Ethical Breeding - Co-Own vs Guardian Homes

[hazelelponi]

Hi all, hopefully it's okay to ask here. I'm just an owner but very interested in ethical breeding practices and guidelines. I've been struggling with something often discussed in the r/dogs subreddit regarding appropriate homes for breeding dogs. The guideline there is that guardian homes (often for poodle mixes) are all unethical but co-owns in a purebred breed isn't.

First off - please this is not to debate whether mixed breeding is ethical or not. I am very aware of the issues facing poodle mixes.

I'm just wondering what each set up means to you. I've noticed in my region the term "guardian home" is somewhat interchangeable with co-own. Most of the guardian contracts I've read are the same as a co-own agreement. For one of the breeders, her guardian homes need to be less than 30 minutes from her, dams stay with their family for breeding and whelping, and the breeder acts as a mentor and visits/works with dam and puppies several times a week in their home.

In contrast one of the top show poodle breeders in my region has 8 breeding females with 7 of them in different homes across 4 provinces. It's unclear whether dams come to the main kennel or stay with their families for breeding.

At its core, what makes the second scenario more ethical than the first? What am I missing?

 

[kjcolt]

@hazelelponi Guardian homes actually aren’t unethical in the slightest. Like with co-ownerships, whether or not a guardian home arrangement is either a mutually beneficial agreement or a predatory thing is all highly dependent upon the individual breeder. Each breeder has different terms and conditions involved in being a guardian home. Some are literally just co-ownerships by a different name while others will look a little different. So if you seriously want to determine ethics, then look at the individual breeder’s contract.

 

[hazelelponi]

@kjcolt This is helpful, thank you! I definitely agree with looking at the contract and not just taking it by name.

I've been really confused for a while because in my part of Canada there's also several very highly regarded golden and poodle breeders who use guardian homes and I just couldn't wrap my head around why that scenario would be bad.

The breeders around me who use guardian homes seem to mean a co-own where the other owner doesn't have their own independent breeding program and is being mentoredby the breeder, or only has 1-2 breeding dogs from them. Whereas co-own seems to more often refer to two independent breeders equally owning the dog. I'm not sure if that's a rare use of the terms? Or common in Canada but not as common in the US?

 

[klpotte3]

@hazelelponi Here's how most guardian homes work, at least in my area (I'm in bc):

Breeder sells puppy with guardian contract. Contract stipulates that the dog MUST have a certain number of litters, and after that they would be owned by the buyer.

The puppy lives with the buyer. When it is time for puppies the breeder would be responsible for breeding her. She may stay with her family for the first part of pregnancy. Then there are two options for what happens next:

You either move mom before she gives birth and she gives birth at the breeders place. This isn't ideal because it puts a LOT of extra stress on mom. If mom is stressed the puppies won't do as well. The other option is mom giving birth at the buyers house. This isn't ideal because now you have inexperienced people whelping and raising the litter.

In this sort of situation one party has all the power when it comes to the reproductive decisions of the dog. There was a post about a situation like this going wrong over at r/dogs a few weeks ago.

With a co-own/mentorship I'd expect it to be a bit different. I'd expect the buyer to see a few whelpings and help raise a few litters before selling them a breeding prospect. I'd expect both parties to have equal say in reproductive decisions. That means if one party says "I don't think this dog should be bred for X, Y or Z reason" then that should be respected.

I see guardian homes as dogs being sold as pets and then the new owners having no say in reproductive decisions. The number of litters the dog will have is predetermined and this doesn't change if there are temperament issues or structural faults. This type of situation is super common where I love because breeders try to get around the maximum number of dogs pee household laws.

With a co-own worship or mentorship I'd see it more as a partnership where you are sold a prospect (no decision to breed has been made yet) and you learn a lot along the way and if the dog turns out to be a good example of the breed and passes health testing then they may be bred.

 

[hazelelponi]

@klpotte3 Super interesting to hear your experience because that's definitely more like the scenario that I hear about on the internet and is the case for some of the contracts I've read. But I got so confused because the several breeders near me who use guardian homes don't have contracts that are nearly as predatory. I can definitely see where the term brings up red flags with the stipulations you've described. I'm thinking the breeders I've talked to maybe aren't the norm in use of the term.

