# Puppies!: reputable breeders VS BYB's VS pet stores/puppy mills.



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Inspired bu that reserected thread in the basic questions forum.

I know I have bought from BYBs before ... back before I knew better, Izze was technically what I would now call a "BYB" because her parents had some health testing (only hips and eyes), they didnt title their dogs in any ring. they were just working dogs.

The people also werent very discriminate about where she went to, they didnt ask me any questions, and they let her go at 6 weeks . They did keep one puppy back from the litter for their ranch (they were a real actual cattle operation), so that was the real reason they bred the litter, because they needed another working dog.

I did have some rescue dogs before her that were from puppy mills and "bad" BYB's (ones who bordered on being puppy mills), one was a GSD and the other was a dobie, both died early from inherited diseases, the GSD got so dysplastic that she couldnt walk, she was only 6, and the dobie got cancer.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I duuno, what's the discussion here? Like differences between each one? Just stories of our past dogs? I guess I don't know what direction this is supposed to go.

Anyway, one thing I think needs to be mentioned in every discussion of pet store/puppy mill dogs is: most puppy mills are not dirty and ugly like they show in the documentaries. They're sterile and bright and operate with an eye for profit like any mass-production hog/poultry operation. I guess it comes down to whether you think it's OK to treat dogs like livestock, and whether you think it's OK to treat livestock like that in the first place.

(I think that's important to mention because if you say "puppy mills are terrible, filthy and disgusting!" and then someone goes to the facility and it's clean and efficiently run, they might think "well, this must not be a puppymill". Better to focus on the lack of individual care and attention the parent dogs suffer, IMO.)


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Well.. I'm very much anti puppy mill. There is just no reason or excuse for that crap. 

I used to be pretty anti-"BYB" but the more I pay attention to genetics the more I'm actually not entirely. I will always push willing people toward a reputable breeder. More people need to be going to this option.. but not everyone is going to go to this option. There are some lovely lines of dog in those BYB bred versions. I don't like that they are giving puppies to whoever wants one.. but sometimes they are breeding very nice dogs without even realizing it. When show bred Goldens are dying of Cancer left and right.. I feel like they should be crossing to some longer lived field or BYB lines. I'd love to see more Poms like the foxy BYB version. 

I am not okay with overpopulated breeds breeding. Pitties need to stop. If they were not a problem.. we would not have very many dogs in shelters around here. 

I personally, would prefer to only buy from a breeder who puts their all into it. Ember was from what I would consider a backyard breeder, I suppose. Same kinda deal.. working ranch and the dogs worked livestock. Hips done and nothing more. Homes screened somewhat, and asked to keep updated. Puppies went at 8 weeks. I don't find that nearly as bad as someone who is just in it for cute puppies and money though. 

As I said.. what really gets me the most is those breeders selling to anyone. Ever since I knew someone to sell a Pom pup they bought from a "BYB" to a friggin' puppy mill in exchange for new puppies.. I'm just really against breeders not requiring puppies be returned to them. In a perfect world..


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Also not sure where the discussion is supposed to go, but here's in my input:

I think that in many discussions, "reputable", "backyard" and "mill" breeders are all treated as black and white groups with clear definitions. Reputable breeders health test their dogs, breed for personality and conformation and are active in their breed, either showing or doing sports or even therapy work. Backyard breeders are people who have two dogs and decide "huh, these dogs would make good puppies and we can make money here" and do not health test or pay attention to conformation. Mills are horrible, dirty places where puppies are caged in groups of tens and never let out or interacted with. Those are the standard definitions. 

I find that reality is very different. In reality, there are plenty of "reputable" breeders who aren't altogether scrupulous (lots of well known Dane breeders do harle x harle crosses, for instance). There are "hobby" breeders who health test, breed for temperament first and looks second, but aren't necessarily active in the breed. There are "mills", as willowy mentioned, that aren't horribly dirty and disgusting. 

I think the terms we ascribe these breeders, in and of themselves, are biased and paint an imperfect picture. In reality, "reputable" is a subjective term and can mean many different things. Is someone who breeds English Bulldogs or CKCs or any of the other breeds with numerous severe health issues actually "reputable" by all definitions? What if they breed amazing dogs who are healthy and correct, but they charge ridiculous prices and will sell to anyone?

