Why do owners who retire their show dog rehome them???

the breeders I admire have at most three to five dogs. They sell the puppies, yes, but their show/breeding dogs are theirs for life. They live in the house, not in kennels. They have lovely lives.

Not all re-homes are bad. However, people who systematically discard all of their retired dogs to make room for young dogs are not people I am a fan of

EXACTLY.  I posted a post last week about a golden on one of my golden forums having 13 puppies--the first still born, but the other 12, tho samll at birth a week ago yesterday, are doing great and putting on weight at a great rate.

Anway, They had 4 females and 1 male.  The older female, their first golden, was never used for breeding.  Of the three remaining girls, it was discovered that  MIGHT have a hip problem later in life.  Not a sure thing a all, but might.  At two she has no problem yet.  So what did they do?  They had her spayed to make sure that there was no slim chance of her passing a problem on to a single pup, and she is still as much a part of the family as she was before this potential problem was found.

They do have outdoor kennels BUT the dogs spend nights and most of the day in the house.  Are only put in kennels when there is a lot of compnay (they all think everyone comes to see them just like my girls do) or when puppies are being born and for the first few days to avoid any stress on the Mom, etc, etc.  The parent dogs have ALL the certs needed and it is a golden retriever kennel, but those goldens are as much a part of that couples family as their grown kids 7 grandkids are.

On a side note, my irish setter, Boots (Sir Lancelots Irish Pride), that i lost 10 years ago this month to bone cancer at age 12 1/2 was show dog quality.  The mother of a friend of my son's showed dogs.  She begged and pleaded with me to let her show Boots after she had "Put him thru his paces" and determined he could go far in the ring as he was a natural.  I said no, he was my buddy and i would not be seperated from him.  I didn't care about ribbons and cups and titles, just about my buddy.

I was not meaning someone that has their first dog and just decides to breed. You are right there, that is how backyard breeders get started. What I mean is, they have possibly had dogs growing up or at the very least had a great interest in dogs. This interest has come about because they understand the joy, that the companionship of a dog can bring to us. Due to this interest, they read and read and read, finding out all they can about dogs. Then the interest may develop further and they may decide they would really enjoy showing dogs, possibly in the confirmation ring and so things develop. Now, with the love of dogs and the knowledge they have gained, they might possibly be interested in breeding. They have, at this point, met many other reputable breeders, those with the same interests and understanding of the love of dogs. They go to them, to perhaps aquire their first dog and go forward with their own breeding program. This is not something that happens boom overnight. Just had to clarify that, as I see now how what I said could be taken the wrong way.

OK, thanks for the clarification, it makes sense now.  However, what still needs to be understood is that just b/c good breeders love their dogs (love ALL dogs) and are devoted to their dogs and their breed doesn't mean that the breeder can turn any dog into a champion or a dog worthy of a breeding program.  There's only so much training and socialization will do.  If the dog doesn't cut it, doesn't meet the standard, doesn't develop the appropriate drive or temperament, it's unfair to dogs and to the breed as a whole to keep these in breeding programs.  Good breeders generally don't have companion animals as a top prority, unless their particular breed was created to be a companion animal.  For example, a good Czech German Shepherd kennel that produces a dog that has no courage, no drive, and is rather lazy should re-home that dog as a companion dog.  It has no business remaining in a kennel with a breeding program producing top Czech German Shepherds, b/c as nice as that dog may be, it's not a good dog to be breeding for ringsport or police work.  It would also be unfair for that dog to keep pushing it into protection work training when clearly the dog isn't cut out for it and won't enjoy it.  It should go to a family home to be a companion.  Again, the reality is that companionship is not the only purpose for a dog.

I'm not convinced that my dog (see sig) who isn't anything special in the conformation ring and has zero interest in work would be better off with her breeder, who specializes in breeding working dogs with good conformation.  She is a companion dog, so she is coming to me as I can provide a companion home and her breeder can focus on training and selection to better the German Shepherd breed.

