I was at my vets one night a few weeks ago. Someone rang as her bitch needed a caesarean and she didn't have the money. She still owed her usual vet money from months before, RSPCA and PDSA wouldn't touch as it was BYB. My vet couldn't help as I was last appointment and nursing staff had gone home. He told her to take the bitch to her usual vets out of hours practice as they'd have to do something.

That's the reality sometimes - not everyone is responsible and the animals suffer.

There are many other reasons - I just mention this one as it was very recent and I still wonder what happened to that dog.

 

that is disgraceful and sadly there are too many people like that with all animals. It is not so much a breeding issue as a general welfare issue. The dog could get hit by a car or fall down stairs and need surgery and it would be the same situation.

Even if you have planned on making a profit - which as a farmer is actually necessary or we would starve - it is not always going to happen. It is not an easy buck, it is blooming hard work to make money out of animals. As well as farming we run a horse related business and that really has no hope of making money when you take keeping several horses into account and the never ending vets bills!

It is funny though. I think horses are just as important in our lives as dogs. There is an immense amount of irresponsible horse breeding goes on. There are very very neglected horses all over the place. The rescues are overflowing with unwanted horses. The free ad sites are full of them. Yet no one would ever think it wrong that someone was trying to make a profit by breeding. They are unlikely to succeed but the big studs must make money or they could not carry on. The mindset is completely different and I do not understand why.

 

I think along as breeding is done 'properly' then there is nothing wrong with hoping for a bit of profit.
I think what most people object to is breeding irresponsibly to make as much money as possible.

 

Can't attack you for this, you make some good points, but for me its all about how the breeding is done, and to an extent the semantics.

Breeding done properly, with only the 'hope' of a small profit is fine by me. The problems often seem to come from people who are breeding for the sole or primary purpose of making money. In these cases you often find corners get cut to make it happen.

I have absolutely no problem if a responsible, ethical breeder makes some money. Hell if by some miracle my own dogs breeder made a profit then well done to her, I know she's done everything right and money was not her objective.

However I can't condone breeding for profit. There are several welfare issues affecting dogs right now that in many cases can be blamed on dodgy breeding practices. The rescue crisis is one of them, dogs being destroyed for lack of homes while up and down the country people are turning out more pups for profit. But rescue isn't the only issue. Health problems cause suffering and death and shouldn't be overlooked. Imo there is no excuse for breeding without health in mind, looking at health testing, lifespans, inbreeding coefficients etc. Then the non genetic health issues from pups being born to bitches in poor condition, or fed crap food, or kept with poor hygiene. Then there is behaviour, lots of dogs dumped or destroyed for behaviour problems. Good breeding and rearing practices would go some way to prevent this. But all of the above costs money. From proper care of the bitch, proving dogs in the ring or sport or work, health checks and tests, research into pedigree, breeding from older dogs not those still pups themselves, breeding limited litters per bitch (and dog!!), good food, vet care...
Something else to consider is who buys the pups. Someone out to make money is more likely to sell a high price pup to anyone who can afford it. Good breeders who care more about the pups welfare will turn unsuitable people down, even if this means losing out on the money.

I just think there is a huge difference between breeding well and keeping fingers crossed that all goes well and some money is made, and breeding for the money where everything that eats into the profits will be begrudged or worse missed out.

 

I am doubtless going to make myself very unpopular here but what is wrong with hoping to make money when breeding dogs. What is the difference between dogs and other species that are bred for profit.
Why is everyone on here so against it. I will say here though that when I have had a litter it has never crossed my mind to even work out if I have made money but that is me, I will not criticise someone that does want to.

So long as the animal is looked after properly, given what it needs in EVERY way and not overbred from why is there such a ridiculous knee jerk action about it from some of the posters on here.

It is highly unlikely that there will be much of a profit, it is not a very good business venture but if it is set about in the right way what is wrong with considering the economics of it among other things.

I am a farmer so I am breeding animals all the time. They are there to make a profit which sometimes happens and sometimes does not. They are looked after and they are chosen carefully as breeding stock. We have certain annual tests they have to have done on them that costs a lot but it is part of the running costs.

A lot of horse owners breed from their mares and many from their pet mares. They hope to make a profit even though they seldom do. There are not enough homes to go round and there is a lot of horse neglect nationwide but no on says it is wrong to try and make money from breeding (though personally I do not like to see the amount of breeding that goes on).