Same with "backyard breeder", which we ascribe to everyone from people like my breeder, who bred her CH line bitch to a CH male, health tests extensively and sells selectively, but doesn't show, to someone who says "oh, a Golden Retriever and a Corgi, won't they make cute puppies?" and sells to anyone. 

I think mills are the only breeders we can all determine that we dislike, but even the picture painted of mills on tv and by the media is inaccurate. 

I just don't think it's as black and white a world as many people make it out to be.


----------



## Margot49 (Oct 2, 2015)

Years ago, I used to do referrals and education for my breed's parent club. I am not sure where you are going with this thread.
You do not want to buy from a puppy mill operation or pet store. If you are interested in a particular breed, you can start at the AKC web site. Most pure bred dogs have a National Breed Club. Go to those sites and read up on the breed. Many have referral links to breeders and rescues.
Granted, many show people might have a number of dogs on their property. Often, a Red flag is one that says "both parents on premises". Any Reputible breeder will give you a Health Guarantee that would make the dog unsuitable as a pet. No guarantee, do not buy from them.
The fact a dog is AKC registered really doesn't mean much. You need to go on the reputation and ethics of the breeder.


----------



## TSTrainer (Aug 6, 2015)

I would not pay for a pup from any pet store, puppy mill, or "BYB" which I define as "does not health test, prove/title their dogs, will not take a dog back". Those are my only requirements for a breeder that I will *financially* support. That said, I have no problem with someone coming across a free puppy from an oops litter and bringing it home. A truly oops litter, where the family was not prepared, just wants the puppies to have good homes, and won't send them to new homes until at least 8 weeks of age. The best dog I ever had came from one of those litters, and I would do it again if the situation presented itself.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

I think that it comes down to what one thinks is responsible or not. To me puppy mills are bad. There are bybs that are horrible and bybs that are okay. I think there are things that many accept as responsible but it still varies from person to person. Our individual standards. 
I won't get a dog from just anybody. If I get another dog it will be from someone I know. If not I will make the exception of going to a breeder after researching them and what they are producing. It can take a long time to decide on a breeder. 



OwnedbyACDs said:


> Inspired bu that reserected thread in the basic questions forum.
> 
> I know I have bought from BYBs before ... back before I knew better, Izze was technically what I would now call a "BYB" because her parents had some health testing (only hips and eyes), they didnt title their dogs in any ring. they were just working dogs.
> 
> The people also werent very discriminate about where she went to, they didnt ask me any questions, and they let her go at 6 weeks . They did keep one puppy back from the litter for their ranch (they were a real actual cattle operation), so that was the real reason they bred the litter, because they needed another working dog.


I don't consider working bred dogs to be bybs. When I think of bybs myself, I think of non purpose bred dogs. People breeding their pets together. I don't see a need to title a dog to prove them breed worthy when they prove breed worthy by actually doing their job. 

I do think finding out more about potential buyers is in the pups best interest. I think that some people don't care. They simply want to get rid of the pups but others are too trusting. 



ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> Well.. I'm very much anti puppy mill. There is just no reason or excuse for that crap.
> 
> I used to be pretty anti-"BYB" but the more I pay attention to genetics the more I'm actually not entirely. I will always push willing people toward a reputable breeder. More people need to be going to this option.. but not everyone is going to go to this option. There are some lovely lines of dog in those BYB bred versions. I don't like that they are giving puppies to whoever wants one.. but sometimes they are breeding very nice dogs without even realizing it. When show bred Goldens are dying of Cancer left and right.. I feel like they should be crossing to some longer lived field or BYB lines. I'd love to see more Poms like the foxy BYB version.
> 
> ...


Oh yes people need to consider breeding to other lines/gene pools but many refuse to do it. Even when the breed (or that specific gene pool) is suffering from health issues. 

How many shelter Pits are actually Pits? I do believe they are over bred, they have one of the highest populations. I think popularity has contributed to their genetic diversity. I know their are real Pits in shelters. I'd be happy if even half of these clueless breeders stopped! I don't want to see an extreme narrowing of the gene pool though.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Bottom line for me:

- People should get dogs from sources they feel good about
- there is no universal 'good/bad breeder'
- people making choices that are different than yours (general you), does not mean they're uneducated.

