Unethical? Lazy? or Just plain Stupid?? - Page 7

The litter registration by frozen semen is twofold...
1.)  completing the litter application for litter produced using frozen semen, and yes, you as owner of the semen can sign the form...
And
2),  you must have already previously obtained the owner of the stud dog's permission/authorization with signature to collect the dog and store semen in your name, of which you are now owner .
These records are to be kept and maintained for all litters produced via frozen semen.

A POA from the person owning the stud dog would cover you and grant permission.
A co-ownership on the stud would as well. 
You could sign for stud owner/be granted authorization in both instances.

For the studs you have collected without these scenarios, at the point you might be inspected by AKC or are challenged by the owner of stud dog, (who suddenly decides he isn't happy about his dog being used, or whatever scenario one can come up with for purposes of this thread) he can challenge the litter.  Someone buying a pup they are not happy with can challenge the authenticity of parentage, whereby records would have to be produced by you showing signature and authorization of stud owner..whatever scenario could or might occur, without the proper documentation AKC could rescind the registration of the litter at their discretion, at any time in the future.

This scenario goes straight back to the reason for my starting this thread in the beginning.
I knew this very situation could be a possibility, and thus my anger about upcoming litters being advertised without permission having been granted for collection of dog or rightful ownership of dog by kennel doing the advertising.   Future litters would most definately be challenged by stud owner, because no rights to collect semen on the dog were granted.  That would have been all that is necessary to have AKC rescind registration.  However it would not have protected the buyers plunking down their deposits, as it is clearly stated they are non refundable.

I can't say why this has never been an issue in registration of litters with frozen semen for you.  One day it might be.  All I can say is that this is a requirement of AKC, clearly stated on the bottom of their litter application forms for registration of litters using frozen semen.

There is also this from page 3 of the same pdf document:

 

Signatures of persons other than the owners or lessees will be accepted only if a properly completed authorization form has been filed with the AKC.

Authorizations

Note: These forms are available on our Web site: www.akc.org

 

That was the point, just got a little off-track.  The point being, that the person who is falsefully advertising the stud dog "at stud" and/or registered litters sired by him, could have very well had him collected and is signing the registration applications as owner of the semen.  As you say, he could very well get away with doing this, unless the sire owner does something about it.

molly

WOW>>>I sure did go "off target" there..     Sorry!!  

Molly, You are Absolutely correct!!
Point taken...
And...Point Made! 
YAY!!

Unethical? Lazy? or Just plain Stupid?? by Mystere on 05 August 2011 - 00:08

Mystere Post: 4118 of 4131 Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 03:07 pm Owner edit

It often comes down to a dispute between breeders and whose ox is being gored.  Because this person does not have physical possession of the stud does NOT mean that he/she won't have additional litters from him.  Ever heard of COLLECTING, or AI?       I know of a mass-breeder/importer who seems to routinely breed to  imported males,  even while advertising them for sale.   There is nothing to prevent collecting them for future breedings and owning the semen.   So, the breeder in question "could"  have additional litters from that male.  Certainly, a little forgery, if need be,  wouldn't be beyond the pale...

I agree. 
That was my concern over this in the beginning, knowing the "check and balance system" of AKC...or more accurately, the lack thereof.

It's very odd policy that AKC requires an approval from stud dog owner when registering a litter online...
But with frozen..so long as no one complains against the litter owner having the puppies,  of anything at any point in time regarding a stud used to sire a litter with frozen semen, the checks and balances seem to fly out the window. 
IMO this type of breeding for litters should be all the more scrutinized and tightly monitored for accuracy within ALL t he required steps, by all parties.  There's certainly alot of room for error here without the required signature of the STUD owner ON the frozen semen litter application.

What's to prevent someone from going in with a dog...not even the same dog as claimed to be...knowing that this (as noted on AKC records) "AKC registered dog" is on file and registered with AKC;  Said dog (as noted on AKC records) has even been DNA'd...but also knowing that they probably won't check and collect a DNA sample because they can just state the dog is already DNA'd with AKC...they go ahead and collect this dog, UNDER the name of the "presented paperwork" for said dog.

SO now you have someone who doesn't own the dog, doesn't even bring in the SAME dog to collect as the paperwork shows...and then proceeds to sell pups from this dog.! 

If no one complains, it will go on for quite some time,   un-noticed !  it appears.

But if someone complains, this is where that required physical papertrail becomes all important with the owner of stud granting permission and authorization of his use...

It's not always "  good to go"  if you only have to sign as "semen owner". 
Heaven help those breeders who do get into it over a "frozen semen litter", with an unhappy client AND an unwilling stud owner.

" However it would not have protected the buyers plunking down their deposits, as it is clearly stated they are non refundable."

If the fraud can be proved the contract is vitiated as being against public policy so the buyer would have a right to a refund on that basis or thru an equity claim that the person committing the fraud had "dirty hands".

 The practical problem is that in most jurisdictions this would be a small claims court case and for someone from another county or state the cost of enforcing it would be more than the potential refund and even if a judgement is obtained then there are additional costs to actually get it enforced - that alone would probably run you more than the deposit. Yes costs can be claimed but they are constrained by law and so you are chasing bad money with good money.

