# Stud Dog owner wants half the litter of puppies for stud fee



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

Millie'sMom said:


> An aquaintance has bred a litter of puppies. The 11 puppies arrived safe and sound on the weekend. Now that the pups are here, the owner of the stud dog is demanding that half of the litter is hers or the proceeds from half the litter. She says she deserves this, because the stud dog has championship lines. I don't know how far back the "championship lines" are in his pedigree and he is not AKC registered (that is another issue completely). The original, written, agreement is for the study dog owner to receive pick of the litter. Anyone ever heard of a stud dog owner demanding half the litter>


What is considered "pick of the litter" for a dog that isn't registered?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Lesson from this is DO NOT BREED YOUR DOG without getting things like this sorted out ahead of time. 

Actually - just don't breed if you are OK with backyard breeding with an unregistered dog.


----------



## Millie'sMom (Sep 7, 2012)

Enzos_Mom said:


> What is considered "pick of the litter" for a dog that isn't registered?


No idea. I guess it means she gets to pick her puppy first.


----------



## Willow52 (Aug 14, 2009)

Millie'sMom said:


> An aquaintance has bred a litter of puppies. The 11 puppies arrived safe and sound on the weekend. Now that the pups are here, the owner of the stud dog is demanding that half of the litter is hers or the proceeds from half the litter. She says she deserves this, because the stud dog has championship lines. I don't know how far back the "championship lines" are in his pedigree and he is not AKC registered (that is another issue completely). *The original, written, agreement is for the study dog owner to receive pick of the litter*. Anyone ever heard of a stud dog owner demanding half the litter>


I've never bred a male or female so I'm certainly not an expert on these things, but if there is a written agreement signed by both parties for pick of the litter, I'd suggest she read it again and stop further discussions.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

What the heck? My dog IS a champion and I would never expect that as a stud fee. And good luck to the stud owner getting that when they agreed in a written contract for one puppy as a stud fee. Why does the bitch owner care if the pups aren't going to be registered anyway? It's not as though the stud owner has to sign off on the registration with the AKC. Cut ties and be done with them until the puppies go home. Let them "pick" their puppy (with plenty of people around to prevent them taking any more than they are entitled to) and say "have a nice life, jerk."


----------



## Shalva (Jul 16, 2008)

they aren't entitiled to half the litter the contract says pick puppy... they get one puppy, their pick... very simple very easy 
if they wanted half the litter that should have been in the contract...


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Actually I have heard of one. It was pretty recent, and the bitch's owner is someone I know well.
They decided that the stud dog owner was, in fact, entitled to half of the proceeds of the litter. 
So the bitch's owner wrote down the expenses of raising the litter. These numbers are close to what I recall but not exact. It included items such as:
boarding the bitch during whelping and for 8 weeks afterward, $30 per day ($2100)
boarding the 10 puppies for 8 weeks, $100 per day (quite a bargain compared to my boarding rates, btw!) ($5600)
food ($150 ish)
vet bills for the bitch ($500 ish)
vet bills for the puppies ($300 ish)
supplements ($100 ish)
advertising the litter, including website costs etc. ($200 ish)
health clearances for the bitch ($1000 ish)
time spent interviewing the puppy familes, meeting with them, etc. (at about $25 an hour if I remember right) ($500 ish)
basic training for the puppies, including socialization and housetraining, 3 weeks at $500 a week ($1500)

Anyway, the bottom line was that the numbers added up to somewhere in the vicinity of $12,000 to raise the litter of 10 puppies. So she told the stud dog owner that they were entitled to half the proceeds....

AND PRESENTED THEM WITH A BILL FOR $1000....their half of the $2000 she lost on the litter!

Well needless to say, the stud dog owner thought that was silly. So she offered them half the litter, come get them, raise them, and sell them. The puppies were about 7 days old at the time. Again needless to say, the stud dog owner refused that offer as well.

They settled on a stud fee instead.


----------



## A1Malinois (Oct 28, 2011)

hotel4dogs said:


> Actually I have heard of one. It was pretty recent, and the bitch's owner is someone I know well.
> They decided that the stud dog owner was, in fact, entitled to half of the proceeds of the litter.
> So the bitch's owner wrote down the expenses of raising the litter. These numbers are close to what I recall but not exact. It included items such as:
> boarding the bitch during whelping and for 8 weeks afterward, $30 per day ($2100)
> ...