However, can't say I've seen a pet store do anything remotely right for the dogs.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> the picture painted of mills on tv and by the media is inaccurate.


Not inaccurate exactly, because there ARE mills like that. Mostly the kind of people who sell their pups at flea markets, etc. It's just not the whole picture. I suppose people wouldn't get sufficiently outraged over a picture of a sterile Hunte Corp facility, even though it's just as bad for the animals.


----------



## sclevenger (Nov 11, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Not inaccurate exactly, because there ARE mills like that. Mostly the kind of people who sell their pups at flea markets, etc. It's just not the whole picture. I suppose people wouldn't get sufficiently outraged over a picture of a sterile Hunte Corp facility, even though it's just as bad for the animals.


Yes. Not totally inaccurate. The Amish mills, a lot of them are exactly as described. I've seen them with my own eyes. I had photos from a friend that works in a rescue, that busted a mill and they found dead, frozen to the ground, week old pups, the mill had try to dump before the "raid" per se. 

They are gross. I'm sure there are plenty of mulls that are clean and sterile. Matter of fact, my mom's friend was borderline mill. Cages were cleaned daily, twice, sprayed out, sterile, well ventilated, heated and cooled. Didn't make it any less gross than the Amish mills though.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

Both dogs came from bybs. Clyde was a total stroke of luck. Came from a breeder who wanted to make a quick buck and had absolutely no idea what he was doing. My dad found the cheapest breeder in town and ran off to buy when I was at school and mom at work. Somehow, he managed to produce a very nice out-of-standard pet Mastiff with very few health problems and good hips.

Louie came from a good byb. They had a pet deer chihuahua that they were breeding for profit in the past, but had a huge oops litter with another deer chihuahua shortly before they planned to spay. They sold puppies starting at 10 weeks and had them well socialized and on decent food. Louie takes after his dam in personality and I can see she was passing an amazing personality along into the litters she had. The only health issues Louie seems to have is horrible eyesight and bad knees; they didn't health test, but it seems pretty safe (except knees) to get away with in deers.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Willowy said:


> Not inaccurate exactly, because there ARE mills like that. Mostly the kind of people who sell their pups at flea markets, etc. It's just not the whole picture. I suppose people wouldn't get sufficiently outraged over a picture of a sterile Hunte Corp facility, even though it's just as bad for the animals.


It is inaccurate, because have you ever seen a clean, sterile mill portrayed on television? Any media portrayal of an issue that only displays ONE TYPE of the issue is inaccurate. That doesn't mean those mills don't exist, but it does mean that mills are ALL painted with the same brush. Which is an inaccuracy. 

Now, don't read that and think that I'm arguing that mills are ever okay. In fact, when we see mills painted as dirty, horrible places that are unhealthy and unsanitary, we're often missing a HUGE part of the issue. Mills are bad for puppies because they don't receive human interaction or stimulation. That's not a cleanliness issue, that's a training and ethical issue. The fact that we skip that part of the problem is the reason that people still buy from pet stores - since store cages are clean and not horrendous looking, people think "well, this isn't a mill situation because all mills are gross and dirty".

If, instead of perpetuating the idea that mills are bad because they're dirty and gross, and instead we started focusing on the idea that mills are bad because they cage and isolate baby animals that are in desperate need of interaction to develop properly, pet stores would most likely suffer the same blow that mills suffer and their revenues would decrease.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Is it really the puppies they isolate? I'm under the impression that they make sure the puppies get adequate (maybe not great but adequate) interaction, to make them saleable, but the breeding dogs don't get any interaction or vet treatment that doesn't make them more profitable. Or, at least, that's what the puppymill near my house does. People would probably care more if it were the puppies who get neglected though :/.


----------



## sclevenger (Nov 11, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Is it really the puppies they isolate? I'm under the impression that they make sure the puppies get adequate (maybe not great but adequate) interaction, to make them saleable, but the breeding dogs don't get any interaction or vet treatment that doesn't make them more profitable. Or, at least, that's what the puppymill near my house does. People would probably care more if it were the puppies who get neglected though :/.


