Should breeders be responsible for genetic health issues that occur in the dogs they sell?

I've heard that some states and counties are enacting this "puppy lemon law". http://www.malteseonly.com/lemon.html

Unfortunately, it looks like many only affect pet shops and commerical breeders and the laws are seriously lacking. 6 months for a congenital defect? You can't even OFA certify until 2.

Yeah, I think across the board this is a good idea. That way people can stop freaking out about "the gov't trying to interfere in my life" and it will hopefully get the BYB's to simmer down and stop churning out those sickly animals that break down in a year or two.

It will also be good for responsible breeders because if the dog has a problem, the person will come back to the breeder and let them know - perhaps altering their breeding program.

The issue will be enforcement. Will it have to be a civil lawsuit every time? That's a huge drag on the court system and on consumers, unless the BYBs and Puppy Mills clean up their act right away.

Added: And I see loopholes already. Several states are only allowing reimbursements equal to the cost of the dog. BYB's will just call the dog "free" and then ask a $500 rehoming fee "to ensure a good home" or a "supply" fee for the bag of food the owner gets. The paperwork (yeah, right) will state that the dog was free.

Or, if the dog ends up with hip dysplasia within that window, and it's a $3000 surgery but the dog only cost $750, then the owner is stuck. They aren't going to want to give a 11 month old dog back, but it sucks that they got stuck with vet bills.

On top of that, when does it become time for people to take resopnsibility for their actions on the other end? Buyers refuse to be educated and think that "just this once" won't add to the problem.

I do believe that breeders are responsible for what they produce, good or bad. Their breeding decision produced the dog. Many states even have Puppy Lemon Laws that force breeders to be responsible for what they produce whether they like it or not. Of course, this only affects responsible breeders usually who would already take care of the problem without the government butting in. Noone can ever seem to find those BYB and puppy mills again to hold them responsible.

I am curious though. Did the woman buy the dog as a puppy? If so, how did the breeder already know the dog was going to have elbow problems? Did she breed dogs with ED? I do like that she doesn't force people to give back a dog they've grown to love (many breeders do this or you don't get any compensation) but something doesn't seem right.

If the dog was prelimmed and found to have ED, it makes sense that the breeder would pay for it. However, in that case, why would the breeder offer a different dog? She already knew about the ED in advance which means the owner would too. Those dogs are usually altered and placed at a very low price or even free just to ensure a good home. The owners are informed beforehand that the dog failed OFA (or whatever group it was done through). At least they are by any responsible breeder which this one seems to be if she paid for what is a very expensive surgery.

UPDATE - Okay, that makes sense, although at that age, I would suspect Pano, not ED. It is good that she gave the woman a choice and paid for the surgery. Not everyone would even admit there was a problem, much less pay for it when they already knew the owner would do it.

If you purchase from a reputable breeder puppies they sell should come with at least a one year health guarantee. So breeders are held responsible for the whatever time frame in the contract. Hopefully any breeder that is advised of a genetic problem before or after that one year is up removes those parents from their breeding program instead of creating more puppies that could have potential problems.

I would have to commend the breeder in this case. They stood up and took responsibility and had the surgery done. They could have been dishonest and just waited to see if the new owner noticed the problem or wait and see if the vet caught it when the pup had its physical.

In this case since the woman refused a replacement puppy then I would say that the breeder is now no longer responsible for the elbows (as long as it was in writing) because she offered to replace the puppy which is what a reputable breeder will do. In my opinion the buyer waived their guarantee, at least as far as the elbows are considered.

Yes I think breeders should take responsibility for their pups genetic issues. This breeder is commendable for making the offer of a different (genetically healthy) pup and then paying for the surgery. YAY! As for legally responsible, I am on the fence. On one hand people may decide to abuse it and on the other hand it would drastically improve the quality of puppies being whelped. If a breeder was legally responsible for genetic defects then they would be in a position to either improve upon their lines, quit breeding or cough up some dough (which puppy millers/bybs are not willing to do) which is also better for the dogs in the long run.

Unfortunately, plenty of bad breeders are able to register with AKC. It's a good starting point to make sure a breeder is AKC, but there are still a LOT of questions to ask before buying a puppy- especially regarding health guarantees and genetic testing. If the breeder didn't give you any guarantees or contracts on the dog there's nothing you can do. A good breeder WOULD try to help you out or offer compensation for your vet fees, but that doesn't mean this particular breeder will. You can talk to him/her and find out, but there's nothing AKC can do about the situation.

Depends on the circumstances.

If the breeder tells you upfront that a dog will have problems and you buy it anyway, it's your own fault. Caveat emptor. The breeder was honest and warned you, so they shouldn't have any responsibility for the issue.

If a breeder deceives you about genetic problems in their line or guarantees genetic health, and the dog has genetic health problems, the breeder should be held responsible monetarily, either for the vet bills to get the dog back to acceptable health or by supplying another dog (which could be better if the original dog was purchased for show or working or for breeding show/working dogs of good caliber).

If the issue is clearly genetic... absolutely.

However... there are issues that can be brought on or enhanced through negligent ownership.. severe overweight in a puppy fed increased protein and calcium, slippery floors are a recipe for hip dysplasia in a dog that might have been "fair" or "undetermined" had the dog been cared for adequately. OCD and/ or elbow dysplasia can occur when a dog is jumped rigorously at too young an age (I remember one questioner complaining his 8 month old dog was now refusing 30 inch jumps..... *horror*).

Dog fed Kibble n Bits gets kidney stones... who is to blame? The breeder who bred a dog that when fed awful food get kidney stones or the owner who chose not to follow the breeder's recommendation on food?

Giant breed dog neutered at 5 months when the breeder clearly states that it should not be neutered until 2 due to concerns over early neutering being linked to HD.... is the breeder responsible if the dog is then dysplastic? http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

I'm in full support of the notion of genetic issues being the breeder's responsibility... but it takes some common sense on top of it.

I don't know that anything, besides well-enforced laws (yeah, right) would cut down on BYBs.

While I think the breeder should bear at the very least some responsibility for a known health issue, if the owner knowingly takes on such a dog they don't really have any right to bellyache about it later.

In any case, even with "the best breeding practices", mishaps happen (hey, they happen in humans too!) and the breeder can't be held accountable for that, really.

Abso-friggin-lutely!

Oh, wait -- there's more to the question?

Yes. I know some states have puppy lemon laws, but I think that if buyers had legal recourse on breeders for genetic issues, it would make a lot more people think twice about breeding the two "champion line, papered" dogs sitting in their backyard.

ADD: I've read some of the other answers, and there are some good points about govt. interference, etc...but I still think legal recourse is a positive idea. After all, the responsible breeders would already be willing to work with the buyer, as most have expressly stated in their contracts.

That was a very generous offer of the breeder. Very few breeder do this. I have run into a few that did this. Most of the ones that offer to replace the dog or offer to pay for surgeries are ones that usually don't have genetic problems in their litters. They breed for quality and pick very well when it comes to the male and female. They research genetic disorders of particular lines and individuals and go from there.

If this became a standard and people expected it from breeders it could very well cut down on backyard breeders. I don't see it happening, but you never know.

Just my opinion.