While it is a very common phenomenon for breeders to “guarantee” their puppies for all sorts of conditions, my opinion is somewhat different.  First, I don’t think that a breeder can guarantee, in the true sense of the word, the quality of a puppy except for a small number of very specific conditions.  Such a condition might be a disease for which the genetic marker has been identified and for which there is a test that breeders can use to assess their breeding dogs for that marker.  In Border Collies, an example is CEA/CH for which Optigen (www.optigen.com) provides a DNA test.

There are heritable conditions which are impossible for a breeder to know exist in one or both parents until a litter is born.  Sometimes, these are pleasant surprises, like the “red” color gene.   A pedigree can present with long lines of black and white dogs, on both sides, and then a red pup is born.  The recessive gene can be carried along, hidden from sight for several generations until two dogs, both of which carry the red gene, are mated.   Other times, a deleterious condition, such as cryptorchidism (un-descended testicles) can present in a puppy and, due to the complexity of the genetic expression, a breeder can neither predict nor breed out of her stock (fully) the condition.  An on-line article by Susan Lennard (http://icelanddogs.com/cryptorchidism.html) stated:

“HERITABILITY: Cryptorchidism is a congenital anomaly which is described as a sex limited (occurs only in males) trait.   The incidence of cryptorchidism is greatly higher in that of pure-bred dogs and specifically, in that of heavily line-bred animals. Bilateral retention is reported to be most common in in-bred animals (Vet. Clinics of North America: Small  Animal Practice-Vol. 21, No. 3, May 1991). The dam and sire of the cryptorchid pup may appear to be normal while being carriers for the defect. Given the polygenic nature of cryptorchidism, it is difficult to calculate quantitative results with respect to frequency and distribution. Simple recessives provide statistical expectations as we consider a limited number of possibilities yet polygenic modes of inheritance are far more complicated as a singular gene may be responsible for but one aspect of an entire process in which several genes dictate the completion of the event ie: descent of the testes. With this in mind, it is not difficult to understand how an affected (cryptorchid) animal may produce seemingly normal offspring.

Testicular descent involves a seemingly simple process of moving from one location within the abdomen, to another. The mechanism by which descent is achieved however (contractions of abdominal muscles as well as intra-abdominal pressure), is considerably more complicated. Central to proper development and subsequent descent of the testes, is an intricate yet undetermined interplay of androgenic hormones, non-androgenic secretions and genetic predisposition.

Current research provides that it is probable that multiple genes are responsible for the condition of cryptorchidism.   Unfortunately, our knowledge of the specific nature or cause for undescended testes is limited to studies involving adult  men and pigs; conclusions which are not necessarily applicable to dogs. Hormonal analysis has eliminated hormones as being the sole cause for a failure in descent. Rather, nonandrogenic factors which determine gubernacular outgrowth are thought to be contributory.”

And, “ESTABLISHING CARRIERS: A study involving Beagles revealed that 40 offspring from a single dam were needed in order to establish the dam as a carrier. Cryptorchidism, therefore, is extremely difficult to control once it is within a population. Establishing carriers is most tedious. Given these facts, we are inclined to throw up our hands and proclaim defeat. After all, we are seldom used to a good and challenging race; a race which, in the end, we may have to begin over again. Fortunately, we are encouraged by results which reveal substantive improvements in agriculture.”

That was a lot of information to share, but I believe it is critical that puppy buyers recognize that they are purchasing a creature which is not only unique to itself (there will never exist another dog exactly like yours), but that a breeder cannot control, nor should she be expected to control, conditions which are outside of her control.  The information above, about cryptorchidism suggests that in a designed study it required a bitch to produce 40 puppies to determine that she was a carrier of the condition.  I have never bred a bitch so many times that she produced 40 puppies, and clearly not as part of a well constructed, designed experiment.  So, it would be impossible for me, as a breeder who produces 1-3 litters a year to have control over that sort of information.  Of course, if a breeding produced a puppy with an unacceptable defect, I would simply choose to avoid that cross again.  There are dozens of heritable conditions which follow the same, complicated pattern of inheritance as cryptorchidism in dogs.  Puppy buyers need to understand and accept this reality, in my opinion.  And, expecting them to do so means that I, as a breeder, must attempt to educate and then support the idea that puppy buyers should use this knowledge when creating expectations for their “perfect” pet.

Dr. Mark Neff / Dr. Steve Hamilton (UCSF) performed a collaborative student on epilepsy in Border Collies.  In 2010, these preliminary results were published in the ABCA newsletter.

“For the epilepsy study, we had collected DNA samples from roughly 60 affected dogs.  We typed these dogs on nearly 60,000 DNA markers and compared the genetic profiles to a roughly equal number of health control Border Collies.  Unlike the hearing loss study, which had only about half the sample size of this study, the epilepsy genome-wide mapping failed to reveal any ‘hits” with statistical significance.  In fact, there were not really any signals that were even suggestive of positive association.  This does not indicate that epilepsy is not hereditary.  There are many reasons why a signal might not have been detected.  For instance, it is possible that there are many genes that contribute a modest amount of risk for idiopathic seizures; the size of the cohort we studied would not allow us to detect genes of subtle effect. “  The study continues and DNA samples from dogs that seize are welcomed.