 Good breeders generally don't have companion animals as a top prority, unless their particular breed was created to be a companion animal.  For example, a good Czech German Shepherd kennel that produces a dog that has no courage, no drive, and is rather lazy should re-home that dog as a companion dog.  It has no business remaining in a kennel with a breeding program producing top Czech German Shepherds, b/c as nice as that dog may be, it's not a good dog to be breeding for ringsport or police work.  It would also be unfair for that dog to keep pushing it into protection work training when clearly the dog isn't cut out for it and won't enjoy it.  It should go to a family home to be a companion.  Again, the reality is that companionship is not the only purpose for a dog.

 
But this paragraph...I visualize as a business. 
I picture a busness with many large kennels...lots of dogs.
A business doesn't care about companions...or pets. It cares about their business and how they run it and what is best for it.  I wouldnt expect a busness to care about rehoming one of their dogs.
I am not thinking that this is what the conversation of the OP was.  I thought they asked about a retired show-dog.  Which might have been a dog that lived in a home with its owner,,but now wants to make room for a new show dog. 
I can see where that could be almost the same as having a dog that you use for breeding...but kennels of dogs are just not the same thing. 
Or am I misunderstanding something here?

But this paragraph...I visualize as a business.
I picture a busness with many large kennels...lots of dogs.
A business doesn't care about companions...or pets.

I can't think of any decent kennels that actually make money off of their dogs (money that they are pocketing and not putting back into their dogs and their breeding programs), but no, those are not pets.  If all breeders kept only a certain number of dogs, say 3-5, and all dogs were assumed to be "companion" dogs, then we would have no dogs for our police units, no bomb or drugs dogs, no military dogs.  Personally, I am uncomfortable with restricting the purpose of dogs to solely serving humans as companions.

Again, I'm totally against kennels that only breed dogs to make money.  IMO, that lies outside the definition of what is an ethical and reputable breeder.  They are unethical to me regardless of whether they are selling adults or just puppies.

I don't get what's so different about selling an adult than a puppy?  To me it's confusing and unclear.  At least w/ DPU he seems to be against breeding in general, selling puppies and adults.  I don't agree with his position, but if one is going to be against the sale of purebred dogs, then be against it, period.  If one is OK with breeding (being done by ethical and reputable persons), what is not OK about re-homing other dogs?  Where do we draw the line?  8 weeks?  12 weeks?  2 years?....it seems pretty muddy and pointless to me.

ORIGINAL: Liesje

At least w/ DPU he seems to be against breeding in general, selling puppies and adults.

In general:
 - Against breeding…FALSE
- Selling puppies…..FALSE
- Selling ADULTS….True

I did not receive a response when I contacted one of the kennel operation suggested by Liesje.  I did not go back and read Rwbeagles or PWCA response to the OP but I expect they responded from the adopter's perspective.  What I was getting at was how the breeder/shower reconciles the re-homing within themselves, emotional.  Are they detached from a bond?  What I can relate to is my own experience.

For the first mix breed dog named Alphonse that I fostered, I welcomed the dog into my home, nourished, groomed, trained, and socialized.  I worked on placement.  When rehoming time came, it was emotionally hard to give up the dog that has now been rehabbed and has lived in my home for months.  After many placements, I finally reconciled within myself the job of fostering was most important.  The dog, the bond, and work involved in getting the dog ready for rehoming is second.  And third, the dog is rehomed into a better home situation that I can give.  And finally, I can save another dog.  A couple of other things that I don't care about is the dog's history and whatever behavior problems the dog may have, I'll fix those or make accomodations. 

As Mrv may have expressed, there may be a niche of breeder/shower that share my experience, but I have hard time equating "Advancement of the Breed” to "Saving a dog's life”.

Someone said in this thread that I "anthropomorphizing the dogs too much”.  So what.  I think in terms of the life value of the dog and the higher the life value the more care and love the dog receives which results in a happier dog.  I guess that is my biggest issue here is what I perceived as a huge difference in life value of the dog.

If one is OK with breeding (being done by ethical and reputable persons), what is not OK about re-homing other dogs?  Where do we draw the line?  8 weeks?  12 weeks?  2 years?....it seems pretty muddy and pointless to me.

For me,,,,I would be talking about giving up a dog you have a relationship with...and I'm sure it hurts to kind of give up the puppies...but to give up the dog that you have raised, trained and loved...I can't see giving up. Again though...I thought the conversation was really about giving up a retired show dog which I see as different.