And of course the con artists are well versed in this and look at the profit/risk ratio. Lets see 10 or 12 deposits at $400 a piece. Plus most people don't even go to the point of checking it out with a lawyer they are just buffaloed by those "non-refundable" words which I'm sure the "breeder"/operator screams at them repeatedly. ( Once again being wise to the purpose of limited liability statements, warranties etc all of which are primarily designed to make people GO Away)

The better route is to try to make a criminal complaint but once again the problem becomes the amount of money. Most police departments/ district attorneys don't have the time to care about the small stuff. Only if you could show that he/she is doing this time  and time again and the take is 40-50,000 ( which it easily could be) AND you could get sufficient people to participate then they MIGHT look into it. Once again the con man has the risk ratio on his side especially when you factor in that people don't like to admit they got conned and just chalk it up to a lesson learned and bury it so no one knows how "foolish" they were ( Not as you and I know but that's how they perceive themselves"

The other piece lightly referred to is the ugly truth that we all know re AKC and fraudulent signatures is for the most part they don't give a rats a_ _.  Even with hard core proof that a signature has been forged more times than not they do nothing. Combine that with classic blue slip fraud that has been going on for decades ( claiming more pups born than there were to get extra blue slips for later use etc etc) that AKC has never been vigorous about confronting and an uninformed buyer can easily be duped.

OP I do give you kudos for caring.

My take on the original question is that it is the stud dog's owner duty to rectify his bad judgement and he/she would be the one that needs to "call out" the con man by demanding that he remove the statements from the website (as long as he is clear that he will NEVER allow this person access to his stud dog for ANY purpose or ANY amout of money ever again). Then if the web site is not corrected and deposits are still being collected he needs to be proactive and go to any and all resouces available to him so it does not appear that he involved in the fraud in anyway. I would include AKC, the state consumer rights board, the local police ,posting a statement on their web page, facebook, ripoff.com etc etc. I might also consider a criminal or civiil complaint against him - off the top of my head I can think of a number of issues such as intentional interference with prospective economic relations.

Not that I have much hope that it might change things but you might want to print out the discussion re the apparent "loophole" in the AKC registration process for frozen semen litters and send it to the appropriate AKC departments ( registration, fraud ). It could easily be rectified by requiring the owner of the stud dog to file with AKC ( for a fee of course since that is their primary motivation) a copy of a notarized statement outlining the parameters of a collection being allowed by or transferred to a third party. This doc can be given a number which can then be referenced on the registration slip IF the owner of the semen is NOT the owner of the dog. If the owner collected him but later wants to sell or lease him a similiar statement could be registered outlining what semen the owner has in storage ( # of straws etc and date collected) and that those rights are being retained even tho the ownership of the dog is being transferred.

While a notarized statment does not preclude fraudulent signatures it does raise the bar just a bit and makes them jump thru a few more hoops.

Thank you for your input TIG..and once again, particularly as pertains to your first posting, your comments are right on target, and much appreciated and I agree with you completely. 
I already ran into this with the scammer that duped me for 6 grand...do a google search on Gesi von uns Heimaturt and you will see what I posted on my website, as well as did another party on her own site, detailing all that we went through trying to bring our "scammer" to justice.  This was done for others to find when googling this particular seller. 
Its sad but true but we found out first hand that it just isn't worth the authorities' time to pursue these small cases, and the scammers definately know this and use it to their advantage.   Except when, as you state above, it can be proven that this is a pattern of criime, done intentionally and many times over with intent to rip off and do harm financially. Then it may be looked into more vigorously by the authorities.  In the case of the one done against me, it was definately the case of a high level of money being skimmed from people.  And so far as I was able to determine, it was All taken in by the scammer Tax Free I might add. 

Interestingly, I did send a letter to AKC earlier this afternoon, because, after really thinking about that the fact that the stud owner has NO SPOT for a signature on the frozen semen litter application..well, this is just bizarre to me.  Of all the places to perpetuate fraud, that is one of the easiest area in the dog world that I can think of, and in so many ways.  

In my letter to AKC I asked point blank if there was a reason why a signature line couldn't be added for authorization of use of stud by the stud owner, OR if stud owner has already signed off at the time of collection,  the other choice would be a box (to check off)  that you are including copy of signed authorization by the owner of the stud dog (and actually being required to send along such copy of signature by stud dog owner).  It's easy enough to revise the litter application to include these two options...making it an EITHER / OR choice, showing proof that authorizing for collection of said stud was given BY STUD OWNER. 
I can't fathom how AKC could possibly police such a thing if they don't have documentation AT THE TIME of the application being made         , that proves the stud owner authorized his stud dog siring the litter.

In this case, Stud dog owner was not able to force the hand of the kennel owner too strongly, until the dog was finally back home.  After which, in part due to this thread posting, his site was quickly updated and revised to remove the stud. 
I have recommended to rightful stud owner that AKC be contacted, as you also state above, to inform AKC of the dispute on possible previously collected semen, just in case, so that they are aware of the situation and require signing off by the stud dog OWNER not simply the semen owner,  for any future litters presented for registration by this particular kennel sired by said stud. 

I believe it's much easier to prevent something like this from occurring, rather than having to fight to fix it after the fact,  and while also, at that time, having to prove all your reasons in order to do so.