I think it varies. The Amish mills, that I've seen didn't touch the breeding dogs. Puppies were taken and sold to local pet stores or in ads in the papers. Poorly socalization if at all. 

The frinds borderline mill I mentioned. She made sure all puppies and breeders got outside daily for exercise and socalization. And overall, we're decently cared for.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Is it really the puppies they isolate? I'm under the impression that they make sure the puppies get adequate (maybe not great but adequate) interaction, to make them saleable, but the breeding dogs don't get any interaction or vet treatment that doesn't make them more profitable. Or, at least, that's what the puppymill near my house does. People would probably care more if it were the puppies who get neglected though :/.


Well, I would be willing to say that most of the pups you see in pet stores come from "those" mills. Why do I say this? because those mills who dont spend money on upkeep, staff (because lets face it, with THAT many dogs, there has to be more then one person running the place), can offer dogs to brokers for cheaper than say, a "good" puppy mill.

Am I uncomfortable with dogs being treated like livestock? yes.

Am I uncomfortable with livestock being treated like livestock? No and I will tell you why. Because livestock (as bad as it sounds) go to slaughter, they dont live their entire lives in squalor. In fact, most livestock here dont live their entire lives in squalor, the feed lots have all but been abolished in my state, most beef here is grass fed, because ranchers have realized that it makes for better beef to do it that way, and they are shipped straight to the slaughterhouse from the ranches.

Even the chicken industry here is getting away from cages and going free range.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Well, I would be willing to say that most of the pups you see in pet stores come from "those" mills. Why do I say this? because those mills who dont spend money on upkeep, staff (because lets face it, with THAT many dogs, there has to be more then one person running the place), can offer dogs to brokers for cheaper than say, a "good" puppy mill.
> 
> Am I uncomfortable with dogs being treated like livestock? yes.
> 
> Am I uncomfortable with livestock being treated like livestock? No and I will tell you why. Because livestock (as bad as it sounds) go to slaughter, they dont live their entire lives in squalor. In fact, most livestock here dont live their entire lives in squalor, the feed lots have all but been abolished in my state, most beef here is grass fed, because ranchers have realized that it makes for better beef to do it that way, and they are shipped straight to the slaughterhouse from the ranches.


Some livestock do spend much of their lives in squalor, including milk-producing animals, such as cows and goats. Many draft horse mares used to produce estrogen also live their high-production days in disgusting conditions. 

I don't care if an animal is going to die tomorrow or if it's going to die in ten years - no animal should live in the conditions that many livestock currently occupy in the US.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Hiraeth said:


> Some livestock do spend much of their lives in squalor, including milk-producing animals, such as cows and goats. Many draft horse mares used to produce estrogen also live their high-production days in disgusting conditions.
> 
> I don't care if an animal is going to die tomorrow or if it's going to die in ten years - no animal should live in the conditions that many livestock currently occupy in the US.


Livestock doesnt live in squalor here.


----------



## BostonBullMama (Apr 20, 2013)

Also a little unsure of what direction this thread is meant to be taking, but.... 

*My* definition of a puppy mill would be: 
- Squalor living conditions [ie; Dirty cages, kennels or outdoor runs]
- Obvious lack of veterinary care [ie; Open wounds, emaciation among more than one dog, obvious lameness among more than one dog]
- Excess of breeding pairs of dogs [ie; More than 4 breeding pairs, possibly of different breeds] 
- Lack of attachment emotion expressed by the breeder [ie; seems detached from dogs AND puppies, doesn't seem to know much about the pups personalities individually as if they don't spend much time with them, doesn't seem to really care about your reason for purchase] 
- Puppies may be cheap OR expensive, often let go early.


*My* definition of a BYB: 
- Sometimes, obvious love for their dog/puppies [ie: dogs live indoors, appear in decent (maybe a little overweight) or good condition, owns 1 or both parents, has some attachment to the puppies and knows their individual personalities to some extent]
- Parents are up to date on shots, puppies may or may not be at time of purchase.
- Seems to genuinely care where the puppies go.
- Believes themselves to be knowledgeable about their dogs (and may be)
- Puppies may be mid-priced OR expensive, often let go around 7-9 weeks.