I have to admit that was very friggin cleaver!!! I would of loved to see the face on the owner of the stud!

As for the OP, tell the owner of the stud they get pick or nothing  Or, do something similar to what was mentioned here about presenting them with a bill


----------



## Millie'sMom (Sep 7, 2012)

@hotel4dogs

I love that. There are some greedy people out there. 

@goldenjackpuppy. Thank you for the suggestion of having people around. The stud dog owner has started hanging out in her car at the end of the driveway, and she is insisting on "visitation rights" while the pups are with the bitch. This despite knowing it would upset the mama.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Millie'sMom said:


> @hotel4dogs
> 
> I love that. There are some greedy people out there.
> 
> @goldenjackpuppy. Thank you for the suggestion of having people around. The stud dog owner has started hanging out in her car at the end of the driveway, and she is insisting on "visitation rights" while the pups are with the bitch. This despite knowing it would upset the mama.


Oh wow! This person may have some major issues in her life if she spends her time hanging around at the edge of the driveway stalking the other owner. I'd probably ask the local police to come by and chat with the woman about the local stalking, trespassing and harassment laws. CRAZY!


----------



## Willow52 (Aug 14, 2009)

Millie'sMom said:


> @hotel4dogs
> 
> I love that. There are some greedy people out there.
> 
> @goldenjackpuppy. Thank you for the suggestion of having people around. The stud dog owner has started hanging out in her car at the end of the driveway, and she is insisting on "visitation rights" while the pups are with the bitch. This despite knowing it would upset the mama.


Oh my, how weird. :no: Visitation rights for her because her dog was the stud :doh: I guess it takes all kinds.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 18, 2012)

Willow52 said:


> I've never bred a male or female so I'm certainly not an expert on these things, but if there is a written agreement signed by both parties for pick of the litter, I'd suggest she read it again and stop further discussions.


I'd agree with this...if there's a signed agreement which clearly state the terms then it's end of story.


Sent from my iPhone using PG Free


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I would call the police if someone did that to me. I'm just sayin'.


----------



## photoweborama (Dec 6, 2007)

Pick of the litter has always meant that they can pick the best pup from the litter, NOT the best PUPS... It has always meant a single pup.

Lets say five pups is what they want, then that equals about $6000.00 in stud fees (if you sell the pups cheap). I've NEVER seen fees that high!!! That's "Judge Judy" high! She would blow them out of the water!

I have not breed dogs in a long time, but I can't see them being much more than $500.00 nowadays.

I think I'd give them $500.00 and then file a restraining order on them.


----------



## Kally76 (Jun 14, 2010)

Dallas Gold said:


> Oh wow! This person may have some major issues in her life if she spends her time hanging around at the edge of the driveway stalking the other owner. I'd probably ask the local police to come by and chat with the woman about the local stalking, trespassing and harassment laws. CRAZY!


Just when you think you've heard it all.....You hear something like this.....WoW!!! Most people don't even want to see their own children this bad. Lol


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Millie'sMom said:


> An aquaintance has bred a litter of puppies. The 11 puppies arrived safe and sound on the weekend. Now that the pups are here, the owner of the stud dog is demanding that half of the litter is hers or the proceeds from half the litter. She says she deserves this, because the stud dog has championship lines. I don't know how far back the "championship lines" are in his pedigree and he is not AKC registered (that is another issue completely). The original, written, agreement is for the study dog owner to receive pick of the litter. Anyone ever heard of a stud dog owner demanding half the litter>


Generally speaking, a stud fee is the same as the price of a puppy, OR, the stud dog owner may select a puppy - "pick of the litter" means their choice (and their choice is not necessarily the same as my choice.) Now, rather than saying "pick of the litter" we usually say "first pick"...



I would have to ask why on earth the bitch owner bred to an unregistered dog in the first place... "championship lines" means little, and I also wonder if clearances were in place - ALL clearances - for both sire and dam.
In this case, the owner of the sire sounds like a whack job. I'd definitely be calling the police, and a restraining order would be something I'd consider seriously. It sounds like the bitch owner made some poor choices.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Well, I don't want to sound critical but not only they decided to breed to a dog without papers but it also seems that there is no agreement between the two (maybe I missed it). In this situation of course the stud owner can ask for the sky and the moon. In response I guess the dam's owner can also ask for half the cost of raising the puppies and caring for the dam during pregnancy and also for full payment for half the litter. As Barb said - present the stud owner with the bill and accept nothing but cash (the stud owner has already shown he/she cannot be trusted). IMHO.


