I know that most of us do this because we feel like we're keeping the dog safe, I understand that. But is it possible that part of the problem with finding the 'good homes' we often complain about is that we are expecting co-ownerships - not offering them? Think about it - what does 'co-ownership' mean to you? To me - to put it simply - it means that the dog is not *mine*.
'Co-ownership' can mean so many different things. It could mean that you want to be sure that the new owner knows that you'll be there for them. It could mean that you don't completely trust the person you're placing the dog with to be able to do 'it' all by themselves. It could mean that you want to keep some control over how they are going to keep that dog. It could mean that you want to be sure that if anything happens you'll be sure to get that dog back.
I don't suppose there's anything inherently wrong with any of those reasons - but the fact remains that the new 'owner' will not be the *owner*. I know from things said to me over the years that many people - pet people - want to know *why* a co-ownership is necessary when the dog is simply going to grace their couch.
I also know that many people interested in showing have come to expect that the only way they're going to get their first dog is on a co-ownership - and while there's not really anything 'wrong' with that reasoning, it's also sad. And it's sad that many first time buyers of registered pups from show breeders have 'learned' that the only way they're ever going to get a registered dog is if they've had a rescue of the breed first.
And I'm not knocking that last angle at all, it's great for rescue. But think about this. In many breeds we like to say 'they're not for everyone' - and yet we're some of us expecting the 1st timer to cut their 'breed teeth' on a dog that likely has some issues that have nothing to do with the breed itself. Something a little strange about that - or maybe we just figure that if they survived that 'trial by fire' then they're good to go for our breed in all of it's aspects. I suppose that does make some sense - but it's a pretty 'over the top' thing to expect of a pet owner who'd just like to have a registered pet.
There's nothing inherently wrong with a co-ownership ; if both parties are satisfied with the arrangement. But the expectation of co-ownership may be one reason that 'good homes' seem difficult to find. And may be one reason that many pet owners are avoiding show breeders...
'Co-ownership' can mean so many different things. It could mean that you want to be sure that the new owner knows that you'll be there for them. It could mean that you don't completely trust the person you're placing the dog with to be able to do 'it' all by themselves. It could mean that you want to keep some control over how they are going to keep that dog. It could mean that you want to be sure that if anything happens you'll be sure to get that dog back.
I don't suppose there's anything inherently wrong with any of those reasons - but the fact remains that the new 'owner' will not be the *owner*. I know from things said to me over the years that many people - pet people - want to know *why* a co-ownership is necessary when the dog is simply going to grace their couch.
I also know that many people interested in showing have come to expect that the only way they're going to get their first dog is on a co-ownership - and while there's not really anything 'wrong' with that reasoning, it's also sad. And it's sad that many first time buyers of registered pups from show breeders have 'learned' that the only way they're ever going to get a registered dog is if they've had a rescue of the breed first.
And I'm not knocking that last angle at all, it's great for rescue. But think about this. In many breeds we like to say 'they're not for everyone' - and yet we're some of us expecting the 1st timer to cut their 'breed teeth' on a dog that likely has some issues that have nothing to do with the breed itself. Something a little strange about that - or maybe we just figure that if they survived that 'trial by fire' then they're good to go for our breed in all of it's aspects. I suppose that does make some sense - but it's a pretty 'over the top' thing to expect of a pet owner who'd just like to have a registered pet.
There's nothing inherently wrong with a co-ownership ; if both parties are satisfied with the arrangement. But the expectation of co-ownership may be one reason that 'good homes' seem difficult to find. And may be one reason that many pet owners are avoiding show breeders...
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
roundgrandma
Scylla the Rock
Keka
koshersalaami
Thoth
scanner
Salon.com
Comments