Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Are rescues obligated to return dogs to original breeder?

bendyfoot
February 5th, 2009, 04:14 PM
Asking for someone else who knows a breeder, who just found out one of her dogs was dumped at a rescue. She's trying to get the dog back and is meeting resistance. Are their any obligations/legal rights either way? Just curious.

BenMax
February 5th, 2009, 04:15 PM
No rescues, shelters and animal control are not obliged.

Dekka
February 5th, 2009, 04:17 PM
If the breeder co-owns the dog then yes you must. If the breeder doesn't then you don't have too. If the breeder is a good breeder then I think you 'should'. The breeder might have a person who is interested in an older dog of that breed. As well it allows the rescue to put its resources to save another dog!

If the breeder is a nasty rat.. then you 'shouldn't' lol

BenMax
February 5th, 2009, 04:18 PM
If the breeder co-owns the dog then yes you must. If the breeder doesn't then you don't have too. If the breeder is a good breeder then I think you 'should'. The breeder might have a person who is interested in an older dog of that breed. As well it allows the rescue to put its resources to save another dog!

If the breeder is a nasty rat.. then you 'shouldn't' lol

Is that just for Ontario Dekka - sorry never heard of that.

Dog Dancer
February 5th, 2009, 04:24 PM
Do most "reputable" breeders not require you to sign an agreement that you will return the dog to them if you cannot keep it? If so and the breeder has a copy of said contract on said dog then I would think legally the rescue may be obliged to turn the dog over (as the original owner should have). But that's just my thought on it, I have no legal concept.

BenMax
February 5th, 2009, 04:25 PM
Do most "reputable" breeders not require you to sign an agreement that you will return the dog to them if you cannot keep it? If so and the breeder has a copy of said contract on said dog then I would think legally the rescue may be obliged to turn the dog over (as the original owner should have). But that's just my thought on it, I have no legal concept.

Indeed it is a signed agreement with the breeder and the 'client' (since that is what they are). The client is the one that is suppose to return the dog back to the breeder - not a shelter or rescue since they are not apart of a contract. So tough luck for the breeder.

babysweet
February 5th, 2009, 04:28 PM
No, the rescue is not obligated in any way to the original breeder.

IF the breeder had a return clause in the original sale contract then the issue is between the breeder and the purchaser.

SPCAs have the same policy - the animal must be returned to the facility if it requires rehoming. However, most people who have rescued an animal from an SPCA/humane facility/pound opt to place the animal in a private rescue instead of an institutional setting.

The other issue is one of legality - there is some question as to whether these "return to breeder" clauses are actually legal in a contractual sense. As far as I know, there hasn't been a case of one going to court in my province and actually being held up - although I also haven't been able to find any record of one being shot down. The only way that I can conceive that this dog could possibly be recovered is if the dog was originally sold on a co-ownership basis. Otherwise, the third party (the rescue) is free from any requirements.

As to why the rescue is resisting, who knows... many rescues, either very new or having been burned before, are very anti-breeder. We had a similar situation where two bloodhounds were turned over to us who were both Am/Cdn Champions. They were seven and eight year old females. The original breeder found out, contacted us, and the agreement we came to is that we placed the older dog and allowed the breeder to have the younger dog back AFTER she paid to spay the dog (she wanted the dog back to breed it, and unfortunately that is just not something we could have morally gone along with).

It's not always cut and dry, but regardless the issue is between the breeder and the purchaser.

BenMax
February 5th, 2009, 04:30 PM
No, the rescue is not obligated in any way to the original breeder.

IF the breeder had a return clause in the original sale contract then the issue is between the breeder and the purchaser.

SPCAs have the same policy - the animal must be returned to the facility if it requires rehoming. However, most people who have rescued an animal from an SPCA/humane facility/pound opt to place the animal in a private rescue instead of an institutional setting.

The other issue is one of legality - there is some question as to whether these "return to breeder" clauses are actually legal in a contractual sense. As far as I know, there hasn't been a case of one going to court in my province and actually being held up - although I also haven't been able to find any record of one being shot down. The only way that I can conceive that this dog could possibly be recovered is if the dog was originally sold on a co-ownership basis. Otherwise, the third party (the rescue) is free from any requirements.

As to why the rescue is resisting, who knows... many rescues, either very new or having been burned before, are very anti-breeder. We had a similar situation where two bloodhounds were turned over to us who were both Am/Cdn Champions. They were seven and eight year old females. The original breeder found out, contacted us, and the agreement we came to is that we placed the older dog and allowed the breeder to have the younger dog back AFTER she paid to spay the dog (she wanted the dog back to breed it, and unfortunately that is just not something we could have morally gone along with).

It's not always cut and dry, but regardless the issue is between the breeder and the purchaser.

Holy Cow BabySweet - now that is very well put! You obviously have done your homework! Excellent.

Also - you are right - the clause means very little.

babysweet
February 5th, 2009, 04:33 PM
Well, like I said, we were in the situation before.

From the breeder's stance, if the breeder is reputable, I can only imagine the panic and anger he/she is experiencing, particularly depending on the rescue involved (not all rescues are created equal, just like breeders!).

However, from the rescue's standpoint, it's important to know your legal rights so you don't get bullied around by breeders, other groups, etc, etc.

bendyfoot
February 5th, 2009, 04:34 PM
Thanks guys! I'll pass on the info. :thumbs up

Dekka
February 5th, 2009, 04:34 PM
If the breeder co owns.. then yes you have too. They still OWN the dog. If you don't you could be guilty of theft.

I cant imagine it would happen often, but I do some breeders who only sell dogs on co-ownerships.