For example one of the breeders I talk to who uses guardian homes doesn't "commit" the dog into breeding until all health testing has been cleared and both the pet owner and she agree the dog should be bred. She has an upcoming dam who she's skipped 2 heat cycles on because the owners aren't confident her temperament would make her good to breed. So they're waiting another year to see if she will remain a prospect or will be spayed. And most of her guardian homes already have a pet dog from her and are extensively coached in puppy rearing before their breeding dog is mated.

 

[klpotte3]

@hazelelponi Yes. Exactly. Guardian homes are not seen as ethical because they tend to be predatory and don't have the best interests of the dogs at heart. One party has complete power, the other party has none. I'm sure you can see why this is super problematic.

The type of situation you're describing is what I would call a co-ownership because both parties have equal say in decisions and this can be ok if adequate care is being taken to make sure health testing and temperament is good.

This is really down to semantics and what you consider a guardian home vs a co ownership. Over at r/dogs we're very against the predatory kind of guardian home which is definitely more common than what you described.

My only concern with a co ownership, when done right, is epigenetic trauma. If mom is very stressed out by being at the breeders house toward the end of her pregnancy and while nursing the puppies the puppies have a much higher chance of being more anxious and fearful than if mom was comfortable and not stressed.

Some dogs, like mine, get super stressed by changes in their routine. When I had to leave my dog with my parents for a little bit my dog just straight up refused to eat for a week. If a pregnant/nursing female was placed in a situation that is this stressful to her that would be very bad for both her and the puppies. They learn a lot of their behavior from mom so if she's super stressed the pups will struggle too.

Obviously, not all dogs will be as stressed as mine and there are things you can do to prevent it (ie. Having the dog regularly spend time at the breeders house) but the stress and epigenetic factor is definitely something to think about.

 

[smilerman312]

@klpotte3 Getting around the local, state and federal regulations makes it unethical as those rules were put in place to regulate breeders and dog owners. Sorry, full stop do not use guardian homes to get out of the regulations put in place to regulate breeding, it makes you a bad, irresponsible breeder. Obey the laws.

 

[dukedesu]

@hazelelponi I co-own my dogs who are going into show homes, not with the intention of controlling their day-to-day lives, but because with bitches especially, I can make sure that they are health tested & titled before being bred (or else I would not sign off on the paperwork). There are some dogs that I won't do this with, like if its with a well established home in the breed. If I am taking a chance on someone though, they are getting a co-own. I don't use it as a breeding pyramid scheme or anything like that.

 

[home4good]

@hazelelponi Just to confuse matters a little more, I co-own all my dogs with the breeders (Think they are full registration as well), even the altered ones. The co-ownership provides the breeders another way to get the dogs back if something happens.

 

[dvm0071]

@hazelelponi Guardian homes to me are epplicitly connected to doodle breeders. The females seem to be treated in the contract as just a baby making machine.
A co own to me implies co ownership and co agreement on the dogs training and titles. All decisions are made jointly and the dog is titled and show just the same as if she had been kept in the other co owners home.

 

[hazelelponi]

@dvm0071 Thanks for your input! Maybe it's a regional thing? I think that's why I've been so confused because there's contracts I read from both purebred and mix breeders near me that are called "guardian homes" but they don't have those same predatory clauses I've seen in other contracts.

 

[lumiere]

@hazelelponi So, I agree that guardian homes are not always unethical. From what I have seen, Co-Ownership is more for the owners who want to get into breeding their own lines of dogs. Guardian homes are for the people who don't nessissarily want to become a breeder but want to be a part of the process.

Guardian Homes have been used as a way for unethical breeders to keep breeding more dogs cheaper. For a responsible breeder, Guardian homes are still work, but a different kind of work. Guardian homes can be a great way for breeding dogs to get individual attention as a pet in the home. Responsible breeders love all their dogs, but you reach a point where you have too many dogs to give them the life of a pet that you want to give them.

