# Lawsuit re spaying a dog placed in a “guardian” home



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

I'm not a breeder, but this is quite a mess. What on earth would possess this person to buy the dog on a shared ownership contract like that and then blatantly violate it by spaying the dog? I don't think there is even a remote chance a court will award the breeder $225k. I will be interested to follow the case.


----------



## DevWind (Nov 7, 2016)

I don’t know. It won’t let me read the article. How many times was he planning to breed though?


----------



## Sankari (12 mo ago)

😳 I am not a breeder but responding as a consumer/buyer... But if the contract states he can't spay the dog and if he knew about it and then signed it, then he shouldn't have spayed Pirate...? 😬 if he wants to späy his golden, then he should buy a golden without all these terms in his contract...? 

Also what is "guardian" homes? Someone educate me....


----------



## Sankari (12 mo ago)

DevWind said:


> I don’t know. It won’t let me read the article. How many times was he planning to breed though?



I screenshot it for you from the article.. maybe this helps...


----------



## Oceanside (Mar 29, 2021)

pawsnpaca said:


> This article came across my FB feed today. The breeder is well known in our area and fulfills all the criteria we usually recommend for a reputable breeder, although I have always had qualms about the number of dogs they have as well as their use of ”guardian” homes to expand their breeding program. All I know about this situation is what is in the article, but I thought it was worth sharing and I’m curious to hear what other reputable breeders think about this…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Somehow I knew who it would be before I opened the link…

I’m not a breeder, but I think this is a good demonstration of the risks of breeders using guardian homes. The owner was incredibly wrong, and it’s devastating for a breeder, but the lawsuit and it’s focus on puppy sales probably does not help out her program’s image amongst the ethical/enthusiast crowd. You just never know what stupid things an owner will do or what can happen to a dog under someone else’s watch.

I think that contract would have to be incredibly strong and explicit for her to win what she is asking for, but I do believe she is entitled to a hefty amount damages.

ETA: To clarify, I am not totally against the use of guardian homes. I know some breeders will keep a girl or two in friends’ homes. I think this can be a very beneficial setup for all involved — the dog will be loved like a pet, the breeder’s friend will have another dog to love, and the breeder won’t have too many dogs. The problem I see is when high-volume breeders use guardian homes to dramatically increase the amount of litters they can produce. They often sell dogs on these contracts to applicants at a discount, so they don’t really know the people beyond their standard puppy people vetting process. And that’s where things can become particularly problematic like in this situation.


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

Sankari said:


> 😳 I am not a breeder but responding as a consumer/buyer... But if the contract states he can't spay the dog and if he knew about it and then signed it, then he shouldn't have spayed Pirate...? 😬 if he wants to späy his golden, then he should buy a golden without all these terms in his contract...?
> 
> Also what is "guardian" homes? Someone educate me....


Some breeders use "guardian homes." This means that they retain ownership or partial ownership of the dog but it lives with someone else. The person it lives with is usually beholden to a contract that states the dog will be shown or bred by the breeder. This allows that person to enjoy the dog as their pet, but with obligations to the breeder. Breeders do this because they can't or don't want to keep so many dogs in their own home.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

Hildae said:


> I'm not a breeder, but this is quite a mess. What on earth would possess this person to buy the dog on a shared ownership contract like that and then blatantly violate it by spaying the dog? I don't think there is even a remote chance a court will award the breeder $225k. I will be interested to follow the case.


I think it would depend on what the contract between them says- if damages are listed, court will probably award a judgement. What I don't get is why the lawyer owner /person who spayed this bitch would have spayed her- he obviously read the contract and understood the intent. But being a lawyer, I'd guess he's found a loophole... defending it won't cost him, so he's not in same position as normal guardian non-lawyer home would be. ...
ultimately, if I have a bitch who is important to my program, she is staying at my home. That is the only way I can be sure to do with her what I want to do with her. It seems breeder spent months trying to get ahold of guardian home, to no avail- going to repossess her initially would have been a smart move, and prevented this whole situation.


----------



## Sankari (12 mo ago)

This probably sounds stupid from me - so I hope people tolerate me...

It doesn't say why he even spayed Pirate.. I don't understand why he would do this - is thér some benefit of this to him/his family or the dog...? Normally here we are not encouraged to do spay,/neuter to our dogs (it's not forced by the breeder that we don't do it) or is it a cultural thing I'm not understanding...?


----------



## Oceanside (Mar 29, 2021)

Sankari said:


> This probably sounds stupid from me - so I hope people tolerate me...
> 
> It doesn't say why he even spayed Pirate.. I don't understand why he would do this - is thér some benefit of this to him/his family or the dog...? Normally here we are not encouraged to do spay,/neuter to our dogs (it's not forced by the breeder that we don't do it) or is it a cultural thing I'm not understanding...?


Yes, in America the idea of spaying every animal by 6 months is shoved down everyone’s throats. It’s only taken a few decades for some people to finally realize how harmful it is. 

Still does not explain this owner’s actions given that he had a contract…


----------



## cwag (Apr 25, 2017)

It's a sad situation for the poor dog.


----------



## Oceanside (Mar 29, 2021)

Prism Goldens said:


> What I don't get is why the lawyer owner /person who spayed this bitch would have spayed her- he obviously read the contract and understood the intent. But being a lawyer, I'd guess he's found a loophole... defending it won't cost him, so he's not in same position as normal guardian non-lawyer home would be. ...


Maybe I missed something, but I don’t think the owner is a lawyer. According to the article, he hired one to defend him. So given that, I doubt he spayed her because he found a loophole. Very odd…
The one thing I thought of was perhaps the owner saw the puppy was available on such a contract much sooner than the puppies being sold on pet contracts, and probably cheaper too, and decided to take the puppy, spay her and ghost the breeder. I can’t imagine anyone with more than a few brain cells would think they get away with that though, and I can’t imagine being so cruel to a breeder, but it was the only explanation that came to mind.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

His linked in page says he is an attorney.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

https://goldivagoldens.com/wp-content/uploads/Mary-Master-Puppy-Contract-2020.pdf is her puppy contract- I can't find a guardian home one on her site, but I suspect this 'boarding contract' referred to here is her guardian contract:
"
_Pick of the Litter Puppy is retained by us on a boarding contract in family homes. Boarding Contract dogs are made available to us for all heat cycles; stud services; breedings; dog shows; and health clinics. All health clearances, whelping expenses, and dog shows are at our expense. Boarding families pay for all regular vet bills and dog training. Breedings are managed only by Goldiva after successfully passing health clearances at 2 years of age. Boarding Contract families are not allowed to breed these dogs. The price can be reduced and payments can be made based on family needs._

"


----------



## Oceanside (Mar 29, 2021)

Prism Goldens said:


> https://goldivagoldens.com/wp-content/uploads/Mary-Master-Puppy-Contract-2020.pdf is her puppy contract- I can't find a guardian home one on her site, but I suspect this 'boarding contract' referred to here is her guardian contract:
> "
> _Pick of the Litter Puppy is retained by us on a boarding contract in family homes. Boarding Contract dogs are made available to us for all heat cycles; stud services; breedings; dog shows; and health clinics. All health clearances, whelping expenses, and dog shows are at our expense. Boarding families pay for all regular vet bills and dog training. Breedings are managed only by Goldiva after successfully passing health clearances at 2 years of age. Boarding Contract families are not allowed to breed these dogs. The price can be reduced and payments can be made based on family needs._
> 
> "


I’m imagining that she has a dedicated “boarding” contract” given how elaborate the pet one is. But I have seen the above paragraph on her site — I think that’s just a summary.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Rule of thumb is the breeder should not have placed this dog into the home of somebody who just regarded the dog as a pet.

Many breeders will place a pick into another home - but these are with prior puppy owner homes and long time friends who they can trust.