ORIGINAL: DPU

ORIGINAL: Liesje

At least w/ DPU he seems to be against breeding in general, selling puppies and adults.

In general:
- Against breeding…FALSE
- Selling puppies…..FALSE
- Selling ADULTS….True

I did not receive a response when I contacted one of the kennel operation suggested by Liesje.  I did not go back and read Rwbeagles or PWCA response to the OP but I expect they responded from the adopter's perspective.  What I was getting at was how the breeder/shower reconciles the re-homing within themselves, emotional.  Are they detached from a bond?  What I can relate to is my own experience.

For the first mix breed dog named Alphonse that I fostered, I welcomed the dog into my home, nourished, groomed, trained, and socialized.  I worked on placement.  When rehoming time came, it was emotionally hard to give up the dog that has now been rehabbed and has lived in my home for months.  After many placements, I finally reconciled within myself the job of fostering was most important.  The dog, the bond, and work involved in getting the dog ready for rehoming is second.  And third, the dog is rehomed into a better home situation that I can give.  And finally, I can save another dog.  A couple of other things that I don't care about is the dog's history and whatever behavior problems the dog may have, I'll fix those or make accomodations. 

As Mrv may have expressed, there may be a niche of breeder/shower that share my experience, but I have hard time equating "Advancement of the Breed” to "Saving a dog's life”.

Someone said in this thread that I "anthropomorphizing the dogs too much”.  So what.  I think in terms of the life value of the dog and the higher the life value the more care and love the dog receives which results in a happier dog.  I guess that is my biggest issue here is what I perceived as a huge difference in life value of the dog.

I hope we are all clear on this subject and my position.  I have not received a response from the referred breeder as to how they reconcile rehoming within themselves.

I'm trying to decide if I care enough to justify it to you, who, based on your track record, will just bellittle me and use it to call me a horrible person. No thanks.

Pwca, if you wish I will not respond or comment.  I think this is a very important issue and I think I have made myself clear in my last post as to why.  I want to understand the equating of the dog's life value for the dog's that you keep versus the dogs that you sell.

Sell?! HAH.

Summer and Jester were both placed for the cost of their alter. I assure you, after 3 months with a pro handler, $100 is a MINIMAL adoption fee in Jester's case. We won't even start with Summer.

ORIGINAL: Pwca

Sell?! HAH.

Summer and Jester were both placed for the cost of their alter. I assure you, after 3 months with a pro handler, $100 is a MINIMAL adoption fee in Jester's case. We won't even start with Summer.

 
I will go back and read your post to get the story of Summer and Jester.  I passed on it after reading the first sentence.  If your situation is similar to Liesje, then don't be offended because these types of exceptions just take away and are distraction from the overall practice. 

DPU and Dyan, the only bonds that exist that are strong enough to cause pain are the bond of the human.  It may sound harsh, but the dog gets over it, rather quickly in fact.  Besides, if the bond/relationship is the crux of this issue, then why does the same criticism not apply to adults in foster/rescue situations?  If there is such a bond that the dog in fact feels, my assumption would be that it is greater in a rescue/foster situation b/c usually those dogs have come in with many problem.  Personally, selling 8 week old puppies makes me MORE uncomfortable than titled adults b/c there's so much that can go wrong so quickly with regard to proper socialization.  This is why at this time, I am not comfortable purchasing or adopting a puppy.  I don't have enough confidence in myself that I will raise them correctly, so I am starting with an adult.  I am going to see my dog tomorrow for the first time ever.  If she looks very depressed and heartbroken to see me and leave the foster home for a forever home, I stand corrected and will let you know....

DPU, you keep referring to the "higher value of a dog's life" but based on your recent posts it seems to me that you are just placing a higher value on an adult dog's life, if it's fine to sell puppies into homes that may not be prepared for such responsibility, but heaven forbid someone want to adopt an adult dog...

I hope we are all clear on this subject and my position.  I have not received a response from the referred breeder as to how they reconcile rehoming within themselves.

