow the rules, then what's the point of the contract? Usually the contract will say what will happen if you don't follow what was stated. And I would take legal action because your reputation is at stake, its not about the money at that point.

[dogs4life]

Originally Posted by Kuchi

The whole point of the contract is everyone must abide by what is stated or legal action will arise. If the animal stays intact, the breeder can take the dog back to neuter it themselves. You will not get any of your money back, you broke the contract. Its like a lease, if the lease says you pay $500 a month and you decide not to pay, you will be evicted. Contracts are legally binding, if you have a contract and don't punish those who don't follow the rules, then what's the point of the contract? Usually the contract will say what will happen if you don't follow what was stated. And I would take legal action because your reputation is at stake, its not about the money at that point.

I agree breeders could use guardian contracts (like lease-to-own)in which they have the right to inspect and take away animals as they see fit. But selling an animal as property and then taking that property back if the new owner is irresponsible, IMO this might be a sticky legal subject unless the animal's welfare is compromised and a law was broken, but a lawyer would have to talk about that and I'm not a lawyer.

But breeders who are not checking on their dogs and not following up on contracts, is there really any consequence to the breeder? These are the people I'm most concerned about. These I assume are the BYB and irresponsible breeders.

So far, I'm hearing the breeders bear no responsible for the dogs in which they produce's reproductive input into our society. Doesn't that scare you? They are null and void of all responsibility for any unethical breeding using their stock. I've heard many reputable breeders becoming enraged when they find their dogs are being bred irresponsibly but they have no control over that dog anymore and I'm sure it pains them deeply. Heck I could even see a breeder stop breeding because they are too frustrated with their customers breeding the dogs.

I'm also hearing that the consumer, the new dog owner, has all the responsibility to spay/neuter the dog they buy. This is our current system and it seems to be broken. I agree in a perfect world this theory would work, but unfortunately we live in a society that glorifies dog ownership on TV, in movies and on ads, portraying dogs as fun additions to the family and without showing the "real" work involved and real sacrifices serious dog owners make for the health and well being of their dogs. The consumers are not what I'd call dog educated. I'd argue that this is not the group of people who should be "in charge" of the reproductive capabilities of their dog. I just don't think they will have the dogs best interest in mind all the time. That's how BYB's get ahold of "champion bloodlines" and start their business. How are they getting unaltered animals? Who is supplying them? Well the kennel clubs know, they are the ones sending the papers out. The breeders know because they see the pedigree charts. The vets know, they see the animals.

So why is this so hard to control or regulate? Mind you I'm talking about pet dogs not breed stock nor working dogs.