[sammycolo09]

Labby, do you have an article on this on your website? What does the co-ownership entail? Why is it done? Why would you want to purchase a co-owned dog instead of an out-right purchase?

Thanks for your input.

Julie

 

[Dani]

A co-own varies depending on the breeder and the sex of the dog. Basically, it is used more for people who are trying to get into showing but don't have a lot of experience, like myself.

When the good breeders breed, they breed to better their lines, and to get a pick puppy out of to show and continue their lines. The ones in a litter that are considered good enough to put in a show ring are very few. Generally those are kept by the breeder. But, in a circumstance that the breeder doesn't have enough room for the dog, but wants to keep them around, they will often sell on a co-own, hoping to make use of the dog later on or help a newbie like me get their feet wet in the ring.

It's beneficial for a newbie to co-own because the breeder helps to mentor, give suggestions on shows, judges, and potentially down the line, nods or passing on breeding opportunities.

It helps the breeder because it also helps continue to get their dogs out in the ring (hopefully winning) and getting their kennel name and lines out there. For the person showing, it gets us known in the show world and experience in the sport.

 

[3TailsWaggin]

My feelings on co-ownership is that if the breeder insists on this, you should insist the breeder pay half the damned expenses of caring for the dog, from feeding, training, vet care, etc.

I just don't buy into co-ownership. I would never get involved with it.

Just my opinion. You may go back to your opinion now

 

[labby]

It all depends on the breeder. For Matilda, I charged her half price, co-owner treats her like her pet, taking care of vet care and food, etc. She makes her available when I want to show her. I pay for anything relative to the breeding expenses, showing fees, OFA's, CERF's, etc. I'll breed her and whelp the litter here. She gets second pick of the puppies. Matilda will be spayed after her one litter and I will sign off on her.

For Bree, the owner again paid half price and she will pay for everything since she shows herself. I get pick puppy for the same price she paid out of any litter(s) I choose. She stays in my name and the co-owners until her breeding career is over. If she doesn't pass OFA's then she gets spayed and we're done.

That's basically how I do it. Of course its still a 4 page contract but that's the basics.

 

[canUdigIt]

My feelings on co-ownership is that if the breeder insists on this, you should insist the breeder pay half the damned expenses of caring for the dog, from feeding, training, vet care, etc.

I just don't buy into co-ownership. I would never get involved with it.

Just my opinion. You may go back to your opinion now

OK, so that's your opinion and yes you are absolutely entitled, but why do you feel that way?

I co-own Ruby and I have a very fair co-own. Everything about Ruby says she is my dog. I pay for everything, just as I paid for her. I show her (99% of the time) and pay her entries, her clearances, her feeding, vetting, general care, and even scoop her poop in the yard. She shares my bed, eats my left overs, trains with me in the morning and evening, she is my dog in every sense of the word.

So why the co-ownership? Well, when I got Ruby, though I knew more than most newbies (thanks Owen) I had never owned a girl, and co-owning left my breeder able to show in the bred by classes if I sucked at showing fortunately, we're doing pretty well. I also don't know a lot about breeding and although I have learned a lot, I need the experience of my breeder to get me through.

Other then who I breed Ruby to, Denise basically has little to do with Ruby, and has been an all together dream to co-own with. When I breed Ruby, Denise has the option of getting second pick puppy back if she wishes to. I am also limited as to how many times I can breed her, as it is very important to her breeder that they are not breeding machines.

I do have a clause for how to get out of the contract (clearances and 2 titles, which we have, but don't care to sign off the co-own) and have the right to spay her at ANY time, regardless of what her breeder thinks. That was most important to me, as Ruby is my PET and I love her, as does her breeder, but in a different, gramma sort of way.

I wouldn't have any problems co-owning another dog with Ruby's breeder.

Co-owning leaves something else too...encouragement and pride. I don't know where I would have made it to without the encouragement of Ruby's breeder and her friends and circles. Denise is always very proud of us when we are both successful and unsuccessful, and more often then not, before we even get home from a show or trial, there is a message on my machine waiting for us!

So hey, if you read this THANKS for everything!

 

[Dani]

My feelings on co-ownership is that if the breeder insists on this, you should insist the breeder pay half the damned expenses of caring for the dog, from feeding, training, vet care, etc.

I just don't buy into co-ownership. I would never get involved with it.

Just my opinion. You may go back to your opinion now

Okie dokie Linda. In terms of paperwork, Rookie is co-owned. In terms of his actual ownership...he's all mine. Everything. His care is my responsibility. I like the relationship I have with his breeder. It's a very fair set up.

Just out of curiosity...what is your take on limited registrations?

 

[3TailsWaggin]

Suffice it to say, I don't care for the co-ownership because there is a local breeder who does it to ALL her dogs as a means of keeping control. And her puppies aren't cheap either. My opinion is, if I pay for the pup, the pup is mine and all mine.

Limited registration is fine as I have no intentions of breeding anyway.

