We're always hearing that a contract is only as good as the paper it's on. Or we're hearing that if you want to have a contract make sure that you have an 'iron clad and enforceable' one (which often entails an attorney's fee of some kind). Now there's nothing wrong with a contract of course. But I have another curiosity : when did a contract become part and parcel of raising and selling purebred pups? What started the practice? Think on that one for a minute.
Responsible breeders have contracts.
That word 'responsible' is one that I've pretty much come to despise since the ARists agenda laid out it's requirements. Responsible is an AR buzz word, plain and simple.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for being responsible. I too think that 'cradle to grave' is a good concept, we should care about the pups we produce, we should care about the homes they go to, we should care about doing our best for them before they're born and while they're with us - and for the rest of their lives *within reason*.
But 'responsible' has come to mean - all too often - that if somewhere along the length of that dog's life you lose 'control' of what is happening with it, then you're a BAD BREEDER. It also has come to mean that if for some reason throughout that dog's life you the breeder can't take it back into your home - then a) you shouldn't have bred the litter, and b) you're a BAD BREEDER.
We have - along with contracts - come to understand that the 'responsible breeder' NEVER breeds unless a) they can keep all of the pups if they can't find 'good homes' and b) they will always take every one of those pups back throughout their lifetimes, no matter what - or they're a BAD BREEDER.
Let's take a peek back at the 'good homes' thing - examine what you mean when you say 'good home'. What IS a 'good home'?
Are you looking for a good home? Or have you been looking for an IDEAL home? There is a difference. Maybe looking for an ideal home has made those good homes difficult to find?
And relates to contracts like this - we put in a contract *our ideals*. We want our pups to go to homes that will take care of them just as we do. Sometimes even exactly to the letter. Hence contracts. On the surface contracts are pretty much benign - they state our expectations of the new owner, and if the new owner signs the contract we expect that they have agreed to what's in it. That's simple law right?
And as we all know, 'people' break laws all the time. Why then can we be surprised when a contract isn't honored?
In my opinion a contract really only does one thing - it makes us - the breeder - feel like we've done 'what we can'. It's a security blanket - if we have a contract, then we're a responsible breeder.
The ARists like that we feel that way.
Now contracts also deal with health issues. And I have a problem with that too. First of all, of all of the issues that an animal can have health-wise, for many we have no genetics recourse to - yet. There are some ills that have definitive tests and yes, those can be guaranteed against, or at least addressed for responsibility (that word again) if you produce them.
And yet we as breeders are expected to guarantee against 'all known inheritable conditions' (think puppy 'lemon laws'). Even when the medical science field has no understanding of how it was inherited, or what caused it to express in one dog and not another from the same litter. 'Responsible' breeders are expected to guarantee against anything as long as it can be judged to be inherited genetically.
And we've swallowed that 'responsibility' hook line and sinker - right along with our law makers. HD is an excellent example of that. We guarantee against HD and are proud of ourselves for doing tests, getting cleared results and breeding only from 'cleared' dogs. Yet, HD cleared parents can - and have - produced HD affected offspring. It's the nature of the poly inheritance pattern - most of us know that and understand it - and yet we will still guarantee against HD.
The ARists like that too - 'cause when we guarantee against HD - and produce it in spite of any testing we've done - it makes the breeding of purebreds look BAD. And as we all know, they *really* like that :).
In the end, no matter what is in your particular contract - it's not really a benign practice. It is actually an AR concept that we've bought into.
We, the breeders with our contracts, are like a car maker - we're taking responsibility for what we produce over it's lifetime, no matter where it's living - and we're guaranteeing what we produce, either we'll fix it, or take it back, if it's defective.
But, unlike that car maker, we're dealing with owners who can affect the mental, emotional and physical stability of the 'product' with their actions - or lack of. A driver of the car, however, can let the maintenance slide, or wreck the thing - neither of which the car maker guarantees against.
And, unlike that car maker, we're working with genes and inheritance, which is nowhere near as 'concrete' as steel. The car maker can control how their auto workers do their jobs, what they produce. We can't control the vast majority of the genes we work with - our 'gene workers' are not under our control, far from it.