I will ask Chopper's breeder/foster mom then.

can't think of any decent kennels that actually make money off of their dogs (money that they are pocketing and not putting back into their dogs and their breeding programs), but no, those are not pets.

To be classified as a business, it does not have to make money.  The definition of a business is not "make money".

busi·ness (bĭz'nĭs)
n.

2. The occupation, work, or trade in which a person is engaged: the wholesale food business.
3. A specific occupation or pursuit: the best designer in the business.

Commercial, industrial, or professional dealings: new systems now being used in business.

A commercial enterprise or establishment: bought his uncle's business.

Volume or amount of commercial trade: Business had fallen off.
And here's Webster's definition:

busi·ness Pronunciation: \ˈbiz-nəs, -nəz, Southern also ˈbid-\ Function:noun Usage:often attributive Etymology:Middle English bisynesse, from bisy busy + -nesse -nessDate:14th century 1archaic : urposeful activity : [linkhttp://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/busyness]busyness[/link]
2 a: [linkhttp://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/role]role[/link], [linkhttp://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/function]function[/link] business of learning — H. A. Overstreet>
b: an immediate task or objective : [linkhttp://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mission]mission[/link] business here>
c: a particular field of endeavor business>
3 a: a usually commercial or mercantile activity engaged in as a means of livelihood : [linkhttp://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trade]trade[/link], [linkhttp://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/line]line[/link] business>
b: a commercial or sometimes an industrial enterprise; also : such enterprises business district>
c: dealings or transactions especially of an economic nature : [linkhttp://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patronage]patronage[/link] business elsewhere>

No where in there does it state "to make money".  So a breeder, no matter how responsible, is a business because it involves a product (the puppy/dog) and a monetary compensation for that product.  It does not matter if they make money or not.  They are a business.

Companion dogs are just that - companions.  They honestly don't care who their companion is as long as they are treated well, given food, shelter, and an outlet for their energy.  The dog isn't going to be depressed and hold a gruge its entire life because the breeder found a more suitable home for it.  We have to think about what's best for dogs, end of story.

My dog Tasha would beg to differ with this.  If I placed her in another home, it would take weeks or months for her to adjust.  She's just very attached to me.  She may not hold a grudge but she will certainly not be happy for that adjustment period.  Is that fair to the dog?

A companion dog belongs in a companion home, not doing herding trials and ringsport.

I beg to differ.  My companion dogs compete in ringsport.  Agility.  And they're good at it.

Sorry Liesje if it seems like I'm picking on you but those points kind of irked me.  It really does seem, that from your standpoint, that breeders that are responsible (meaning care about the betterment of the whole breed) can not care about individual dogs.  They want to produce a specific type of dog and will continue to try to produce that "perfect" example of a breed regardless of other issues and also the pet overpopulation problem.  I know you say they do rescue and such, but perhaps reducing the number of litters they produce would be a better option.  Just my 2 cents.

ORIGINAL: Liesje

Besides, if the bond/relationship is the crux of this issue, then why does the same criticism not apply to adults in foster/rescue situations?  If there is such a bond that the dog in fact feels, my assumption would be that it is greater in a rescue/foster situation b/c usually those dogs have come in with many problem.

This is the problem that most people have with me.  They attempt to understand a situation without ever being in the situation.  In my experience, foster failures occurs after the first time but can occur at any time.  It is from the human side but it does impact the dog.  A week or 2 of sadness is my experience.  So yes, this happens all the time and it is a big problem in getting new volunteers.  Please reread my post on how I reconcile this in my mind.  I am looking for something similar from the breeder's side.  It may just come down to that the passion for the breed is the same as my passion for the shelter dog.  I like the breed Great Dane but I am not passionate about the breed.  Have to commute now.

They attempt to understand a situation without ever being in the situation.

Well, I'm not "most people" because I've rescued and fostered before.  I also volunteer at an animal shelter.  And I do adoption interviews.  I've am/have been at every level in the shelter/rescue/foster/adoption process.  I know what all of it is like, you don't have to keep telling me.

Whether or not you like vs. are passionate about a breed shouldn't really affect your general opinion of other breeders.  How about evaluating their program based on what they are doing and not what you are or are not doing?