I've read about this thing on FB many times since the poop hit the fan, and I don't know what I think about it.

Some have already taken to supporting the "owner" on the basis that the breeder is not well regarded by others in her area. Not saying more than that since I honestly don't know if these are legit or not. I really hate to point this out, but I've been at dog shows and heard bad things said of the top golden people in the breed. And some of that is coming from petty arguments over dogs. Sometimes it's as mild as people just not showing at the same shows as each other because they can't stand each other. Others, it's saying nasty things on facebook.

One breeder told me and I do try very hard to heed her advice - talking can burn bridges. A lot of people share stuff about their own dogs that they are not allowed to do...

But regarding this - seems like the "owner" got a free dog in return for allowing the breeder to show/breed the girlie. So like a co-ownership, but no money exchanged + the owner on record was the breeder. This person behaved like he owned a pet dog and spayed her. And now the owner is seeking damages. From the stance, this is a very bad thing for that "owner" and they are going to be out some $. They are offering to pay $7500(!!!) for the dog, but considering this was not their "property" to begin with.... that not enough.


----------



## Ontariodogsitter (Feb 23, 2020)

Wow, all I care about is what happens to the dog, and as per usual, when people do stupid things, the animals suffer.
I am sure there is more to the story, and much money and court time will be expanded, but in the end it's going to be the dog that will pay the price. ;(


----------



## ArkansasGold (Dec 7, 2017)

Both parties are at fault here, IMO. This arrangement was never in the best interest of the dog and that’s where my main problem lies.

I do not like guardian homes whatsoever, for reasons such as this among others, but that is not to be confused with how a normal co-ownership agreement works. Key word being “co-owner”.

The breeder should know better than to do an agreement like this with a single dad and his three kids. No kids are going to want their beloved dog to leave them for 4-6 months at time for the first 5-6 years of her life. It’s a terrible way to manage a breeding program and it smells of greed to me.

But at the same time, this guy knew what he signed up for and blatantly disregarded the contract that he agreed to. And now the dog is suffering.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

ArkansasGold said:


> The breeder should know better than to do an agreement like this with a single dad and his three kids. No kids are going to want their beloved dog to leave them for 4-6 months at time for the first 5-6 years of her life. It’s a terrible way to manage a breeding program and it smells of greed to me.


Breeders do it all the time - including breeders that you and I genuinely respect and admire.

I even have had dogs offered to me on a similar basis as this guy got. I'd get a free dog to play in obedience with and hang out with my dogs, and the breeder would use the dog for breeding at least once. I always said "no" because I have boys and basically could not see any responsible way of enjoying my dogs being together without fear of oopsies happening!!!

Even sending dogs out for months - people do it all the time in conformation. And field the dogs spend even MORE time away from their actual owners. 

It's something completely different than many of us could do - and we aren't even kids. We are adults who are all besotted with our dogs and need them with us.  But there are owners who are OK with all that because some cases they get to brag about their dog being on TV at Westminster or whatnot.

Many breeders keep the dogs in kennels - even the ones whose dogs are in their homes. If they are going to continue breeding and live somewhere that they can't keep more than 5 dogs, something has to give. The dogs generally are placed in "retirement homes" when they are done breeding. They are spayed, etc... by the breeder, etc.

Guardian homes - I think in concept is intended to be for the sake of the dogs. And the breeder. They don't bond with each other like they would if the dog lived with the breeder for 4-5 years prior to retirement. The dogs get a normal life with a family and so on. When a good breeder does it - and using homes they can trust (long term relationships with the owners, etc), it works out best for the girlies. I think....?

But certainly there is no control over what happens if you are not the primary caregiver for the dog! I think that's a case where guardian homes are very risky.

I saw a FB post recently where even retiring dogs into pet homes has downsides. One breeder got a dog back from a home and posted about her being allowed to get morbidly obese and suffering arthritis because of it. This was a CH dog with full clearances who was hobbling because of very likely a sore back.

Just ruminating aloud here....


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

My thoughts on contracts are very simple. Read it. If you can abide by it, then sign it. If you can’t, walk away. I have a hard time personally with dishonesty. I was raised that my word is my bond and honesty is one of the most important virtues I can have. I know other people are not built the same, but to me it really is simple. If he didn’t like the contract he should have walked away. There are puppies available without that agreement, maybe even from the same breeder.

Do I personally like guardian homes? No, I don’t. To me that is not the issue here.


----------



## stsmark (Feb 1, 2020)

Interesting situation, the pet contract was obviously drafted by a law firm. I’d imagine the boarder contract is as nailed down as well. 
If there was not an addendum regarding Small Claims as the venue for resolution the breeder could have a problem with going to Federal Court. They knowingly sold the pup out of state.


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

Prism Goldens said:


> I think it would depend on what the contract between them says- if damages are listed, court will probably award a judgement. What I don't get is why the lawyer owner /person who spayed this bitch would have spayed her- he obviously read the contract and understood the intent. But being a lawyer, I'd guess he's found a loophole... defending it won't cost him, so he's not in same position as normal guardian non-lawyer home would be. ...
> ultimately, if I have a bitch who is important to my program, she is staying at my home. That is the only way I can be sure to do with her what I want to do with her. It seems breeder spent months trying to get ahold of guardian home, to no avail- going to repossess her initially would have been a smart move, and prevented this whole situation.


I didn't say they would not give the breeder a settlement, I'm sure they will, and I hope they do because I think what the guardian home did is super underhanded and wrong. I just don't think the breeder has a prayer of getting the 225k they're asking for. I feel like the court will say it's only speculation that the dog could have had 5 litters, and the number of pups is speculation etc. I do hope they get something substantial though because that was dirty dealings by the guardian home. I also agree with you that if the dog was that important to the program, it probably shouldn't have gone to guardian home, it's too much risk as this case shows.


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

I'm wondering if the guardian decided they really love the dog and the kids love the dog and the idea of her going away for a few months for breeding etc was upsetting so they thought hey, we'll spay her and the breeder will just let it go. 
I know I personally couldn't let my dog go for months at a time (which is commonly done with hunting dogs for 4 to 6 months), but because of that I would simply never enter into a contract like this person did. I definitely wouldn't do what this person did, which is just really wrong both legally and ethically. I'll be following this one for sure because the outcome will have lasting implications.


----------



## Oceanside (Mar 29, 2021)

Came across this…
Why would he not call the breeder if he couldn’t care for the dog as-is?


----------



## ArkansasGold (Dec 7, 2017)

I wouldn’t believe much in the Justice for Diva group…


----------



## DevWind (Nov 7, 2016)

For $7000 those puppies better know how to weave baskets under water! 😂

But in all seriousness, guardian home should have discussed the problem With the breeder.


----------



## green branch (Oct 24, 2020)

Not taking sides. From what I know, guardian homes do not get a puppy for free from this breeder. They can cost more than the pet pup.


----------



## PalouseDogs (Aug 14, 2013)

I think the whole "guardian home" and the related "litter back" concept stink to high heaven. It's the flip side of the "limited registration" concept. Essentially, a decision is made about breeding or not breeding a dog when it is 8 weeks old. If the dog passes the health testing, it gets bred. 

I know someone who got a dog (not a golden) on a litter back arrangement. She showed the dog to its conformation championship and the dog passed the recommended health tests, but the dog was so dog-aggressive, she could not be trusted unsupervised with any of her other dogs. She didn't think it was a good idea to breed the dog. (It was NOT a breed where dog-to-dog aggression was normal.) The dog got bred because that was the contract. What a great way to improve the gene pool. 

I continue to be amazed at the things people will agree to for a puppy. Limited registration, litter-back agreements, wacko vaccination schedules, etc. I know of breeders that will not even allow the owners to name their own dog. They register a name before the puppy leaves. I've seen contracts where the owner had to agree to buy a particular brand of dog food, often one distributed by the breeder, or the health guarantee was voided. 