Dog Dancer
February 5th, 2009, 04:37 PM
Thanks for the info, like I said, I had no idea really other than knowing those clauses exist in some contracts. I can see why a rescue may not want to turn over a dog back to the breeder in some cases for sure. Whatever the case is I sure hope this works out for the dog in question.

Mat&Murph
February 5th, 2009, 04:39 PM
I know my breeder would want my boys back if I could not take care of them. But because he is in a different province then The mastiff ass. rescue team comes and picks them up and thern returns them to the breeder. My breeder just rescued one of his "pups" back in Nov. She is now 3 years old

BenMax
February 5th, 2009, 04:39 PM
If the breeder co owns.. then yes you have too. They still OWN the dog. If you don't you could be guilty of theft.

I cant imagine it would happen often, but I do some breeders who only sell dogs on co-ownerships.

Nope. If a dog is signed over to a shelter or rescue there is paperwork that is between the shelter/rescue and the one that is surrendering. The shelter/rescue now owns the dog. Any lawsuit would be between the breeder and 'client'. If there is a courtcase only then will the judge order the dog in 'suspension' until the case is settled.

Dekka
February 5th, 2009, 04:41 PM
Nope. If a dog is signed over to a shelter or rescue there is paperwork that is between the shelter/rescue and the one that is surrendering. The shelter/rescue now owns the dog. Any lawsuit would be between the breeder and 'client'. If there is a courtcase only then will the judge order the dog in 'suspension' until the case is settled.

You can't sign off on something you don't own. If I owned a boat with you.. i can't sign it off to someone else. I can sign off my half perhaps.. but not the whole thing.

This is what I was told by a lawyer in Ontario 2 years ago.

BenMax
February 5th, 2009, 04:43 PM
You can't sign off on something you don't own. If I owned a boat with you.. i can't sign it off to someone else. I can sign off my half perhaps.. but not the whole thing.

This is what I was told by a lawyer in Ontario 2 years ago.

If you are co-owner you don't own at least 1/2 of the dog??? Anyways I did not read anything in Bendyfoots initial question about the dog being co-owned.

Dekka
February 5th, 2009, 04:45 PM
If you read my original reply... Some breeders sell ALL their dogs on co ownership. I said this was the only time that a rescue would HAVE to deal with the breeder. Not many breeders do it (some do it till you s/n and then you fully own the dog to stop people from breeding them)

The only way those contracts are enforceable is to have a monetary penalty or to still partially own the dog.

BenMax
February 5th, 2009, 04:47 PM
If you read my original reply... Some breeders sell ALL their dogs on co ownership. I said this was the only time that a rescue would HAVE to deal with the breeder. Not many breeders do it (some do it till you s/n and then you fully own the dog to stop people from breeding them)

The only way those contracts are enforceable is to have a monetary penalty or to still partially own the dog.

Again - I did not see that in Bendyfoot's question. Sorry Dekka but I am not totally ignorant to this subject. (Maybe a little - but not totally). ;)

BenMax
February 5th, 2009, 04:52 PM
Bendyfoot - you obviously will not get an accurate answer from myself nor Dekka since we have our own views on this. The breeder in question knows what to do to get the dog back - if he/she can get the dog back. There are contracts that are signed but some not binding - just as everything in life.

I am leaving to go home now which is an utter shame since I love to read what Dekka has to say - which I of course love to respond to.

bendyfoot
February 5th, 2009, 04:52 PM
I don't know if the dog is co-owned or not. But in the event that the dog IS co-owned, I imagine the breeder would want to know what their rights are.

BenMax
February 5th, 2009, 04:53 PM
I don't know if the dog is co-owned or not. But in the event that the dog IS co-owned, I imagine the breeder would want to know what their rights are.

Exactly Bendyfoot!

Dekka
February 5th, 2009, 05:05 PM
I would hope the breeder already knew what their rights are.. otherwise they have no business trying to enforce anything!!!

It has nothing to do with what I 'think' it has to do with what is law in the Dominion of Canada. Dogs are legal property in this country. Owning them is like owning a boat (sad but true) when it comes to ownership. You can't sign away something that is not yours to do so.

The breeders contracts that state you must give the dog back is not enforceable. Now if there is a clause that if you don't give the dog back to the breeder you must pay X number of dollars to the breeder as penalty.. that has a better chance. But still only a chance.

BenMax
February 6th, 2009, 07:51 AM
I would hope the breeder already knew what their rights are.. otherwise they have no business trying to enforce anything!!!

It has nothing to do with what I 'think' it has to do with what is law in the Dominion of Canada. Dogs are legal property in this country. Owning them is like owning a boat (sad but true) when it comes to ownership. You can't sign away something that is not yours to do so.

The breeders contracts that state you must give the dog back is not enforceable. Now if there is a clause that if you don't give the dog back to the breeder you must pay X number of dollars to the breeder as penalty.. that has a better chance. But still only a chance.

Yes exactly. This is between the breeder and purchaser. Not breeder, purchaser and rescue or shelter.

Love4himies
February 6th, 2009, 07:55 AM
Indeed it is a signed agreement with the breeder and the 'client' (since that is what they are). The client is the one that is suppose to return the dog back to the breeder - not a shelter or rescue since they are not apart of a contract. So tough luck for the breeder.

Exactly there is NO contract with the rescue, only between the breeder and adopter.

Dekka: I know with the shelter I volunteer for there is no time to track down breeders, check contracts and return dogs, all but one part time employee are volunteers.

BenMax
February 6th, 2009, 09:27 AM
Dekka - what are the circumstances around a co-owned dog. Why would someone co-own? What are the benefits for the breeder and purchaser or co-owner? Does it mean that a co-owner has paid something for the dog? Was there an exchange of $$ or is there somesort of agreement? Are these co-owned dogs sterilized?

mona_b
February 6th, 2009, 11:35 AM
Here is my :2cents:

I totaly think this breeder should get the dog back..No if's or buts about it...Yes there is a return contract with breeder/owner...But this should include if the dog is dumped in a shelter..