Dogs have different needs as they are more people animals but plenty of working dogs are kept differently from our pets and it is also perfectly possible to breed from your pet dog in the house. If health testing is necessary it would just be part of the costs. The majority of pet dogs do not come from health tested parents so one has to assume that is not a priority with a lot of breeders or buyers. It probably should be but you cannot really slate someone for going with the norm. If there are not enough homes to go around then the pups will not get sold and the breeders will not make any money so surely if people are breeding JUST for money they would stop after one litter when they realised it was a non starter.

Anyway I am not saying what I believe is right or wrong as far as breeding practices go - that is a totally different subject. But on the assumption that someone is going to breed from the right bitch and dog and homes are going to be available what is wrong with having an expectation of coming out with a profit if all goes well.

I can assure you that, as a farmer, I have an expectation of coming out with a profit from my breeding stock. Sometimes there are huge vets bills or deaths and no profit at all, but does not stop me hoping. My animals get the best of care and I HATE that some farm animals are not treated well in just the same way that I hate that some horses and dogs and every other species man has domesticated are often not treated well.

So come on , attack me.

If the rescues were not full of dogs looking for homes, if the freeads were not heaving with puppies being sold (and which often end up in rescue - a recent poster looking for a particular 'colour' of a breed to use as a stud dog admitted themselves that she knew lots of breeders who could not give away their pups.

There is a big difference between dogs and other animals - and animal husbandry only plays a very small part in that. While there are exceptions, farm animals are indeed a commodity part of a business and therefore money is a consideration. There are also DEFRA rules that safeguard the breeding stock is suitable for purpose, healthy etc.

There is nothing in pets and these are animals that people share their homes with, live in much more close contact than large animals (even horses that are kept as pets) and people get far more attached to as well.
Temperament and health are key issues with dogs that live in people's homes - these are both herediatry and environmental. Raising an animal that will be kept in a home requires a great deal more time and effort than one that is raised to have minimal contact with humans.

I understand what you are saying but you are saying it from a farmer/husbandry point of view. The government actually encouraged and subsidised that view and the result was puppy farms..... I think that says it all about how farming methods cannot be used to raise pets. They are two completely different things.

 

I have nothing against GOOD breeding, not that there's much of it about sadly, & nothing against a breeder recovering their costs & maybe a bit extra to invest back into their next generation, but when people are using their animals so they can 'enjoy the little luxuries in life' (like that harridan who was featured in Grazia magazine) I think they're pushing the morality of breeding to its limits.

Animals aren't assets we can plunder when we want nice things, they are living beings.

 

I have nothing against GOOD breeding, not that there's much of it about sadly, & nothing against a breeder recovering their costs & maybe a bit extra to invest back into their next generation, but when people are using their animals so they can 'enjoy the little luxuries in life' (like that harridan who was featured in Grazia magazine) I think they're pushing the morality of breeding to its limits.

Animals aren't assets we can plunder when we want nice things, they are living beings.

But they are assets, whether emotional or financial. Why is it ok to buy a cheap horse that needs bringing on, do the work on it and sell it at a profit (normal and accepted practice) but not to plan to make money out of a dog. Is it ok to farm and to make money out of living beings. What is wrong with spending your money on luxuries wherever that money came from. Do you go to work, do you earn money, do you spend your money.

Why should dogs be different from other animals so long as they are kept in a way that suits them as a species.

 

I don't object to responsible breeders making a bit of money out of dogs or horses for that matter but I do object strongly to people breeding purely to make money as their first objective without exploring all the issues involved. Health and temperament being a huge part of that given that dogs are expected to live in a domestic situation not a barn or a stable and share often small spaces with adults/children and other pets and exercise in spaces used by a wide range of others such as dogs/horses/joggers/cyclists/children playing ball etc etc. They are exposed to members of the general public on a regular basis and are expected to cope and behave in a certain way whereas most farm animals are not. Indeed we have laws in this country governing what behaviour is acceptable in a dog and the police or dog warden will soon come knocking if your dog behaves aggressively or even has a certain set of characteristics called 'type'. I've never heard of a such laws applying to sheep or horses and cows regularly seem to get away with behaviour that would not be tolerated in dogs. To churn out puppies of the latest fashionable breed with little regard for temperament and adaptability to living in domestic situations is just wrong.