If this breeder really makes $225,000 on a single dog in a guardian home and she has multiple dogs in "guardian" homes, and the "guardian" home owner gets to pay all the food and training bills, plus gets all the medical bills when the dog is old and has been "used up" for breeding, sheesh, what a racket. 

I think it was the introduction of spay/contracts and limited registration that has led to these terrible schemes. They have successfully nearly eliminated the casual pet breeder in favor of puppy mills and guardian homes that serve the same purpose as puppy mills.


----------



## GoldenDude (Nov 5, 2016)

I don’t understand the appeal of being a guardian home. Your dog disappears for a couple of months - several times throughout its life - for the simple purpose of making the breeder money. Why is that an attractive proposition?


----------



## Sankari (12 mo ago)

PalouseDogs said:


> I continue to be amazed at the things people will agree to for a puppy. Limited registration, litter-back agreements, wacko vaccination schedules, etc. I know of breeders that will not even allow the owners to name their own dog. They register a name before the puppy leaves. I've seen contracts where the owner had to agree to buy a particular brand of dog food, often one distributed by the breeder, or the health guarantee was voided.


How do they check all these - vaccination schedules, type of food etc? Seems very strict.. I cannot imagine this being enforced - do the breeders come and check the guardian homes? 😧 And if you don't follow, does this mean the puppy gets taken away and placed in another "guardian home"? 

Sorry I know it sounds very dumb to ask this question but I cannot understand how this works - it would be impossible in Europe just because of privacy laws I would think (which has got so much stricter in recent years)...


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

Sankari said:


> How do they check all these - vaccination schedules, type of food etc? Seems very strict.. I cannot imagine this being enforced - do the breeders come and check the guardian homes? 😧 And if you don't follow, does this mean the puppy gets taken away and placed in another "guardian home"?
> 
> Sorry I know it sounds very dumb to ask this question but I cannot understand how this works - it would be impossible in Europe just because of privacy laws I would think (which has got so much stricter in recent years)...


The ones I know of more intimately than just what I see online (because I was trying to help a woman get out of the guardian thing she had with a GA "breeder" who does supposed Irish imports- and fwiw her site says ALL her dogs live in foster homes- talk about a cash cow!) and did read contract, etc and see vet records- require use of a particular veterinarian, particular HW/FT, particular food, all purchased thru the vet. This particular pup, had had 3 cardiac P clearances (which mean nothing) and had failed prelims. This particular vet is clearly in cahoots...jmo. Contract said w failed orthos dog would be released to home but clearly the other breeder who was going to lease her underaged in SC from GA breeder was not so discerning- or maybe fails never were going to make any release of dog? I just know what happened to this particular bitch. 
I know this sort of arrangement has been being used in a friends/family way for many years- but a formal guardian business method is more since ECGR came on the scene... because these people are into breeding solely for the income- they don't compete, don't know how to evaluate litters, don't get involved outside their own little world of other unethical breeders and I suspect the gist of all their conversations are around how to make more money, not about education or discoveries.
There is nothing 'in it' for the buyer except in some cases a free on the front end dog- but the costs (such as w the GA breeder's requirements) far outweigh the initial 'saving' on price of dog.. not to mention the hassle, and inability to make one's own choices around one's dog. Guardian homes are patently unfair agreements.
For the 'breeder' who uses this method, to me it is totally about money and not one other thing. I suppose there are some ethical breeders who do this, but I dk them in real life. I've never had a guardian home, nor would I because it is patently an unfair agreement and right livelihood is an important concept in my life. JMO but it feels like if an animal is important to a program, that program should retain that animal and not trust it to a random puppy home.


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

I don't think I can get behind the story of the guy got hurt etc...If he was injured and needed help with the dog, he could have just called the breeder and said can you take her while I recover? Besides, they act like having a female in heat is a huge ordeal, and IME it really isn't. The first time we went through it I was so concerned, and it turned out to be a complete non-issue, it was like any other day in life, other than we watched even more carefully than usual when she went outside to potty just in case a wandering male showed up. In fact, I would think taking care of a dog recovering from a spay would be more work by far. Also, they make it sound like she went into heat and they took her in to spay her...from what I'm told that is really dangerous, to spay an in heat female. You're supposed to do it between cycles, not during. 

I don't know. Something is off there.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

Hildae said:


> I don't think I can get behind the story of the guy got hurt etc...If he was injured and needed help with the dog, he could have just called the breeder and said can you take her while I recover? Besides, they act like having a female in heat is a huge ordeal, and IME it really isn't. The first time we went through it I was so concerned, and it turned out to be a complete non-issue, it was like any other day in life, other than we watched even more carefully than usual when she went outside to potty just in case a wandering male showed up. In fact, I would think taking care of a dog recovering from a spay would be more work by far. Also, they make it sound like she went into heat and they took her in to spay her...from what I'm told that is really dangerous, to spay an in heat female. You're supposed to do it between cycles, not during.
> 
> I don't know. Something is off there.


I thought that story was odd too- and the dog was blamed for the injury... then they didn't call the breeder? I don't get it.


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

Prism Goldens said:


> I thought that story was odd too- and the dog was blamed for the injury... then they didn't call the breeder? I don't get it.


Exactly. I hate to say it but it almost sounds like he's trying to pull a sympathy card to avoid the trouble he's bought for himself by blatantly breaking the contract. Also, that little blurb about "maybe the caretaker didn't know about the contract." Um...what? If I was taking care of someone's dog, there is NO WAY I would just randomly decide to put the dog through a surgery without permission from the owner.


----------



## Oceanside (Mar 29, 2021)

Hildae said:


> Exactly. I hate to say it but it almost sounds like he's trying to pull a sympathy card to avoid the trouble he's bought for himself by blatantly breaking the contract. Also, that little blurb about "maybe the caretaker didn't know about the contract." Um...what? If I was taking care of someone's dog, there is NO WAY I would just randomly decide to put the dog through a surgery without permission from the owner.


I thought the exact same. The story doesn’t change anything at all. Breeder should be the first call.

He’s probably now hoping to get major public sympathy and donations from the folks who would say “poor guy was injured, breeders are evil, all dogs should be spayed”.


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

Oceanside said:


> I thought the exact same. The story doesn’t change anything at all. Breeder should be the first call.
> 
> He’s probably now hoping to get major public sympathy and donations from the folks who would say “poor guy was injured, breeders are evil, all dogs should be spayed”.


From what I can tell, it's working too. I've seen numerous posts on FB talking about the "evil breeder" and how she stole this "poor man's dog!"


----------



## Sankari (12 mo ago)

I just wondered about something.. he said he's cerebral palsy- I had to Google this because I did not know what this is in English ... Seems like a very débilitating condition so I think that's why people are sympathizing with him. Just that he writes very coherently so I would think he understood everything he signed up for....

But then even without the fall, Goldens are also a very active breed even as puppies so I wonder how he was ever going to keep up with Pirate... 



Hildae said:


> From what I can tell, it's working too. I've seen numerous posts on FB talking about the "evil breeder" and how she stole this "poor man's dog!"


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

Sankari said:


> I just wondered about something.. he said he's cerebral palsy- I had to Google this because I did not know what this is in English ... Seems like a very débilitating condition so I think that's why people are sympathizing with him. Just that he writes very coherently so I would think he understood everything he signed up for....
> 
> But then even without the fall, Goldens are also a very active breed even as puppies so I wonder how he was ever going to keep up with Pirate...


CP is a serious condition in some cases. (It can vary in severity) But it seems this man wanted a dog, and his children probably wanted a dog, so they got one. I'm sure he understood what he was signing, up thread I think it was Prism who said the guy has a linkedin that says he's an attorney?