This is what classifies a responsible ethical breeder....And SHOULD get the dog back.

If I recall, it's a given when a dog comes in with a tattoo that they look for the breeder.

If this breeder wanted to take the rescue to court, I bet the breeder would win.;)


bendyfoot, I hope they get the dog back.:thumbs up

BenMax, co-ownership is usually done with owner/breeder when showing..The breeder will still have all say in showing and breeding and EVERYTHING else. Will take first pick with pups..When the Dam is ready to breed, the breeder will take the Dam to get bred or the Sire...It can be complicated.

Personally, I really don't care to much for the co-ownership...I'm for the non-breeding contract. No I'm not a breeder.LOL..I have learned alot from my breeder since I was 17 and got my first GSD...And got 2 more from her. I was on a neuter contract..All boys were done at 6 months....;)

BenMax
February 6th, 2009, 11:43 AM
BenMax, co-ownership is usually done with owner/breeder when showing..The breeder will still have all say in showing and breeding and EVERYTHING else. Will take first pick with pups..When the Dam is ready to breed, the breeder will take the Dam to get bred or the Sire...It can be complicated.

Personally, I really don't care to much for the co-ownership...I'm for the non-breeding contract. No I'm not a breeder.LOL..I have learned alot from my breeder since I was 17 and got my first GSD...And got 2 more from her. I was on a neuter contract..All boys were done at 6 months....;)

Thank you for explaining co-ownership. I am very glad that it is put on 'paper' and can be understand by all what it means.

It is rare that anything is life is binding - contract or otherwise. I wonder how many breeders went to the extent of getting a lawyer and fighting an non-profit organization? That would be interesting.

mona_b
February 6th, 2009, 11:50 AM
Your welcome...:)

It would be interesting I agree...But I'm sure that things would probably be settled without having to go to court...;)

We talk about what a good breeder is...And like I stated, this is an ethical breeder who wants the dog back...:)


If you were the breeder, would you not want the dog back?. I know I would.

BenMax
February 6th, 2009, 12:09 PM
If you were the breeder, would you not want the dog back?. I know I would.

Thankfully I am not a breeder so I am not faced with this situation.

But since you asked that question let me tell you how I would handle. I would definately get a hold of the rescue or shelter. Provide them with my pre-approved homes for this dog and work collectively with them. This promotes a 'trust' with the rescue/shelter which in the future I am certain would promote positive results if it should ever happen again.

I would offer any assistance to help in re-homing.

Love4himies
February 6th, 2009, 01:01 PM
If a person goes to a rescue or a shelter and wants to dump their dog, do you think the shelters contact the breeder if their is a tatoo in the ear?

BenMax
February 6th, 2009, 01:07 PM
If a person goes to a rescue or a shelter and wants to dump their dog, do you think the shelters contact the breeder if their is a tatoo in the ear?

Not necessarily. It all depends on the man power at the shelter and their views on breeders. All are different and there are no standards, nor are there any official governing laws that forces them to do so.

As far as rescues are concerned, some do and some don't. No one is obliged.

erykah1310
February 6th, 2009, 02:37 PM
I"m sort of confused, "if" this is a good breeder ( COE ) we are talking about here, why wouldn't the rescue give said dog to them?
Wouldn't that amount to the same thing.
I mean COE breeders require spay/neuter of non show prospect dogs so there is little chance of the dog being intact.
Wouldn't the rescue want to place the dog back with a breeder to make room for a more needy dog?
I don't see why the rescue wouldn't relinquish the dog back to the breeder if it is a COE breeder. This doesn't make sense to me at all.
But I fully understand why they wouldn't if it was intact and this breeder was less than ideal.

BenMax
February 6th, 2009, 02:40 PM
I"m sort of confused, "if" this is a good breeder ( COE ) we are talking about here, why wouldn't the rescue give said dog to them?
Wouldn't that amount to the same thing.
I mean COE breeders require spay/neuter of non show prospect dogs so there is little chance of the dog being intact.
Wouldn't the rescue want to place the dog back with a breeder to make room for a more needy dog?
I don't see why the rescue wouldn't relinquish the dog back to the breeder if it is a COE breeder. This doesn't make sense to me at all.
But I fully understand why they wouldn't if it was intact and this breeder was less than ideal.

Go back to the co-ownership that Dekka mentioned. So would you then expect a rescue or shelter to give back? These dogs may be intact for further breeding purposes.

Anyways bottom line is that there is no legal obligations to give back anything.

As I said before - some shelters do and some don't, same as rescues.

erykah1310
February 6th, 2009, 02:55 PM
I am fully aware of Co-ownership, I am in one as I type and I personally like it this way.

However, in a co-ownership ( such as Karmas) I am in contact with her breeder on a very regular basis, and if I don't call her she is quick to email or give me a call to see how things are and if I have any questions or concerns.
The only dogs she lets go on co-ownership are show potential.
Pet are on a strict spay neuter contract.
Now.
Co-ownership or not, this dog could very well be intact, as some people are more than happy to have a limited registration and still breed those pups are sold "with out papers" on many ads.
I have a hunch that this dog is either already altered or one of the previous mentioned.
If it is still intact and not supposed to be, the breeder ( if COE) would be more than happy to oblige to that aspect of the rescues rules. I know Karmas breeder would pay the rescue for the spay/neuter to get her dog back on thier terms.
But I also know she would be fighting tooth and nail to get her dog back in this situation, especially with this breed. All breed rescues often are not familiar with breeds such as Karmas and for them to place a TM (for example) in a home with only the fenced yard a must clause they have could result in many problems.
If this were a "difficult" breed of any kind, a rescue could be setting themselves up for some serious problems with holding the dog from a COE breeder if they adopted it out to the "wrong" type of home.
Really the op's question is far too vague.
Alot depends on the type of breeder we are talking about, the breed of dog, the kind of rescue that has the dog, if the dog is altered or unaltered and so on.