Seizures in Border Collies have long been attributed to idiopathic (unknown cause) epilepsy by the veterinary community.  However, they often take it a step further and assume there is a heritable (genetic) cause.  This first study by Drs. Neff and Hamilton suggest otherwise, or that genes contribute only a modest risk.  This provides another example of why a breeder is not truly able to “guarantee” that a puppy she produces will not present with seizures.  The current data suggest that the heritable influence is probably a mild one, at best.   When a dog presents with seizures, it’s critical for the owner to push the issue and attempt to find the root cause, rather than permitting the veterinarian to proclaim that it is a result of genetics, alone, and to dismiss the patient without further investigation.  Sadly, that is a common phenomenon.

I would hope that my reputation as a conscientious breeder would not be tarnished because of the production of a pup that presented with seizures.  But, that is how dog breeders are often treated when they plan a mating between two fine quality dogs that ends up creating a puppy with a problem.  Clearly, a quality breeder does not perform such a breeding with ill intent.  But, her name may be dragged through the mud and all the good that she may have done for the breed goes up in smoke because of unrealistic expectations that people place on breeders.  Breeders do not have a crystal ball into which they can gaze and make perfect decisions.  One reason that I maintain the policies that I do regarding “guarantees” is because I think it is important to reiterate that, at every step of the process, a breeder cannot make perfect puppies and a puppy buyer must assume some risk when purchasing a puppy.

I do not think that a breeder should make claims and guarantees that she cannot support through conscientious planned breeding decisions.  The puppy buyer needs to understand the complexity of breeding dogs and assume some of the consequences, based on all of the possible information available about the breed and the specific breeding.  The idea of a “puppy lemon law” puts all of the responsibility on the breeder to produce a perfect animal when everyone knows that there is no such thing as perfection in nature.  I believe that buyers must first understand and then accept the circumstance in which they place themselves when choosing to “purchase” a living, breathing animal.  While a breeder can do everything that is possible to screen against current heritable conditions, and while she can do all that she can to socialize the puppies and expose them to valuable educational experiences before they go to their new homes, they are, after all, a compilation of both planning and chance.

For other ailments, such as Hip Dysplasia, with new data being collected almost daily by dozens of researchers, it is fairly evident that the condition is not wholly controlled by genes.  Studies on heritability suggest that genes inherited from the puppy’s parents do not have complete control over the expression of the condition.  There are, most probably, environmental contributors to the disease.  In that light, some breeders require their puppy buyers to feed a very specific diet or their “hip guarantee” is considered null and void.  Others put constraints on the exercise and management of the puppy or retract their guarantee against Hip Dysplasia.  Since neither the diet nor the exercise pattern of a puppy can be truly verified by the breeder once the puppy is in the new owner’s hands, those sorts of guarantees are meaningless, in my mind and would become a he-said / she-said battle of hearsay, if truly challenged in a court of law.  In my opinion, to “guarantee” against such a condition as hip dysplasia leaves a puppy buyer believing that I actually have some sort of control over the manifestation of the condition other than screening the parents which I breed to be clear of the condition and providing information on other relatives’ hip status.  Unfortunately, today, that is the state of the information and, in my opinion, puppy buyers need to know this and choose (or not) to accept such risk.

I prefer to sell puppies to intelligent, informed, responsible buyers who recognize that they are taking on the stewardship of a living creature that has been created through planned selection, but that, as a unique being never to be replicated again, can present an infinite number of genetic conditions which the breeder cannot control.

With that practice, to jump on the breeder bandwagon and claim that I can guarantee a puppy will be flawless is, to me, deceitful and misleading. 

I simply believe that it does not serve a puppy buyer when the breeder “guarantees” the pup against defects over which the breeder has little or no control.  This is not a cop-out.  This is the most clear, concise method I know to present the information to a potential puppy buyer and help him to assume the risk of purchasing a puppy.  There is risk.  To deny it by having a blanket “guarantee” for everything is to be misleading.

If a puppy were to be “guaranteed” against development of a condition  that cannot be verified through genetic testing, then upholding the guarantee usually means that the breeder either agrees to take back the defective puppy or refunds some portion of the original purchase price.  However, many puppy buyers would rather not give back their puppy and the presentation of the disease or condition comes as a huge surprise.  Since the puppy was “guaranteed” to be free of the condition, the buyer expected the puppy to be free of the condition.   An educated breeder would know that there was some risk that a puppy could present with the condition unless a genetic marker test was available.  An educated breeder would pass that information onto the puppy buyer.  But, when an unenforceable guarantee is made, the best the breeder can do to satisfy the puppy owner is to return part of the purchase price.

