# Beagle bowed front leg



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

Ok, hello  

I have a query regarding my beagle puppy. She is 12 weeks old I got her today. 

I noticed when I got home her one front leg is very bowed and when she stands it bends a lot compared to the other one which is really straight. 

She is KC registered, her sire has had the appropriate health tests , I haven't found her damns yet. The breeder told me it was her first litter. 

Now, I'm not experienced with beagles, and how they grow but this leg does seen to hinder her movement somewhat and I'm a bit concerned for the future and her exercise regime as I had planned to do a lot with her. I'm a bit worried about it needing to be restricted and she goes a bit stir crazy because of it! 

There's absolutely no way I'm going to return her, she's my baby now!

I'm taking her to the vet Friday for a puppy check I can't get her in any sooner, but if anyone can give me a bit of advice maybe a little reassurance that would be grand. 

Many thanks


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

The breeder must have owned the dam. Didn't she give you copies of the health test results? It sounds, if she didn't, like it's the case of a bitch owner just mating with a good sire and hoping for the best. 

Only your vet can advise you, but from what you describe it doesn't sound good. I note you want to keep the pup, but may have to be prepared for expense and heartbreak along the way. 

Before anyone buys a pup they have to see the health test results of both dam and sire. Only by insisting on this will people be persuaded to breed responsibly. 

Good luck with your pup.


----------



## Howl (Apr 10, 2012)

Elbow Dysplasia?Dysplasia

This can be avoided by stopping the puppy going up and down stairs, excessive exercise, rough play and jumping off furniture. 
I don't know about beagles but some breeds are prone to it. Diet can cause issues in humans don't doubt in dogs too. 
You won't know until you visit the vet but I would avoid these things (excessive exercise etc) with any puppy but especially one that may have a joint issue/deformity. I would just try and keep the puppy from landing on it heavily etc as much as possible. 
Some books say to keep the dog crated it might not harm the puppy to be in a puppy enclosure or crate some of the time until you know what you are dealing with? 
I hope this is something treatable.


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Can you post a pic?


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

I don't think it's elbow displaysia as my puppy's leg goes out and then back in . That picture it goes out in then out again. 

I had a look on the net and it's either ok news and her tendons are too tight from growing too fast which can be solved with it being bandaged up and put on an adult diet as it's lower in protein or bad news and it's a bone deformity. Will be finding out Friday and let you all know . 

Can post a picture tommorow of course


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

I can't sleep through worry  can someone advise me if I have any rights to take the puppy back for a refund ? I got little boys who will be so upset if they had to see her go through ops etc


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Did you get a contract of sale with your puppy? Sometimes there's a 24 hour period in which you can get your puppy checked over by a vet.

A good breeder would take the puppy back if it was proved there was something wrong that she was born with. 

You need to contact the breeder and advise her that once you got the puppy home you saw there was something wrong with her leg, and that you are taking her to the vet to be checked. A good breeder will be very concerned and want to help you.

You need to get an appointment with a vet today - the longer you leave it the it's possible the breeder might argue that an injury caused it after you got her home. Most vets will see people the same day if it's urgent. If your own vet cannot see her, then try someone else. Explain the situation when you call to make the appointment.

The leg will very possibly have to be xrayed to find out what's wrong, and this will be expensive. Did you get insurance with your puppy? Usually you get 4 weeks free insurance if the pup is KC registered. 

Don't delay contacting the breeder. In your first post you said you wanted to keep the puppy whatever, but I do think you're right to think of returning it if she does have something seriously wrong with her. I cannot understand why the breeder didn't notice it.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Beaglemummy, hi

Is your puppy putting any weight on the bowed leg when she walks? Or is she effectively running on 3 legs?

As others have said, it is imperative that you take her to a vet ASAP. A bowed leg is not a good thing but the possibilities of what the cause for this is, could range from minor and temporary ( a bad elbow/shoulder sprain, a dislocation - perhaps as a result from rough housing with her siblings or an akward jump) to major and permanent ( elbow displasia, inherent malformation, etc). I know it is hard, but until your pup had an examination, try not to jump the gun and worry about lifelong problems ahead which she may not have.

Do give the breeder a call, explain the situation and your concerns. From her reactions you can deduce a lot. If she gets all defensive and evasive, think what it is you want her to do. Take the puppy back? Pay for the veterinary expenses to address and investigate the bowed leg issue? Or....??? 

However, when you call, please try your utmost not to put her into a defensive mode because it will just cloud the picture of what is going on with your pup. Remaining calm, polite and factual, rather than accusatory and nervous, is the only way to keep the line of communication between the two if you open. Whether the dam has or hasn't had orthopaedic health clearances is, at this particular point, irrelevant. The puppy has been born, you have bought it, and she is your responsability right now. The ONLY thing which matters right now is to investigate what exactly is going on with her bowed leg. And likely, if your breeder is a decent person, that is the only thing which matters to her.

Wishing you both all the best. Will you let us know what the vet said?


----------



## sailor (Feb 5, 2010)

I am surprised that the breeder didn't notice it herself and mention it to you before she sold the pup.
A decent breeder would have noticed it, sought vet treatment and advice... to be able to pass on all relevant information to the potential owner. To just sell a puppy and not even mention it sounds odd. As does not knowing the about the dams health tests 

It sounds like tendons and it doesn't always require surgery as mentioned.
If you are not happy with pup, I would assume as dogs are classed as 'goods' you would be entitled to a refund as the problem wasn't mentioned when sold to you. Classed as faulty goods? 
Sounds awful describing dogs as goods, but I do believe that is how they are seen in the eyes of the law.


----------



## Westy (Feb 19, 2013)

Given that you've only had the pup for a couple of days, I think that although you and your family wil be upset, it will be less upset in the longrun if you return it now and find a breeder who knows what they're doing and has at least health tested their bitch.


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

Hi all. Thanks for your replies. I managed to get hold of the breeder. 

I mentioned the bowed leg and she said she knew about it and said they grow out of it. I had her booked into my vets at 4pm but asked it it was ok to return the puppy for a refund and she agreed so she's been taken back. The breeder is taking her to her own vet at two and said she would call me with the news when she gets back. 

Feel completely drained , lesson learnt I guess


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Beaglemummy said:


> I mentioned the bowed leg and she said she knew about it and said they grow out of it.


I think this should have been pointed out to you at the time of sale, giving you a chance to accept or reject the puppy back then - not very responsible in my book. I hope you can find a more honest and trustworthy breeder.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

How upsetting for you, I do feel so sorry. 

I personally think it's too big a risk to take hoping for the puppy to 'grow out of it'. What happens if she doesn't? 

I'm sure that it's too early for you to think about getting another puppy, but when you do there's loads of people here who'll give you advice about finding the right breeder, and in particular, what health tests are necessary for the breed, and therefore the right questions to ask and paperwork to see, before making an emotional commitment to a new puppy.

I think you have done the right thing, although I know it doesn't make things easier.


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

MerlinsMum said:


> I think this should have been pointed out to you at the time of sale, giving you a chance to accept or reject the puppy back then - not very responsible in my book. I hope you can find a more honest and trustworthy breeder.


Absolutely. She should of taken it to the vets as soon as she realised and get a diagnosis so that any potential buyer knew exsactly what they were taking on. I'm feeling a bit sad for the puppy, I feel bad for dragging her about not knowing where she is going. She seemed so happy to be having cuddles on the sofa last night. I know I have been stupid, and this lesson is learnt. I will be taking extreme care in finding an amazing breeder once I get over this gutted feeling.