----------



## Willow52 (Aug 14, 2009)

Claudia M said:


> Well, I don't want to sound critical but not only they decided to breed to a dog without papers but *it also seems that there is no agreement between the two (maybe I missed it)*. In this situation of course the stud owner can ask for the sky and the moon. In response I guess the dam's owner can also ask for half the cost of raising the puppies and caring for the dam during pregnancy and also for full payment for half the litter. As Barb said - present the stud owner with the bill and accept nothing but cash (the stud owner has already shown he/she cannot be trusted). IMHO.


In the original post it was stated that there is a written agreement.


----------



## LilBitBit (Jan 15, 2012)

Nothing to add except that this situation is an entire level of crazy I wasn't aware existed. The only thing I can think of is the sir's owner perhaps hasn't bred before (since there aren't any papers it's likely) and doesn't realize all the costs that go into it. To her, the dam's owner now has 11 puppies for sale and will make a huge profit.

But that doesn't give her an excuse to renege on a contract, stalk, or trespass!


----------



## Wagners Mom2 (Mar 20, 2012)

Given the way this stud owner is acting, no way would I let this woman have one of my puppies. I'd hire a lawyer and have him offer her the asking price of the pup she would've gotten ($1200?) and hope to be done with her, forever. Wow, what a nutjob. Of course it may not work with a contract, but I'd sure try my best. And yes, police would've already been called.


----------



## vcm5 (Apr 20, 2011)

This situation sounds insane!! Contracts contracts contracts!


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

There is a contract for the stud dog owner to get a puppy, not puppies. This is the craziest thing that I have ever heard of....


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Not that I am skeptical or anything, but this sounds way too far fetched to believe. It sounds more like a story created by the litter owner to tell prospective puppy buyers to explain why they can't register their puppies.


----------



## pandamonium (Apr 18, 2012)

Swampcollie said:


> Not that I am skeptical or anything, but this sounds way too far fetched to believe. It sounds more like a story created by the litter owner to tell prospective puppy buyers to explain why they can't register their puppies.


Giggle... I was starting to think the same thing!...:no:


----------



## Millie'sMom (Sep 7, 2012)

Swampcollie said:


> Not that I am skeptical or anything, but this sounds way too far fetched to believe. It sounds more like a story created by the litter owner to tell prospective puppy buyers to explain why they can't register their puppies.


Obviously, if there is a contract between the owners, this was an intentional breeding. If the bitch was bred to an unregistered male, then there was no intention to register the litter. My understanding is, these puppies were intented for friends and family of the bitch owner and all the puppies have homes.

As I am Canadian, how our purebred dogs are registered, differs from the US. The entire litter is registered by the breeder, at no cost to the purchaser, and each puppy also gets individual registration, by the breeder, as "breeding" or "non-breeding". Litters out of a non-breeding dog cannot be registered. I believe AKC registration in the States is different. I wonder if the stud dog is registered but the US equivalent of "non-breeding".

Also a lot of pet owners, do not care whether their dogs are registered or not.


----------



## Millie'sMom (Sep 7, 2012)

LilBitBit said:


> Nothing to add except that this situation is an entire level of crazy I wasn't aware existed. The only thing I can think of is the sir's owner perhaps hasn't bred before (since there aren't any papers it's likely) and doesn't realize all the costs that go into it. To her, the dam's owner now has 11 puppies for sale and will make a huge profit.
> 
> But that doesn't give her an excuse to renege on a contract, stalk, or trespass!


My understanding is that the stud owner has bred before, it the bitch owner who is inexperienced. Possibly the sire owner is trying to take advantage. The pups were intended to be given away to family and friends, and all are spoken for, so I say, let the stud owner have half the profits. Half of nothing is still nothing

You are correct, a contract is a binding document and should be honoured.


----------



## Visitador (Aug 12, 2011)

There has to be a meeting of the minds somewhere, right? Both owners allowed the bitch and the sire to meet.