As for there being no legal obligations to give a dog back, its true, especially in Ontario.
If I have one of the members here dogs, and chose not to give it back to them, there is little they can do with that as I am in possession of it.
This happened to a friend of mine, he lost his dog because the "breeder" had him for show reasons and chose not to give him back. Sadly my friend after lenghtly court battles lost his dog as he was not in possession of it.

THe main thing I am confused with in this situation, is why the rescue wouldn't want to give the dog back, or atleast work out a spay/neuter clause with the breeder, any COE breeder would rather have their top lines "fixed" and returned to them than being in rescue.

Dekka
February 6th, 2009, 04:41 PM
As to the time factor... How many dogs come in that are tattooed or chipped? It should take less than 15 to find out where the dog came from (if its easily possible) Say take another 5 min to fire off an email or phone call. Now 20 min to NOT have to pay for and look after a dog.. 20 min so that you can free up space to save another dog.

As a breeder I have had an owner go very very strange. She didn't want the dog anymore and contacted the JRTRO. Now the JRTRO knows me and knows for sure I want my dogs back!!! They called me I said let her reliq the dog to you and I will come get him as soon as you have him. He needed retraining which I did. She had got him fixed as per the contract (thank doG she followed that part of the contract!) I took him to some JRTCC trials where he did very well, I took him to the AAC Ontario agility regionals so he could meet people. I found him a fantabulous home!!! It took me 5 months to find him the perfect home.

Breeders should be responsible for what they produce. I don't want any of the rescues resources used to look after my dogs!! Save those for the dogs who have no one.

If you can't find the breeder (which happens with most breeders as most suck!!) then you look after the dog yourself.

BenMax
February 9th, 2009, 02:56 PM
If you can't find the breeder (which happens with most breeders as most suck!!) then you look after the dog yourself.

Sorry don't understand this comment. So if rescue gets a dog and cannot locate the breeder (which I guess will take up more resource time than you indicated)...then the rescue/shelter can keep the dog? Is that what you are saying?

Yes indeed Dekka, as you said above..'most breeders suck'. So while you yourself say this why and what would motivate rescues/shelters to try and track down breeders then? I assume Dekka you know that rescues are volunteer run. Shelters are volunteer and staff run with more than one function. So your calculated time that you indicate will not work.

Dekka
February 9th, 2009, 10:53 PM
Sorry don't understand this comment. So if rescue gets a dog and cannot locate the breeder (which I guess will take up more resource time than you indicated)...then the rescue/shelter can keep the dog? Is that what you are saying?

Yes indeed Dekka, as you said above..'most breeders suck'. So while you yourself say this why and what would motivate rescues/shelters to try and track down breeders then? I assume Dekka you know that rescues are volunteer run. Shelters are volunteer and staff run with more than one function. So your calculated time that you indicate will not work.

Um well as I have helped out with rescue (at events, running fund raisers, transporting and fostering and retraining...) yes, I would say I do know that I am not paid for any of these things.... so yes I do know I am a volunteer.

If you read my post. If most breeders suck (cause you have to be definition call millers and byb's breeders) most dogs won't have chips or tattoos. So those are pretty easy right there. You should notice a tattoo and check for a chip (in case its a stolen dog). So out of those few that are tattooes or chipped most of those are going to be decent breeders.

How much time do you spend looking after a foster? How much money do you spend on a dog? Now if a few min of your time could allow you to save ANOTHER dog who does NOT have someone who wants him back.. why not save TWO dogs....?

Oh right.. cause you are too worried about taking an extra 15-20 min out of your life... you would rather do it that hard way :shrug:

BenMax
February 10th, 2009, 09:49 AM
Um well as I have helped out with rescue (at events, running fund raisers, transporting and fostering and retraining...) yes, I would say I do know that I am not paid for any of these things.... so yes I do know I am a volunteer.

If you read my post. If most breeders suck (cause you have to be definition call millers and byb's breeders) most dogs won't have chips or tattoos. So those are pretty easy right there. You should notice a tattoo and check for a chip (in case its a stolen dog). So out of those few that are tattooes or chipped most of those are going to be decent breeders.

How much time do you spend looking after a foster? How much money do you spend on a dog? Now if a few min of your time could allow you to save ANOTHER dog who does NOT have someone who wants him back.. why not save TWO dogs....?

Oh right.. cause you are too worried about taking an extra 15-20 min out of your life... you would rather do it that hard way :shrug:

I really don't think Dekka that you should even question what I do or what other rescues do for that matter. Collectively we all network together to save as many dogs as possible and MY work is to help dogs of ALL BREEDS or mixed breeds. I do not discriminate and nor do most rescues.

Personally I network Canada and even state wise. I ensure that any dog or cat, chicken, feret, rodent that crosses my path is placed with a rescue or with a forever home. So based on this Dekka - I don't have those 15 minutes. And when I did have the time - I did just that and surprisingly only one breeder stepped up to the plate.

I will continue to do what I have to do and your judgement of 15 minutes means very little to me as it does for others in rescue - purebreed rescue or otherwise.

Love4himies
February 10th, 2009, 01:19 PM
Dekka: I understand your passion regarding this issue, but as BenMax has clearly stated, that rescues and shelters just don't have the volunteers to do this extra step (this is the same as my experience with my local shelter). Have you considered volunteering your time to be the one who does the breeder contact? Perhaps starting a web matrix of breeders and be the "go between" with the shelters and breeders? Spending the time to arrange transport back to the breeder, etc., etc.