Now I'm not saying don't have contracts, I'm not saying they're worthless. But you might want to *really think* about why you have one, and what you have in it.
Responsible breeders have contracts.
That word 'responsible' is one that I've pretty much come to despise since the ARists agenda laid out it's requirements. Responsible is an AR buzz word, plain and simple.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for being responsible. I too think that 'cradle to grave' is a good concept, we should care about the pups we produce, we should care about the homes they go to, we should care about doing our best for them before they're born and while they're with us - and for the rest of their lives *within reason*.
But 'responsible' has come to mean - all too often - that if somewhere along the length of that dog's life you lose 'control' of what is happening with it, then you're a BAD BREEDER. It also has come to mean that if for some reason throughout that dog's life you the breeder can't take it back into your home - then a) you shouldn't have bred the litter, and b) you're a BAD BREEDER.
We have - along with contracts - come to understand that the 'responsible breeder' NEVER breeds unless a) they can keep all of the pups if they can't find 'good homes' and b) they will always take every one of those pups back throughout their lifetimes, no matter what - or they're a BAD BREEDER.
Let's take a peek back at the 'good homes' thing - examine what you mean when you say 'good home'. What IS a 'good home'?
Are you looking for a good home? Or have you been looking for an IDEAL home? There is a difference. Maybe looking for an ideal home has made those good homes difficult to find?
And relates to contracts like this - we put in a contract *our ideals*. We want our pups to go to homes that will take care of them just as we do. Sometimes even exactly to the letter. Hence contracts. On the surface contracts are pretty much benign - they state our expectations of the new owner, and if the new owner signs the contract we expect that they have agreed to what's in it. That's simple law right?
And as we all know, 'people' break laws all the time. Why then can we be surprised when a contract isn't honored?
In my opinion a contract really only does one thing - it makes us - the breeder - feel like we've done 'what we can'. It's a security blanket - if we have a contract, then we're a responsible breeder.
The ARists like that we feel that way.
Now contracts also deal with health issues. And I have a problem with that too. First of all, of all of the issues that an animal can have health-wise, for many we have no genetics recourse to - yet. There are some ills that have definitive tests and yes, those can be guaranteed against, or at least addressed for responsibility (that word again) if you produce them.
And yet we as breeders are expected to guarantee against 'all known inheritable conditions' (think puppy 'lemon laws'). Even when the medical science field has no understanding of how it was inherited, or what caused it to express in one dog and not another from the same litter. 'Responsible' breeders are expected to guarantee against anything as long as it can be judged to be inherited genetically.
And we've swallowed that 'responsibility' hook line and sinker - right along with our law makers. HD is an excellent example of that. We guarantee against HD and are proud of ourselves for doing tests, getting cleared results and breeding only from 'cleared' dogs. Yet, HD cleared parents can - and have - produced HD affected offspring. It's the nature of the poly inheritance pattern - most of us know that and understand it - and yet we will still guarantee against HD.
The ARists like that too - 'cause when we guarantee against HD - and produce it in spite of any testing we've done - it makes the breeding of purebreds look BAD. And as we all know, they *really* like that :).
In the end, no matter what is in your particular contract - it's not really a benign practice. It is actually an AR concept that we've bought into.
We, the breeders with our contracts, are like a car maker - we're taking responsibility for what we produce over it's lifetime, no matter where it's living - and we're guaranteeing what we produce, either we'll fix it, or take it back, if it's defective.
But, unlike that car maker, we're dealing with owners who can affect the mental, emotional and physical stability of the 'product' with their actions - or lack of. A driver of the car, however, can let the maintenance slide, or wreck the thing - neither of which the car maker guarantees against.
And, unlike that car maker, we're working with genes and inheritance, which is nowhere near as 'concrete' as steel. The car maker can control how their auto workers do their jobs, what they produce. We can't control the vast majority of the genes we work with - our 'gene workers' are not under our control, far from it.
Now I'm not saying don't have contracts, I'm not saying they're worthless. But you might want to *really think* about why you have one, and what you have in it.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
roundgrandma
Scylla the Rock
Keka
koshersalaami
Thoth
scanner
Salon.com
Comments