*My* definition of a Hobby BYB
- Genuine love of their dogs [ie; dogs live indoors, are in great condition, owns 1 or both parents, shows attachment to the puppies and knows their personalities]
- Parents *may be health tested and are up to date on shots. Puppies also receive first set of shots/wormer which is reflected in their price point.
- Care is put into selecting a home for the puppies, sometimes including a questionnaire of sorts. 
- Breeder appears to have put in some effort in researching their breed/mix and answers questions with ease. 
- Puppies may be mid-priced OR expensive, often let go around 9-10+ weeks.

*My* definition of a Reputable Breeder
- Genuine love of their dogs [ie; dogs live indoors, are in superior condition, *may be show ring dogs, owns 1 or both parents, shows attachment to the puppies and knows their personalities]
- Parents are both health tested and up to date on shots. Puppies also receive needed vetting/shots/wormer. 
- Care is put into selecting a home for the puppies, including a questionnaire of sorts and contract. 
- Breeder knows their breed, answers questions with ease and breeds to standard OR to a version of the breed they see as 'better' [ie - less roping on brachy breeds to improve breathing issues] 
- Price point is generally more expensive, and puppies are usually let go around 8-10+ weeks.


Toby was most likely a BYB or HBYB bred mix. He was sold for $450, came with first set of shots/wormer, has some health problems that are also common among his breeds but overlooking that he's pretty well bred (in my humble opinion). 

I got him when he was 11 weeks from the people who bought him. Paid nothing for him, they had little to no attachment to him and when they dropped him off it was a really quick exchange. I'm really glad I have him though and I think if I'm going to be honest here - basing my answer on my personal definitions of the various types of breeders we have out there, I probably would purchase from a BYB or HBYB as long as the vibe felt right.

Keep in mind - my definitions have some wiggle room, there is probably points that I'm missing but would also look for.


----------



## sydneynicole (Apr 2, 2015)

My puppy is from a pet store (original owner bought him from one), so he originated from a mill (in Minnesota, according to his papers). I stopped by to get the records they have for him. The puppies there were all healthy looking, all had age appropriate shots, and they had a sign out front stating that they appreciate people coming to play with the puppies, no pressure to buy. The staff was just about to load the puppies up to go to the dog park when I was there around closing. As far as pet stores go, that's the best I've seen. I've been inside a few that had sick/dying puppies in small cages who had no shots and were terrified of people. I still would never support it, not even buy food/supplies from it. 

I am vegan for a reason...I don't think any animal should be treated cruelly/inhumanely. But I won't go any further because it's something controversial that I'm extremely passionate about. I will leave at this, I believe that at the very least the breeding stock of puppy mills are treated poorly/not given adequate exercise/attention/medical care and would never support one. I had a knee-jerk aversion to my puppy at first knowing he was from a mill, even though I got him through a shelter.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I eat meat, I drink milk and I eat eggs. the difference is I know where all that stuff comes from because we buy from local, organic, humane sources ... is it more expensive? yes, but in our opinion its worth it.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Breeding sows live in a farrowing crate for most of the year, and may have a breeding "career" of 10-15 years. Just sayin'. I feel like that's pretty comparable to a puppymill breeding dog---after all, the "useless" puppymill dogs get killed too. 

At the pet store in Sioux Falls that sells puppies, the owner will gladly address your concerns of puppy milling and tell you how she's visited the facility, it's so clean and well-run, the dogs have auto-feeders and waterers, she'll even show you pictures. I haven't tried asking her what happens to retired breeding dogs or unsellable puppies. . .might be interesting. But it turns out a lot of local people don't have a problem with raising dogs like livestock, and definitely don't have a problem with how livestock are raised :/. I looked at one of the puppies' collar the last time I was in. It's mostly codes, some I could decipher (mltpo = maltipoo, m/f for for male/female, etc.), some I couldn't. But I did see that it was a Hunte Corp breeder.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

I always said my next dog would be from a breeder who is titling and health testing.