----------



## Sankari (12 mo ago)

Hildae said:


> CP is a serious condition in some cases. (It can vary in severity) But it seems this man wanted a dog, and his children probably wanted a dog, so they got one. I'm sure he understood what he was signing, up thread I think it was Prism who said the guy has a linkedin that says he's an attorney?


Ah ok yes, sorry I forgot the part where Prism said he was an attorney... Maybe he has very mild CP...


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

Hildae said:


> From what I can tell, it's working too. I've seen numerous posts on FB talking about the "evil breeder" and how she stole this "poor man's dog!"


FB can be evil...


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Hildae said:


> Exactly. I hate to say it but it almost sounds like he's trying to pull a sympathy card to avoid the trouble he's bought for himself by blatantly breaking the contract. Also, that little blurb about "maybe the caretaker didn't know about the contract." Um...what? If I was taking care of someone's dog, there is NO WAY I would just randomly decide to put the dog through a surgery without permission from the owner.


The "maybe the caretaker didn't know" doesn't work for me since I read he was LIVING with the caretaker. Or was I reading the information incorrectly? The dog was staying with his parents. And he was also staying with his parents. 

Regarding spaying while she's in season - thing going through my head is maybe there was an oops and they spayed her as a way to solve the entire problem.


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

Megora said:


> The "maybe the caretaker didn't know" doesn't work for me since I read he was LIVING with the caretaker. Or was I reading the information incorrectly? The dog was staying with his parents. And he was also staying with his parents.
> 
> Regarding spaying while she's in season - thing going through my head is maybe there was an oops and they spayed her as a way to solve the entire problem.


I think it said he was in a nursing home recovering from surgery and the dog was home with his parents. But even so, I do not believe the parents didn't know about the contract.


----------



## green branch (Oct 24, 2020)

The problem is that he signed the contract, but a boarding contract I have seen for a female puppy from this breeder is not fair to the boarder. You have to be crazy to accept it. My guess is that he signed something he was not comfortable with at the first place, but he signed it because he could buy a puppy during a pandemic time right way, while no one else even wanted to promise him anything in a near future.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Hildae said:


> I think it said he was in a nursing home recovering from surgery and the dog was home with his parents. But even so, I do not believe the parents didn't know about the contract.


In the gofundme's he said he and pirate (what a name for a dog >.< ) lived with his parents during each recovery period.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

Well, imo, the dog is not his, was not his to alter reproductively, and regardless of his sob story OR the ethics of guardianship situations (which I do not agree with) he had a surgery performed on a dog he did not own.


----------



## GrandmaToGoldens (Jul 2, 2019)

A tangentially related question which probably doesn’t affect the rights and wrongs of the spay…
Being inquisitive, I looked up the dog’s details on K9Data, and them followed through the dam’s details on OFA. Am I correct in thinking that the dam of Pinot/Pirate/Goldiva’s Elegantly Balanced has an elbow score but no hip score? If so, is there a legitimate explanation?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

GrandmaToGoldens said:


> A tangentially related question which probably doesn’t affect the rights and wrongs of the spay…
> Being inquisitive, I looked up the dog’s details on K9Data, and them followed through the dam’s details on OFA. Am I correct in thinking that the dam of Pinot/Pirate/Goldiva’s Elegantly Balanced has an elbow score but no hip score? If so, is there a legitimate explanation?


One of her owners/breeders is probably the best to provide that explanation as she's a member here.....


----------



## ArkansasGold (Dec 7, 2017)

GoldenDude said:


> I don’t understand the appeal of being a guardian home. Your dog disappears for a couple of months - several times throughout its life - for the simple purpose of making the breeder money. Why is that an attractive proposition?


Free. Puppy. 



Prism Goldens said:


> I suppose there are some ethical breeders who do this, but I dk them in real life.


I don’t know any either. Every single ethical breeder I know that has show/breeding prospects living with another person does so on a co-ownership agreement.

This thread may have added a new topic on my “to write” list.


----------



## PalouseDogs (Aug 14, 2013)

I can see every money-hungry, puppy-miller reader of this story thinking “Hey, what a great scheme! Get a dog with papers, farm out the female puppies to unwitting “guardian” homes, breed as many times as possible without having to deal with puppy rearing, feeding, walking, or any of the other day-do-day chores, rake in $200K per guardian home victim, and keep expanding the guardian home fiefdom with every new litter.“ You don’t even need to invest in a Quonset hut and stacks of kennels. 

If I were the “guardian”, I might point out to the court that the scum-bag owner in the contract was getting premium kennel services without paying the daily kennel fee. Isn’t that exactly what a boarding kennel is: a place where dogs owned by someone else are boarded for a daily fee? Most boarding kennels tack on big extra fees for things like daily walks, training, and grooming. $200/day seems like a reasonable boarding fee for the high level of services the guardian was providing. That’s about $6K/month or $70K/year. If the dog lives 10 years, then the scum-bag owner should owe the guardian $700K, minus the anticipated puppy profit of $225K, so call it $475K owed to the guardian. 

For those out there saying $200/day kennel fee is a little on the high side, note that the scum-bag owner is likewise exaggerating the amount of puppy profit. What about the stud fee? The potential complications that could cut short the dog’s breeding “career”? The cost of marketing? The rise and fall of puppy prices? Even for a show golden, $7K is a pretty high asking price. 

I hope this case prompts the AKC to speak out against this guardian home racket. It’s exploding in popularity. It’s nearly as big a financial boon to puppy-millers as the “limited registration” category has been.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

PalouseDogs said:


> If I were the “guardian”, I might point out to the court that the scum-bag owner in the contract was getting premium kennel services without paying the daily kennel fee. Isn’t that exactly what a boarding kennel is: a place where dogs owned by someone else are boarded for a daily fee? Most boarding kennels tack on big extra fees for things like daily walks, training, and grooming. $200/day seems like a reasonable boarding fee for the high level of services the guardian was providing. That’s about $6K/month or $70K/year. If the dog lives 10 years, then the scum-bag owner should owe the guardian $700K, minus the anticipated puppy profit of $225K, so call it $475K owed to the guardian.
> 
> For those out there saying $200/day kennel fee is a little on the high side, note that the scum-bag owner is likewise exaggerating the amount of puppy profit. What about the stud fee? The potential complications that could cut short the dog’s breeding “career”? The cost of marketing? The rise and fall of puppy prices? Even for a show golden, $7K is a pretty high asking price.
> 
> I hope this case prompts the AKC to speak out against this guardian home racket. It’s exploding in popularity. It’s nearly as big a financial boon to puppy-millers as the “limited registration” category has been.


I absolutely hate to be in a 'defend breeder' place on this case, because I don't believe the guardian scenario is fair to both parties, ever. However- this dog was owned by the breeder. The man didn't have to take the dog, on the breeder's terms, and presumably (given the timing) he wanted an instant gratification dog during Covid- so he did agree to the terms. 
He had a surgery performed on an animal he did not own, nor did he have the right to have altered. 
His 'condition' isn't playing more for me personally- if he's that fragile, call the breeder, send the dog back. 
Presumably, getting a free dog was worth what he was supplying to the breeder in the $200/day board scenario- and what he got in return was a pet for his kids, and the comfort a well-bred Golden can give. 
What did the breeder actually get? Nothing. Someone signed a contract to care for this animal and to allow her to be bred- and then had her spayed. 
To me, he is in the wrong. It's easy to get distracted by the wrongness of guardianships, but strip away all the rights he and breeder each had and he took hers away. She took nothing away from him. It's easy to think 'she was taking advantage and therefore deserved this' when one is against guardianships because of the unequal partnership , but there is much unfair in life and the man knew the terms and agreed to them. 
I can't see how AKC would even know a dog is in a guardian situation. That GA breeder I mentioned earlier would have to be inspected, and not be able to show a dog on the premises, to even raise an alert. It's hard to keep up with changes and make rules to accommodate them so maybe enough complaints will happen to make something change there- but I doubt it. AKC benefits from them because more puppies are registered if breeders can parcel the litters out and make them without the normal amount of exhaustion that comes with breeding.


