Co-Owning?

[Rush]

I'm not entirely sure if this is the right section or not, but... I've been looking for a Shepherd for awhile, I have lots of experience training/working dogs, but the time has never been right to get a new Shepherd. It is now (yay )

I came across the option to Co-own, and I was just curious to know more about it. Some Breeders I've looked into do co-owning, is it something, if I'm approved that's worth doing? As a Breeder, what's your opinion on it? From my understanding, it's taking a puppy that the breeder wants rights too, and basically fostering/raising/training/titling the puppy for the breeder.... Or something of that nature.

Any good/bad experiences with it?
Do you know of any breeders to look into who do it?

Thanks!

[Whiteshepherds]

Different breeders do it for different reasons. You really have to talk to the specific breeder to know what they expect from a co-own.

[CaliBoy]

Rush:

Speaking for myself and how crazy I am about my attachments to my dogs, I could never have a dog like that. My GSD is mine. He's all mine, and no one else can have him or co-own him, and no one else can tell me what he gets to do or not do. To me, it would be like co-owning a baby. I would suggest if you want to own one, that you own it completely and all the way.

[LaRen616]

Originally Posted by CaliBoy

Rush:

Speaking for myself and how crazy I am about my attachments to my dogs, I could never have a dog like that. My GSD is mine. He's all mine, and no one else can have him or co-own him, and no one else can tell me what he gets to do or not do. To me, it would be like co-owning a baby. I would suggest if you want to own one, that you own it completely and all the way.

I completely agree with this.

[Rerun]

Outside of breeding rights, why on earth would anyone take a puppy and put all that work into it only to have someone else retain partial ownership? Is the other person at least paying a significant portion of the care and training costs, since you are doing all the work?

I can imagine some might think they'll get pick of the litter and get the "best" puppy (one that might not have been sold otherwise), but in reality there are SO many nice dogs out there, you can find just as nice a pup that you can own outright.

I've heard of co-ownerships done for breeding dogs, and I've seen foster programs where the breeder holds back females and places them with owners but retains the right to breed the dog once a year and whelp/raise the pups at their facility.

[Jax08]

Not a breeder, but like anything else it will depend on having the right partner. I know when a horse is co-owned, costs are split. I would assume the same for dogs?

[Xeph]

I know when a horse is co-owned, costs are split. I would assume the same for dogs?

In my experience...nope.

The person in possession of the dog is responsible for all care of the dog with no monetary assistance from the co-owners unless otherwise agreed upon.

[Rush]

Is it a myth with co-owning, in exchange for all the work/original breeder retaining rights you ultimately get the pup for free?

This is why I'm so up in the air with this. I do not want to put all this work into a dog, and then have the breeder tell me what to do with it. (On top of paying a hefty price for it)

But at the same time, I think it's a fair trade off if in exchange for the price of the dog, you work/title it, and the breeder keeps breeding rights.
Knowing me, I'll spoil any dog I have rotten regardless, and despite what paper says I'll always consider it to be "my" dog.

[Liesje]

I've seen it in a few scenarios....

* The dog was purchased by two people, already an accomplished/titled dog, purchase for breeding. Maybe each person could not afford the dog on their own, so they pool and "share" the dog, each doing litters with their own kennel or splitting the kennel names on the litters.

* Someone wants to try their hand at training, handling, and/or competing with a dog, may not be ready to fully commit to owning the dog (like say a teenager working with a breeder as a mentor), and it's easier for paperwork/entries to have the trainer/handler listed as an owner so you don't always have to go back to the breeder/original owner to sign everything.

* A breeder is selling a dog with "strings attached", as in, they will not transfer full ownership until the new owner has "proven" something, like a show CH, some sort of title, etc. If the dog is a good prospect for something, and the breeder wants to ensure that the owner will follow through, the dog might be co-owned first.



I personally have not and will not do it. I assume full responsibility for my dogs' costs and will not buy a dog I cannot afford on my own. Also I want full control over MY dogs and do not buy dogs unless they are registered in full to me only (sometimes I list my husband as a co-owner, sometimes not). I've seen it go bad enough times to not consider it for myself. I've seen friends become enemies slandering each others' names. Not worth it, IMO. I do not automatically write off breeders that co-own, I just don't enter into that sort of relationship myself.

[Liesje]

Originally Posted by Rush

Is it a myth with co-owning, in exchange for all the work/original breeder retaining rights you ultimately get the pup for free?

This is why I'm so up in the air with this. I do not want to put all this work into a dog, and then have the breeder tell me what to do with it. (On top of paying a hefty price for it)

It totally depends on the arrangement with the breeder.

If you don't want strings attached, then don't do it. Save up to buy the dog you want and own it in full.