BenMax
February 10th, 2009, 02:21 PM
What a wonderful solution L4H. I forgot about the logistics - so thanks for pointing that out as well.

I am certain since it only takes 15 minutes per dog it is feasible. Right?

Dekka
February 10th, 2009, 02:48 PM
Dekka: I understand your passion regarding this issue, but as BenMax has clearly stated, that rescues and shelters just don't have the volunteers to do this extra step (this is the same as my experience with my local shelter). Have you considered volunteering your time to be the one who does the breeder contact? Perhaps starting a web matrix of breeders and be the "go between" with the shelters and breeders? Spending the time to arrange transport back to the breeder, etc., etc.

The rescue I work with DOES find the breeders if there is tattoo or a chip. Even if the dog 'looks' like it could be from one of the breeders (many kennel lines have distinct looks) they will call the breeder.

As I guessed you have missed my point totally. Spend an hour (4 dogs) to save lives and time. Think if every fourth (chipped or tattoeed) dog didn't need to take up rescue space and resources.... that would FREE up time and hours and money to save MORE dogs.

But I can see that is not where this lies. This is not your agenda.

aslan
February 10th, 2009, 02:52 PM
The rescue I work with DOES find the breeders if there is tattoo or a chip. Even if the dog 'looks' like it could be from one of the breeders (many kennel lines have distinct looks) they will call the breeder.

As I guessed you have missed my point totally. Spend an hour (4 dogs) to save lives and time. Think if every fourth (chipped or tattoeed) dog didn't need to take up rescue space and resources.... that would FREE up time and hours and money to save MORE dogs.

But I can see that is not where this lies. This is not your agenda.

Or you refuse to hear anyone else's. so agree to disagree, you go on doing things your way, we'll go on doing things our way. And the legal system will still say too bad to the breeder, since this is what the thread was about, not whether or not the others have the time to search down each and every dog that comes through a rescues original source.

BenMax
February 10th, 2009, 03:11 PM
Today I received a message for 7 dogs to be gassed. Guess what - I really don't give a darn whether tatooed or not. 5 out of 7 saved - two more to go. Have to move quickly and efficiently. All dogs not even near where I live....so I guess I should call the pound and ask them to do this for me....I don't think so.

This is what rescue is about Dekka - acting now...not 15 minutes X 7 dogs that are one paw closer to the chamber.

Love4himies
February 10th, 2009, 03:14 PM
The rescue I work with DOES find the breeders if there is tattoo or a chip. Even if the dog 'looks' like it could be from one of the breeders (many kennel lines have distinct looks) they will call the breeder.

As I guessed you have missed my point totally. Spend an hour (4 dogs) to save lives and time. Think if every fourth (chipped or tattoeed) dog didn't need to take up rescue space and resources.... that would FREE up time and hours and money to save MORE dogs.

But I can see that is not where this lies. This is not your agenda.

I can see your point about finding the breeder and returning the dog if the breeder wants it back, that would in the long run save the rescue time and money, but as BenMax has stated, 99% don't so why bother wasting the time.

I can tell from your posts (even in other threads) you feel very passionate about this and so the only way to make it possible is to get more volunteers. I can tell you that the shelter I volunteer for barely has enough time to clean out the cat cages, let alone spend time on the phone contacting breeders. The one paid part time employee probably puts in about a 60 hour work week and only gets paid for 25.

hazelrunpack
February 10th, 2009, 03:20 PM
So you've acted quickly, and gotten the dogs. Is there not time later to check for a tat? If you can save your rescue having to process, evaluate, vet, feed, and place this dog because you've found the breeder, would that not be a plus? Irresponsible breeders won't go to the trouble of tattooing or chipping...but responsible ones do--and they could well take the dog off your hands. What Dekka's suggesting is not unreasonable...it apparently works for the rescue that she volunteers with... Her point is valid.

Yes, agree to disagree on dogma (no pun intended :p), but if it can save you funds and resources, don't dismiss it out of hand. :shrug: It's a resource that might stand you in good stead.

bendyfoot
February 10th, 2009, 03:27 PM
Ok, soooooo....since this has gone waaaay off course from my original question (legal rights), and since it's obvious that some of us have extremely different opinions/experiences (it's ok to be different!) and we are doing nothing but generating conflict, what say we call this one a day unless someone else has something new to add on the legal aspect of things. I'm not getting anything out of this thread other than angst at this point. :shrug:

BenMax
February 10th, 2009, 03:34 PM
Ok Bendyfoot - I previously answered your question. There is no legalities. Rescues and Shelters are not obliged.

But understand when a question is asked and there is dialogue I will defend my position and myself for that matter.

It is evident that people just don't GET IT. There I am hopefully done now.

Frenchy
February 10th, 2009, 03:35 PM
Bendy , to answer your question , so that everyones understands .... because it's fairly simple.

Someone buys a dog from a breeder , signs a contract with the breeder. The contract is between buyer and breeder.

RESCUES DON'T SIGN CONTRACTS WITH BREEDERS SO THEY ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO SEARCH AND CONTACT THAT BREEDER !

Dekka
February 10th, 2009, 04:37 PM
Bendy , to answer your question , so that everyones understands .... because it's fairly simple.

Someone buys a dog from a breeder , signs a contract with the breeder. The contract is between buyer and breeder.

RESCUES DON'T SIGN CONTRACTS WITH BREEDERS SO THEY ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO SEARCH AND CONTACT THAT BREEDER !

Unless the dog is co owned you are correct.

If the dog is co owned you are wrong. Legally wrong.