I was listening to a podcast where a breeder did Guardian homes and I learned a lot. Here is the link to that podcast if you are interested. Anyway, in the podcast she talks about how she always makes sure the pet parents have pet insurance so that if something happens, nobody has to worry about who is going to pay for it. She has it written in her contract that she will breed the dog 3 times, and then they are released from the contract. She talks about how she has let people out of their contract early because the owners were emotionally unable to leave the dog for an extended period of time, or something went wrong with the dog itself during the pregnancy/whelping. She also talks about how guardian homes are a liability for the breeder. She let the homes have the dog for free and she is giving trust to those homes that they will care for this dog and keep her safe. She mentions that if a breeder has a very good dog that is very important for their line to not add them to their guardian home program, because you never know what could happen. Of course, the pet parents of the guardian homes go through a stricter process of being chosen for the program, but sometimes accidents happen.

Anyway, if you are interested in learning more, I absolutely suggest listening to that podcast. I love The Functional Dog Collaborative, and they have taught me a lot.

 

[hazelelponi]

@lumiere Super interesting, I can't wait to listen to that podcast! I think you've hit the nail on the head for the trend I've seen in my area - guardian homes are for those who don't want their own independent breeding lines.

Also the point about responsible breeders wanting to give their dogs the best "pet" life by placing them in co-own or guardian homes ... I think that's another area where I've either been confused or misunderstood some of the r/dogs guidelines. I've definitely heard from that subreddit that if there's too many dogs for the breeder to look after then they're not reputable (which is logical). But then placing breeding dogs in other homes also isn't reputable. Which made me wonder how any reputable breeder would maintain genetic diversity in their lines, or have the ability to monitor multiple breeding prospects from a litter if that occurred.

Thank you, this is a great comment!

 

[smilerman312]

@lumiere That is very different than the doodle breeders. The doodle breeders typically charge half price, require MLM food and supplements bought through the breeder and up to 6 litters starting around 14 to 18 months. And they are doing it to avoid USDA regulations and state and local regulations. If the breeder in the podcast is doing the same it is unethical and irresponsible. Live within that law, the regulations were put in place for a reason.

 

[lumiere]

@smilerman312 The breeder in the podcast is not doing the same. The breeder chose to do guardian homes so that her dogs could actually grow up in a home instead of a Kennel environment. Not to bypass the law. The FDC is very focused on ethical breeding for both purebred and mixes. They care a lot about that and would not have a mill breeder come on to speak about their experiences.

 

[klpotte3]

@lumiere Selling dogs on a contract that demands 3 litters is unethical. Dogs should have full health testing (ie. OFA, not just genetics) and proof of good temperament before they're bred. You can't know this stuff when the puppy is 8-10 weeks old and going to a new home, so you cannot be making breeding decisions at this time. You can place dogs at this time as possible prospects, but having a contract that asks for litters at this age is unethical.

 

[lumiere]

@klpotte3 It IS a contract based on possible prospects. The breeder does not DEMAND the dog to be bred no matter what. They still go through your average process of health and temperment testing. They still do everything right. The only thing is that the breeder themselves deems whether or not the dog be bred, so there is a lot of trust in the breeder to make sure they're doing everything right. The breeder I was talking about would absolutely not breed an unhealthy dog or a dog with a bad temperment. If they feel the need to cancel the contract, they will, but if the dog meets all the qualifications, then the dog will be bred 3 times. If anything bad happens in the process, the breeder will terminate the contract. I didn't list EVERYTHING the breeder talked about. I just gave some examples. That is why I provided the podcast itself.

I haven't listened to the podcast in a while, but if you're still worried about it, go and listen to it. I agree with everything that breeder is doing.

 

[simonpeter111]

@lumiere The guardian contract we've seen DOES state 3-4 litters very specifically. There need to be outs for medical reasons, etc -- but there isn't a contract without specific performance metrics.

 

[lumiere]

@simonpeter111 I have seen guardian contracts like that where the owners need to earn specific titles with their dogs.It is a thing.

 

[simonpeter111]

@hazelelponi We are in a SHITTY guardian situation and were given the contract four months after we had the puppy. In hindsight, we were too trusting, and the breeders we are dealing with seem to think they can bully everyone. They are in for a rude awakening. They've taken our guardian dog who we've cared for for 2.5 years and we love her. We will either get her back or I will flex my creative energy to be sure they never put another family in this position.