Then we have the rescue situation which is a disgrace, I don't know how we justify breeding more and more dogs when more and more are dumped on rescues and killed daily in pounds because the human who bred them did not take responsibility for them. To hear them talked about in terms of fashion/more prized colour/products and profit margins makes me feel quite sick, I can't comment about farm animals as I've never been a farmer but I wouldn't imagine one cow out of a herd of cows bonds to you in the same way as a dog does given that it lives with its own species in a field or a barn and not in your house and with you the majority of the time.

I've seen many threads in this section where the poster has asked for advice but clarified that they have done the necessary health testing, have experience of the breed and can and will take back any dogs in the future that they bred should they find themselves homeless. Those breeders don't get given a hard time and are usually answered respectfully and advice offered from those experienced in breeding. Its the ones who pop up never having owned the breed but already looking to breed from it, thinking its a good idea to bring yet more staffies into the world or who ask questions which show they have not done their research about breeding/about their breed/have no facilities to take back any returned animals etc that get short shift and I'm afraid that is well deserved.

Rottie rescue (just one of their breed rescues) turn away 5 dogs per day, every day, that is just over 1800 dogs per year in one breed, their popularity some years ago led to some suspect temperaments being used for breeding and they can also suffer from a lot of health problems so any one popping up on here intending to breed rotties unless they have a good reason other than profit will get my honest opinion about why they shouldn't whether they want to hear it or not

 

I have no real objection to ethical and responsible breeding of pets, where there is a true requirement.

I hate the fact that any old Tom, Dick or Harry can go ahead and breed animals willy nilly, period. Just producing them in the hope they can find someone to buy them.

I wish there was some way of making it only possible for knowledgeable, dedicated and responsible people to breed pets - sadly, impossible

Imagine if there was a total ban on the breeding of dogs by any but the "best" and in limited numbers for say, 10 years? What impact would that have on the state of rescue and rehoming? Would it be reduced to manageable levels that could then be maintained? Could it have a positive impact? Would there then be enough rehomers to keep the status quo?

(Before anyone jumps on me - I haven't thought this idea through in any detail! )

 

I have no real objection to ethical and responsible breeding of pets, where there is a true requirement.

I hate the fact that any old Tom, Dick or Harry can go ahead and breed animals willy nilly, period. Just producing them in the hope they can find someone to buy them.

I wish there was some way of making it only possible for knowledgeable, dedicated and responsible people to breed pets - sadly, impossible

Imagine if there was a total ban on the breeding of dogs by any but the "best" and in limited numbers for say, 10 years? What impact would that have on the state of rescue and rehoming? Would it be reduced to manageable levels that could then be maintained? Could it have a positive impact? Would there then be enough rehomers to keep the status quo?

(Before anyone jumps on me - I haven't thought this idea through in any detail! )

Sounds like a good basic plan, except I'd be concerned about gene pools & the effect that over limiting breeding might have on them

 

Just this last week someone I know had a litter due, loads of people wanting puppies. When I asked late in the week the bitch hadn't move in almost 12 hours, next morning she was bleeding, "She will have them soon" he said. I thought shouldn't she be at the vets. Next morning puppies born, all still born. I'm sad for the dog, that his stupidity cost her, he wasn't keeping one, he thinks she was too small. Has he learned his lesson , no , his breeding his other bitch in a couple of months time. I hate BYB's

 

To me, it isn't so much about what someone breeding for profit is doing as about what they're not doing.

Usually, those breeding for the showring or to produce good working dogs, put time, effort and money into breeding pups which will be as good a specimen of the breed as possible. Health tests, often a lengthy journey to use the best stud dog, etc.

BYBs most often just want to produce a litter of pups. They're not interested whether they conform to the Breed Standard or have come from parents with immaculate temperaments, all they need is a dog and a bitch of the same breed and they're in the money.

I have no problem at all with someone breeding a litter, doing everything right and ending up with some profit, but often, when profit is the only motivator, everything else gets forgotten about.

 

To me, it isn't so much about what someone breeding for profit is doing as about what they're not doing.

Usually, those breeding for the showring or to produce good working dogs, put time, effort and money into breeding pups which will be as good a specimen of the breed as possible. Health tests, often a lengthy journey to use the best stud dog, etc.