Golly gosh


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

BessieDog said:


> How upsetting for you, I do feel so sorry.
> 
> I personally think it's too big a risk to take hoping for the puppy to 'grow out of it'. What happens if she doesn't?
> 
> ...


That's a big risk for me, not growing out of it.

Thankyou. Appreciate your advice


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

What a sad story and I'm sorry it's happened to you.

Do keep in touch with this forum if you want to get another puppy, there are plenty of very experienced people here.
Did you say where you looked to buy this puppy?
The best points of contact are the Breed Club for Beagles, KC listings and the Champdogs website. I've just had a look on the Chamdogs beagle pups listing and there are five litters either due or on the ground. Interestingly some say only that the sire is health tested, others have both parents health tested. Not sure what tests are required for beagles.
Websites such as Gumtree tend not to be the best places to find a well bred health tested puppy.


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

I've just found this which may help to explain the bent leg and the problem it can cause.

Bench Beagles | Complete Information Center


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Siskin said:


> I've just found this which may help to explain the bent leg and the problem it can cause.
> 
> Bench Beagles | Complete Information Center


That's an interesting article!

If this breeder is breeding dogs with this problem then returning the pup and getting a refund was absolutely the right thing to do! It might make them think twice about breeding again. So sad that pups with this problem cannot have a full, active live that beagles should have.


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

Thanks for the article, to be honest i feel extremely lucky to have been given a refund, but extremely bad for the baby as if this is a life long impediment her exercise will be restricted, not so good for a mind that needs a lot of stimulation, that's exactly why I chose a beagle, I have an active lifestyle . And yes, I hope this deters her from breeding in the future!


----------



## Westy (Feb 19, 2013)

Horrid I know but you've done exactly the right thing!

Take your time to find a good breeder - through a Breed Club would be a good start, and then go on a waiting list for a nice puppy, it'll be worth the wait.


----------



## AlexArt (Apr 25, 2010)

I think you did the right thing, it sounds like one side of her leg was growing faster than the other, I've seen it in dogs and horses before, it is congenital and does often need surgery depending on how severe the defect - basically it would have cost you and arm and a leg to fix and not really something she would have grown out of either! Poor puppy though and what a stupid woman for selling the pup in the first place!!


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Thanks for letting us know the outcome, Beaglemummy.

Whilst a situation like this - returning the puppy - isn't a happy ending, at least it is a satisfactory ending. You aren't out of pocket and you don't have to live with the worry about her leg.

What I would say, however - your breeder has acted entirely honourable. A great many "renowned" breeders would have made returning a pup a LOT harder. It isn't that she knowingly sold you a sick puppy. More often than not, the effect of a dog being bow legged or cow-hocked is purely cosmetic and doesn't affect his ability to exercise at all. So her reaction deserves praise, not disdain.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> T
> 
> What I would say, however - your breeder has acted entirely honourable. A great many "renowned" breeders would have made returning a pup a LOT harder. It isn't that she knowingly sold you a sick puppy. More often than not, the effect of a dog being bow legged or cow-hocked is purely cosmetic and doesn't affect his ability to exercise at all.


I agree..... *except* this isn't a constructional fault such as cow hocks.

The OP clearly said *ONE* front leg is bent and the other isn't. Which is certainly _not_ normal, and does indicate a growth issue or congenital malformation, which could require surgery. In this case I feel it is more akin to some dogs which are born with small umbilical hernias - the breeder has to make the buyer aware of it at or before sale, as it would need repairing in the future.


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

I took your original post into consideration, I thought about what I wanted to happen and asked politely. I said she was booked in at 4 for a vet check and if it turned out to be something other than cosmetic I would preferably like a refund as I would feel a dog with an exercise restriction would massively go against my life style. She replied with bring her back, I will take her to my own vet for an assessment and it it's just cosmetic would you like to buy her back, but there's no pressure to do so, which was very nice indeed, I was crying leaving her there!


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

She hasn't called with news . I left a message for her on her house phone. I hope she let's me know what the problem was


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

She called to say the vet doesn't want to say if he thinks the leg will grow correct or not. They aren't sure what's wrong with it so took x rays but the surgeon involved with those kind of things is on holiday at the moment so will call me when there's results


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Did you get a pic you can post?


----------



## Westy (Feb 19, 2013)

Steer well clear Beaglemummy!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Thanks for letting us know the outcome, Beaglemummy.
> 
> Whilst a situation like this - returning the puppy - isn't a happy ending, at least it is a satisfactory ending. You aren't out of pocket and you don't have to live with the worry about her leg.
> 
> What I would say, *however - your breeder has acted entirely honourable*. A great many "renowned" breeders would have made returning a pup a LOT harder. It isn't that she knowingly sold you a sick puppy. More often than not, the effect of a dog being bow legged or cow-hocked is purely cosmetic and doesn't affect his ability to exercise at all. So her reaction deserves praise, not disdain.


I disagree. She sold a puppy, knowing there was a problem, and did not mention it to the buyer. She is supposedly now taking it to the vet having been returned. If she knew this she should have taken it to the vet BEFORE selling the puppy (assuming it was nothing serious) and informed they buyer of the vet's diagnosis and prognosis so they had the option to refuse the puppy or buy it in full knowledge of the potential problems they may face.

Added to that, as a beagle breeder, she should have known about this congenital condition rather than telling the buyer that it's something that happens with beagles and they grow out of it. I don't care if it was her first litter or her hundredth - she should know her breed and any potential health problems in the breed.

She did refund the money, but that may have been because she feared any comeback, not because she was a good breeder.


----------



## foxy81 (Jan 19, 2010)

sorry to hear about your puppy and its return, can I just ask didn't you notice its leg when viewing the puppy with its mum and litter mates? how many times did you view the pup in its home, as just wondered if it was something it was maybe born with and noticeable from day one or something that had just come on like maybe an injury , if that makes sense


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

I'm curious too... If the breeder said she knew about the leg before it must've been pretty obvious already then (especially if there was a difference between the two legs). Did you view the puppy a couple of times? Seen some photos? Or did you just buy it the first time you've seen it? 
That is a sad but good lesson. Look for a breeder who can show you all of the parent's tests and can tell you everything about the puppy. Not only that the puppy "is such an adorable and lovable baby, loves to play and cuddle".


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

MerlinsMum said:


> I agree..... *except* this isn't a constructional fault such as cow hocks.
> 
> The OP clearly said *ONE* front leg is bent and the other isn't. Which is certainly _not_ normal, and does indicate a growth issue or congenital malformation, which could require surgery. In this case I feel it is more akin to some dogs which are born with small umbilical hernias - the breeder has to make the buyer aware of it at or before sale, as it would need repairing in the future.


Not sure what to say, MerlinsMum - a unilateral bowed leg on a pup would likely concern me sufficiently to decline purchasing it. The pup MAY grow out of it, or she MAY never be impeded by it even if she doesn't, but it sure leaves a big question mark hanging over her future orthopaedic health or soundness.

To some extent this question mark applies to every pup regardless of how sound they look at the time of sale. No breeder, no vet, nobody can guarantee that a given puppy won't develop ortho issues in due course. Parental hip and elbow scores aren't a reliable predictor either, so short of a crystal ball.....tricky.

But you raise a very interesting issue - should a breeder be required to highlight a concern which MIGHT require medical intervention or surgery? Not something that definitely "will", but something which merely "may".

If they do, the probability that they will find a home for the puppy is very low. Or, at least, it dramatically shrinks the pool of prospective owners. So what does a breeder do in that situation?

