Professional Breeders

Chuffy

No, I am not comparing a puppy to a child.  What I am getting at is - how do you put a price tag on a "life"?  Do you see?

You are joking about government funding, right?  You pay X for the dog and its a fixed fee.  There is NO WAY in most cases that it would be enough to cover the S/N, food, health care etc that the dog has cost them. 

The whole "impulse buyer" thing is a moot point anyway. A breeder worth their salt has homes lined up for their puppies before the puppies are born, so if an impulse buyer comes knocking, well, sorry, but they pups are already taken. 

 I think the puppy price issue has been covered. I don't find it or see how it can be offensive to buy or sell a dog for X amount of money. Shelters/rescues do it too :)

  There is not a fixed fee at all shelters. Some charge more for purebreds or dogs in high demand such as doodles. One of my puppy buyers adopted a dog that required at least a $300 adoption fee for all dogs. I also know for sure that some shelters/rescues take in desirable dogs just with the idea that they will "profit" from them (desirable such as already altered/vetted dogs and/or breeds which people want). That doesn't mean they are "in it for they money" but it certainly goes on. It is becoming more and more common practice for shelters to pick and choose which dogs they take in based on how adoptable (really marketable) they feel it is and how much they will/won't have to spend. It is not unheard of for breed rescues to charge as much as $1000 for a dog.

 The "all good breeders have homes for all puppies before the litter is born" is another of those "rules" that make me wonder who exactly came up with it. Since you don't know how many puppies you'll have in any given litter, what sexes they will be and how many will be show/working/preformance/pet quality it would be hard to have for sure homes lined up for them. Generally what I have seen most is having people interested in the litter. Some breeders take deposists, create waiting lists and the such but even at that things can and do change when puppies are born and as they mature. Unless the breeder is very well known, there aren't IME many who have such an unlimited number of people interested in puppies from them that they have for sure homes for any puppy they produce before they are born.

To expect the world's demand for purebred puppies to be satisfied by only serious show and performance breeders is completely unrealistic IMHO.  And so is the expectation that the average person is knowledgable enough and willing or patient enough to "retrain" the dogs with behavioral issues that fill shelters.  I think it's the fault of the AKC that allows any purebred dog to be registered regardless of temperment or confirmation.  The AKC should require a kennel inspection of every breeder who wants to register a litter and deny registration to those with poorly bred dogs.  That way, the byb's and millers will have to put effort into breeding good stock or else, no papers and subsequently, no buyers.

jenns

I think it's the fault of the AKC that allows any purebred dog to be registered regardless of temperment or confirmation.  The AKC should require a kennel inspection of every breeder who wants to register a litter and deny registration to those with poorly bred dogs.  That way, the byb's and millers will have to put effort into breeding good stock or else, no papers and subsequently, no buyers.

AgileGSD

Many dogs are in shelters due to at the very least, a lack of training. People don't generally give up well mannered, easy to live with, obedient, perfect dogs. That doesn't mean they all have serious problems and there are plenty that could be great dogs with just a bit of basic training. Our corgi was given up because he was chasing kids and grabbing their pants. With a bit of basic training he is a perfectly good dog. But certainly some were given up for very real issues. And the problem comes in when shelters are not honest about about dogs people are adopting or they just don't know enough about temperament/breed type to match dogs appropriately. You can't expect that most people looking for a pet are going to be able to effectively evaluate the dogs at the shelter to pick the one that best suits them.