----------



## stsmark (Feb 1, 2020)

Looking at the breeder site and the YT videos there of the facility, I think you have to call it a Commercial breeder. They have 3 facilities with each currently showing new litters monthly. 
The video in the main facility shows hundreds of awards from shows but also at least 4 dedicated whelping/ rearing boxes and each had pups in them. It’s very well done but total hi volume.
The interesting thought I had was all the buyer had to do was wait a month maybe 2 for a pet contract pup.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

stsmark said:


> Looking at the breeder site and the YT videos there of the facility, I think you have to call it a Commercial breeder. They have 3 facilities with each currently showing new litters monthly.
> The video in the main facility shows hundreds of awards from shows but also at least 4 dedicated whelping/ rearing boxes and each had pups in them. It’s very well done but total hi volume.
> The interesting thought I had was all the buyer had to do was wait a month maybe 2 for a pet contract pup.


Technically speaking - it's 3 different breeders. The breeder's 2 daughters have their own places. 

It is not clear how they do things just from their website, you see 4 fancy whelping boxes and assume those are constantly filled - but mother nature doesn't work that way. It isn't a given that they are constantly pumping puppies out left and right all year long. 

Also, it is not clear if the daughters have large homes/kennels like their mom. <= I'm wondering if they live in a more typical suburban arrangement, and this is the reason why they have utilized "guardian" homes. <= Am speculating without any knowledge of this breeder and how she and her daughters actually run things. People who live over there likely have more information. 

I think many of us have purchased goldens from breeders who keep only 1-5 breeding girlies and do not grow too big for their britches. If they have more dogs they want to keep a hand on and use down the road, or title - they do co-ownerships, which have their own positives/negatives.


----------



## Oceanside (Mar 29, 2021)

PalouseDogs said:


> I can see every money-hungry, puppy-miller reader of this story thinking “Hey, what a great scheme! Get a dog with papers, farm out the female puppies to unwitting “guardian” homes, breed as many times as possible without having to deal with puppy rearing, feeding, walking, or any of the other day-do-day chores, rake in $200K per guardian home victim, and keep expanding the guardian home fiefdom with every new litter.“ You don’t even need to invest in a Quonset hut and stacks of kennels.
> 
> If I were the “guardian”, I might point out to the court that the scum-bag owner in the contract was getting premium kennel services without paying the daily kennel fee. Isn’t that exactly what a boarding kennel is: a place where dogs owned by someone else are boarded for a daily fee? Most boarding kennels tack on big extra fees for things like daily walks, training, and grooming. $200/day seems like a reasonable boarding fee for the high level of services the guardian was providing. That’s about $6K/month or $70K/year. If the dog lives 10 years, then the scum-bag owner should owe the guardian $700K, minus the anticipated puppy profit of $225K, so call it $475K owed to the guardian.
> 
> ...


Except you forgot the part where the puppy buyer specifically chose to get a puppy on these terms. The breeder sells plenty of puppies on regular pet contracts that this buyer could’ve opted for. You can’t sign a contract and then say, “oh this is unfair, so it’s okay if I break it and do what I please”. 

And since AKC clearly enjoys all the revenue being generated from puppy mills and unethical breeders, you really think they’d be concerned about a breeder using boarding contracts? I’m not saying I like them, but at least the dogs on boarding contracts are being properly cared for, not locked in a shed covered in feces.

Definitely agree with Robin. 


Prism Goldens said:


> I absolutely hate to be in a 'defend breeder' place on this case, because I don't believe the guardian scenario is fair to both parties, ever. However- this dog was owned by the breeder. The man didn't have to take the dog, on the breeder's terms, and presumably (given the timing) he wanted an instant gratification dog during Covid- so he did agree to the terms.
> He had a surgery performed on an animal he did not own, nor did he have the right to have altered.
> His 'condition' isn't playing more for me personally- if he's that fragile, call the breeder, send the dog back.
> Presumably, getting a free dog was worth what he was supplying to the breeder in the $200/day board scenario- and what he got in return was a pet for his kids, and the comfort a well-bred Golden can give.
> ...


----------



## PalouseDogs (Aug 14, 2013)

Oh, yeah, I agree, the guy signed a contract with this corporation for a puppy and I would normally agree that he shouldn't have broken a contract without expecting a penalty. However, depending on the contract, I suspect a decent lawyer could make a pretty good case against the corporation. Obviously, I haven't seen the actual contract, but my first question would be what, exactly, did the contract say about the penalty for spaying the dog. Did it explicitly say the guardian would owe $225K? Every contract I've signed for a loan or a big purchase is, by law, explicit about the penalty incurred if I don't fulfil my end of the bargain. Did it say that the penalty would be the highest possible asking price for every puppy in a large litter of 5 litters? Can the corporation show it nets this much money, on average, for every guardian home? 

Did someone pushing the papers at the guardian say that, if the guardian changed his mind, he would just revert to pet ownership and have to pay the going price for a pet? Even experienced buyers who should know better can be taken in by a verbal agreement from a breeder they think is trustworthy. Witness the guy who bought a field-line dog on a limited registration with (he says) a verbal agreement that the limitation could be waived, only to find down the road, when the dog turned out to be one of the best living field trial goldens, that the verbal agreement was worth the paper it was written on. 

Most puppy buyers purchase very few expensive purebred dogs in their lifetime. They are often quite naive about what a normal puppy purchase is like. You can see that easily demonstrated by reading the posts on this forum every day from newbie puppy buyers. 

I have to wonder, too, about the motivations for this corporation pushing this lawsuit instead of quietly writing off the dog as a loss. Maybe they've had other "guardians" unhappy about the contract they've gotten themselves into and they're trying to make an example of this guy to quash the rebellion. Maybe they didn't realize how badly it would hurt their reputation. 

Maybe the AKC can't, and shouldn't, banish this type of breeding arrangement, but they could yank their Good Housekeeping seal of approval (Breeder of Merit, I think it's called?) for breeders discovered to have rooked puppy buyers into one of these contracts.


----------



## green branch (Oct 24, 2020)

ArkansasGold said:


> Free. Puppy.


I don't think the puppy was free. It is hard to believe they could come up with a contract we saw. I wonder if they took advantage of the pandemic or this is the contract people are willing to commit in normal circumstances. There is nothing for the boarder there, unless for some reason it works for you to be away from your dog for some time. Then when the dog is in the heat or is whelping you can take it to the breeder for free. Otherwise, you have to pay for boarding. So, if you want to travel for few weeks you could do it. Also, if you are interested in conformation, you might be able to learn something along the way. But otherwise, the contract is completely unfair to the boarder.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

Has anyone seen the boarding contract? I have not. Typically in these arrangements, the guardian home 'gets something' for risking their pet- like price of a puppy, or whatever-


----------



## ArkansasGold (Dec 7, 2017)

green branch said:


> I don't think the puppy was free. It is hard to believe they could come up with a contract we saw. I wonder if they took advantage of the pandemic or this is the contract people are willing to commit in normal circumstances. There is nothing for the boarder there, unless for some reason it works for you to be away from your dog for some time. Then when the dog is in the heat or is whelping you can take it to the breeder for free. Otherwise, you have to pay for boarding. So, if you want to travel for few weeks you could do it. Also, if you are interested in conformation, you might be able to learn something along the way. But otherwise, the contract is completely unfair to the boarder.


I didn’t mean this situation specifically, but _in general, _puppies in guardian/boarder homes are “free” to the home because they do not technically own the dog.


----------



## stsmark (Feb 1, 2020)

The video I saw had puppies in at least 2 of the boxes as well as some panel enclosures.