It sounds to me that there was no written contract, just an oral one. Now it is turning into a "I said, you said" dispute. I guess it will be up to Solomon (i.e. a judge) to figure that out. Don't know about Canadian law, but I assume that if no written agreement is produced, then a judge will have to decide on what is the common business practice.


----------



## A1Malinois (Oct 28, 2011)

Millie'sMom said:


> Obviously, if there is a contract between the owners, this was an intentional breeding. If the bitch was bred to an unregistered male, then there was no intention to register the litter. My understanding is, these puppies were intented for friends and family of the bitch owner and all the puppies have homes.
> 
> As I am Canadian, how our purebred dogs are registered, differs from the US. The entire litter is registered by the breeder, at no cost to the purchaser, and each puppy also gets individual registration, by the breeder, as "breeding" or "non-breeding". Litters out of a non-breeding dog cannot be registered. I believe AKC registration in the States is different. I wonder if the stud dog is registered but the US equivalent of "non-breeding".
> 
> Also a lot of pet owners, do not care whether their dogs are registered or not.


I dont are if mine are papered or not unless obviously I want to show. 



Visitador said:


> There has to be a meeting of the minds somewhere, right? Both owners allowed the bitch and the sire to meet.
> 
> It sounds to me that there was no written contract, just an oral one. Now it is turning into a "I said, you said" dispute. I guess it will be up to Solomon (i.e. a judge) to figure that out. Don't know about Canadian law, but I assume that if no written agreement is produced, then a judge will have to decide on what is the common business practice.


I doubt a case like this would ever see the inside of a court room. Its a civil case and would be taken care of via mediation. Common practices are stud fee is the price of the puppy or pick of the litter. Any breeder..even BYB's know this so any judge, would see this as well. 

Call the police, and have a peace bond placed against the owner of the stud.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Let us all pay attention.. The OP said there was a contract....


----------



## LittleRedDawg (Oct 5, 2011)

Golden retriever puppies that aren't registered are a dime a dozen. Give her pick of the litter (one puppy) or $100 for a stud fee (likely more than one pup is worth anyway), and tell her to get out and get lost.

In regards to the recent comment about registration - in the U.S., there are various registries. The main (reputable) one, the AKC, will not register a litter out of unregistered parent(s). The Continental Kennel Club might as may some others, but the AKC will not.


----------



## Millie'sMom (Sep 7, 2012)

LittleRedDawg said:


> In regards to the recent comment about registration - in the U.S., there are various registries. The main (reputable) one, the AKC, will not register a litter out of unregistered parent(s). The Continental Kennel Club might as may some others, but the AKC will not.


I believe the AKC and the CKC (Canadian Kennel Club) are roughly each countries equivalent. The CKC will not register a litter from unregistered parents either. I am trying to figure out if AKC Limited Registration is the same as CKC Non Breeding Registration. With Non Breeding registration, it is exactly as it sounds, No puppies breed by that dog/bitch can be registered. I wonder if the stud dog is registered with Limited Registration. Please forgive me if I get the American terminology wrong


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Millie'sMom said:


> Obviously, if there is a contract between the owners, this was an intentional breeding. If the bitch was bred to an unregistered male, then there was no intention to register the litter. My understanding is, these puppies were intented for friends and family of the bitch owner and all the puppies have homes.
> 
> As I am Canadian, how our purebred dogs are registered, differs from the US. The entire litter is registered by the breeder, at no cost to the purchaser, and each puppy also gets individual registration, by the breeder, as "breeding" or "non-breeding". Litters out of a non-breeding dog cannot be registered. I believe AKC registration in the States is different. I wonder if the stud dog is registered but the US equivalent of "non-breeding".
> 
> Also a lot of pet owners, do not care whether their dogs are registered or not.


 

Sigh. So, it is unlikely that there were any health clearances, either, even though a lot of pet owners care whether their dogs are healthy or not.


----------



## Millie'sMom (Sep 7, 2012)

Pointgold said:


> Sigh. So, it is unlikely that there were any health clearances, either, even though a lot of pet owners care whether their dogs are healthy or not.


Sadly, you are probably correct.


----------



## Maddie'sMom2011 (Apr 26, 2011)

This just makes me sad...


----------