BYBs most often just want to produce a litter of pups. They're not interested whether they conform to the Breed Standard or have come from parents with immaculate temperaments, all they need is a dog and a bitch of the same breed and they're in the money.

I have no problem at all with someone breeding a litter, doing everything right and ending up with some profit, but often, when profit is the only motivator, everything else gets forgotten about.

Or a bitch of one breed & a poodle stud (or vice versa), that seems to be where the money currently is!

 

personally I don't believe the breeders who claim to make zero profit, and only do it for the good of the breed - in the real world breeders are much more open about money made, despite the costs of health tests and raising the litter well, breeders do make a profit especially considering pups are about £800 these days.

personally I don't really have an issue with people making money from it providing all the dogs are very well cared for, and relevant health tests are done, they aren't over bred, and that the person breeding them knows what they are doing, or has help on standby - I do have an issue with byb ofc where it's only about churning out pup after pup and I would love to see people being more aware of what that cheap £250 puppy really means.

 

I have nothing against a goid breeder making koney, usually they will say the miney just goes back into the dogs too and you can usually tell that, they eat well and are well taken care of.

I do object to just anyone breeding their poor bitch jyst to make money as to me pets are to be loved, not for us to just make a quick buck. Again you can tell these, no health testing, parents and pups are fed complete crap and the charges are higher for what you are getting.
I always just find it sad when people want to use their dogs to fund their lifestyle, why not surrogate their own womb for it?

I hope people are learning, I know some pups are still on sale despite having a silly name, they were overpriced for just random crosses and haven't all sold, or maybe the cross isn't trendy enough.

 

SS, I agree, I see no reason to not just get a poodle either.

I do adore the poodle though, so very beautiful.
I once saw what I houht was a poodle outside a cafe, there wasn't any difference, I said oh a lovely poodle and the owners replied he was a labradoodle, I did wonder what on earth the point was, a dog who was in every way a poodle, except they paid more for no KC and the charm of calling it a labradoodle.

 

I have had poodles for around 20 years and even I am wary of calling a strange poodle a poodle in case it is a doodle!

I know we know all this, I just wanted to summarise some of the dedication, finances, time and thought that goes into breeding dogs responsibly so that I could lead on to my next point.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone would go through all this without having some deeper love or enthusiasm for the breed(s) they are producing. I've no doubt that some people can, but I would imagine that the majority of responsible breeders do so in part because of what the breed means to them.

This assumption (I realise it's an assumption rather than a known fact, but it does seem to me a reasonable assumption) leads me to my next point in turn.

Following the same logic, I feel that anyone who wants to breed for money doesn't have the same affection for or dedication to the breed they are looking to produce. If you really cared about the animals you are breeding, I'm sure that making money would not be the driving force behind your actions.

Again, an assumption I know - and there will always be exceptions.

But if you don't care for the breed, would you go to all that effort to the same standards? Sure, anyone can pay for health tests if they are conscientious enough. But would you dedicate years to showing or working that animal, if such activities were relevant to proving its quality as breeding stock? Would you continue to pay out for it if it became unwell after its breeding days are over, as you would a pet? Could you raise the youngstock with genuine concern for moulding loving family pets (if that's what they are being bred to be) if you see them as just 'wares'?

My point is, IMO breeding for money and breeding responsibly probably don't go in hand as much as they ought to. I've no doubt some people manage it (I know a couple), and if done right I don't have any issues with people breeding dogs solely for money per se, but I struggle to see how a great proportion of such breeders can achieve the same level of dedication as those who do it out of passion for the breed or to improve it.

And, maybe, health-tested pups produced by owners with genuine love and lifelong dedication are better than those equivalents produced by someone who bought a dog five years ago purely to breed and sell...

Or maybe not.

I do agree with most of what you have said but I am not sure about the bolded bit. I think if you are really keen on a breed you will always be breeding for perfection and happy if you managed to achieve it even once in your life time of breeding. It does not stop you wanting to make money out of it. How many farmers have their show stock that is bred with fanatical care not only to win at shows but with the hope that the youngstock will fetch that elusive amazing high price in a sale. You will not see a farmer coming back from a sale and not telling everyone what prices he averaged or what the best price was. Not mercenary, pride in the pedigree animals.

