Co-Ownership

[Obie]

I started this thread in the wrong area so I am posting it here in the breeders thread. As a breeder do you place some of your dogs in homes and become a co-owner of the dog? Is this ethical? I am trying to understand if this is a means of becoming a broker? I don't mean to step on anyones paws here but I just need some breeders thoughts on this?

[rbelland]

I dont have an answer for you other than I have heard some do this, but for me I couldn't co-own a dog. My dogs gotta stay home with me!!! They are my family!!!

[wildcard]

If I am selling a dog as a show prospect (I breed papillons, not yorkies, but it has nothing to do with breeds so I feel I can comment) and therefore it is sold on full registration my contract specifies that I will co-own until it finishes the AKC CH or is spayed/neutered, whichever happens first. My duties/rights as co-owner are limited to being involved in any decision to breed the dog. I do not have the right to physically keep the dog so long as the owner is following the requirements of our contract, and I don't have any obligation to pay for its care or showing fees. I will, however, provide free show handling for the dog but that really is not part of the co-ownership part. This is the same arrangement I have with the breeder of dogs that I have purchased-- she is on them as co-owner under the same terms. I have only bought/sold show prospects from/to people that I have had a long standing relationship with and so far no problems.

AKC will not register puppies from a co-owned bitch without the signature of all co-owners so it is one way to retain some control over whether a bitch is bred. Both co-owner signatures are not necessary to breed a dog, but my contract is very specific that regardless of sex I am to be involved in the decision to breed or not breed until the co-ownership is terminated.

Co-ownerships can be good or bad. You have to have a written contract in place specifying exactly what the owner and co-owner's duties, obligations and rights are, because just being a "co-owner" defines absolutely nothing. If you don't have a good, specific contract, co-ownerships can create a huge mess (I know, I litigated a dispute concerning a co-ownership for a client and it was bad).

[bchgirl]

I personally see no correlation between co-ownership and brokering.

[FlDebra]

Co-ownership is not the same as brokering. Some do it because they are working hard on improving their lines. Unfortunately, you cannot tell what you have until they are grown, and then producing progeny of their own. A large breeder may feel they have too many to handle with the kind of individualized attention they deserve. I don't think there would be anything unethical to bring another person into the picture who would be proud to be sort of a foster-mom for the dog. Some co-own for show purposes too. Helps with logistics. Sometimes it is a way for a novice to get in on good lines. A breeder may offer a co-ownership until they see how the new owner shows and represents the line. I am passing along what I have read, as I don't have any experience with it myself.

[yorkiekist]

Co-owning is definately not brokering! Brokers dont keep tabs on the dogs they sell nor do they care what happens to the dogs after they are gone.
Co-ownership is a great way for a serious newbie to get a start in breeding/showing great representations of the breed without having to struggle with failed breeding attempts with sub-standard dogs trying to produce a show/quality dog. Its also a great way for a good breeder to get alot of offspring into the show ring and protect great bloodlines from getting into the mill/byb circle.
Most co-ownerships require the new owner to show the dog/bitch even if a handler is needed. All offspring can only be sold on spay/neuter/AKC limited registration. The new owner(newbie) and the co-owner are the only people that can breed the off-spring unless arrangements are made with the co-owner first. Usually the puppies belong to the new owner(newbie) and the co-owner does not foot the expenses of showing/vet care/food/etc but is allowed to breed to the dog for no fee.. Its like totally owning a dog but with a few strings attached!
But like with any contract, you need to enter it with eyes wide open! You may end up co-owning a dog with the wicked witch of the west!!LOL

[mardel]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

Co-owning is definately not brokering! Brokers dont keep tabs on the dogs they sell nor do they care what happens to the dogs after they are gone.
Co-ownership is a great way for a serious newbie to get a start in breeding/showing great representations of the breed without having to struggle with failed breeding attempts with sub-standard dogs trying to produce a show/quality dog. Its also a great way for a good breeder to get alot of offspring into the show ring and protect great bloodlines from getting into the mill/byb circle.
Most co-ownerships require the new owner to show the dog/bitch even if a handler is needed. All offspring can only be sold on spay/neuter/AKC limited registration. The new owner(newbie) and the co-owner are the only people that can breed the off-spring unless arrangements are made with the co-owner first. Usually the puppies belong to the new owner(newbie) and the co-owner does not foot the expenses of showing/vet care/food/etc but is allowed to breed to the dog for no fee.. Its like totally owning a dog but with a few strings attached!
But like with any contract, you need to enter it with eyes wide open! You may end up co-owning a dog with the wicked witch of the west!!LOL

You are soooo right I agree with your post 100%

[topknot]

If you want to buy a show prospect/show quality yorkie or even have a very nice quality yorkie with top lines - you can expect co-ownership!

[topknot]

If you want to buy a show prospect/show quality yorkie or even have a very nice quality yorkie with top lines - you can expect co-ownership!

There are risks on both sides.