I agree with you. But don't you think anyone, whether is be the typical family or the dog enthusiast, be able to give their dog basic obedience? No dog, breeder or shelter, is born being obedient and well mannered. I believe some dogs are given up because of serious issues, but I know for a fact many are given up because of uneducated owners, not willing to put in time and/or effort...many of these dogs were probably impulse purchases too. I feel strongly that no matter what the dog is in the shelter for the staff should always be honest, that way the dog has a better shot at finding a forever home. I know sometimes this is not the case, but I believe sometimes breeders (especially BYBs) aren't honest either about their dogs. I believe trained staff at shelters are necessary in helping a family choose an appropriate pet; unfortunatly, many shelters can't afford such trained and qualified staff, but sometimes breeders will let the purchaser choose a pup from their litter knowing it will not be a good fit either just to sell the pup. I wish everyone who was interested in owning a dog (breeder or shelter) would do their homework and then some, but sometimes that isn't the case and therefor the dogs aren't properly taken care of, and many end up dumped at the shelter.

I've owned both breeder & shelter dogs, just to have as companion pets. Both made great pets. I'm not saying adopting is for everyone, because it isn't. But I'm saying that everyone who is willing to own a dog should do the dog justice by teaching it at least basic obedience and allowing it to be a member of their family and not just dump it when the dog starts to act out, but seek out a trainer or help from the breeder or shelter. I believe if everyone did a little more homework on owning a dog there maybe wouldn't be so many in shelters.

jenns

To expect the world's demand for purebred puppies to be satisfied by only serious show and performance breeders is completely unrealistic IMHO. 

How much of this demand is artificially created by the idea that a purebred dog is "better"? I'm wondering, not arguing.

The problem with so many breeders of purebred dogs is that they are producing dogs with health and/or temperament problems.

There are a lot of great dogs in shelters and rescue. There are a lot of rehab cases, and a good number of very troubled dogs. I think the rescue system (in general) does a poor job of promoting the solid dogs and helping people choose dogs that fit their needs. This is not a condemnation of the people who work their hearts out. It is a system level problem, not an individual person problem.  

I think (just my opinion) that the purpose of the op is being totally  missed here, this thread keeps bouncing from one topic to another.  I believe the original letter that was posted was just trying to explain that not every breeder is bad, and that those who think so might need to re-evaluate their opinions and maybe take another look. 

I know there are some on this site who think that all breeders are bad, some who think every professional breeder or comercial breeder is bad, and some that would call any breeder a mill, but how can you form such opinions when you have never met the person, or seen their facility?  I don't think a lot of people really know what a puppy mill is, but have been taught all they know from the horrible stories/pics on the news, and from listening to the ARWs (yes, that's Animal Rights Wacos-like the PETA members who thinks that no dog should be bred, no matter what)  I just don't understand how some are willing to label good, hard-working people with a horrible title like puppy-mill, and not even bother to do their homework first. 

I have personally visited a truely filthy, over-run kennel with sick, underfed, and injured dogs crammed into pens that were too small, and an owner who didn't care.  The entire proplerty was covered with overgrown weeds and debris, and nothing anywhere on the property was remotely clean.  That is a puppy mill.  How many of you can say that you have seen this in person with your own eyes?  Probably not many, as they do not usually allow visitors on their properties when they are doing things this way.  Almost everyone has seen it on the news, but not as many have seen it with their own eyes.  The problem is that the news never shows the clean breeders, the good breeders, only the worst ones make the news, so the public is taught that all large breeders MUST me the same. 

No, I don't monitarily support any rescues, and I don't foster because I have a very strict infection control standard, and no outside dogs come in contact with my dogs for that reason, but I don't try to run shelters into the ground like they do to us breeders either.  I have retrieved one of my dogs(one I had produced) from a local shelter when it was dumped there, and would have never sold it to that family had I known that would be it's fate.  But the fact is that this could happen to even the best show breeders, "take back clauses" aren't the end-all-be-all, and are usually hard to emforce of you take someone to court for breaking one, they are usually more of a suggestion.

I will never probably adopt from a shelter.  I am not comfortable with taking home a dog from unknown origins that may or may not have behavioral problems that weren't disclosed when it was left at the shelter by the last owner.  I want to know if it is purebred, see pedigrees, and parents, and pick the pup that best fits my family's lifestyle, I want to see how it was raised.   And lots of other families want that as well, so they come to breeders like me who can supply them with a good pet at a reasonable price, there is NOTHING wrong with that.  Shelter dogs aren't for everyone-no matter how you rationalize it. 