On the Website the Mom has 2 females available on Boarder Contracts from 2 different litters availability dates a month apart and a new litter born in June. One daughter has 2 males from an April litter and 3 from a May litter. Also states she has boarder pups available.
The youngest daughter has a boarder female available. 

Given they’re all LLCs I like the term Corporate Breeders. 

Some fun, 12 litters of 6 pups sold for 3500.00 is 252,000.00 a year.
Using the lawsuit numbers of 8 pups a litter for an average of 5,250.00 per is 502,000.00 per year.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

stsmark said:


> The video I saw had puppies in at least 2 of the boxes as well as some panel enclosures.
> 
> On the Website the Mom has 2 females available on Boarder Contracts from 2 different litters availability dates a month apart and a new litter born in June. One daughter has 2 males from an April litter and 3 from a May litter. Also states she has boarder pups available.
> The youngest daughter has a boarder female available.
> ...


You are assuming they have a litter each month of the year. Again, mother nature does not work like that.

If you have multiple girlies in your kennel, they will come in season together or soon after - which is why you might have clusters like you describe here.

I know people want to pick apart a breeder who has been bashed online by animal activists, but be aware that the same arguments can be used against your dog's breeder.

I do not know this breeder and haven't got the patience to go tracing their steps on social media and so on... but they are not greatly different than many big show and field breeders out there as far as the number of litters they may do per year.


----------



## GoldenDude (Nov 5, 2016)

I am not sympathetic to the guy violating his contract. But I still think these guardian home things are more of a money grab than anything else.


----------



## stsmark (Feb 1, 2020)

Megora said:


> You are assuming they have a litter each month of the year. Again, mother nature does not work like that.
> 
> If you have multiple girlies in your kennel, they will come in season together or soon after - which is why you might have clusters like you describe here.
> 
> ...


Respectfully Mother Nature is out of the picture when you have a fleet of breeding bitches under contract. No doubt they have records of each girls cycles in the program. 
I’m not bagging on them nor am I sympathetic to the gent who took the dog on that contract.

But frankly this is a Corporate Breeder behaving in a Corporate manner. It will be interesting if the Federal District Court will even hear the case. As someone else mentioned she could have taken the approach of writing off the lost revenue but that would have almost certainly brought IRS scrutiny at the numbers claimed.


----------



## Sankari (12 mo ago)

I'm wondering what happens to Pirate now.. She obviously cannot be bred for puppies (to me it seemed like this was one of the original intention of the breeder)... What becomes of her at the breeder's now that this can't happen? 😕 Does she still compete in shows or other activities even though she can't be bred? Or is she like retired?


----------



## green branch (Oct 24, 2020)

She can’t compete in conformation now and that is the only venue the breeder would take her.


----------



## JerseyChris (10 mo ago)

Hildae said:


> I'm wondering if the guardian decided they really love the dog and the kids love the dog and the idea of her going away for a few months for breeding etc was upsetting so they thought hey, we'll spay her and the breeder will just let it go.
> I know I personally couldn't let my dog go for months at a time (which is commonly done with hunting dogs for 4 to 6 months), but because of that I would simply never enter into a contract like this person did. I definitely wouldn't do what this person did, which is just really wrong both legally and ethically. I'll be following this one for sure because the outcome will have lasting implications.


I like this theory here. Bottom line is that was a terrible choice to have the dog spayed and there certainly is a viable lawsuit here. The big question that we all really need to see is the actual signed contract to see what/if any monetary damages are even listed out. Also, the breeder should not have chosen this particular family for their program here. I would bet that the dad never explained to to the kids how and why Pirate would be leaving the house multiple times for both breeding and showing.


----------



## JerseyChris (10 mo ago)

Sankari said:


> I'm wondering what happens to Pirate now.. She obviously cannot be bred for puppies (to me it seemed like this was one of the original intention of the breeder)... What becomes of her at the breeder's now that this can't happen? 😕 Does she still compete in shows or other activities even though she can't be bred? Or is she like retired?


The issue is that now the public is seeing the breeder as evil for taking the families dog away as punishment for owing them the 225k. If this were to go to trial the lawyers would have a field day trying with the breeder. But, what we do not know is why the breeder took the dog back? Was the dog not in a good place? Was the father too inundated with his heath issues to pay attention to the dog? Did his parents just keep the dog locked up? There are so many question we all have here. I will tell you if I was the breeder and one of my dogs was not in a good position I would do every thing in my power to remove it from that situation if need be..


----------



## pawsnpaca (Nov 11, 2014)

Found a post on a FB page for one of our local TV stations with a post from the breeder that might shed more light on this. I can't seem to get a link that will take you directly to the post on this story, but here is a link to the FB page. The story on the dog was posted on July 3.

[Rats - the link won't even take you to the general FB page. If anyone cares enough to track it down themselves, the FB page is for WGME13 in Maine]


----------



## Sankari (12 mo ago)

pawsnpaca said:


> Found a post on a FB page for one of our local TV stations with a post from the breeder that might shed more light on this. Hopefully this link will work:
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/WGME13/posts/10155358747981981


I can't open this link from where I am at perhaps I am too rural), sorry 😕 Maybe you or someone else can clarify what was in it...?


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

The part I found pertinent was Mary's response to it- and it's not a new posting, just the same news story you've likely read . Response quoted here: "
I intend to donate any financial reward by the court to Yankee Golden Retriever Rescue and the Morris Animal Foundation for canine cancer research. My intention is to enforce my contract, and the meaningfulness of good faith in signing contracts.
Mr. Cail attended law school, and understood the agreement. Not only did he fail to contact me upon first heat as agreed, not only did he spay a pivotal dog in a well planned breeding program, he refused all forms of contact for 11 months.
Mr. Cail showed up threatening the use of force to take the dog back as we/Goldiva hosted a public heart and eye clinic for fellow breeders. He was offered a refund for the dog, and police were called.
Mr. Cail seeks to try his case in a court of public opinion by making inflammatory statements like “holding Pirate for ransom”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, holding Mr. Cail accountable to his word after he had month after month to do the right thing is the only way to make contracts more than just pieces of paper."


----------



## pawsnpaca (Nov 11, 2014)

Prism beat me to it! 🙂


----------



## Beau-Bear (Jun 2, 2021)

pawsnpaca said:


> This article came across my FB feed today. The breeder is well known in our area and fulfills all the criteria we usually recommend for a reputable breeder, although I have always had qualms about the number of dogs they have, how much they charge for them, as well as their use of ”guardian” homes to expand their breeding program. All I know about this situation is what is in the article, but I thought it was worth sharing and I’m curious to hear what other reputable breeders think about this…
> 
> 
> 
> ...





pawsnpaca said:


> This article came across my FB feed today. The breeder is well known in our area and fulfills all the criteria we usually recommend for a reputable breeder, although I have always had qualms about the number of dogs they have, how much they charge for them, as well as their use of ”guardian” homes to expand their breeding program. All I know about this situation is what is in the article, but I thought it was worth sharing and I’m curious to hear what other reputable breeders think about this…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He broke the contract. Now he's going to be forced to deal with it. Very sad for Pirate to have to be dragged thru this mess. Why on Earth did you spay the dog? If you can't follow the contract don't take in the puppy.


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

I hope the news reports the breeder's statement. It might change the minds of some of the "evil breeders" people who claim she's just money grubbing.


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

Sankari said:


> I'm wondering what happens to Pirate now.. She obviously cannot be bred for puppies (to me it seemed like this was one of the original intention of the breeder)... What becomes of her at the breeder's now that this can't happen? 😕 Does she still compete in shows or other activities even though she can't be bred? Or is she like retired?


In the end I suspect she'll go back to the family. The breeder has no use for her as a spayed dog, so the court will likely (hopefully) give the breeder a financial settlement and award custody of the dog back to the man.