Dogs seem to be a bit different from other animals in that a well reared litter of a certain breed fetches roughly a certain price whereas a ram lamb could go from anything in the hundreds up to the thousands. A foal might go in the hundreds or even less or could go for thousands. Race horse yearlings go from a few hundred to a million. They are all sold for what they have turned out like as well as their breeding and different breeding fetches different prices regardless of the looks of an individual youngster.

All these breeders love their breed, are very knowledgeable, count it as a hobby in some cases but others are very much in it for the money however devoted to the breed they are.

So whats is wrong in dog breeders feeling the same way.

 

Note: throughout this post I am going to refer to breeding animals as 'breeding stock'. I'm just doing this for simplicity and I am well aware that dogs are more than 'stock' to most people.

As we all know, breeding dogs (or any animal) responsibly takes a lot of time, money and effort.

It takes great planning to breed good breeding stock, or careful consideration and money to buy it in.

Health tests cost money and a responsible breeder is presumably prepared to rethink their plans if the health tests are not satisfactory, even though this could mean 'wasted' time and money on their part.

In some cases, the stock should be able to prove itself in the show ring or as a working animal. To be presented with these opportunities requires time and effort, and possibly money, on the part of the owner and, again, the possibility of failure that may mean it's not suitable for breeding.

Selection of appropriate partners for the breeding stock requires knowledge, a willingness to travel if necessary and the funds to cover stud fees etc.

The birth of the pups is not a risk-free process. The breeder must be equipped with knowledge and experience, whether their own or that of a trustworthy mentor. Veterinary treatment and/or Caesareans cost money.

The younger stock may require medical treatment if all is not well. If it is, then preventative care must be paid for such as vaccinations, worming, chipping. Raising youngstock takes time and effort.

The selection of new owners is not, I am led to believe, a quick process if done conscientiously. The breeder must work hard to place their stock with the right owners. They must be prepared to give continued advice if it is needed, and to take the stock back if the need ever arises.


I know we know all this, I just wanted to summarise some of the dedication, finances, time and thought that goes into breeding dogs responsibly so that I could lead on to my next point.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone would go through all this without having some deeper love or enthusiasm for the breed(s) they are producing. I've no doubt that some people can, but I would imagine that the majority of responsible breeders do so in part because of what the breed means to them.

This assumption (I realise it's an assumption rather than a known fact, but it does seem to me a reasonable assumption) leads me to my next point in turn.

Following the same logic, I feel that anyone who wants to breed for money doesn't have the same affection for or dedication to the breed they are looking to produce. If you really cared about the animals you are breeding, I'm sure that making money would not be the driving force behind your actions.

Again, an assumption I know - and there will always be exceptions.

But if you don't care for the breed, would you go to all that effort to the same standards? Sure, anyone can pay for health tests if they are conscientious enough. But would you dedicate years to showing or working that animal, if such activities were relevant to proving its quality as breeding stock? Would you continue to pay out for it if it became unwell after its breeding days are over, as you would a pet? Could you raise the youngstock with genuine concern for moulding loving family pets (if that's what they are being bred to be) if you see them as just 'wares'?

My point is, IMO breeding for money and breeding responsibly probably don't go in hand as much as they ought to. I've no doubt some people manage it (I know a couple), and if done right I don't have any issues with people breeding dogs solely for money per se, but I struggle to see how a great proportion of such breeders can achieve the same level of dedication as those who do it out of passion for the breed or to improve it.

And, maybe, health-tested pups produced by owners with genuine love and lifelong dedication are better than those equivalents produced by someone who bought a dog five years ago purely to breed and sell...

Or maybe not.

 

As others have already said, I don’t think the problem is hoping to make money, it’s when money is the man driving force that my radar goes off.

Realistically I think breeders hope for a lot of things when they breed a litter. They hope for healthy pups, they hope for the next show/competition prospect, they hope for a good bitch to continue their line, they hope to produce something better than the other guy, and sure they hope for a good sized litter, a certain color... I know one litter I was hoping for a brindle male, that one turned out to be a singleton litter So to say a breeder hopes to make some cash (don’t know if you can call it profit in the greater scheme of things), is not the worst thing in the world.

But if someone comes on here and in their opening post is talking about colors and profit, sorry but I’m going to be skeptical.

 

I think racehorses are a slightly different analogy in that there is open breeding of generation after generation with insufficient thought for health and temperament. It's all focused on the racing ability. I think it's worse in the States.

