[HannaBanana]

Just posting this as a "GENERAL" discussion topic.  There is no right, and no wrong answer.

****Just wondering for those of you who have purchased a puppy (regardless of where it came from; its does not matter) what you expect out of a health guarantee.

For those who have relationships with the breeder after point of sale, do they ever follow up with you with regards to the health of the dog?

For those of you who don't is there something you would have like to see when you origionally purchased the puppy?  Like a said clause shall something genetic come up and you can recoup part of the cost of treatment?   Or for future puppy purchasing, what would your ideal "Health Guarantee" be, or what would you like to see that will make you feel comfortable with your next pup??

 

[Nexu]

This is an interesting, odd, and complex question for me to try to answer (I've been writing and erasing for 30 min).

To me, the low cost of buying a puppy compared to the cost to care for the dog makes trying to recoup any cost down the road seem insignificant.  If the flip side of the health guarantee is that they'll take the dog back, well if I've had the dog for any length of time that isn't happening either!!

For example, I paid $400 for Lola, and I don't remember if they said anything about a health guarantee or not.  When she was about 6 months old she got a cyst in between her toes.  Between an emergency room vet visit, a follow up visit to my regular vet, then a trip to have it surgically 'cleaned up', and some meds, I probably spent $600.  I would never think of asking to recoup some of those costs from the breeder.  Heaven forbid a more serious condition comes up and I spend $2,000 in treatment:  how could I expect to receive much $ from the breeder if I only paid $400?  I've only had Lola for about 1 year and I can certainly tell you that giving her back would not be an option!

The case I really see a health guarantee making sense is if you take a puppy home and in the first couple weeks there is a serious problem.  Something that would imply that this dog was never healthy to begin with.

I guess I'd also be perterbed if I paid extra, say $1,000 for a "health tested" boxer and at 1 or 2 years old (still young) it was diagnosed with a heart/thyroid/hip problem that I thought I'd be protected against.  But even then, depending on my relationship with the breeder, I wouldn't necessarily think that it was their fault.

Tough question.

 

[AbbyandBrady]

Hmm...I agree...once you have the pet, you could never "return it" because of a health condition!  Interestingly, my sister and her husband went through quite an ordeal when they got a bassett hound.  The bh was an ill little puppy, he had frequent episodes of bloat as a result of a genetic condition. He had multiple  surgeries to staple his stomach in place to attempt correcting the condition and after the 3 or 4th surgery, things did begin to improve, but he was on a prescription diet to the end and they had to be extremely watchful of certain signs which indicated a problem.  They did complain to the pet store (I know, I know..they didn't know any better though...my brother in law bought her the dog as an engagement gift and was not a dog person and just didn't know better) and as it turns out...the pet store had some morals...it turned out that a lot of the puppies from that particular litter had the same condition.  While the pet store could not refund them all the costs of treatment, they did refund the purchase cost.  
This may be an appropriate expectation...where the condition is clearly genetic, the breeder shall refund the buyer for treatment costs up to the purchase price for the puppy. Granted, not all genetic conditions can be detected by testing...however, if you agree to provide a health guarantee, you take that risk.  Or I suppose the guarantee could be limited to genetic conditions which could have been detected with proper testing.

 

[Kate]

When I was involved in breeding and showing dogs, my health guarantee meant that if the puppy I sold died because of a genetic problem within 2 years of purchase, I would replace the puppy.

 

[mylittledeers]

Had to dig through some records to re-read the purchase agreement for Donner, have to admit I was pretty much "starry eyed" at the time and probably could have signed my life away and not noticed!!! It includes guarantees about freedom from communicable disease,  vet bills up to price of puppy or replacement of puppy,clauses agreeing to house the dog explaining a boxers intolerance to hot/cold, and if sold as a "pet" a promise to notify breeder by 8 months of age of spay/neuter.  Also a clause promising to notify  them if we could not keep him for any reason.We have been in touch with the breeder several times in the past year and they have always been encouraging and helpful. They spent a great deal of time with us asking about our boxer knowledge, what we expected from a puppy and watching our interaction with the pups. We were able to meet both parents of Donner as well as his spayed/neutered aunts and uncles, got to observe their behaviors as well as all the pups. All in all, I was very satisfied. As far as what I would have liked, DNA testing would have been great. Only one test on his AKC papers however, we paid $450 for him and I'm sure that the DNA would have put the cost far beyond what we were willing to pay

 

[sharonL]

something with a specific topic of refunding the purchase price if demodex mange is found in the pups.

 

[Newcastle]

And the only contracts I've seen that mention demodectic mange specifically exclude it.   :?

Coming at this from the other side, I really think 'guarantee' is just the wrong word.  You simply cannot guarantee the health of a living being - and in this breed, where clear parents can produce affected individuals, where environment can play a larger role in disease expression than genetics, where age of onset is often well past age of breeding, it's really impossible to guarantee anything other than the parents were considered clear of genetic disease at the time of the breeding.  That's the best you can do.  Most breeders will still offer some remedy if the dog develops a genetic disease or dies at a young age, but 'warranty' really is a better word for it - they can't guarantee that the dog won't develop a disease, but they will make some reparation if it does.

 

[lillyzmomma]

Good show Jennifer!!!

 

[JeanenesBoogerBabies]

You know, Jennifer...that makes total sense...and the breeder I am getting Pua from offers a one year warranty(you are right, much better word!)  Which is just fine...we wouldn't be inclined to "give Pua back" regardless...I guess I just figured that when you get into Boxers, you just do it knowing what COULD happen and leave it at that...there are NO guarentees in life...it's messy...and wonderful!

 

[sharonL]

[quote="Newcastle\";p=\"39258":1y4suqmm]And the only contracts I've seen that mention demodectic mange specifically exclude it.

 

[Newcastle]

Generally it's worded as something like "this guarantee does not cover it".  Basically, "we are not responsible because it is not proven to be a hereditary/genetic condition."

I couldn't see warrantying localized demodex at all, honestly, and generalized only in certain circumstances.  I know that often the underlying immune dysfunction that allows generalized mange to develop is genetic, but there are also environmental factors to consider and some extreme practices can potentially damage an otherwise healthy immune system.  (As a comparison, I wouldn't expect a breeder to warranty hips on a dog that is allowed to become obese at a young age, and/or is routinely taken on long walks/jogs/runs before the growth plates close.)

 

[sharonL]

Yep that makes sense to me, you can find arguments both ways on it being passed from mother to pup .  I stand by what my books say and what I have seen first hand...However I feel that a mother who has thrown pups with Demo should no longer be bred. There are breeders who know it and do it anyway.  That is where I would think the responsibility comes in.  I know that the registrations agree with the fact breeders should not do it.

 

[Newcastle]

I think, again, it depends on the type of demodex, and on the incidence.  One puppy out of eleven, say, with generalized demodex would be less worrisome than one out of five - or than seven out of eleven with localized demodex.  And the father does have something to do with it, too, as far as genetic immune health goes, so it might be more a case of not breeding the two together, rather than not breeding either ever again.  Lots of variables, there's really no one-size-fits-all answer (like most health issues in this breed....).