----------



## Sankari (12 mo ago)

Prism Goldens said:


> The part I found pertinent was Mary's response to it- and it's not a new posting, just the same news story you've likely read . Response quoted here: "
> I intend to donate any financial reward by the court to Yankee Golden Retriever Rescue and the Morris Animal Foundation for canine cancer research. My intention is to enforce my contract, and the meaningfulness of good faith in signing contracts.
> Mr. Cail attended law school, and understood the agreement. Not only did he fail to contact me upon first heat as agreed, not only did he spay a pivotal dog in a well planned breeding program, he refused all forms of contact for 11 months.
> Mr. Cail showed up threatening the use of force to take the dog back as we/Goldiva hosted a public heart and eye clinic for fellow breeders. He was offered a refund for the dog, and police were called.
> Mr. Cail seeks to try his case in a court of public opinion by making inflammatory statements like “holding Pirate for ransom”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, holding Mr. Cail accountable to his word after he had month after month to do the right thing is the only way to make contracts more than just pieces of paper."



Just wrong from the guy - professional ethics point of view.. we have this sort of people who learn science and also do not do things ethically. 🤦🏽‍♀️ It's just wrong. It's especially these people who should know better..


----------



## Austin Powers (6 mo ago)

deleted


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

Austin Powers said:


> View attachment 893918
> View attachment 893919


Thanks for sharing


----------



## JerseyChris (10 mo ago)

Not a lawyer but that looks like a pretty solid contract with the terms clearly spelled out.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

You should probably block out contact info....


----------



## FurdogDad (Mar 30, 2021)

Sankari said:


> Just wrong from the guy - professional ethics point of view.. we have this sort of people who learn science and also do not do things ethically. 🤦🏽‍♀️ It's just wrong. It's especially these people who should know better..


That type of behavior exists in all occupations unfortunately........


----------



## three retirees (Aug 31, 2018)

The going price for a spayed dog from this breeder is/was $7000.00. Mr Cail purchased the bitch for substantially less on a Guardian contract/No spay contract. By Spaying the bitch he hoped to keep Pirate at a reduced price, without paying the $7000.00.

Remember he wanted to pay the $7000.00 as a counter to the $225,000.00.


----------



## Sankari (12 mo ago)

JerseyChris said:


> Not a lawyer but that looks like a pretty solid contract with the terms clearly spelled out.


I agree and I know my English is not as good. But I read this and it states at least 3 times in the first few sentences about not spaying the dog!! And she wrote the consequences of doing it! So if it was me, English not that good.. I WOULDN'T have spayed Pirate!! 

He does not acknowledge what he signed on the contract with the breeder in the GoFundMe.. this is not accurate representation to the people donating... (I see the numbers of people donating have gone up 🤦🏽‍♀️). I'm disgusted.


----------



## Sankari (12 mo ago)

FurdogDad said:


> That type of behavior exists in all occupations unfortunately........


I hate this kind of behavior especially in our scientific fields - there's too many consequences. It all needs to be rooted out - I take a very hardline view on this kind of thing going on in my lab. I know alot of us are under pressure to publish something incredible/novel and exciting in fancy journals but doing this sort of "bending the rüles" is what makes people hate us and not trust us! It just takes one to ruin it all for us in the public's eye and then rebuilding the trust is just not easy 🤦🏽‍♀️

In this case, he has some law training and he knew! He read it and he purposefully, at least to me, omitted the part on the GoFundMe where he signed this contract that stated no spay at least 3 times. Professional ethics not there even second time round when he does not fully tell the whole story to the people he's asking for donations! 🤦🏽‍♀️


----------



## PalouseDogs (Aug 14, 2013)

Okay, I concede: The contract is very clear about the consequences of breaking it, but OMG, you could make a valid argument in court that anyone who would agree to those terms is not mentally competent to be signing anything. The signer ("boarder") is PAYING nearly $3,776.90 (Plus another 3.5% if he pays with a credit card instead of cash!!!!!) plus all the normal costs of keeping a dog, and letting the corporation keep all the profits from breeding the dog 4-6 times. The "boarder" is PAYING nearly $4,000 to keep a dog over which he has essentially NO rights. The boarder even has to cover the cost of spaying the dog after the corporation has extracted all the money it can get out of the dog. 

Here, I'm been amazed that puppy buyers will sign contracts agreeing to feed a dog a particular brand of food. This contract goes beyond anything I could imagine anyone sober and with an IQ above 80 would sign. P.T. Barnum was right.


----------



## JerseyChris (10 mo ago)

PalouseDogs said:


> Okay, I concede: The contract is very clear about the consequences of breaking it, but OMG, you could make a valid argument in court that anyone who would agree to those terms is not mentally competent to be signing anything. The signer ("boarder") is PAYING nearly $3,776.90 (Plus another 3.5% if he pays with a credit card instead of cash!!!!!) plus all the normal costs of keeping a dog, and letting the corporation keep all the profits from breeding the dog 4-6 times. The "boarder" is PAYING nearly $4,000 to keep a dog over which he has essentially NO rights. The boarder even has to cover the cost of spaying the dog after the corporation has extracted all the money it can get out of the dog.


I do agree with you, this contract heavily favors the breeder for sure. If anything I would have thought the puppy would be at a huge reduced cost for all the trouble they have to endure here. From the small amount I have also read I do not believe the buyer is stupid by any means and they knew what they were signing. It is a VERY clear contract. I am not sure the buyer was told exactly how inconvenient their life would be with this dog as far as not only having to make the dog available for showing as well as 4 to 5 breedings.


----------



## stsmark (Feb 1, 2020)

I can’t see why anyone would enter into this agreement.
The travel costs alone would eat up any price difference between a pet puppy and this unless you were very close by. 
The dog has to be returned for every heat and you provide the food for 21 days. 50.00 a day if not picked up after the 21st day.
You deliver the dog for events, are Canadian CH that easy as it only takes 2 weekends?
The inseminated bitch goes back to the Boarder during gestation except for a required ultrasound at 4 weeks. Boarder then delivers bitch back for whelping. 
Truly can’t see the motivation to enter in to this agreement.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

PalouseDogs said:


> Okay, I concede: The contract is very clear about the consequences of breaking it, but OMG, you could make a valid argument in court that anyone who would agree to those terms is not mentally competent to be signing anything. The signer ("boarder") is PAYING nearly $3,776.90 (Plus another 3.5% if he pays with a credit card instead of cash!!!!!) plus all the normal costs of keeping a dog, and letting the corporation keep all the profits from breeding the dog 4-6 times. The "boarder" is PAYING nearly $4,000 to keep a dog over which he has essentially NO rights. The boarder even has to cover the cost of spaying the dog after the corporation has extracted all the money it can get out of the dog.
> 
> Here, I'm been amazed that puppy buyers will sign contracts agreeing to feed a dog a particular brand of food. This contract goes beyond anything I could imagine anyone sober and with an IQ above 80 would sign. P.T. Barnum was right.


Agree here- but I suspect boarder wanted a dog- and ya know-- instant gratification drives a lot. It would not shock me if he planned to spay all along and figured she'd drop it... uh... no.


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

I know this is a couple of months old now, but has anyone seen any updates? I'm still very interested in the outcome of this lawsuit.


----------



## JerseyChris (10 mo ago)

Hildae said:


> I know this is a couple of months old now, but has anyone seen any updates? I'm still very interested in the outcome of this lawsuit.


I was actually wondering as well if there were any updates.


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

JerseyChris said:


> I was actually wondering as well if there were any updates.


I really want the breeder to get compensated for what happened, but after reporting the initial story, I've heard nothing.


----------



## stsmark (Feb 1, 2020)

Possibly waiting on a trial date. Or they settled.


----------



## Oceanside (Mar 29, 2021)

No news on Pirate’s instagram, so they probably didn’t settle yet.