Dekka
February 10th, 2009, 04:41 PM
Today I received a message for 7 dogs to be gassed. Guess what - I really don't give a darn whether tatooed or not. 5 out of 7 saved - two more to go. Have to move quickly and efficiently. All dogs not even near where I live....so I guess I should call the pound and ask them to do this for me....I don't think so.

This is what rescue is about Dekka - acting now...not 15 minutes X 7 dogs that are one paw closer to the chamber.

So take them all and spend 30 seconds looking for a tattoo? I don't see how it makes any difference how you take them. You take all you can as soon as you can.

You need to get them first THEN check for markings. :rolleyes: I don't see how checking after you have pulled them affects how fast you can pull them.

Do you really get so many chipped and tattooed dogs that this is a problem? Most dogs that I see in rescue have no chips or tatts on them... so how many dogs would you deal with in a month that have chips or tattoos?

underworld
February 10th, 2009, 04:51 PM
Ok, soooooo....since this has gone waaaay off course from my original question (legal rights), and since it's obvious that some of us have extremely different opinions/experiences (it's ok to be different!) and we are doing nothing but generating conflict, what say we call this one a day unless someone else has something new to add on the legal aspect of things. I'm not getting anything out of this thread other than angst at this point. :shrug:

Are rescues obligated to return dogs to original breeder?

bendyfoot
February 10th, 2009, 05:06 PM
Ok, I did my own googling, getting tired of the back and forth.:frustrated:

If an ownership document has two names on it then both parties must agree to relinquish ownership to another party. Since dogs are legally property (whether or not that is ethical/appropriate is another discussion for another thread) it would appear that this would apply.

One party may petition the court for permission to sell against the other party's objections. If the court decides the property must be sold, the unwilling party will be required by the courts to sign papers, etc. necessary to follow the courts instructions.

If someone purchases or otherwise obtains property from someone who gave/sold the property "illegally" (property was stolen, or sold without knowledge of co-owners,whatever) the law says the person who obtains that property through these lines (whether they know it or not) does not have legal title to that property.

SO. All this googling of legal mumbo-jumbo would lead me to say: dogs surrendered to rescues are the legal "property" of the rescues UNLESS there is a document demonstrating co-ownership of that dog and the other owner (the breeder presumably) did not also sign the agreement with the rescue for surrender. That's the LEGAL truth. And it makes sense. If I co-own a house with my partner and decide to give it to someone else without her consent, that's not going to fly in the courts. Legally, it's the same thing with a co-owned dog.

What's the PRACTICAL or ETHICAL truth? Haven't the foggiest. If we want to discuss it further, let's do it in another thread. I appreciate everyone's input and passion on this subject, and don't want to discourage that particular dialogue. This isn't the place for it, though.

BenMax
February 10th, 2009, 05:10 PM
Brilliant.

Dekka
February 10th, 2009, 05:14 PM
The other issue that comes up is do the people turning the dog over actually own the dog... Speaking of legal issues.

If someone steals one of my dogs and then turns it into a shelter or rescue... and I come along you have to give me my dog back. If you adopt that dog out and I see it on the street a year later (and have proof the dog is mine) the adopters have to give the dog back.

Most rescues I know of make you sign that you ARE the legal owner of the dog when you surrender.

mafiaprincess
February 10th, 2009, 05:14 PM
So if all these rescues aren't checking for chips or tattoos as they don't care who the breeder is or was and won't return the dog to them.. does that mean that if someone's dog accidentally got out, the same rescues aren't trying to get that same dog who is still wanted at their home back either?

bendyfoot
February 10th, 2009, 05:17 PM
I want to add one other thing, since really this was the crux of my question.

Although the law has established legal ownership of a dog in this case, the matter of whether or not someone is obligated to return that dog to the original owner, or to search for them, is a whole other thing.

If a breeder becomes aware that one of their dogs are in rescue, contacts that rescue (or if the rescue finds out through other means), and if the breeder is able to show documentation to attest to their co-ownership, the rescue has no legal right to keep the dog, regardless of any contracts signed with the other co-owner.

So, to answer my own question: if a breeder can prove they are a co-owner of the dog, they have legal title to the dog and the rescue must return it to the breeder.

Now, if the breeder doesn't know the dog is there, or the rescue is not aware that the dog is co-owned, we tread into the murky "shoulds" and "coulds" of ethics, which I'm not touching with a ten-foot pole. (and again, would not be appropriate to discuss in this thread).

The End.

14+kitties
February 10th, 2009, 05:32 PM
So how about before it gets any more heated and we risk losing vip members it gets closed?

shirley1011
February 10th, 2009, 06:01 PM
It seems to be a very confrontational subject but I think a point was brought up that really upsets me....what about those of us with missing dogs...can they get thru a rescue without the microchip I am counting on to one day return my dog to me be completely overlooked!!!
THAT HAS BEEN MY FEAR WITH THE VETS AND OH NO NOT WITH RESCUES TOO.......

Dekka
February 10th, 2009, 06:07 PM
So how about before it gets any more heated and we risk losing vip members it gets closed?

I have seen nothing here but fairly civil disagreement.

These are important issues for those involved in rescue. We may feel very different about it.. and get frustrated with eachother.. but we are all trying to do best by dogs in the best way we can.

IF the rescue I work with wasn't following up on chips and tattoos I would be right there offering to do that for them!!! That would likely only be a dog or two a month!! But considering how long some of them stay in foster care that could open up places for other dogs. The JRTRO needs more foster homes, they need more space for saving dogs... if I thought 15 min a month or couple of times a month would save an extra dog or two a month do you think I would not do it?