But here's the cat out of the bag. Lilah's parents have no titles (A LOT of dogs in their lines do, however). They have no health testing. I am paying for a BYB puppy.

But I am paying for a puppy that is coming from good people, who take excellent care of their dogs. They know about their breed and while they don't compete, both sire and dam are proven hunters. Pups have had regular vet work done since they were meant to, and when one of the puppies had an emergency they rushed her to the vet and spent the money it took to do what was best for her. They were also willing to answer any questions I had and talked with me for hours about their dogs and the breed.

So a part of me feels bad about it, and then again, a part of me really really wants my Redbone. And to find a breeder in this breed that health tests would send me to lengths I can't go to. They're an old, but yet very new, breed. And in that, they are fairly healthy, especially compared to a lot of other breeds.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

HollowHeaven said:


> I always said my next dog would be from a breeder who is titling and health testing.
> 
> But here's the cat out of the bag. Lilah's parents have no titles (A LOT of dogs in their lines do, however). They have no health testing. I am paying for a BYB puppy.
> 
> ...


I feel like there are more grey areas when it comes to "working" breeds. 

I went through sooooo many BC breeders.. trying to figure out what was "right" or "wrong". BC forums told me any breeder who showed was BAD which totally threw me for a loop. Sport bred were out of the question. I couldn't get my hands on that perfect working trial titled dog either, because they aren't exactly easy to find. SOO many of the recommended BC breeders around here constantly have a litter on the ground and I just don't like that. Ember's breeder only bred once a yearish. So I compromised and let my husband pick a puppy from working (non trialing) parents but they weren't what I would consider a great breeder. Still.. puppies were socialized, loved, vaccinated and they legitimately care somewhat at least.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I do not like the terms 'BYB' and 'reputable breeder'. Dog breeding is very much a scale with a lot of grey areas particularly surrounding ethics.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> I do not like the terms 'BYB' and 'reputable breeder'. Dog breeding is very much a scale with a lot of grey areas particularly surrounding ethics.


I don't particularly enjoy it. It's just easier to use I guess. But I agree.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> I feel like there are more grey areas when it comes to "working" breeds.
> 
> I went through sooooo many BC breeders.. trying to figure out what was "right" or "wrong". BC forums told me any breeder who showed was BAD which totally threw me for a loop. Sport bred were out of the question. I couldn't get my hands on that perfect working trial titled dog either, because they aren't exactly easy to find. SOO many of the recommended BC breeders around here constantly have a litter on the ground and I just don't like that. Ember's breeder only bred once a yearish. So I compromised and let my husband pick a puppy from working (non trialing) parents but they weren't what I would consider a great breeder. Still.. puppies were socialized, loved, vaccinated and they legitimately care somewhat at least.


It is not just working breeds. A lot of toy breeds are very difficult to find with the large amount of health testing that is available in some other breeds. 

I have yet to see a breeder that has bred more than one or two litters that has done everything completely perfectly the way I'd like.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> I don't particularly enjoy it. It's just easier to use I guess. But I agree.


I think it is more useful to just tell people where you feel a breeder falls short or what you like about them. 

'I would not go to this breeder because of their lack of health testing.'

vs

'Omg BYB run away!'

EDIT: For me, I would be much more likely to pay for a dog with no health testing from a breed that is generally very healthy and long lived than I would be for a thoroughly health tested dog from a breed that is generally prone to many health problems and a short life expectancy. (One of those ethical grey areas, I can see why people argue both sides) Ideally you get both... but it's not always an option. A lot would depend on what the major health concerns in a specific breed are vs what is able to be tested for. Sometimes the two aren't the same.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> It is not just working breeds. A lot of toy breeds are very difficult to find with the large amount of health testing that is available in some other breeds.
> 
> I have yet to see a breeder that has bred more than one or two litters that has done everything completely perfectly the way I'd like.


Ah, yeah there are definitely breeds where things get more foggy. Working breeds just popped into my head the quickest.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> EDIT: For me, I would be much more likely to pay for a dog with no health testing from a breed that is generally very healthy and long lived than I would be for a thoroughly health tested dog from a breed that is generally prone to many health problems and a short life expectancy. (One of those ethical grey areas, I can see why people argue both sides) Ideally you get both... but it's not always an option. A lot would depend on what the major health concerns in a specific breed are vs what is able to be tested for. Sometimes the two aren't the same.