Show the puppy to the PPO and let them decide for themselves whether they are happy to buy it is what Beaglesmummy breeder did. And after being contacted by the OP, she was instantly available, immediately prepared to take the puppy back and issued a full refund. She COULD have given the OP the runaround and made it hellish for her. There was no deception since, presumably, the OP saw the pup BEFORE buying it.

But she didn't and this, in my book, is responsible, moral and praiseworthy. As, on the top of my head, I could name you a handful of "good" exerienced breeders exhibiting their dogs at Crufts and Westminster, who would have NOT reacted how this novice breeder just did. Yes, they would have taken the puppy back, but not without making a broohaha about a refund and making the new owner feel like absolute s**t.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Not sure what to say, MerlinsMum - a unilateral bowed leg on a pup would likely concern me sufficiently to decline purchasing it. The pup MAY grow out of it, or she MAY never be impeded by it even if she doesn't, but it sure leaves a big question mark hanging over her future orthopaedic health or soundness.
> 
> To some extent this question mark applies to every pup regardless of how sound they look at the time of sale. No breeder, no vet, nobody can guarantee that a given puppy won't develop ortho issues in due course. Parental hip and elbow scores aren't a reliable predictor either, so short of a crystal ball.....tricky.
> 
> ...


Absolutely, and it is not responsible, moral and praiseworthy to not inform the buyer. This breeder said they were aware of the problem and had not told the OP. Whether or not it was a problem that could correct itself or not cause any problems is irrelevant.

It concerns me that you are commending a poor breeder on a public forum and others, who may be looking to buy a puppy, may read this thread thinking what they did was that actions of a good breeder, when it is not. So many say education is the key to stop people buying from poor breeders, so it is important to insure information given is correct.

Edited to add: I have sold a pup with a small unbilical hernia. It would not have been obvious to the puppy buyer unless I pointed it out. I had already taken this pup to the vet to get their opinion and informed the prospective puppy buyer of the problem and the vet's opinion which was that it was 'very small, may be a late closure but was too small to cause problems or do anything about, but keep an eye on it'. I reduced the price of the puppy to cover any possible costs that may be incurred if they needed the operation and it ended up closing anyway so they haven't. I would expect nothing less from a good breeder.


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

I will put my hands up to the fact I didn't know what I was really looking at and bought her the first time I saw her, this is my lesson. And a hard one learnt which could of been A LOT harder for me if the breeder wasn't so cooperative in refunding me. I know now it's people like me that give poor breeders the opportunity to make money, and I hope anyone reading this would take into consideration my experience and also read the kennel clubs advice on what to look for in a health puppy and breeder 

I have found a breeder that is due puppies in May , I'm meeting the breeder soon so I can see the kennels and the mum. I can ask all the questions I need to prior to paying a deposit. I definitely need reassurance, and I would also like to know what the contract of sale involves. She stated : The pups will be KC Reg, insured, microchipped, MLS & NCCD clear, socialised, wormed, have info notes, diet sheet, contract, starter food & a Vet health check. Cost £800. We are available throughout a pups life to give guidance should it ever be needed. 

That sounds good to me! Any advice from fellow posters before I visit her ?


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

rocco33 said:


> I disagree. She sold a puppy, knowing there was a problem, and did not mention it to the buyer. She is supposedly now taking it to the vet having been returned. If she knew this she should have taken it to the vet BEFORE selling the puppy (assuming it was nothing serious) and informed they buyer of the vet's diagnosis and prognosis so they had the option to refuse the puppy or buy it in full knowledge of the potential problems they may face.
> 
> Added to that, as a beagle breeder, she should have known about this congenital condition rather than telling the buyer that it's something that happens with beagles and they grow out of it. I don't care if it was her first litter or her hundredth - she should know her breed and any potential health problems in the breed.
> 
> She did refund the money, but that may have been because she feared any comeback, not because she was a good breeder.


Hi Rocco, this was the bitches first litter and not the breeders!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Beaglemummy said:


> I will put my hands up to the fact I didn't know what I was really looking at and bought her the first time I saw her, this is my lesson. And a hard one learnt which could of been A LOT harder for me if the breeder wasn't so cooperative in refunding me. I know now it's people like me that give poor breeders the opportunity to make money, and I hope anyone reading this would take into consideration my experience and also read the kennel clubs advice on what to look for in a health puppy and breeder
> 
> I have found a breeder that is due puppies in May , I'm meeting the breeder soon so I can see the kennels and the mum. I can ask all the questions I need to prior to paying a deposit. I definitely need reassurance, and I would also like to know what the contract of sale involves. She stated : The pups will be KC Reg, insured, microchipped, MLS & NCCD clear, socialised, wormed, have info notes, diet sheet, contract, starter food & a Vet health check. Cost £800. We are available throughout a pups life to give guidance should it ever be needed.
> 
> That sounds good to me! Any advice from fellow posters before I visit her ?


Sounds much better, and worth checking out, but don't forget that some breeders are always willing to lie, it's more common than you would believe, and some breeders, as you've found out, lie by omission. I would ask for a copy of the contract to be emailed over so you can have a read through and make sure you're happy with it as well.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> Absolutely, and it is not responsible, moral and praiseworthy to not inform the buyer. This breeder said they were aware of the problem and had not told the OP. Whether or not it was a problem that could correct itself or not cause any problems is irrelevant.
> 
> It concerns me that you are commending a poor breeder on a public forum and others, who may be looking to buy a puppy, may read this thread thinking what they did was that actions of a good breeder, when it is not. So many say education is the key to stop people buying from poor breeders, so it is important to insure information given is correct.
> 
> Edited to add: I have sold a pup with a small unbilical hernia. It would not have been obvious to the puppy buyer unless I pointed it out. I had already taken this pup to the vet to get their opinion and informed the prospective puppy buyer of the problem and the vet's opinion which was that it was 'very small, may be a late closure but was too small to cause problems or do anything about, but keep an eye on it'. I reduced the price of the puppy to cover any possible costs that may be incurred if they needed the operation and it ended up closing anyway so they haven't. I would expect nothing less from a good breeder.


I respect your opposing opinion, but we have to agree to disagree.

I expect a LOT from a breeder, but I don't expect them to put MY best interests before THEIR best interests. Which is to find a great home for all the puppies they don't want to keep.

It is ludicrous to assume that anyone breeding a litter should be obliged to provide a PPO with a detailed itinerary of flaws or potential health issues. A buyer absolutely has a right not to be deceived or lied to. But this doesn't apply here.

To be clear, I don't breed so I don't have a proverbial dog in this race. But to present a breeder as immoral, irresponsible or bad on the sole account that they didn't highlight a potential orthopaedic issue, something that was clearly discernable to anyone with visual faculties, isn't called for. If your own standards supercede it, that is laudable but not synonymous or justifiable in making that breeder "bad".

@ Beaglesmummy, I hope you don't read this with the perception that I believe YOU were to "blame". This isn't about asigning blame, which is a futile endeavour anyhow. I hope everything works out splendidly with your future pup.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Beaglemummy said:


> Hi all. Thanks for your replies. I managed to get hold of the breeder.
> 
> I mentioned the bowed leg and she said she knew about it and said they grow out of it. I had her booked into my vets at 4pm but asked it it was ok to return the puppy for a refund and she agreed so she's been taken back. The breeder is taking her to her own vet at two and said she would call me with the news when she gets back.
> 
> Feel completely drained , lesson learnt I guess





Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I respect your opposing opinion, but we have to agree to disagree.
> 
> I expect a LOT from a breeder, but I don't expect them to put MY best interests before THEIR best interests. Which is to find a great home for all the puppies they don't want to keep.
> 
> ...