It's a tricky one because horses like Attraction (terrible conformation, but she could run like a hurricane), Danzig (very dodgy knees, which ended his racing career) and Ribot (undefeated at the highest level, but was point-blank dangerous and became nigh-impossible to handle) all should not have reached the breeding shed in an ideal world. But what racing purist would want to see their genes foregone in the honing of the Thoroughbred?

I could give dozens more examples, but will avoid doing so because I'll go too far off topic.

But the Thoroughbred industry, while peppered with thousands of people who have a great passion for the breed and literally dedicate their entire lives to the sport, is probably the perfect example of breeding for money, professionally, but with widespread irresponsibility that is accepted as par for the course.

 

I think racehorses are a slightly different analogy in that there is open breeding of generation after generation with insufficient thought for health and temperament. It's all focused on the racing ability. I think it's worse in the States.

Maybe I should not have mentioned racehorses as they are a real industry - but other breeds are comparable with dog breeding I think.

 

I think for me breeders are split in separate sections, 1) the people who show and breed for perfection/breed standard etc. 2) the people who have pet type dogs and breed but are prepared for vet bills, things going wrong, breeding for good temperament/health then theirs 3) people who just stick 2 dogs together with no thought no preparations etc. 1 and 2 I don't mind however 3 I'd happily punch in the face.

I personally don't have a problem with cross breeds or breeding in general because if you look into the history of some dog breeds they were once cross breeds who have been perfected to kc standard such as the German Shepard. I have respect for the good people who do their research, care for their dogs, prepared for worst case scenario etc. I have no respect for the people who generally don't care or don't think for that matter about either their own dog nor the puppies just money.

When I was looking for a dog to join our family I decided on a small dog I was put off chihuahuas because I read that their highly bred to the point bad temperaments are being past on (aggression) the people who breed these bad tempered dogs are awful IMO. I now have 2 Pomeranian x chihuahuas (felling love lol ) 1 is perfect being the one I've just gotten and the other is lovely but can be snappy and aggressive I just have to watch for her moods and warning signs as she has bitten my kids and I have had her since 8 weeks old and came from a byb who generally didn't care where her puppies went, I went to View and got a puppy shoved in my hands, no food no nothing.

You do get loving good breeders out there even those who cross breed but I think unfortunately the bad irresponsable breeders out weigh those unfortunately the sad times we live in eh?

 

I doubt very much if the breeder of my puppy made ANY profit at all to be honest. She might have broken even, but if there *was* any profit, it would not have been much that's for sure.

I also know of one Rottweiler breeder who NEVER makes any profit, usually a great loss. They do it because they love the breed, love showing the breed and that's it.

I have no problem at all with an ethical breeder making a profit, we all have to live after all, but we have a puppy dealer in our village, his house is enormous, he drives the latest Lexus and his wife drives around in a new car every 3 years too. Neither of the family "work" as such, they just breed and deal with puppies. These are the type of breeders that make huge profits. He is now breeding Huskies for the market.

 

I doubt very much if the breeder of my puppy made ANY profit at all to be honest. She might have broken even, but if there *was* any profit, it would not have been much that's for sure.

I also know of one Rottweiler breeder who NEVER makes any profit, usually a great loss. They do it because they love the breed, love showing the breed and that's it.

I have no problem at all with an ethical breeder making a profit, we all have to live after all, but we have a puppy dealer in our village, his house is enormous, he drives the latest Lexus and his wife drives around in a new car every 3 years too. Neither of the family "work" as such, they just breed and deal with puppies. These are the type of breeders that make huge profits. He is now breeding Huskies for the market.

Bah those are the type of breeders that need to drop down dead (a little harsh but they obviously don't care about the life the dogs their bringing into the world for a few hundred quid are living)

 

This is a really complex issue.....if you keep a couple of bitches, have them health tested, travel miles to the stud and look after the puppies correctly i.e. Worming, good food, microchipping etc and have a couple of litters, there is a lump sum income when you sell the pups, however, when you take the overall cost of feeding, vaccination, microchipping vet bills etc over the lifetime of keeping the bitches there really wouldn't be any profit in breeding.

On the other hand if you have a couple of bitches, breed them back to back seasons with the dog down the road, don't health test, don't do any of the things that the above breeder does like worming, good food etc you will make a profit.