Which leads me to ask... if your breeder insists to breed your dog, would you? I can't fathom someone like yourself, who rescues dogs and preaches so vehemently against breeding, that you would have any part in it.
That being said, why would you co-own a dog with a breeder when the majority of breeders use co-ownership as a means to further their breeding programs? You mention in your post that the breeder will give you guidance and

nods or passing on breeding opportunities.

A bit hypocritical from someone who is so dead set against breeding in the first place.

Co-owning leaves something else too...encouragement and pride.

Not your quote, Dani, but I just wanted to add, my breeder does all this and then some, and I don't co-own either of my dogs from her. I keep the kennel names as part of their name (not something she asks of me either) but to give her recognition when I'm out there showing. A GOOD breeder will do all of these things for you WITHOUT CO-OWNING the dog. The only reason they co-own is for future breeding/pick of your litter or control.

 

[labby]

There are co-ownerships which are nightmares. I've seen them and I've heard about them. I know of someone who paid $800 for their ***** and could only breed her to the co-owner's dogs. The stud fee was $800 and the co-owner got first pick of half the puppies ever produced by this *****. There is no way I would ever agree to something like that, but obviously it didn't bother the person who signed the contract.

As with anything, whether co-ownerships work or not is based on the people doing it.

 

[canUdigIt]

Well obviously, you have seen some bad breeder's co-owns and taken that as what they are. We have a 'breeder' I call her a puppy mill in Ontario, who places her co-owns in pet homes and has them come back to her for breeding. She breeds them, makes profits off them, and makes the *****'s co-owner buy a puppy back if they want one, but it has to be a co-own. She probably has 50+ dogs in this situation, and breeds so often it makes my skin crawl. She is heavy on marketing and now is homing in Buffalo New York so she can offer "two locations to ship from".

Co-owns aren't always for breeding. But co-owns are for RESPONSIBLE breeders a way to keep their babies safe from PuppyMills and irresponsible breeding. Two signatures are necessary on litter registrations etc.

I would venture to say Linda and I do not mean this disrespectfully, because your opinion is just that and you are entitled, that in the obedience world it is far different, as intentions are not generally on breeding, if you were to want a girl next time, would your breeder sell a girl on full registration?

In the show world, you can't show on a limited registration (in the US anyways) so the breeder uses the co-own so that they still maintain some say in whom, when and how many litters a ***** (more often then a dog) is bred while the ***** can still be shown and exhibited by a new comer, or like I said, be shown in the bred by classes at shows.

Co-owns aren't a way for breeders to further their breeding programs, but it is a way to keep a dog in their loop. My Ruby would be spayed in a pet home if I didn't have her, which would be just as fine, but I gave my breeder the opportunity to have another of her breeding producing, and the option of a puppy out of her if she so chooses.

The only reason they co-own is for future breeding/pick of your litter or control.

See being different people means we see things differently, you seem like an inately distrusting person. Co-owning dogs is not about control or money, which you are making it out to be. I could breed my girl to pretty well any dog I chose, so long as I have thought it out and present my case well. Denise hasn't said NO to anyone I have chosen. Now, if I chose a horribly untypey dog or a dog that would not compliment my girl well, I would trust her to say so. I see it as guidence not control.

A GOOD breeder will do all of these things for you WITHOUT CO-OWNING the dog.

Absolutely! And a good breeder would also not place their dog in a home where it can be bred until the cows come home and leave again, not caring where they end up. If there were no co-owns, no one would ever get a nice ***** for themselves. They would all be washed out of breeding entirely. There would be no new breeders around, looking to make a name for themselves by doing things the proper way. Instead, they would go to breeders who would sell their dogs on full registration without a care in the world.

Does your breeder sell their bitches on full registration? If so, I would rethink your breeder

I am not Dani, but I don't think Dani is dead set against breeding, I think she is dead set against breeding irresponsibly.

Yes, breeders should offer support/encouragement and that is FREE for me, meaning I don't pay for a thing for it, but she is proud of both of us, and I know that!

 

[labby]

Which leads me to ask... if your breeder insists to breed your dog, would you?

Its different with a dog than with a *****. Let's face it, most of the male show dogs out there aren't being used. Its not that they aren't nice, people are going to breed to the hot stud dog. A few years ago it was Clark or Gordie, today its Travis. These dogs are producing what people want.

So no breeder is going to insist that someone breed their male because someone still has to want to breed to that male.

I know a lot of people with OFA Excellent Champion dogs who don't get used very often. Its always been that way.

 

[imported_Melissa]

A bit hypocritical from someone who is so dead set against breeding in the first place.

Dani has always been dead set against irresponsible backyard or puppy mill breeding, not responsible breeding. There's a big difference.

 

[JacksAndLabs]

Labradors are the most overbred breed in the country and reputable breeders are very aware of that fact and, quite frankly, scared to let female puppies go on full registration to people they don't know VERY well. Is that control or care for the puppies they bring into the world?? As someone starting out in the show world with a possible desire to breed, the only way your going to get a quality girl is on a co-own. I co-own Piper with her breeder and I'm grateful to her for "taking a chance" on me. I have absolutely no complaints about our co-own realationship and I now co-own Bono with her as well. Both arrangements are different, as all co-ownerships are. In the past couple of years, I've proven myself and my dogs in a number of different venues and could probably get a nice girl without the co-ownership stipulations, but honestly it's not a big deal to me. Without the breeders, these dogs wouldn't be here so I believe if they want to show them or get a puppy back from them in the future, it's the least I can do.