Dekka
February 10th, 2009, 06:10 PM
It seems to be a very confrontational subject but I think a point was brought up that really upsets me....what about those of us with missing dogs...can they get thru a rescue without the microchip I am counting on to one day return my dog to me be completely overlooked!!!
THAT HAS BEEN MY FEAR WITH THE VETS AND OH NO NOT WITH RESCUES TOO.......

I know of a few people with this fear. I have talked to some rescue folks who seem to think that if a dog got loose the home was less than ideal and that they are 'in the right' to rehome the dog without checking.

Legally that is a bit trickier. If they pull the dog from a shelter where the dog has sat unclaimed then there are no issues. You are assumed to check with shelters when your dog is missing. If the rescue finds the dog themselves it gets trickier-legally speaking.

JennieV
February 10th, 2009, 06:17 PM
I have seen nothing here but fairly civil disagreement.

These are important issues for those involved in rescue. We may feel very different about it.. and get frustrated with eachother.. but we are all trying to do best by dogs in the best way we can.

IF the rescue I work with wasn't following up on chips and tattoos I would be right there offering to do that for them!!! That would likely only be a dog or two a month!! But considering how long some of them stay in foster care that could open up places for other dogs. The JRTRO needs more foster homes, they need more space for saving dogs... if I thought 15 min a month or couple of times a month would save an extra dog or two a month do you think I would not do it?

As far as I know, our local SPCA only adopts out microchipped dogs and cats (it is included in the package). I assume, if they receive an animal - they check for it automatically. What I personally disagree with is the way this thread was brought on a personal level of attack at a person, who is directly involved at a rescue. Now, while I agree that in a perfect world that would work (looking for a chip), each rescue is different and their possibilities and volunteers are different. And a suggestion that people don't do it because they are lazy or not interested or stubborn - its plain ridiculous. Some rescues don't even have the equipment necessary. And its not just JRTRO that needs more foster homes, with all due respect.

Marko, I think this thread has run its course and should be closed!

shirley1011
February 10th, 2009, 06:27 PM
I guess I take offence to a rescue assuming the dog wasn't being looked for and therefore shouldn't be returned to the owner who lost the dog. I have heard of so many stories where a dog has been returned from hundreds of miles away and years later.....that is why I feel it is so important to have a central registry for each province/state where you can go to see what dogs are in shelters/pounds.
I know those of with missing dogs do the petfinder thing almost daily still looking in case our dog gets turned into one of them.....and most don't understand the hours of online searching that most of us with lost dogs still do.

Dekka
February 10th, 2009, 06:28 PM
As far as I know, our local SPCA only adopts out microchipped dogs and cats (it is included in the package). I assume, if they receive an animal - they check for it automatically. What I personally disagree with is the way this thread was brought on a personal level of attack at a person, who is directly involved at a rescue. Now, while I agree that in a perfect world that would work (looking for a chip), each rescue is different and their possibilities and volunteers are different. And a suggestion that people don't do it because they are lazy or not interested or stubborn - its plain ridiculous. Some rescues don't even have the equipment necessary. And its not just JRTRO that needs more foster homes, with all due respect.

Marko, I think this thread has run its course and should be closed!

Of course more than the JRTRO need more foster homes.. I can't speak for others as I don't do a lot outside of the JRTRO but if you don't have room then why not find ways to free up spaces? That is all I am asking.

No one in this thread said anyone was lazy or stubborn. Questions were asked, and some were answered. Opinions were given etc....

As soon as questions are asked you close threads? Why not just let them die off?

Dekka
February 10th, 2009, 06:31 PM
I guess I take offence to a rescue assuming the dog wasn't being looked for and therefore shouldn't be returned to the owner who lost the dog. I have heard of so many stories where a dog has been returned from hundreds of miles away and years later.....that is why I feel it is so important to have a central registry for each province/state where you can go to see what dogs are in shelters/pounds.
I know those of with missing dogs do the petfinder thing almost daily still looking in case our dog gets turned into one of them.....and most don't understand the hours of online searching that most of us with lost dogs still do.

I do understand (hugs) I had a dog stolen (I even had a description of the car and the woman) I can tell you the weekend. I sent emails and posters EVERYWHERE. I offered rewards, I called radio stations. That was 8.5 years ago... and I still do a double take anytime I see a black and white JRT. He was not chipped though, all of my current JRTs are.

JennieV
February 10th, 2009, 06:39 PM
Of course more than the JRTRO need more foster homes.. I can't speak for others as I don't do a lot outside of the JRTRO but if you don't have room then why not find ways to free up spaces? That is all I am asking.

No one in this thread said anyone was lazy or stubborn. Questions were asked, and some were answered. Opinions were given etc....

As soon as questions are asked you close threads? Why not just let them die off?

Which questions were not answered exactly?
People, that are involved in rescues are CONSTANTLY trying to free up spaces. The fact, that you asked that 15 minutes be dedicated to search the dog, and why cant they be searched for a chip or tattoo or followed up on - I personally think that the answer to that is lack of people involved.
Lack of time in a day, lack of equipment, lack of cash, lack of help are all part of that answer.

The reason I asked this thread to be closed is you keep answering back. If you cannot agree to let this go and move on - that is your problem. Just like the need to force everyone to agree with you. So here, I "agree" with you Dekka.
This thread is way off its original course and needs to be shut down. It is only going to cause continuous arguments and feuds.

mona_b
February 10th, 2009, 07:20 PM
bendyfoot, I'm sure this breeder had a contract written that stated if the owner cannot keep the pup/dog, that the pup/dog MUST be returned to the breeder, this signed by the new owner...And this is a legal contract..Which the breeder has a copy of....In this case, the dog goes back to the breeder.



Dekka, some BYB's actually do chip and or tattoo the pups..Hard to believe but it's true.

babymomma
February 10th, 2009, 07:30 PM
Okay, with the way these threads keep coming up-. I do NOT feel welcome at Pets.ca anymore.