I honestly can't understand how it's acceptable for a breeder to know about such a serious deformity, and not mention it to a puppy buyer? Really genuinely puzzled at how it would be acceptable for any breeder to knowingly sell a puppy with a possible congenital deformity? I think you're being very kind in this instance, if the breeder hadn't taken the puppy back and refunded the buyer, they could have faced more serious consequences, with such an obvious health defect. Yes it's good that they did refund without any question, but the point is, had they been a *good* breeder, they wouldn't have knowingly put this puppy buyer through the whole experience in the first place.

Anyway, I'm glad the OP has found out albeit the hard way, how to go about finding a good breeder, and hopefully the person they've now contacted will be the right one for them.


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

Ok I got a reply email from a kennel club breeder also listed on champ dogs , I'm not mentioning names.

'I have two tricolour bitches they are five months one has a heart murmur and is free and the other is £850. They have had their vaccinations and micro chips implanted and had health checks' 

This is a suitable response to a puppy with a health problem, in my opinion. I know about it prior to visiting and paying for anything. I can then make a choice based on Facts .


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Beaglemummy - this is the link to the Kennel Club health tests by breed. http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/14688/dnatestsworldwide.pdf

I would suggest you need to ask the breeder about the ones required under the ABS (assured breeder scheme). If any havent been done you need to find out a bit more.

You should also contact a beagle breed club (or try to find a beagle forum) to see which are the critical tests for the breed.

Arm yourself with as much information as you can.

Good luck!


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I honestly can't understand how it's acceptable for a breeder to know about such a serious deformity, and not mention it to a puppy buyer? Really genuinely puzzled at how it would be acceptable for any breeder to knowingly sell a puppy with a possible congenital deformity? I think you're being very kind in this instance, if the breeder hadn't taken the puppy back and refunded the buyer, they could have faced more serious consequences, with such an obvious health defect. Yes it's good that they did refund without any question, but the point is, had they been a *good* breeder, they wouldn't have knowingly put this puppy buyer through the whole experience in the first place.
> 
> Anyway, I'm glad the OP has found out albeit the hard way, how to go about finding a good breeder, and hopefully the person they've now contacted will be the right one for them.


SL....my perception and following conclusion of Beaglesmummy experience wasn't about being "kind" to the breeder.

But in this instance nobody was being lied to or fobbed off. That breeder wanted to sell THAT puppy and the OP wanted to buy THAT puppy. By all accounts, that puppy had a prominently bowed out front leg clearly visible to all parties.

Now...had the OP asked "what's up with that front leg?" and heard a lot of waffle about how this is common phenomenon, the pup will grow out of it, nothing to worry about, blah-blah-blah...yes, this would be unethical in my books.

The breeder feigning ignorance upon being subsequently contacted by the OP and saying "well, the puppy was perfectly fine when you bought it and it left here"...yes, that would also be unethical in my books.

The breeder selling that puppy as a show prospect, good breeding canditate or making ANY claim regarding the pup's soundness is also unethical.

But a breeder NOT pointing out something overtly visible, something which can't be classified as "sick" or as a KNOWN health issue, isn't. To me this is simply someone hoping to find a lovely home for their puppy. To me, a breeder's duty of care is towards their puppies, not me. To look out for MY best interests is MY job, not theirs. A case of "caveat emptor", I guess.

But this is just one person's perspective - mine. Everyone is at liberty to see it differently.


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

the advert stated : vet checked. First vaccinations 
Got there : wasn't vet checked ( that could of been a lie!?) no vaccination 
She said : you get it vet checked if there's a problem get your vet to call me 
The advert was 23 days old, the puppy was 12 weeks 
Surely a decent breeder gets any puppy vet checked, let alone leaving a puppy to go to 12 weeks without its vaccinations !? 
How many people viewed this puppy before me? 


I should of walked away as soon as she said no vet checked, there's no way I will put myself in that situation again. Ever.

Edit ; a kennel club breeder not vet checking their puppies prior to sale? Surely that should be basic things done prior to sale?


----------



## Westy (Feb 19, 2013)

Sorry Hopeattheendofthetunnel, if a breeder has produced a sub standard puppy, then it's up to them to keep it and be responsible for it, NOT to find it a home with an unsuspecting family.

The lady's second breeder is being up front with a youngster who has a heart murmur so that any prospective home can research and decide if that is a situation that they want to take on. That's much more honest than trying to off load a defective puppy because they want a home for it - that's a con trick. :nonod:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> SL....my perception and following conclusion of Beaglesmummy experience wasn't about being "kind" to the breeder.
> 
> But in this instance nobody was being lied to or fobbed off. That breeder wanted to sell THAT puppy and the OP wanted to buy THAT puppy. By all accounts, that puppy had a prominently bowed out front leg clearly visible to all parties.
> 
> ...


I get what you're saying, and yes, it is just as much about the puppy buyer as the breeder, but no *good* breeder would have sold a puppy on with such a congenital defect. And it's pretty easy for a first time buyer to just *assume* everything will be ok, even if not everything is as it should be, and might be obvious to someone more experienced.

If the breeders duty of care is to their pups, the breeder should have kept this pup back and run it on to see if it needed any treatment before possibly finding a home that was fully aware of the health issues. That's how I see it in any case.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Westy said:


> Sorry Hopeattheendofthetunnel, if a breeder has produced a sub standard puppy, then it's up to them to keep it and be responsible for it, NOT to find it a home with an unsuspecting family.
> 
> The lady's second breeder is being up front with a youngster who has a heart murmur so that any prospective home can research and decide if that is a situation that they want to take on. That's much more honest than trying to off load a defective puppy because they want a home for it - that's a con trick. :nonod:


With respect, Westy, but seriously? "Substandard" and "defective" are adjectives which apply to a sofa or a car...or any manufactured PRODUCT...not to a living entity like a puppy. Who by now already falls under " rejected goods".

Sometimes a breeder can do everything right and it is just an unlucky roll of the developmental dice which decides that a given pup doesn't turn out the way it should.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I get what you're saying, and yes, it is just as much about the puppy buyer as the breeder, but no *good* breeder would have sold a puppy on with such a congenital defect. And it's pretty easy for a first time buyer to just *assume* everything will be ok, even if not everything is as it should be, and might be obvious to someone more experienced.
> 
> If the breeders duty of care is to their pups, the breeder should have kept this pup back and run it on to see if it needed any treatment before possibly finding a home that was fully aware of the health issues. That's how I see it in any case.


I hear what you are saying. Of course, this would be the most desirable option and the most prudent way to go about it.

Perhaps it is just me - I am a big believer in personal responsibilty. Meaning I couldn't or wouldn't blame a breeder, or decry them as "immoral" for questions I omitted to ask. Especially whith a clearly visible concern.

I suppose it is a "with rights comes responsability" sort of thing. And I think a PPO has MANY rights. But as fully fledged adults they also have responsibilities. Which include to ask probing questions and exercise caution and diligence BEFORE buying a puppy.

Where does or should a breeders responsability, or rather, "culpability" end anyhow? What about buying a pup who develps a problem a 4, 6, or 12 months old which is then deemed to be genetic? Should a breeder still be held liable, take back the pup and refund the money then?