 In essence, then, we are not talking about a guarantee, but a warrantee.  To provide a warrantee, a breeder needs to collect enough funds through the sale of a puppy to be able to provide a refund if a condition is identified.  Therefore, a puppy under warrantee should cost more than a puppy that comes without such a warrantee.  The breeder must determine how much money, over the actual price to produce the puppy, should she charge the buyer in order to have funds available if a buyer requests action against the warrantee.  This can become a very complicated situation, and obviously increases the price of the puppy.

An alternative solution would be to charge the actual price to produce the puppy and provide all of the health screen details to the buyers so that he can make an informed purchase decision and provide no warrantee for a defect which may or may not present itself.  This is my policy.  It may be an uncommon strategy amongst puppy breeders, but that does not make it bad.  It just makes it different.  I do not follow the status quo when I believe the status quo isn’t working properly.  I do not purchase the extended warrantee when I buy a new computer from Best-Buy, either. 

Most breeders, in my opinion, do not put the time into determining what it actually costs them to produce a high quality puppy.  They see what other people are charging for their breed and do the same – even if the other breeders are spending additional hundreds of dollars performing health screens, showing their dog in performance events or in conformation shows – and set their price at that level.  It is a buyer beware world, and my policy places some responsibility on the buyers to educate themselves and be intelligent about their purchase decisions, to determine whether the puppy is worth what they are willing to spend, and to know why they believe that.

If people would be enticed into becoming educated about purchasing puppies, the Puppy Mills in this world would all be gone.  No one would knowingly purchase a puppy from a retail pet shop if they knew just a little about where those puppies come from.  I am an avid proponent of educating the consumer rather than using the government to create dozens of unenforceable laws to protect people from themselves.  The $2500-$3000 mill raised puppies that one can find in retail shops in bigger cities would be a thing of the past if people would put as much time into researching their puppy purchase as they do the purchase of their next big appliance.

I have done the math regarding what it does cost me, personally, to produce a puppy.  It is far more than the typical $350-$500 that one sees many Border Collie puppies listed for sale in the newspapers in rural areas.  When I see a breeder selling her puppies for $350, I can only figure that she does not value her time or she doesn’t really raise the puppies right, or she doesn’t put funds into health screens or working and/or trialing the dogs to determine whether they are worthy of breeding.  I also do not price my puppies at $1500, like some breeders charge.  Some of the "designer mixed breeds" are listed for that and often more.  So, I would love to price my high quality, pure-bred, health screened puppies for at least that much.  But, putting myself in a puppy buyer's shoes - once the price of a puppy exceeds what is fair and reasonable, the buyer may develop the attitude that, "for this amount of money I should be able to do just about anything I want with this dog".  I want to retain some communication with the folks who purchase my puppies and I want to have a contract that requires that I am contacted if the new owner encounters trouble with the puppy.  I want the buyer to feel that it is reasonable to return the puppy to me.  The higher the price a person pays, I believe the more distant a purchaser moves from the idea that the puppy is a "life" that I chose to bring into this world and for which I maintain a sense of responsibility and ownership.  So, I charge close to what it costs me to produce the puppy, rather than at a large profit point.  My litters are not always priced the same because each litter costs a different amount to produce depending upon things such as whether I paid a stud fee and the size of the litter across which I can spread the expenses.  I do not add the price of a warrantee against unknown, unpredictable or low probability defects.

I use a contract when I sell a puppy.  The purpose is to protect both the seller and the buyer by clearly defining the agreements, in their entirety, about the sale of the puppy.  The contract contains all of the agreements between the seller and the buyer.  It is not my policy to make changes to the sales contract at any point in the future unless both parties agree to such changes.  I expect the puppy buyers to read and understand the contract before they agree to purchase a puppy.  I send a copy of the contract for review before I accept a deposit.  I use a form which the puppy buyers sign when they send a deposit.  On that form, above the signature line, is the text, “Buyer confirms that s/he has read the Sales Contract and agrees to the contents of the contract.” 

To me, this is the only acceptable method of creating a fair and binding negotiation between buyer and seller.  My contract does not include “warrantee” or “guarantee” type statements which I cannot substantiate.  I do not want someone to be surprised, at some point in the future, when they expect something that I cannot deliver.  So, the contract is a stand-alone document that defines the puppy sale.  To hold true to the contract is the best way that I know how to maintain a healthy relationship with the puppy buyer.

To some, my decision to function differently than many breeders may seem that I am not meeting an arbitrary “nationally recognized tradition”.  I have issues with the “tradition”.  I believe that a puppy buyer needs to recognize the complexity of many of the processes which result in heritable or semi-heritable conditions and understand and accept that risk so that they have a realistic vision of what a breeder can and cannot do.  My decision to stand up and present this alternative view will bring some level of distain and criticism, hopefully only until it is understood.  For me, it is about defining enforceable standards and being reasonable.  I think there is far too little of both those qualities in today’s society.