Yes I bought my dog. From A great BREEDER. She would fight to her death to get her dogs back from a rescue, and BTW- She also rescues and fosters dogs.

Accually Me and regina have become good friends, we have alot in common when it comes to the compassion of animals among other things. Whenever i need help, she is there to help me, I can call her anytime and ussually those phone calls last an hour, just talking about keely and how much she misses her.

To the rescuers, Im sure you are very very passionate about what you do and trying to save dogs/cats.

But alot of breeders, are just as passionate about producing helthy, happy puppies from great lines.

I accually am not liking the fact that people who foster/rescue and whatever, are starting to look down on people that support breeders. It isnt right. Its happening alot here lately when some rescuers imply they are better then everybody else . (yes that is the way some people are coming off. )

If i were a breeder, and I sold a puppy that was later surrendered to a rescue. I would fight and fight and fight until i got that puppy/dog back

Oh and BTW- Regina does not work anymore. She retired, not because she wanted her dogs to supports her, but so she could dedicate all of her time to her dogs. She makes little to no money at alloff selling puppies. Every cent goes towards food, grooming, needles for puppies, registration, other vet care and every 3 months breeder dogs get checkups tomake sure they are healthy. As well as her rescues and fosters get money and food and the same treatment as the breeder dogs.

Rescuers, keep doing what you are doing, you are helping dog sthat came from BYBS and Mills that probably have helth issues. Good for you!:thumbs up


Responsible breeders- Keep doing what your doing. Pure bred, stable dogs still are needed for jobs, do get the job done right, and alot of people are passionate about certain breeds and would like a stable healthy and sound puppy!

I know I cannot wait to put my name on the waiting list for a GSD puppy from a local RESPONSIBLE breeder.

And I cannot wait to adopt a smaller breed dog from a rescue.

Not all breeders are terrible.

Mat&Murph
February 10th, 2009, 09:27 PM
I know that my breeder wants any of his dogs back if the "owners" no longer want or can take care of their dogs, and his dogs are microchipped befor going to the new owners. As a owner, I have my guys info on any site that helps pet owners find their lost pets plus they have name tags with my number on them. So I am triple covered. Plus if either of my guys were lost I would drive every shelter crazy :)
I fully respect resuces and anything or anybody who does that type of work. My heart breaks hearing of any kind of animal Pure or mixed going to a shelter. and I am glad their are many kind people that work there. I have applied for a local shelter myself hopeing that I can do a difference. I had a rescue lab/huskey mix years ago and she was one of the best dogs I had.

growler~GateKeeper
February 11th, 2009, 02:58 AM
I don't normally jump in on these "hot topic" threads because it becomes a clear case of "exclusively rescue side" against "everyone else side" I'm an Aquarius so believe me I can see both sides {for those unfamiliar: Aquarians have a breadth of vision that brings diverse factors into a whole, and can see both sides of an argument without hesitanting as to which side to take. Consequently they are unprejudiced and tolerant of other points of view. This is because they can see the validity of the argument, even if they do not accept it themselves.} and at the end of the day nothing has been solved. I'm not seeing a whole lot of tolerance to other points of view from the "exclusively rescue side"

*I stand firmly in the middle* that being said I'd like to point out a few things:


How much time do you spend looking after a foster? How much money do you spend on a dog? Now if a few min of your time could allow you to save ANOTHER dog who does NOT have someone who wants him back.. why not save TWO dogs....?

Dekka has an extremely valid point, and only 1 or 2 members on the "exclusively rescue side" who have responded have acknowledged that it's a good idea, yet you keep forcing your view point -you have too many dogs in rescue to do anything else- which she has agreed with & is trying to help with a solution for your over burdened rescues to which you keep spending time attacking her for.

Or you refuse to hear anyone else's. so agree to disagree, you go on doing things your way, we'll go on doing things our way.

Are you hearing anyone elses'?

Again "exclusively rescue side" against "everyone else side" does it solve anything?

I can see your point about finding the breeder and returning the dog if the breeder wants it back, that would in the long run save the rescue time and money, but as BenMax has stated, 99% don't so why bother wasting the time.

What if the dog was stolen, lost or ran away like Shirley's Sable wouldn't that make it worthwhile?

It seems to be a very confrontational subject but I think a point was brought up that really upsets me....what about those of us with missing dogs...can they get thru a rescue without the microchip I am counting on to one day return my dog to me be completely overlooked!!!
THAT HAS BEEN MY FEAR WITH THE VETS AND OH NO NOT WITH RESCUES TOO.......

If Sable (for example) was picked up by a rescue, never checked because the rescue said "why bother wasting the time" & adopted out.....
What if it was your dog that got stolen/ran off/got loose, picked up by a rescue, adopted out & you found out later.......

What would you say to the rescue then?

What would you say to Shirley - sorry we didn't have the time/couldn't be bothered to check?

What I personally disagree with is the way this thread was brought on a personal level of attack at a person, who is directly involved at a rescue. Now, while I agree that in a perfect world that would work (looking for a chip), each rescue is different and their possibilities and volunteers are different.

So is it okay to personally attack someone who doesn't share you exact philosphies? Or is it because they don't stand exclusively on the side of rescue?

But now you agree checking for a chip is a good idea....

The reason I asked this thread to be closed is you keep answering back. If you cannot agree to let this go and move on - that is your problem. Just like the need to force everyone to agree with you.

Isn't that what you are doing too? Trying to force Dekka to agree with you? and if she doesn't you tell her to let it go & move on?

What would you call that if not a personal attack? Sure looks like one to me :2cents:

marko
February 11th, 2009, 08:16 AM
This thread has run its course and will now be closed.

Thx
Marko