I know which one I strive to be......I'd sooner feel comfortable with myself knowing I've done the best for my puppies and puppy buyers. Most of my puppies go to pet homes, some with children or grandchildren, I would be devastated if I thought they were full of worms, had poor temperaments and couldn't face up to normal everyday life.

There should be more to breeding than making money......

 

There should be more to breeding than making money..

Totally agree with you Darth. In the days when we used to show and breed, we had a saying, there are two sorts of breeders. One who were in it for the love of their breed, and one who were in it for the money.
Thank goodness we were the first sort.

 

To be honest I find it sad that some people think you can't be a good breeder if you don't show your dogs or work them.....let's face it ...there are some very poor examples of a breed that work and some very bad show breeders....a lot of them just don't health test because the lines are rife with hereditary diseases, which they don't want to be shown up, plus they are chasing that "perfect" example of the show standard, which is down to interpretation of it anyway.

You just can't categorise like that.

I have no objection to breeders making a profit as long as their breeding is ethical.[/QUOTE]

 

I don't see as the "why" is important - that is just for you, in your own head, and nothing to do with anyone else.
It is the "how" that matters.

 

I have nothing against GOOD breeding, not that there's much of it about sadly, & nothing against a breeder recovering their costs & maybe a bit extra to invest back into their next generation, but when people are using their animals so they can 'enjoy the little luxuries in life' (like that harridan who was featured in Grazia magazine) I think they're pushing the morality of breeding to its limits.

Animals aren't assets we can plunder when we want nice things, they are living beings.

That's how I felt about when Kite had her pups. I priced them to cover costs, no more. She's my best friend, not a cash cow and I didn't want to despoil how I feel about her by using her in any way to make money (which I could do with a lot more of, being self-employed on a low income). She had the pups to (hopefully) carry on her ability as an agility dog, and her lovely character. I could have a pup for myself of a quality I couldn't afford to buy because most people who breed proven agility dogs with all the health tests charge double what I did..

 

personally I don't believe the breeders who claim to make zero profit, and only do it for the good of the breed - in the real world breeders are much more open about money made, despite the costs of health tests and raising the litter well, breeders do make a profit especially considering pups are about £800 these days.

personally I don't really have an issue with people making money from it providing all the dogs are very well cared for, and relevant health tests are done, they aren't over bred, and that the person breeding them knows what they are doing, or has help on standby - I do have an issue with byb ofc where it's only about churning out pup after pup and I would love to see people being more aware of what that cheap £250 puppy really means.

Huh? Kite was £100, from working parents (one fully registered). I charged £300 for her pups - both parents hip scored (Kite 3/3, sire 4/5), Kite DNA screened (all clear) and sire eye tested. Pups wormed, vet checked, reared in the home, first vaccinations, microchipped, some socialisation (as much as I could do), basic house training started and raised on the best puppy food I could find at £70 a bag and some raw as one was going to a raw feeding home. And the agreement I'll take any of them back if need be, any time. They are crosses (Welsh Sheepdog x Border Collie) and not registered but really good quality dogs. And that was Kite's only litter, she's been spayed now.

 

I can't really add anything that hasn't been said.

I don't begrudge a decent breeder making a bit of money if they are breeding super quality puppies and do everything by the book. Why would I? I'm going to hopefully get 12+ years of enjoyment (ok, mostly enjoyment....ahem....) from the dog they produced, so the money I pay them is a drop in the ocean for what I'll get back.

Besides, breeding itself is a gamble, so going into it with the view to making money is naive at best. If you make a bit of extra money it's a bonus, but surely not to be expected by someone that has a shred of intelligence. After all, the breeding process is all down to pot luck. Yes, the bitch might drop 10 puppies naturally, all of which survive and are healthy and the breeder make a bit of dosh from the big litter. But as we know even with the best will in the world that doesn't always happen. You have the risk of c-sections, stillborn/fading puppies, the bitch having a small litter in the first place etc. Any smart breeder knows that you just don't know what is going to happen until the litter is on the ground.

I know someone that was on a waiting list recently. Bitches second litter, in the first litter she had 7 pups. With this litter they waited and waited and the bitch had....one puppy, which the breeder kept! no money to be made there LOL!

 

To be honest I find it sad that some people think you can't be a good breeder if you don't show your dogs or work them.....let's face it ...there are some very poor examples of a breed that work and some very bad show breeders....a lot of them just don't health test because the lines are rife with hereditary diseases, which they don't want to be shown up, plus they are chasing that "perfect" example of the show standard, which is down to interpretation of it anyway.