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

I think developing a problem and already having one are two different things.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Beaglemummy said:


> the advert stated : vet checked. First vaccinations
> Got there : wasn't vet checked ( that could of been a lie!?) no vaccination
> She said : you get it vet checked if there's a problem get your vet to call me
> The advert was 23 days old, the puppy was 12 weeks
> ...


Actually, most breeders don't get their pups routinely examined by a vet prior to sale. Not in this country, anyhow. In many other European countries this is a mandatory stipulation by the various breed clubs.

The best advice I could give you for your new pup from a different breeder is to 
NEVER
EVER
ASSUME
ANYTHING.

Be sure to verify EVERYTHING. Don't trustingly accept that "all our dogs have excellent hip, elbows, eyes, whatever". Ask to see the SPECIFIC health clearances for the dam & sire for THAT puppy. Observe the puppy carefully, over a long period of time and don't get bamboozled by accolades of it's parents. Which are nice but if no real relevance to you.

Be sure to pay as much attention to the pup's behaviour as to it's physical appearance. Does the puppy enjoy being handled? Does it run to you eagerly? Is it happy and friendly or shy and withdrawn? Or overly mouthy? It is MUCH easier to live with a dog iffy hips than a dog with an iffy temperament.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I hear what you are saying. Of course, this would be the most desirable option and the most prudent way to go about it.
> 
> Perhaps it is just me - I am a big believer in personal responsibilty. Meaning I couldn't or wouldn't blame a breeder, or decry them as "immoral" for questions I omitted to ask. Especially whith a clearly visible concern.
> 
> ...


If it's something you can test for, as a breeder, and you haven't, then I'd suggest the breeder is responsible as well as the buyer, who should, of course, have done their home work and only bought from someone who tests for health problems within a breed. But with this pup, the problem was apparent to the breeder, the puppy buyer wasn't possibly aware of the issue, which they noticed more at home, and once queried, found out that in all reality the breeder had sold them a pup with a problem, and they should also have done their homework, so both could have done better. Whilst I applaud the OP for taking it on the chin and in my books, doing the right thing by returning the pup - hopefully this breeder will now take health issues that bit more seriously - there is no way I can applaud the breeder for selling a pup they knew had a problem and not telling the puppy buyer. It's not something I could ever do, and would, and have offered any financial help I can give with Tau's pups, as well as helping out in any other way I can. I hope I never have to honour that, as I hope her pups remain as healthy as possible throughout their lives.


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

Sorry but if I was that puppy's breeder and she had a dodgy leg I would want to know what is going on with it, what if it is as simple as it needing to be wrapped and diet change and I just left it for weeks? That time period is damaging! 

I don't think if her child was hobbling around she would just leave it! What's the difference?


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Beaglemummy said:


> I think developing a problem and already having one are two different things.


Believe me when I tell you that you were still VERY lucky.

Yes, it meant you had ONE upsetting day.

But if that breeder would have been an immoral schmuck, she would have dug her heels in, declared that the puppy was "sold as seen" and that your buyer's remorse was your problem, not hers. Leaving you to chase a refund through the courts for months. A costly, exasperating process which is far from guaranteed that it would have ended in your favour.

Not to mention that it would have left you stuck with a puppy you no longer wanted.


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

Haven't I already accepted responsibility in my actions a few times already in this thread? 

Don't you think I already stated I know I'm lucky ?

But you carrying on saying that breeder is totally innocent in my opinion is way of the truth. 

We don't agree so just leave it at that?


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Beaglemummy said:


> Haven't I already accepted responsibility in my actions a few times already in this thread?
> 
> Don't you think I already stated I know I'm lucky ?
> 
> ...


Fair enough and you are welcome.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Believe me when I tell you that you were still VERY lucky.
> 
> Yes, it meant you had ONE upsetting day.
> 
> ...


Lucky? or just had a breeder that wanted an easy life! I thought it was the breeders first litter so put some of it down to inexperience (not that that should be an excuse). As has been said, poor breeders are known to 'appear nice' and know what to say. Equally more puppy buyers are being more discerning and encouraged to take action against breeders if there is a problem.

You think the breeder was being good by refunding the pup. I suspect they just wanted no comeback and will sell the puppy on to the next unsuspecting puppy buyer who knows no difference. The breeder has obviously had this pup a while as it's 12 weeks - who knows, the OP may not have been this pups first owner.

Glad to hear you don't breed.


----------



## hazel pritchard (Jun 28, 2009)

Hi OP could you maybe contact a beagle owners club and see if they have an owner that is local to you so you can go visit them and have a chat for some more info from someone who owns the breed and then they maybe able to recommend a good breeder to you.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I respect your opposing opinion, but we have to agree to disagree.
> 
> I expect a LOT from a breeder, but I don't expect them to put MY best interests before THEIR best interests. Which is to find a great home for all the puppies they don't want to keep.
> 
> ...


I'm pleased to hear that you don't breed considering what bad practices you find acceptable, and yes, it is very bad practice and irresponsible for a breeder to sell a puppy with any potential health problem without first informing the PPO, so they can make a decision as to whether they want to take on a pup with possible problems. Not only is it irresponsible it also makes more sense if your priority is finding good, forever homes. A PPO who takes on a puppy with the full knowledge of any issues they may have is much more committed to seeing through any problems than one who thinks they have bought a healthy puppy only to find out they have a problem - and that is in no way a reflection on the PPO - they may not be equipped/have the lifestyle/be able to afford to have a puppy under such circumstances, so in that case, the breeder has NOT done their best to find a good home for the puppy.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> I'm pleased to hear that you don't breed considering what bad practices you find acceptable, and yes, it is very bad practice and irresponsible for a breeder to sell a puppy with any potential health problem without first informing the PPO, so they can make a decision as to whether they want to take on a pup with possible problems. Not only is it irresponsible it also makes more sense if your priority is finding good, forever homes. A PPO who takes on a puppy with the full knowledge of any issues they may have is much more committed to seeing through any problems than one who thinks they have bought a healthy puppy only to find out they have a problem - and that is in no way a reflection on the PPO - they may not be equipped/have the lifestyle/be able to afford to have a puppy under such circumstances, so in that case, the breeder has NOT done their best to find a good home for the puppy.


There are 2 kinds of people when it comes to judging a specific situation, a moral dilemma.

One kind will look at it and think "Not what I would do...I'd handle his very differently" whilst still giving all people involved the benefit of the doubt. They understand that due to our humanity, we all make mistakes, we all struggle, on occasion, between doing the "right thing" and doing what best serves our self interests.

The other will see it as an excellent opportunity for condescending self righteousness, a prime occasion for self elevation and wildly waving the flag as the upholder of moral standards. The only acceptable standard being THEIR standard.

This situation involved a little puppy who had something amiss with one of her front legs. The new owner, upon noticing, contacted the breeder who immediatly took the puppy back and repaid all the money. A prompt resolution for a situation which could have been really ugly and drawn out.

The, evidently, sub-standard breeder producing said sub-standard puppy got a lot of flack, plus it offered a delectable, irresistable opportunity to take a few swings at a fellow forum member - me - who had the impertinence to say that the breeder had acted honourably in making the return of the puppy so easy. Honourably??!!! Good grief. THIS woman, selling THAT puppy? Nothing faintly moral about her. She clearly couldn't be a person who may have also struggled between doing what was right and her self interest. Doing so is ok for OTHER people, not her.

But bringing a puppy back on the sole account that it has one iffy looking leg, something which may, but equally likely may NEVER affect her life as a normal pet, isn't the embodiment of big heartedness and morality either. Yet, no one raised a single eyebrow that a pup who had already been bought was returned like a shoddy product that isn't quite up to snuff. Everyone was ok that this was a reasonable, sensible and acceptable thing to do.

