Adequan was/is given IM, not in the hock. A new study has shown it is equally effective administered sub-Q so now there is little or no pain involved. Again, the results are equal or superior to surgery. Only a small percent of oral joint supplements are utilized by the body and are not suitable to treat an acute problem.

@Carrie: My dog was 7 months old when his symptoms surfaced. He would be walking along normally and then would suddenly lift his rear leg and hold it in the air. If made to move forward, he would be limping and in obvious pain. The problem was a large chip broken off from his hock. When it shifted position, it caused pain when he tried to walk, much like if you were walking with a stone in your shoe. He had surgery on one hock at 8 months old, and the second a couple of months later. Remember, this was 8 years ago, so there may indeed be a better option now, but surgery worked for him.

I have found that it is directly related to the genes. I have always fed a low calcium food and still had an OCD hock show up in a niece to one that was affected. They were just big from the get-go. Even on dam's milk they were big puppies, which I think led to the OCD.

Update: The verbage on the contract is very spacific to only backing (with replacement or refund) hips & eyes. I'm having him do some more research on injectables... and he is familiar with the specilist's clinics in ANC- this pup has already been to that clinic...

Speaking for myself, when I adopt a dog that somebody else bred, I immediately assume ALL liability for that dog's health, just as if I adopted a human. If I have researched the breeder and the clearances in the pedigree there is no reason that the breeder is any more liable than I am. In fact, if I DIDN'T do my research, I am MORE liable than the breeder. I do have a health warrantee in my contract, but any compensation does require returning the dog to me. In my opinion, adopting a dog is a responsibility and if someone is not prepared to accept all of the ups and downs of dog ownership, that person should not have adopted a dog in the first place.

There is definitely a balance to be achieved here. And like most things, individual circumstances matter.

As breeders, we can only do so much. Dogs are complex biological organisms. We can do everything "right" (as best we can) and there can still be problems. Puppy buyers have to understand that they are not buying a perfect machine, if there even were such a thing. I will not replace a puppy or give someone their money back because the pup isn't perfect.

BUT, puppy buyers are spending a thousand dollars or more. Breeders can and should claim dog show expenses as tax deductions but the bottom line is we have a hobby that pays for itself, at least in part. We can't charge somebody a grand and then say, too bad, I need the money to pay for my next trip.

We have the ethical responsibility to take each individual case and carefully decide if we are going to replace the puppy or give a refund. I think it is terribly wrong to make someone bring the dog back before getting the refund or replacement in the cases where a refund or replacement is warranted. Having said that, there are borderline cases where I would not refund the money without returning the pup/dog but these are cases when I am trying to get the pup back from someone I shouldn't have sold it to and there will not be a replacement. I will give them a check.

If there is a genetic problem that prevents that pup/dog from being a functional pet, or costs them thousands of dollars in vet bills, the least we can do is give them another pup when they are ready or write them a check to help defray costs. Making them return the pup, who is now a family member, is treating the pup like it is a refrigerator.

Nancy, I agree with you... and this family did do as much pedigree reasearch as they could (no known history on top or bottem of this kind of issue). It's just a tough situation, when a dog isn't able to do what they were bred to do at all. These folks are a good family, and will give this pup the best quality of life they can, reguardless of it's contribution to the family buisness (Guide lodge for Ducks and Geese).

T.E.Q., Very good points... I feel that this case is one of those grey areas that I would have to think about what I would do as a breeder... I believe that any pup that I produce and ask an appropriate adoption fee for, should be able to physically do what it was bred for (especially when I help folks pick the appropriate puppy for each home). I should be able to stand behind the breeding, That's why I'm not pumping out mass amounts of $300 dispozadogs... People pay good money for breeders to stand behind the quality of their dogs, and it's part of the ethics of quality breeding. Stepping off of the doggy-soap-box, I just feel badly for my friend- and his puppy that they may never get to be hunted- it's just sad... not to mention the basic quality of life: not being able to participate in normal amounts of activity.

~we have a hobby that pays for itself, at least in part.~

I only wish. Not even close here.

............

I guarantee that I've bred the best I have to the best I could find. I'll take a puppy back at any age, will refund the purchase price up to a year old and will assist in re-homing or adopting back a puppy that I've bred. I can't guarantee that the puppy will be free of anything. It's a crap shoot no matter how hard we try to breed the perfect puppy.

Amen to that.... good lord- if I really added up ALL of my dog related expences... I think they take away half of my outside income or more... BUT IT IS ALL WORTH IT! Maybe some people are lucky enough to break even in the end... but I definatly don't, and probably never will, but I'm okay with that

Carrie,

What state was the puppy purchased in? From your email address you live in Alaska but was the pup born outside Alaska? Some states have lemon laws and even if there isn't a guarantee the buyer may be able to get compensated.

I don't think anyone here should be judging the breeder's intentions with a littermate especially since the affected pup was not raised at the breeders home. Hopefully the buyer gave the information to the breeder and he/she can make educated decisions regarding the littermate and Dam.

I hope the pup can get some relief.
Jan

Jan, I'll pass them along to the owner. I believe the breeder was in Oregon- but don't know how the legalities work from there. The puppy's owner has kept the breeder in the loop during the whole ordeal.
Thanks for the well-wishes for this pup- they'll do all they can for him, Carrie

No they can't, unless they are running their breeding operation as a business! Those of us who are ethical, hobby breeders don't have that luxury, and even those who do don't get the full amount: deducting $1000 will only get you a credit of a couple of hundred dollars depending on your tax bracket.

The way you are describing it, this is a business that bought a "product" from another business. That's a whole 'nuther discussion. Think about it like buying a used car. Maybe it had really low mileage but it turns out it's a lemon. Your first recourse is the seller's warrantee. The warrantee might only cover the engine (hips and eyes) and not the tires (hocks). There might be a lemon law that applies. Investigate that. Cars (dogs) are very complex. The problem could have been caused by the new owner who didn't change the oil at the right time. Although it gains you some sympathy votes, it doesn't matter why you bought the car (dog), it matters what was promised by the seller. Did the seller guarantee that the dog would succeed at being a hunting dog? What if the dog wasn't successful in hunt training? Would they seek a refund then as well for the same reason (he can't do the job)?

I have to admit that I find it repugnant to consider the adoption of any living being as a "business" transaction. I still stand by my original opinion that the new owner has a moral obligation to accept full responsibility for the pup.

I don't think this forum will get you the answers you are looking for. I suggest contacting a lawyer.