Many reputable breeders are also involved in rescue, far from hypocritical.

 

[3TailsWaggin]

In the show world, you can't show on a limited registration (in the US anyways)

I believe this is wrong. I show both my dogs on a limited registration. All the limited registration does is ban any litter from this particular dog from being registered with AKC. Which in the long run really doesn't mean anything because if someone is hell set on breed the dog, they will do it regardless, and then register the dogs with CKC or not register them at all.

And I still find it hypocritical of anyone who has shown over and over again how dead set they are on breeding more labs, and then turn around and own a dog that the breeder may want to breed. Let's face it, the majority of breeder's dogs do NOT go on to show, they are placed in pet homes.

 

[labby]

Linda, you cannot show in conformation with a dog on Limited. This is why I lifted Aidan's limited and he's now being co-owned by Susan, her son Jeff and myself.

 

[labby]

And I still find it hypocritical of anyone who has shown over and over again how dead set they are on breeding more labs, and then turn around and own a dog that the breeder may want to breed. Let's face it, the majority of breeder's dogs do NOT go on to show, they are placed in pet homes.

Did you even read my other post where the chances of breeding a male are pretty slim? Plus, even if you are contacted by pet folks wanting to breed to your male, the majority are not even considered because the pet folks don't want to do all the clearances or sell on LR. I turn down prolly 10 bitches to the every one I let breed to Seamus.

Show breeders breed for the show ring. Sometimes we cannot keep that lovely ***** or dog that is produced. By finding someone to co-own with, there is a chance that the dog will not be lost to the breeding program. We can't keep all the best pups, so co-owning provides us with a place to put them in case we want to breed them later. Sometimes we breed them and sometimes we don't.

I had a lovely ***** placed in a show/co-own home. She passed all her clearances (OFA Excellent, in fact). She was from the last Stevie litter. Things happened and the owner got divorced. Husband ended up with the dog and he had no clue what to do to breed her. They're in another part of the country from me so I couldn't go and get her to breed her. I ended up giving husband the ok to spay her. Killed me, but it was in the best interest for everyone involved.

So not all co-owns get bred, even when you plan on doing it.

 

[imported_Melissa]

And I still find it hypocritical of anyone who has shown over and over again how dead set they are on breeding more labs, and then turn around and own a dog that the breeder may want to breed.

You have to have reputable breeders. If somehow some way all the backyard breeders and puppy millers were shut down and reputable breeders ceased to exist, the labrador breed - all breeds - would die out. You are taking what Dani does and what she believes and twisting it around.

I don't believe it's hypocritical at all for a breeder to be involved in rescue, for a rescuer to be involved in the show world...

 

[canUdigIt]

Yes, you may 'show' in obedience, but not in the conformation ring. The conformation ring has a purpose, to judge breeding stock, so it makes sense that in order to show in that venue, the dog must be able to be bred, meaning, no limited registration. My interest when I started out (long long time ago, LOL 9 years now) was obedience and I was happy to have my Dodger and my Rhys on limited registration. Now that I have been stung by the show bee, I need a dog on full registration to show in the conformation ring. In Canada, a dog on a limited registration can and do successfully compete in the conformation ring.

Lets be real here about breeding, if everyone bought a dog from a responsible breeder, there would be no dogs in shelters or rescues, because they would all be spayed or neutered and on contract to be returned to the breeder.

 

[JacksAndLabs]

In the show world, you can't show on a limited registration (in the US anyways)

I believe this is wrong. I show both my dogs on a limited registration.

You don't show your dogs...you trial them. Show=Conformation. Trial=Performance Events.

Please point me to where Dani's ever said something against breeding responsibly. If you're going ot call someone a hypocrite, you better **** well be able to back it up.

 

[rottnlabs]

Show breeders breed for the show ring. Sometimes we cannot keep that lovely ***** or dog that is produced. By finding someone to co-own with, there is a chance that the dog will not be lost to the breeding program. We can't keep all the best pups, so co-owning provides us with a place to put them in case we want to breed them later. Sometimes we breed them and sometimes we don't.

This is the situation with Essy who is a co-own. She was originally kept as a show prospect for 1 yr. She didn't develop quite the way the breeder expected so she decided to spay and sell her to me as a performance dog but then Essy came into heat before we finalized everything. She filled out very nicely during that time and I could tell that the breeder was thinking she made a mistake about wanting to spay her. We discussed it, specifically about what I wanted and was willing to do, and I offered to keep her intact for awhile to see how she turned out in a yr or two. That meant I went from a full ownership to a co-ownership by making that offer but it doesn't bother me at all since I'm really not interested in breeding. This is something I'm doing for a friend...Essy's breeder.

 

[Paula]

I don't recall Dani ever being against responsible breeding. So I don't think she is being hypocritical.