My Worst Nightmare

yukidomari · 02-05-2013, 23:43

Reading the email from the original lady who kept Braveheart it seems he behaved as a normal developing immature male Czechoslovakian Vlcak? It's not for fun when people say they are 'dominant and challenging' dogs to own; it's only a shame that the owner did not realize this and neither did the breeder realize this in the potential new owner. Everything that was written there I have experienced first hand in young and immature Vlcaks.

Coprophagia is common for many dogs and isn't indicative of anything. Vlcaks biting, and biting HARD, jumping, mouthing, destroying things and being dominant towards other dogs is not exactly rare and unheard of, unless a person decided not to do any research whatsoever. A Vlcak, especially a male, seeming to be impossibly wild and 'aggressive' at right around the 1 year mark is WELL within the norm and could even be said to be the normal course of development in their maturity. She asked for a submissive male, perhaps she got the most submissive one of the litter? But he is STILL a Vlcak. A Vlcak (or any dog for that matter) behaving aggressively when suddenly rehomed especially as an adult is not exactly surprising either.

I don't know what the contract is between the breeder and the owner but if the breeders' contract stated rights of first refusal, which is what I gather (and common here to well-written contracts), then he should have first been (and the owner is obliged to) offered to the breeder to buy back. And in any case the contract probably laid out, or should have laid out, stipulations in regards to rehoming and breeding, including surrender, cross breeding, breeding without registration, and so on. If so, that's what I suspect the legal action is for. If not, then I think the breeder can take this as a lesson well learned.

Dogs are not predictable machines, they are living, growing, and learning creatures. Even the best breeder can't predict with absolute certainty how a dog will turn out. All a breeder can do is offer to take the dog back and take responsibility for him, which is what appears to be the case.

A buyer should take responsibility for their decisions; when somebody buys a breed widely said to be dominant and challenging and wants otherwise, that is a problem in itself, especially if the person wants a young puppy, all of which grow and have huge potential for change..

02-05-2013, 23:43	#21
yukidomari Moderator Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Los Angeles CA Posts: 847	Reading the email from the original lady who kept Braveheart it seems he behaved as a normal developing immature male Czechoslovakian Vlcak? It's not for fun when people say they are 'dominant and challenging' dogs to own; it's only a shame that the owner did not realize this and neither did the breeder realize this in the potential new owner. Everything that was written there I have experienced first hand in young and immature Vlcaks. Coprophagia is common for many dogs and isn't indicative of anything. Vlcaks biting, and biting HARD, jumping, mouthing, destroying things and being dominant towards other dogs is not exactly rare and unheard of, unless a person decided not to do any research whatsoever. A Vlcak, especially a male, seeming to be impossibly wild and 'aggressive' at right around the 1 year mark is WELL within the norm and could even be said to be the normal course of development in their maturity. She asked for a submissive male, perhaps she got the most submissive one of the litter? But he is STILL a Vlcak. A Vlcak (or any dog for that matter) behaving aggressively when suddenly rehomed especially as an adult is not exactly surprising either. I don't know what the contract is between the breeder and the owner but if the breeders' contract stated rights of first refusal, which is what I gather (and common here to well-written contracts), then he should have first been (and the owner is obliged to) offered to the breeder to buy back. And in any case the contract probably laid out, or should have laid out, stipulations in regards to rehoming and breeding, including surrender, cross breeding, breeding without registration, and so on. If so, that's what I suspect the legal action is for. If not, then I think the breeder can take this as a lesson well learned. Dogs are not predictable machines, they are living, growing, and learning creatures. Even the best breeder can't predict with absolute certainty how a dog will turn out. All a breeder can do is offer to take the dog back and take responsibility for him, which is what appears to be the case. A buyer should take responsibility for their decisions; when somebody buys a breed widely said to be dominant and challenging and wants otherwise, that is a problem in itself, especially if the person wants a young puppy, all of which grow and have huge potential for change.. __________________ "Learn to do well; seek judgment." www.greyfarer.com/ Last edited by yukidomari; 03-05-2013 at 18:37.