If most breeders were taken out of the equation, there would still be dogs in shelters that no one wanted, and when they were all gone(adopted or otherwise), people would just not be able to own dogs.  WHY you ask? There is no way that the "best-of-the-best" breeders who did everything that some of you expect a breeder to do could keep up with the demand.  Besides, knocking out the majority of breeders would also make the market go so sky-high the average pet owner could never afford a puppy.  It would be the beginning of the end for pet owners, and soon owning a dog would be nothing but a story that grandparents told their grandchildren, who have never actually seen a dog.  love or hate PETA, but just know what you are supporting, becuase they are the ones pushing to eliminate breeding-this eliminating our right to have pets.  Sounds like something that would never happen, but it definately could, that is why many breeders attend the seminars and fight anti-breeding legislation, they are looking at the big picture, not just their income being cut.        

Some of you seem to have such a ridiculously (IMO) high standard to hold a breeder too, it's a wonder you could ever find one good enough to buy a dog from that the average person could still afford!

corgipower

Do you suggest we should just give the animals away for free? Do you suggest that breeders should just keep all the puppies themselves?

Not at all.  I am just a little uncomfortable with people making money off animals that they claim are a part of their family (which is what a dog SHOULD be, regardless of whether he is owned as a pet, for showing and/or for breeding.  Some people may not agree with me and may insist that a dog is "just an animal" just like any other animal, but I'm not budging on that one). 

corgipower

If someone wants a dog that comes from a long line of CH's then they should expect to pay more ~ putting the titles on the dogs costs a lot of time and money. If someone wants a puppy whose parents were health tested, then they should expect to pay more ~ all those tests cost money.

Most definately agree on both counts.  Having said that though, I still don't like pups being sold with an enormous price tag on, because it squeezes "normal" puppy buyers to the shoddy end of the market.  If you are going to get titles on a dog, get her health tested, find her a quality, compatible stud (who probably doesn't live on your street - just the transport there could be costly) and provide quality health care throughout the pregnancy, whelping and first weeks of the pups lives, then that is surely going to create a fairly high price all on its own?  If you then need to put more money on top of that for yourself, where is your average Joe going to go when he can't afford your quality puppies?

corgipower

As far as shelter dogs go, I think it's great for people to adopt - but I wouldn't pay $1000 for a shelter dog - with no knowlege of the ancestry.

No, that is perfectly understandable - yet a lot of the dogs have cost them a good deal of money in the time they have been there.  It seems wrong to me that no one is happy paying a high price to a shelter for their dog, when the service they provide is invaluable and yet many people are OK paying a high price to a professional breeder when the service they provide is, shall we say, debatable?

corgipower

It's not a "life" that has a price tag - it's the show fees and the vet bills that have a price tag.

Understood, but I thought the debate here was "profit"?  So I don't have an issue with breeders charging to cover some of their costs, its the "profit" part that sticks in my throat.

AgileGSD

Chuffy

 I whole heartedly disagree with you on that last score.  If a person LOVES their breed (and they bally well should do if they are producing more of them) then how can they NOT be involved with their breed rescue?  That does not compute for me.

 Or maybe if someone LOVES their breed, they should be supporting breeders who are preserving the essence of that breed? Really who's "rule" is it that breeders must be involved with rescue or they are "bad"? I judge breeders by the dogs they produce - I accepted long ago that not every breeder is going to do things the way I would and that's ok. It doesn't mean they are wrong, bad, irresponsible or that people shouldn't buy from them.

 

That's a VERY good point.

However, HOW many of us have looked on pet finder or visited our local shelter and WISHED with all our hearts, we could take them all home?  Wished we could help heal some of those broken doggy hearts?  If you have a "favourite" breed, doesn't it sting just a little more when it's one of them?  Don't you wish, so hard, that you could have "just one more"?  That you could help them, even if it was just to help heal them and find them a forver home they deserved? 