I wanted to add...
# 1 - if the new owner is not aware of exactly whet the breeder expects there can be a problem. Just have everything in writing in a contract. The co-ownerships I know of have mostly worked out well, but is based on trust.
#2 - Co-ownership can be bad for the breeder as well. Since the breeder is on the papers as co-owner and if the new owner does something unethical even without the breeder knowledge the co-owner is also accused and has a problem. So there must be trust on both sides.

* There needs to be complete communication on both sides, because if there is a break up of communication and one does something the other does not agree upon there can be a problem. Again, just be sure to have everything in writing and both parties must follow it.

[Nancy1999]

I asked a similar question regarding a breeder placing a puppy in someone's home for the purpose of breeding when the puppy was older. The breeder would own the dog, until it produced 2-3 liters, and then the ownership of the dog would go to the "surrogate breeder." Here's the thread if you are interested. http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/bre...e-breeder.html By the way, I wouldn't describe this a mentoring relationship, sometimes the person taking the pup, didn't want to train to be a breeder, but was just offering a home, and this was a chance for them to get a "free" puppy.

[Obie]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I asked a similar question regarding a breeder placing a puppy in someone's home for the purpose of breeding when the puppy was older. The breeder would own the dog, until it produced 2-3 liters, and then the ownership of the dog would go to the "surrogate breeder." Here's the thread if you are interested. http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/bre...e-breeder.html By the way, I wouldn't describe this a mentoring relationship, sometimes the person taking the pup, didn't want to train to be a breeder, but was just offering a home, and this was a chance for them to get a "free" puppy.

I totally missed that post and appreciate you supplying the link.

There were so many good responses for which some I liked which were from the breeders who are interested in watching their lines for show, health issues, etc. etc. However, the reason for my post was to see what was going on out there with this co-ownership. My suspicions I believe are being answered by Sugar Moms post from your link. I am seeing breeders, who do not have the space or the means, buy bitches to place in other peoples homes for the sole purpose of selling more puppies. That is why I asked, is this ethical? Is this just another miller or unethical BYB who has found a new means of producing more puppies to sell?

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Obie

I totally missed that post and appreciate you supplying the link.

There were so many good responses for which some I liked which were from the breeders who are interested in watching their lines for show, health issues, etc. etc. However, the reason for my post was to see what was going on out there with this co-ownership. My suspicions I believe are being answered by Sugar Moms post from your link. I am seeing breeders, who do not have the space or the means, buy bitches to place in other peoples homes for the sole purpose of selling more puppies. That is why I asked, is this ethical? Is this just another miller or unethical BYB who has found a new means of producing more puppies to sell?

This was also my concern. Lots of breeders start out with good intentions, but I guess get too much of an entrepreneurial spirit, and want their "business" to grow.

[topknot]

Originally Posted by Obie

I totally missed that post and appreciate you supplying the link.

There were so many good responses for which some I liked which were from the breeders who are interested in watching their lines for show, health issues, etc. etc. However, the reason for my post was to see what was going on out there with this co-ownership. My suspicions I believe are being answered by Sugar Moms post from your link. I am seeing breeders, who do not have the space or the means, buy bitches to place in other peoples homes for the sole purpose of selling more puppies. That is why I asked, is this ethical? Is this just another miller or unethical BYB who has found a new means of producing more puppies to sell?

This would be terrible if this is true with BYB - another reason to protect ones pups and line more!! I think BYB would do this more of what you mention above in your quote than millers. Millers I would assume want everything to be in secret - the least known the better.

In my circle (small show/exhibitor) - the reason for co-ownership is to make sure that the person buying the pup/dog actually does what is ethical and right for the dog and the breed. The breeder, number one, wants to make sure the new owner is taking good care of her/his pup, is making sure they show to prove quality of the dog before breeding if any takes place, and to make sure they make a wise choice when the time comes to mate - of which stud/bitch to breed too. It is all about protecting the dog and lines.

The above mentioned in the quote is just another good reason to research and check breeders out carefully and make sure they are doing what is right.
T.

[Obie]

I agree 100% Topknot. The broker was the wrong terminology and miller, as you said would want to hide their secret. However, the BYB does fit.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by topknot

If you want to buy a show prospect/show quality yorkie or even have a very nice quality yorkie with top lines - you can expect co-ownership!

There are risks on both sides.

I wanted to add...
# 1 - if the new owner is not aware of exactly whet the breeder expects there can be a problem. Just have everything in writing in a contract. The co-ownerships I know of have mostly worked out well, but is based on trust.
#2 - Co-ownership can be bad for the breeder as well. Since the breeder is on the papers as co-owner and if the new owner does something unethical even without the breeder knowledge the co-owner is also accused and has a problem. So there must be trust on both sides.

* There needs to be complete communication on both sides, because if there is a break up of communication and one does something the other does not agree upon there can be a problem. Again, just be sure to have everything in writing and both parties must follow it.

I definately agree with that!! Glad you brought up those great points!!