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

Oceanside said:


> No news on Pirate’s instagram, so they probably didn’t settle yet.


Is the dog with the family, or the breeder, does it say?


----------



## Oceanside (Mar 29, 2021)

Hildae said:


> Is the dog with the family, or the breeder, does it say?


Still with the breeder. I’m sure the family will get the dog back once they settle.


----------



## Oceanside (Mar 29, 2021)

Pirate was returned to her guardian home just in time for Thanksgiving. I couldn’t find any new info online, so I’m assuming the case was settled privately and we likely won’t hear any more updates.


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

Oceanside said:


> Pirate was returned to her guardian home just in time for Thanksgiving. I couldn’t find any new info online, so I’m assuming the case was settled privately and we likely won’t hear any more updates.


Wow, well that's something of an update at least.


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

GOLDIVA GOLDENS LLC et al v. CAIL


Contract: Other case filed on June 28, 2022 in the Maine District Court




dockets.justia.com


----------



## ssp_goldens (Nov 10, 2018)

JerseyChris said:


> I am not sure the buyer was told exactly how inconvenient their life would be with this dog as far as not only having to make the dog available for showing as well as 4 to 5 breedings.


 From personal experience with this breeder - This NOT explained fully that the dog will be out of the house 3-4 weeks every 6-9 months for heat cycles until spayed(could be as old at 7 years old or completed the necessary 4-5 litters or the dog doesn’t turn enough of a profit), and then gone for shows for 5 days up to 3 weeks with MINIMAL notice(dog shows are posted a ways out, there’s zero excuse for less than a weeks notice) and being available for clearances at their convenience not yours. Which means if you ever had to pay a deposit for a pet sitter or boarding or whatever you’re SOL. oh and then if bred on a heat cycle then the dog goes back to the breeder the week before whelping and then stays for 9 weeks minimum to raise the litter(technically these “boarding” homes can raise the litter and receive an incredibly low compensation imo for the work done) and it’s never explained to these boarding homes how dangerous whelping can be. And they have zero qualms about breeding a bitch again even after she almost died.


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

ssp_goldens said:


> From personal experience with this breeder - This NOT explained fully that the dog will be out of the house 3-4 weeks every 6-9 months for heat cycles until spayed(could be as old at 7 years old or completed the necessary 4-5 litters or the dog doesn’t turn enough of a profit), and then gone for shows for 5 days up to 3 weeks with MINIMAL notice(dog shows are posted a ways out, there’s zero excuse for less than a weeks notice) and being available for clearances at their convenience not yours. Which means if you ever had to pay a deposit for a pet sitter or boarding or whatever you’re SOL. oh and then if bred on a heat cycle then the dog goes back to the breeder the week before whelping and then stays for 9 weeks minimum to raise the litter(technically these “boarding” homes can raise the litter and receive an incredibly low compensation imo for the work done) and it’s never explained to these boarding homes how dangerous whelping can be. And they have zero qualms about breeding a bitch again even after she almost died.


Regardless, they had a legal contract and the guardian home violated it. You can't just let that go, otherwise contracts become worthless and that is a dangerous precedence.


----------



## ssp_goldens (Nov 10, 2018)

Hildae said:


> Regardless, they had a legal contract and the guardian home violated it. You can't just let that go, otherwise contracts become worthless and that is a dangerous precedence.


well personally I would just let it go as I don’t believe in letting a dog live in a different home if it holds that much value. But nonetheless I NEVER said they didn’t have a leg to stand on legally. I was simply speaking on experience that at least in the past they(Mary, Lauren, and now other daughter katie) never explained the true time commitment that someone’s house pet would be out of the home and the risks that are posed with breeding a dog.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

ssp_goldens said:


> well personally I would just let it go as I don’t believe in letting a dog live in a different home if it holds that much value. But nonetheless I NEVER said they didn’t have a leg to stand on legally. I was simply speaking on experience that at least in the past they(Mary, Lauren, and now other daughter katie) never explained the true time commitment that someone’s house pet would be out of the home and the risks that are posed with breeding a dog.


All reasons not to enter such a contract if unable to understand what is expected of you and the dog, who is owned by somebody else.


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

ssp_goldens said:


> well personally I would just let it go as I don’t believe in letting a dog live in a different home if it holds that much value. But nonetheless I NEVER said they didn’t have a leg to stand on legally. I was simply speaking on experience that at least in the past they(Mary, Lauren, and now other daughter katie) never explained the true time commitment that someone’s house pet would be out of the home and the risks that are posed with breeding a dog.


Most of that is on the guardian home. You can't just enter into a legally binding contract without researching what you're actually agreeing to, unless you want to end up with exactly this sort of problem. Always read the fine print and ask the hard questions.


----------



## Tagrenine (Aug 20, 2019)

Hildae said:


> Most of that is on the guardian home. You can't just enter into a legally binding contract without researching what you're actually agreeing to, unless you want to end up with exactly this sort of problem. Always read the fine print and ask the hard questions.


Im of the belief that if lay people are entering into a contract valued at nearly 250k, the breeder should require them to have an attorney present to make sure they actually understand what they’re signing legally and the ramifications involved.


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

Tagrenine said:


> Im of the belief that if lay people are entering into a contract valued at nearly 250k, the breeder should require them to have an attorney present to make sure they actually understand what they’re signing legally and the ramifications involved.


It would probably be the smart thing to do. But it really should be on the guardian home to do that without the breeder telling them to. People need to think to protect themselves, especially when the stakes are high.


----------



## Tagrenine (Aug 20, 2019)

Hildae said:


> It would probably be the smart thing to do. But it really should be on the guardian home to do that without the breeder telling them to. People need to think to protect themselves, especially when the stakes are high.


I think that’s placing a lot of expectations on people lol. Not in a bad way, but a lot of people don’t have the foresight to understand the implications of things and not a single one of them will have had experience entering into this sort of contract for an animal. This case aside, because the guardian home is a lawyer, I simply can’t imagine what sort of family would go into this without rose colored glasses.


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

Tagrenine said:


> *I think that’s placing a lot of expectations on people lol.* Not in a bad way, but a lot of people don’t have the foresight to understand the implications of things and not a single one of them will have had experience entering into this sort of contract for an animal. This case aside, because the guardian home is a lawyer, I simply can’t imagine what sort of family would go into this without rose colored glasses.


I suppose there is probably truth to that. But some times I think one of the (many) problems with this world is that we don't expect enough from people. Everyone makes mistakes, but some people seem like they don't even try to avoid making them.


----------



## Tagrenine (Aug 20, 2019)

Hildae said:


> I suppose there is probably truth to that. But some times I think one of the (many) problems with this world is that we don't expect enough from people. Everyone makes mistakes, but some people seem like they don't even try to avoid making them.


I absolutely agree but I’ve found you have to meet people where they are, not where you want them to be.


----------



## Ontariodogsitter (Feb 23, 2020)

It still boils down to, You Must READ and UNDERSTAND anything you are going to sign !!!

I have read thru one of those contracts, (admittedly I do read everything ) when I was searching for our pup....

The contract I saw specified 2 litters maximum, the bitch would stay at the breeder for the whelp and 6-7 weeks after, and her price would be refunded after first litter....

and although I would never consider entering in to an arrangement like that, I can see how it may appeal to some people.


----------



## Cookderosa (9 mo ago)

She posted on Oct 24 that Pirate just won Best in Show x 4. Not sure if that helps or hurts her case. Goldiva’s Elegantly Balanced “Pinot/Pirate“ (Altered) Best in Show...


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

Cookderosa said:


> She posted on Oct 24 that Pirate just won Best in Show x 4. Not sure if that helps or hurts her case. Goldiva’s Elegantly Balanced “Pinot/Pirate“ (Altered) Best in Show...


I would say it would help her case, because she can show that the dog would have most likely had a prolific show career and added value to her puppies.


----------