If you have the space, time, money knowledge and compassion to be a breeder, would you not WANT to fulfill your own wish and spare just a few of those resources to help the breed you love?  Is it not a natural reaction?  

Would you not be quite conscious that you may well be contributing to over population by producing more puppies, would you not feel that you were offsetting that a little by being involved in rescue, in addition to asking the buyers to sign a contract?

I would be willing to bet that most of the people here involved in rescue would want all breeders to be involved in what they do.  If they can do it, if they can pick up those pieces time after time and still feel confident that the world really needs their next litter, then yeah, maybe that next litter really is worth producing.  No?

Izzaboo

That is a puppy mill.  How many of you can say that you have seen this in person with your own eyes?  Probably not many

Considering the number of us who have been doing rescue/sheltering work for years, you may be surprised how many of us HAVE been to such sites- more than one, in fact- as part of our rescue work.

AgileGSD

I think the puppy price issue has been covered. I don't find it or see how it can be offensive to buy or sell a dog for X amount of money. Shelters/rescues do it too :)

 Yes I think you are right that the puppy price issue has been covered now.  But I do want to respond to this.  Yes, shelters do it too, (and the fee is often paltry considering what they spend on each dog) but they are hardly lining their pockets.  If anything, they are trying to stay in business so they can HELP more dogs, not produce more dogs.  I do see there to be a difference there.

AgileGSD

There is not a fixed fee at all shelters. Some charge more for purebreds or dogs in high demand such as doodles. One of my puppy buyers adopted a dog that required at least a $300 adoption fee for all dogs. I also know for sure that some shelters/rescues take in desirable dogs just with the idea that they will "profit" from them (desirable such as already altered/vetted dogs and/or breeds which people want). That doesn't mean they are "in it for they money" but it certainly goes on. It is becoming more and more common practice for shelters to pick and choose which dogs they take in based on how adoptable (really marketable) they feel it is and how much they will/won't have to spend. It is not unheard of for breed rescues to charge as much as $1000 for a dog.

I wasn't aware of that, but it's quite possible it is different over here.

AgileGSD

The "all good breeders have homes for all puppies before the litter is born" is another of those "rules" that make me wonder who exactly came up with it.

 I don't see it as a rule as such.  More plain common sense.  Why produce puppies if you don't have people asking for them?  Admitted, the litter may be large.  Some may not be what the buyer wanted (wrong sex for example, or pet instead of show quality), but WHY breed at all if you have no homes lined up?  Seems downright daft to me.  For one thing, you only have a relatively small window in which to find perfect forever homes for your pups, and even if you don't care to much about that you may just want a quick sale to keep your costs down. 

Chuffy

Would you not be quite conscious that you may well be contributing to over population by producing more puppies, would you not feel that you were offsetting that a little by being involved in rescue, in addition to asking the buyers to sign a contract?

     Once again, I'll say this. I do not believe there is an overpopulation problem - I believe there is an overcrowding problem in shelters. And that is because shelters are keeping dogs that should be put down - ones with health or behavioral issues. Shelters across the country are going down south, or going out of the country to bring in dogs to be adopted. I find this outrageous! And if there truly were an overpopulation problem, no one in their right mind would do this. There was a shelter around here that had a litter of pups come in w/ cleft palate. Any reasonable breeder would have humanely culled these pups. NO, not the shelter! They had to force suffering upon these pups by force feeding them with tubes for two months until they were old enough to have surgery. Even with the surgery, they will NEVER be normal. 
     So yes, I have done rescue work, and NO I do not feel an innate desire to save them all. Not all of them are salvagable. Most shelters are businesses. I've worked with ones who handpicked what breeds they would "rescue", and ones that wouldn't take pups over a certain age, ones that lied about the age, health or temperament of a dog. The suggestion that a breeder is directly responsible for someone's mutt that was never trained and bit the mailman, who is now sitting in a shelter - that's preposterous. I am wholy responsible for what I produce, however someone else's mess is not my problem. 
    