That's a false argument though. Just because *some* dogs who are worked and/or shown are not up to par, doesn't mean that showing/working is not without merit.
There is something to be said for having some sort of evaluation of your dogs through some sort of competitive venue. Doesn't have to be the show ring, but some impartial party looking at your dog is important IMO. To see how what you are producing, planning to produce stacks up to what is already out there. To make connections within the breed, to get an idea of what mates would work best with your lines. In some breeds there might temperament blips creeping in that need to be addressed. If you're not getting out there in the breed you wouldn't know that.
Besides, kennel blindness is real, we all think we have the best dogs in the world, that's why outside parties looking at your dogs matters.

 

I do agree with this but your first example would probably still be counted as BYB by some on here as you forgot to mention the bitches being shown and being wonderful examples of their breed that are going to add to the breed. To me that is totally unrealistic and is only going to apply to an elite few who cannot possibly service the pet market.

I have to disagree with this. Are you saying that there isn't enough pet "quality" (as opposed to show quality) puppies on offer? Realistically even in a litter from top show dogs only a couple of puppies will be ones that have a potential to quickly become champions i.e. they will be bot just meeting standard and accepted into the ring but will have a high potential to be placed in most of shows. Will these pet puppies cost pennies? No. But I think that people who definitely want the breed, will save money and get a puppy from a good breeder even if they will have to 'shop around' first. I don't think there should be some sort of specific pet market where anyone could sell cheap pet class puppies. If the breeder isn't showing, competing or working with their breed, then their dog was bought purely as a pet for the family, right? But then this person goes on to breed their pet? If they are breeding just once to keep a puppy and do it responsibly, then fair enough. But if they breed more than once without keeping anything for themselves, then clearly that dog is no longer just a pet to them? That's a way to make money. To me, that is unacceptable. If you buy and keep the dog just as a pet, then that what it should stay as. A pet dog. Not breeding stock for "pet market" (how many of these pets will then in turn be turned into breeding machines?).

I have nothing against people making some sort of profit from breeding good quality dogs. At the end of the day when people start talking about how much health tests cost, most of them are just a one time thing. I also don't really agree that parents need to be necessarily shown all the time. To me personally it's enough to see that the dog has attended at least 2 shows and received a good evaluation from at least 2 different judges (although, here i'm thinking from FCI system point of view because in their shows ALL dogs receive their evaluations right after the ring ends).

On a different note, while I do feel sorry for all the dog in rescues and understand how terrible the situation is, I don't think that saying how someone shouldn't be making any profit from breeding because "what about all the rescues" is very fair either. As harsh as it may sound, I don't think that it's anyone's "responsibility" to take on a rescue just because they want a cheaper pedigree. To me it's like saying because there's so many children in orphanages and looking for foster parents, people should stop having children and adopt instead.

 

I have to disagree with this. Are you saying that there isn't enough pet "quality" (as opposed to show quality) puppies on offer? Realistically even in a litter from top show dogs only a couple of puppies will be ones that have a potential to quickly become champions i.e. they will be bot just meeting standard and accepted into the ring but will have a high potential to be placed in most of shows. Will these pet puppies cost pennies? No. But I think that people who definitely want the breed, will save money and get a puppy from a good breeder even if they will have to 'shop around' first. I don't think there should be some sort of specific pet market where anyone could sell cheap pet class puppies. If the breeder isn't showing, competing or working with their breed, then their dog was bought purely as a pet for the family, right? But then this person goes on to breed their pet? If they are breeding just once to keep a puppy and do it responsibly, then fair enough. But if they breed more than once without keeping anything for themselves, then clearly that dog is no longer just a pet to them? That's a way to make money. To me, that is unacceptable. If you buy and keep the dog just as a pet, then that what it should stay as. A pet dog. Not breeding stock for "pet market" (how many of these pets will then in turn be turned into breeding machines?).

.

What I meant was that there are only a relatively few breeders who fulfill the high criteria that some on here feel is necessary (whether they are producing show quality or pet puppies) and they could not possibly produce enough puppies to fill the pet market therefore the breeders who do not stick to these high standards are necessary for most people who want to buy a puppy. Without them not many of us would own our dogs whether or not they came from a breeder or were rescues.