Cold pragmatism and self interest far outweighed what might have been best for that puppy. Which might include staying in the home with the people who bought her out of free volition, people who ought to love and cherish her, with or without perfect legs. Not one person questioned the morality of THAT. Since seemingly, we are entitled to flawless "products" and if they aren't flawless, we are entitled to have those flaws pointed out to us in neon letters.

Being able to return those darn faulty creatures and have all of our money back isn't good enouth either. We need to shine and keep the spotlight firmly on those who sold them because that takes the focus away from our actions and, by Joves, offers yet another joyfull opportunity to indulge in self-congratulatory self rightousness and indignation.

I don't give a damn whether you are or aren't glad whether or not I breed, never mind how often you repeat it. Please focus on your own peculiar double standards and skewed interpretation of morality, never mind your interesting expressions of interpersonal decency or rather lack thereof, before examining mine. Thanks.


----------



## PBR1 (Dec 16, 2013)

_*Yet, no one raised a single eyebrow that a pup who had already been bought was returned like a shoddy product that isn't quite up to snuff.*_

I actually thought it was very sad that the poor puppy was taken back like a defective toaster. The puppy is a living creature.
I think when people don't take precautions and do their research properly when looking for a puppy they have to accept some responsibility for their actions.
( This isn't a dig at the OP just making the point that anyone who buys or sells irresponsibly has to accept that there is a likelihood of something going wrong)


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

Cold and selfish. Wow. I haven't personally attacked anybody for their opinion, have I ?


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> There are 2 kinds of people when it comes to judging a specific situation, a moral dilemma.
> 
> One kind will look at it and think "Not what I would do...I'd handle his very differently" whilst still giving all people involved the benefit of the doubt. They understand that due to our humanity, we all make mistakes, we all struggle, on occasion, between doing the "right thing" and doing what best serves our self interests.
> 
> ...





PBR1 said:


> _*Yet, no one raised a single eyebrow that a pup who had already been bought was returned like a shoddy product that isn't quite up to snuff.*_
> 
> I actually thought it was very sad that the poor puppy was taken back like a defective toaster. The puppy is a living creature.
> I think when people don't take precautions and do their research properly when looking for a puppy they have to accept some responsibility for their actions.
> ( This isn't a dig at the OP just making the point that anyone who buys or sells irresponsibly has to accept that there is a likelihood of something going wrong)


I am ABSOLUTELY ASTOUNDED by these posts!

Lets all go buy the poorly pups from puppy farms - might as well encourage every bad breeding practice there is!!

What hope is there if people think a breeder can knowingly sell to an unsuspecting buyer a puppy that may need lifelong medical treatment.

We should not be supporting breeding practices which are anything other than truthful and honest!

Words fail me!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> There are 2 kinds of people when it comes to judging a specific situation, a moral dilemma.
> 
> One kind will look at it and think "Not what I would do...I'd handle his very differently" whilst still giving all people involved the benefit of the doubt. They understand that due to our humanity, we all make mistakes, we all struggle, on occasion, between doing the "right thing" and doing what best serves our self interests.
> 
> ...


Your logic is seriously flawed. If this breeder really cared about this puppy she would have pointed out the possible problem to ensure that the new owner was aware of what the future may entail, ensuring that the puppy was going to a permanent home prepared for any problems the condition may cause. Instead of which she sold it knowing there was a problem and refrained from telling the purchaser. Her non-disclosure of the problem has caused the puppy to be returned, in other words, her own actions or lack of have caused this problem - so much for a breeder wanting to find the best home possible!

PS I have no idea what double standards you are referring to.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

PBR1 said:


> _Yet, no one raised a single eyebrow that a pup who had already been bought was returned like a shoddy product that isn't quite up to snuff._
> 
> I actually thought it was very sad that the poor puppy was taken back like a defective toaster. The puppy is a living creature.
> I think when people don't take precautions and do their research properly when looking for a puppy they have to accept some responsibility for their actions.
> ( *This isn't a dig at the OP just making the point that anyone who buys or sells irresponsibly has to accept that there is a likelihood of something going wrong*)


There is indeed, which is why advice is constantly given on here about looking for a puppy - we are thoroughly aware of how difficult it can be. And why, when poor advice is given, it should be countered. However, the greatest responsibility has to be with the breeder, they are the ones with the greater knowledge.


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

I wonder what the kennel club would think of this matter!


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Beaglemummy said:


> I wonder what the kennel club would think of this matter!


I doubt they'd do much unless the breeder is part of their assured breeder scheme.

The KC is a registration, rather than policing body.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I expect a LOT from a breeder, but I don't expect them to put MY best interests before THEIR best interests. Which is to find a great home for all the puppies they don't want to keep.


Actually, IMO, a breeder's FIRST responsibility is to the life they have produced and are responsible for. The dam and puppies. This breeder KNEW the puppy had a leg issue, didn't mention it to the puppy buyer, and just let her toddle off with a dog with issues that needed attending without addressing any of it.

How is that looking out for the puppy?

If I were a breeder and despite my best efforts at producing sound dog, ended up with one with obvious issues, my first priority would be to make sure that pup gets the best care possible, not pawn the pup off on the first unsuspecting buyer. 
And I know breeders who do take these sorts of responsibilities seriously, so it's not too much to ask.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> Your logic is seriously flawed. If this breeder really cared about this puppy she would have pointed out the possible problem to ensure that the new owner was aware of what the future may entail, ensuring that the puppy was going to a permanent home prepared for any problems the condition may cause. Instead of which she sold it knowing there was a problem and refrained from telling the purchaser. Her non-disclosure of the problem has caused the puppy to be returned, in other words, her own actions or lack of have caused this problem - so much for a breeder wanting to find the best home possible!
> 
> PS I have no idea what double standards you are referring to.


There is no point in endlessly belabouring the fact that the breeder sold the puppy with a bowed leg without specifically denoting such to the buyer. And what bad breeding practices this constitutes.

She did. A million people on the planet selling and breeding dogs would have done a lot worse - simply culled an inperfect puppy. She tried to find a good home for it, the evil demon. It was her prerogative to sell her own pup, with the condition that pup had, to someone who wanted to buy it. From her. Someone did want to buy it. Bought it, in fact. You behave as if she stuck a prosthetic leg on the pup to sneekily conceal the leg issue.

When the buyer returned the pup it wasn't to take an ethical stand against sub-optimal breeding practices. They got cold feet after realising something was odd with the puppy's leg and they preferred not deal with it or look into it. So back the puppy went. Which apparently went without a hitch. Problem solved for the OP.

Instead of leaving it at that, all manner of insults ans accusations were thrown at the breeder, someone not present to say their piece. And if anyone truly thinks that what that breeder did makes her en par with the devil or a puppymiller must lead a VERY sheltered life.

I do hope the aggrieved ex-buyer contacts the KC. As I can't wait to hear how they respond to a complaint stating: "I bought a puppy, changed my mind, got my money back, the breeder was always contactable and was happy to take the puppy back. I find this wholly unacceptable! I have been wronged and this breeder must be chastized". Indeed. More likely than they would instantly include her in their ill executed ABS scheme.

If you do better than this breeder, DO better. Either way, it is possible to point out a better approach of selling or buying a puppy without a total character assasination of someone else. Unless the primary aim is to look formidable in comparison to them.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Speaking purely as an ex-breeder, I would never have let anyone leave with a pup I knew had a condition that could become a problem or without at least making them aware of it.