Chuffy

Would you not be quite conscious that you may well be contributing to over population by producing more puppies

I can't bring to think of unwanted dogs as " a mess" that is none of my concern. We're not talking about who spilled a slurpee in aisle 5. Damaged, neglected, poorly bred, whatever - these are living breathing animals. As a dog lover and an animal lover, darn straight I care about the messes other people make.

There are more dogs alive than there are homes that want them.  I call that an overpopulation issue. I believe that low cost or free spay & neuter would go a long way towards helping correct this, but that is OT.

Can a so-called professional breeder take in any dog they've bred who is no longer wanted? Do the math.

Yes, people want puppies. They want purebreds, they want designer mutts, they want something cute and fluffy to give the kids. Go ahead and call me an elitist, but I don't think everyone who wants a dog should get one. There are many owners out there buying on impulse, neglecting or abusing their dogs. I don't think people who buy puppies, fail to train them, and dump them at the shelter 6 months later should have dogs. 

Dogs aren't things.  

"someone else's mess is not my problem"

See, ya lost me there. . .the professional breeders I know, would never say something like that.  They'd help any dog, any time.  They care about ALL dogs. 

And, yes, the breeder is somewhat responsible when a dog is of poor temperment and health, etc. 

We've done all we can with Willow and she's still got issues.  She should of never been bred and it takes someone with special knowledge to know that--someone whose family has been doing this for years or or someone whose worked for YEARS with an established breeder. 

HoundMusic

Chuffy

Would you not be quite conscious that you may well be contributing to over population by producing more puppies, would you not feel that you were offsetting that a little by being involved in rescue, in addition to asking the buyers to sign a contract?

     Once again, I'll say this. I do not believe there is an overpopulation problem - I believe there is an overcrowding problem in shelters. And that is because shelters are keeping dogs that should be put down - ones with health or behavioral issues.
    

I actually agree with you here, although the question of whether they should all be saved is another hot topic and may well be suited to another thread...? 

Also, whether this IS an over population issue at present is by the by - there certainly WILL be one if too many people decide that this is a good way of making money and breed too many litters.  Do you agree with that? 

HoundMusic

So yes, I have done rescue work, and NO I do not feel an innate desire to save them all. Not all of them are salvagable. Most shelters are businesses. I've worked with ones who handpicked what breeds they would "rescue", and ones that wouldn't take pups over a certain age, ones that lied about the age, health or temperament of a dog. The suggestion that a breeder is directly responsible for someone's mutt that was never trained and bit the mailman, who is now sitting in a shelter - that's preposterous. I am wholy responsible for what I produce, however someone else's mess is not my problem. 

Again, the question of whether they are all salvageable is not at issue here, and I do not believe it is relevant.  I'm not suggesting that you are "responsible" for someone else's mess, but I do think you should keep your eyes open to the fact that "that mess" might well be how one of your pups ends up one day.  How do you feel about that?  That is one of the many reasons I DON'T breed, although I considered it at one time.  And I stand by what I said before, that yes, I think you SHOULD (you being colloquial AND specific) be involved in "your" breed rescue.  Not least because, one day, they may be helping a dog you brought into the world.  Or, is that not the province of the breeder either?  Does their responsibility for the dog end once he has been paid for? 

Perhaps you didn't mean it as it sounded, but I was turned well off by:

HoundMusic

however someone else's mess is not my problem. 

I'll say it again - if I had the resources to breed, you bet I'd be using some of those resources to make "someone else's mess" my problem.  A dog breeder should be a dog lover, END OF.  And in this instance, just for once, when you CAN, yes it does mean you SHOULD.  That's the ethics I expect from a breeder I purchased from.