[Owned By A Yellow Lab]

I've been trying to catch up with the threads about types of breeders and am finding them really interesting.

Do you think we all over complicate things a bit in terms of the way we classify breeders...?

i.e. for me there are really only two types of breeders: ethical, and unethical.

An ethical breeder, for me, is someone who:

- does ALL the relevant breed health tests on dam and sire (i.e. will only allow their dog to mate with dogs that have had all the breed tests)

- interrogates potential new owners

- knows a hell of a lot about his/her chosen breed

- breeds for health and temperament

- has a contract with owners stating that any dogs being rehomed MUST be returned to him/her

- ensures potential owners meet the mother

- offers lifetime support to owners

- is happy to answer any and all questions from potential puppy owners

- does not overbreed from a bitch

- carefully considers health and temperament of any dogs they mate to their own

- provides clean, caring environment for puppies and socialises them well

If a breeder does all these things, then surely they are ethical and that's the key classification?

Any breeder who fails to do these things is, in my view, an UNethical breeder. I don't care if they are KC registered and assured breeders because I know personally of cases where e.g. a friend of mine was getting a pup from a KC assured/accredited breeder and was told she could not meet the mother!

 

[Phoolf]

If everyone was an ethical breeder adhering to your standards I'm afraid there would not be enough dogs in the country for the amount of people who want a dog.

I don't really care to enter this great debate as everyone has their own opinion. I don't much care for many health tests unless they're necessary, I don't much care for studying generations of blood lines and all that, infact I think (controversially) restricting practices in this way will just lead to more problems as you're shutting down the gene pool and limiting it ridiculously. I think as a minimum bitches should not be overbred, no dogs should be kept in a bad environment, all pups should be wormed and fed appropriately and all should receive handling and socialisation (love).

 

[Owned By A Yellow Lab]

If everyone was an ethical breeder adhering to your standards I'm afraid there would not be enough dogs in the country for the amount of people who want a dog.

I don't really care to enter this great debate as everyone has their own opinion. I don't much care for many health tests unless they're necessary, I don't much care for studying generations of blood lines and all that, infact I think (controversially) restricting practices in this way will just lead to more problems as you're shutting down the gene pool and limiting it ridiculously. I think as a minimum bitches should not be overbred, no dogs should be kept in a bad environment, all pups should be wormed and fed appropriately and all should receive handling and socialisation (love).

I didn't say anything about 'studying generations of bloodlines' - I didn't include it as I don't think it's always necessary.

I also specified that the health tests should be the necessary ones for the specific breed.

Re your first point: that might be a good thing, since there are folk who want a dog who frankly should not have one! I refer to people who mistreat their dogs or who rehome them once they outgrow the cute puppy stage...

 

[Phoolf]

I didn't say anything about 'studying generations of bloodlines' - I didn't include it as I don't think it's always necessary.

I also specified that the health tests should be the necessary ones for the specific breed.

Re your first point: that might be a good thing, since there are folk who want a dog who frankly should not have one! I refer to people who mistreat their dogs or who rehome them once they outgrow the cute puppy stage...

What's the necessary health tests for specific breeds though? Ones you think are important, ones breed clubs say so? Where does it all this judging of other peoples standards and practices end?

 

[Polimba]

I haven't read all the threads, but yes I think I agree with you. I suppose we all have different standards but they are the things I would look for.

I suppose Zimba's breeder was a 'hobby' breeder. She doesn't show but she went to a lot of effort to find the right sire, who is a show dog. Both parents were health tested. The puppies were well socialised and raised in a house. She provides life long support and the puppies were endorsed.

She went to a lot of trouble to check for Dermoid Sinus (that affects RR), her vet didn't have enough knowledge so she got another expert in. One puppy was affected and she paid for him to be operated on and he's now a much loved pet.

I think at the end of the day you can't produce a definitive checklist, people have to go armed with information but sometimes it's just weighing up the overall picture of a breeder, if that makes sense.

 

[Sleeping_Lion]

In a way yes, and there is one acid test that can help identify a good breeder, and that is are they willing and is it a stipulation that should an owner be unable to look after their pup/dog, then it goes back to the breeder. But then I'm sure there are byb's who've sold pups to the couple down the road and have taken that pup back if needed, there really is no 100% way to state simply whether someone is good or bad, but there are lots of reasons to come to that decision.

That said, there is always going to be variation, because we vary to a greater or lesser degree. Yes I think health tests are important, but shouldn't be treated as a yes or no checklist, health tests tell us what we have, and give us ways forward to make decisions about breeding, but shouldn't ever be treated as a reason to breed, or not to breed on their own merit. Otherwise we will lose genetic diversity that we have within closed gene pools, and some breeds just don't have a large enough gene pool to discount every dog that isn't *perfect* as regards known health test results. The nature of each individual condition varies how it should be treated as well, where it is possible to breed clear from an affected status, I can't see any reason not to do so as long as it's taken on merit with the rest of the dog, so we're not ignoring what we know, but stacking it up against the rest of the dog.

For me, even if you don't show or work your dogs at all, or if you only do one or the other, you should also have knowledge about the correct conformation, and where applicable, be able to know if your dog has good working ability. Because when you get showing without working, and working without showing, breeds start to split and can diverge quite spectacularly.

 

[Owned By A Yellow Lab]

What's the necessary health tests for specific breeds though? Ones you think are important, ones breed clubs say so? Where does it all this judging of other peoples standards and practices end?

I mean things like hip dysplasia in Labs; i.e. if I was buying a Lab puppy, I would NEVER buy from a breeder who had failed to hip score the dam and sire.

 

[Netpon]

Health tests required relate to conditions the breed is prone to (that there is a test for!)

Researching bloodlines is essential as many issues can skip a generation or two, knowledgable breeders will know or know of many of the dogs in the sire and dam's bloodline so will know what, if any, faults or health issues there are

 

[Phoolf]

I mean things like hip dysplasia in Labs; i.e. if I was buying a Lab puppy, I would NEVER buy from a breeder who had failed to hip score the dam and sire.

That's just one, I'm sure someone else would say there's another test that is a *must* in labs too. One thing I know for sure from all these recent good vs bad breeder threads is that there's no pleasing anybody at all, everyone picks holes in everyone elses ideal situation.