I wanted my pups to go to permanent, loving homes, and my biggest fear was of them being passed on.

There's no justification, in my opinion, for hiding anything. Be honest, then there are no nasty surprises, no disappointed buyers and confused pups as a result if you aren't.

I once had a puppy with an undershot bite in one litter. Not a major problem I know, but I told the people who wanted her, gave them printed info about it and made an adjustment in the price for her.

If I hadn't, what could have happened? When she went for her first innoculations, if the vet had pointed it out, the new owners may have panicked and felt they couldn't deal with it.

Always best to be honest. I believe any Breeder owes that to purchasers of their pups and the pups themselves.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Sweety said:


> Speaking purely as an ex-breeder, I would never have let anyone leave with a pup I knew had a condition that could become a problem or without at least making them aware of it.
> 
> I wanted my pups to go to permanent, loving homes, and my biggest fear was of them being passed on.
> 
> ...


exactly! i had a pup with a bad knee once- i had intended on keeping her, but when visiting their other pup a couple completely fell in love with her- even after i explained about her knee (she had already needed physio and could well need again) but they were in love and so was she so they took both.

as it was, the poor love did need another round of physio at around 6 months, but the owners were aware of it and coped perfectly with it- i dread to think how they may have panicked and worried if i hadn't cared to mention at the time...


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

Sorry I should of made my post more clear. I wonder what the KC would of advised me to do if I phoned them prior to returning the puppy. 

Sorry where have I completely character assassinated the breeder then? 
Where have I said I have been completely wronged and none of it was my fault? 
Where have I said this breeder must be Chastised? 

So far you have called me cold , selfish and now you are accusing me of leading a sheltered life? 

I thought you agreed you would just leave it, now instead you are calling me all sorts? Really???


----------



## Sparkle22 (Oct 26, 2013)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> There is no point in endlessly belabouring the fact that the breeder sold the puppy with a bowed leg without specifically denoting such to the buyer. And what bad breeding practices this constitutes.
> 
> She did. A million people on the planet selling and breeding dogs would have done a lot worse - simply culled an inperfect puppy. She tried to find a good home for it, the evil demon. It was her prerogative to sell her own pup, with the condition that pup had, to someone who wanted to buy it. From her. Someone did want to buy it. Bought it, in fact. You behave as if she stuck a prosthetic leg on the pup to sneekily conceal the leg issue.
> 
> ...


But she didn't try and find a good home for it, she noticed it had a defect and yes, it's a little innocent puppy and all that but dogs are not SUPPOSED to have wonky legs and therefore it was a defect.
A defect, that could have severely affected the pups quality of life later.
A defect, that could have required thousands of pounds worth of surgery to rectify.
A defect, that would disqualify the pup had the buyer decided she might like to try her hand at showing it. 
And instead of keeping it back or explaining the issue to a prospective buyer and adjusting the price accordingly tried to sell it on without a word, pretending there was no issue there.
How can that ever be okay?

She refunded it and took it back and that makes her heroic?
I would expect nothing less!
ANY decent breeder should take back a pup they bred...?

I think you'll find that should read 'I bought a puppy and on discovering I had been lied to and the puppy had a defective leg that was never made clear to me I changed my mind and got a refund etc etc...'
Your version of a complaint misses out the core issue!
She didn't take it back because she changed her mind, she changed her mind because it had a defect that she was not made aware of!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

It seems to me that this particular breeder had a problem. She bred the problem and passed it on to an unsuspecting buyer.

When the OP first spoke to her, she admitted she knew the pup had a leg problem, but that it would grow out of it.

That, to me, is completely wrong. She knew, but she said nothing and then the OP was put in a horrible position of having to return the pup.

I don't think this particular breeder is reputable or honourable. She shouldn't have tried to sweep this under the carpet and pass the responsibility on to someone who trusted her.


----------



## Beaglemummy (Jan 21, 2014)

No, it's because apparently I'm a cold hearted, selfish , sheltered moron. Of course . 

It's ok for her to splash the insults around and put words into my mouth. 

If I had rang the kennel club prior to taking the puppy back I would of been ashamed to repeat my actions the same as I am on here! But no even that she has to make up a whole conversation I would have to them in her head to make me sound like a heartless bitch. 

I actually called the sire's owner before getting hold of the breeder. She was lovely and gave me sound advice and took 20 minutes out of her day to do so. She told me to go to citizens advice get a plan together of my rights, take the puppy to my vet for a examination and get it in writing what the problem is. I then managed to get hold of the breeder who said instantly to bring her back , not take her to my own vets she will take the pup to hers. I was crying on the phone and unlike the Other poster thinks , NO it wasn't just ONE day of upset for me it's been every day since. 

I feel guilty for my part in this and I don't really want to keep reading stuff like ' I'm a cold hearted selfish person' because I'm not !!! 

This is my last post on this thread. I'm done.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Beaglemummy said:


> Sorry I should of made my post more clear. I wonder what the KC would of advised me to do if I phoned them prior to returning the puppy.
> 
> Sorry where have I completely character assassinated the breeder then?
> Where have I said I have been completely wronged and none of it was my fault?
> ...


My response was to rocco, not you. Not everthing is about you, your wants and wishes. This is about a puppy that got the heave-ho after you bought her because you didn't want to deal with her bowed leg.

And I called you nothing aside from getting cold feet, which is accurate.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> She tried to find a good home for it, the evil demon.


She. The puppy is a "she." 
Sorry, minor pet peeve of mine, if the gender is known, it seems a little detached to call a dog an it. Especially if you're already berating the OP for not being very caring. 
IMO, yes, just my opinion, if a breeder knows a pup has issues, she should have made sure those issues would be dealt with in a way that presents the best possible outcome for the pup. I don't see how on earth a good outcome could come from not divulging this very pertinent information to the puppy buyer, if for no other reason than to make sure that this issue was properly dealt with. 
One would think that the breeder would have more knowledge than the puppy buyer on how to best deal with an orthopedic issue, so I'm not sure how it is in the pup's best interest to go to a home that not only doesn't know about the issue, but also has no guidance on how to handle it.



Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> When the buyer returned the pup it wasn't to take an ethical stand against sub-optimal breeding practices. They got cold feet after realising something was odd with the puppy's leg and they preferred not deal with it or look into it. So back the puppy went. Which apparently went without a hitch. Problem solved for the OP.


I didn't read the OP's posts at all that way. "Preferred not to deal with it or look in to it"?? Can you point me to where the OP said anything like this? I did not read that at all....



Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> If you do better than this breeder, DO better. Either way, it is possible to point out a better approach of selling or buying a puppy without a total character assasination of someone else. Unless the primary aim is to look formidable in comparison to them.


So what is your primary aim in conducting a character assassination of the OP?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I agree.

The OP has done nothing wrong here.

The responsibility for this mess lies squarely at the foot of the breeder. She knew the pup had a problem, but sold her anyway.

Sometimes, buying your pet pup can be exciting and overwhelming and I fail to see how the OP can be blamed for not noticing the pup had a problem with her leg.

The Breeder, however, KNEW and said nothing. She's the villain of the piece in my opinion.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

I sincerely hope the OP sticks around on this forum and realises that most of us here are caring human beings with the best interests of dogs at heart. And that includes promoting ethical breeding practices. 

I think the OP did everything right. 

I cannot see how this breeder acted in any ethical way. Perhaps if they hadnt known there was a problem before sale, but they admitted they had known. I do believe the refund probably came from a resigned, oh dear, caught out again motive. 

I do hope to breed, and i would never dream of selling a puppy with any kind of problem. Making sure the puppy gets any help it needs would be my primary concern. 

This thread should have ended ages ago. Its upsetting to the OP, and those of use who are genuine dog lovers.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

BessieDog said:


> I cannot see how this breeder acted in any ethical way. Perhaps if they hadnt known there was a problem before sale, but they admitted they had known.


Having been a breeder - of cats, and many species of small animals, on and off for the last 35 years - I could not and WOULD not and [never HAVE] pass/ed on a defective animal knowingly *without full disclosure*.

Perhaps I am merely of a different calibre to the breeders that Hopeattheendofthetunnel has encountered.

I have also known my baby animals intimately and indiivually from birth - except for the species that cannot be handled immediately, but handled each and every one from the time they are able to be handled. There is no way any kind of conformational abnormality would have escaped my attention, even on a mouse or a hamster, even within a litter of 16 young.

On the few occasions I had some kind of deviation, the prospective owners were not only told, explained to, but the paperwork reflected the issue, and often the small animals were gifted to suitable AWARE owners who were happy with the situation. OR I would have kept them myself, without hesitation.

No need to state that I was happy to have them back at any time in their lives if the owners no longer wanted them - better off with me where they are still wanted, than in a home where they aren't.

I was once caught out with a kitten buyer who clearly stared she wanted a pet only. She tried to haggle the price even before seeing the kitten. However her references checked out well, and as the kitten had a tiny umbilical hernia, it was pointed out to her, and her receipt plus PetPlan insurance clearly said PET - NOT FOR BREEDING. She said that was OK because it could be repaired when the kitten was spayed. I said that if it later incurred any extra cost I would cover it.

Four weeks later she demanded a full refund and that I took the kitten back - her vets had said it couldn't be bred from as it had an umbilical hernia  and she was verbally abusive. I had no issue at all in taking the kitten back, as she'd lied to me, and refused to pay the "compensation" she demanded, for it not being of breeding quality. 

I later found out she was known to breed rescue and many other breeders for buying cats (and dogs) on a whim and usually selling them on - 15 years ago that was very unusual indeed (although sadly, commonplace now).


----------



## PBR1 (Dec 16, 2013)

BessieDog said:


> I am ABSOLUTELY ASTOUNDED by these posts!
> 
> Lets all go buy the poorly pups from puppy farms - might as well encourage every bad breeding practice there is!!
> 
> ...


Please read my post . I am not condoning the breeder I am saying BOTH parties are at fault and that I think some consideration should be given to the poor puppy who is not an inanimate object


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

PBR1 said:


> Please read my post . I am not condoning the breeder I am saying BOTH parties are at fault and that I think some consideration should be given to the poor puppy who is not an inanimate object


Of course the puppy is not an inanimate object! The breeder, knowing there was a potential problem, should have made sure she was placed in the right home who knew of her problems and had undertaken to see her through them!!

I hope to God you are not a breeder!


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

PBR1 said:


> Please read my post . I am not condoning the breeder I am saying BOTH parties are at fault and that I think some consideration should be given to the poor puppy who is not an inanimate object


No both parties are not at fault.

Any breeder should be intimately aware of any minor differences in their litters, see my post above where I have raised litters of up to 16 small animals and known them all inside out.

If the litters are raised outside in a kennel or on a puppy farm then things can get overlooked - but in a usual home-bred situation they are known individually from birth, handled every day, weights recorded and records kept. The handling is for socialisation as much as anything else, and I fail to see how any truly conscientious breeder failed to notice a gammy leg. If I can do it with large litters of rodents, then a good dog breeder can do it with a litter of 6 puppies.

We already know the breeder had noticed it and said nothing to the buyer - Puppy, hamster, rabbit or fridge-freezer, it's dishonest.

PS: Even the puppy farmers DO notice abnormalities - that's why Many Tears take on some of the blind, deformed, unsaleable puppies that can't be sent for sale in pet shops. There is no wool over my eyes.


----------



## PBR1 (Dec 16, 2013)

BessieDog said:


> Of course the puppy is not an inanimate object! The breeder, knowing there was a potential problem, should have made sure she was placed in the right home who knew of her problems and had undertaken to see her through them!!
> 
> I hope to God you are not a breeder!


No I most certainly am not a breeder
My point is that breeders as well as buyers have to be more responsible
The OP bought a puppy without checking that the proper health tests were done and the breeder sold a puppy without disclosing the full health if the puppy . BOTH in my view have to take responsibility


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

PBR1 said:


> No I most certainly am not a breeder
> My point is that breeders as well as buyers have to be more responsible
> The OP bought a puppy without checking that the proper health tests were done and the breeder sold a puppy without disclosing the full health if the puppy . BOTH in my view have to take responsibility


Don't take it to heart.

None of this has to do with promoting ethical breeding practices. This isn't about inherent morality, either. If it was, people would have a serious problem with viewing a puppy as a "refundable object" in the first place. Never mind about continuing to slag off a person who isn't there to defend themselves.

All those ad hominem attacks simply fulful some posters lust and need for self aggrandizement and expressing moral indignation.

Otherwise this topic wouldn't have been so devoid of any objectivity. This was largely a demonstration of "look how fabulous, virtuous and moral I am". The overwhelming urge and need of some to be "liked" by anonymous others eclipsed all semblance of fairness and objectivity.

The OP returned a puppy she shouldn't have bought in the first place and understandibly felt very bad about it. For the puppy and herself. Because whilst it was an entirely sensible thing to do, it wasn't a particularly kind, noble or tender hearted thing to do.

But we WANT to be kind and regard ourselves as kind. So what do we do - all of us - when our actions contradict who we want to be and how we want to continue to think of ourselves? We look for someone else to blame. Ot at least someone who greatly dilutes our self blame. And in doing so she got a lot of alleged support from some others who thought it ws a swell opportunity for self promotion. Under the cloak of "lending support" they could extoll their own marvelousness. They just used her moral dilemma for their own self serving motives.

That's what happened here. It has nothing do do with responsability,or good or bad breeding practices per se. Nor fairness. Nor of lending support to the OP. Or being an animal lover.


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2014)

An orthopedic issue in a growing pup to me would necessitate a pretty decent knowledge base to ensure the best possible outcome for the pup.

Generally the breeder is going to have a more solid knowledge-base than the puppy buyer. Generally the breeder would know best how to handle orthopedic issues in their breed. Generally the breeder would either offer guidance to the puppy buyer on how best to handle the issue or would take it upon themselves to keep the pup to ensure the orthopedic issue either resolves or stabilizes and the pup has the best possible outcome.


----------



## Nagini (Jan 13, 2014)

bloody gobsmacked. bringing your first puppy home is supposed to be an exciting time filled with joy and happiness. beaglemummy isnt to blame , if the defect was noticeable it should have been pointed out straight away allowing her to make an informed decision as to whether this poor puppy was still suitable. its an absolute minefield out there for first time puppy buyers who arent dog savvy , who dont know their stuff. so how is exactly this person to blame? too right she took the puppy back , that was the right and best decision all round , who wants to be potentially faced with a never ending list of vet visits and vets bills to pay? i know i wouldnt so why should anyone else have to accept that? its enough to put any first time puppy buyer off for bloody life:mad2: dogs and puppies do come under the sale of goods act so beaglemummy was well within her rights to take the puppy back and ask for a refund due to the puppy not being fit for purpose so she did do the responsible and best thing , for her family , sod the breeder.
i hope you stick around beaglemummy


----------