I think this is a really important point. Not so much on the BYB vs reputable spectrum, but just in general. I would really like a golden, but the cancer rate is super high. People go to reputable golden breeders who test hips and eyes and whatever else, but you can't test for cancer. Health testing isn't everything. And I don't believe for a second that field lines are healthy and show lines are full of cancer, or that BYB dogs are healthier, or even that show line dogs are healthier. It's not that simple.

As far as mills go, I think that painting them all with the same brush is not helpful. So many people think that a mill must be a place with tiny dirty cages filled with 10 dogs each, but as someone else mentioned there are plenty of mills that are spotless and high tech facilities. Doesn't make it ok to raise puppies in that environment, but I think lots of people don't realize that. I hear "The puppies were in such clean cages, and they even had their own building with air conditioning and everything!" as if that's a good thing. I've also heard people say "Well the breeder was a professional breeder, so they know what they're doing". Again, as if breeding a million litters and having clean facilities somehow makes you a better breeder. Most of us here want the opposite - someone who raises puppies in their home and doesn't churn out litter after litter to make a lot of money, but that message hasn't gotten out yet.

As far as BYB vs reputable, I think the line is a lot more grey. The only breeders I will call BYB are the typical family with two cute dogs who wants to show their kids what it's like to have puppies. Basically the people who are breeding two random dogs for fun and to see what happens. Those people can take great care of their dogs, and raise the puppies in the house, and it's not the end of the world, but I'd at least like to see a bit more knowledge of the breed and thought put into the breeding other than "Mitzy would make such cute puppies!" Beyond those breeders it gets into a grey area very quickly.


----------



## sclevenger (Nov 11, 2012)

I agree that other than puppy mills, breeders and what kind they are are very grey. 

My breeder would fall somewhere between Hobby and reputable, but others may label her as BYB. To me she does all the health testing and beyond required for the breed, she is constantly researching lines and diseases and trying to make a difference in such an unhealthy breed. She has a litter or 2 a year, and takes careful consideration into what she's breeding and for what. To me that makes her reputable and I feel 100% good about supporting her. To others it's Hobby because she doesn't show or title in sports. Her adults go through advanced obedience and earn their CGC, but that's about it. 

I agree with Elohren on BYB, when I think BYB, I think mom and pop, who love their dogs or maybe even that breed and want to share it with people. My first Aussie came frI'm those kinda people and to be honest, I don't regret anything. They worked the dogs on the farm, but they really loved the breed and loved making people happy with their 1 litter a year. And they were decently knowledgeable about the breed.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

sclevenger said:


> I agree with Elohren on BYB, when I think BYB, I think mom and pop, who love their dogs or maybe even that breed and want to share it with people. My first Aussie came frI'm those kinda people and to be honest, I don't regret anything. They worked the dogs on the farm, but they really loved the breed and loved making people happy with their 1 litter a year. And they were decently knowledgeable about the breed.


That's not what I meant by BYB at all though. I mean the people who think Mitzy is so cute and must have puppies, and they found this intact male down the street (or bought him specifically to mate with her) and have some puppies. Not people who work their dogs on a farm, not people who really know anything about the breed. Just people who make a careless and fairly random decision to breed a couple dogs together because they want to see what will happen and the puppies will be cute. If they put any more thought into it than that, like knowing anything about their breed and the lines, then I don't know if I consider them a BYB anymore and they are into a grey area.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Breeding sows live in a farrowing crate for most of the year, and may have a breeding "career" of 10-15 years. Just sayin'. I feel like that's pretty comparable to a puppymill breeding dog---after all, the "useless" puppymill dogs get killed too.
> 
> At the pet store in Sioux Falls that sells puppies, the owner will gladly address your concerns of puppy milling and tell you how she's visited the facility, it's so clean and well-run, the dogs have auto-feeders and waterers, she'll even show you pictures. I haven't tried asking her what happens to retired breeding dogs or unsellable puppies. . .might be interesting. But it turns out a lot of local people don't have a problem with raising dogs like livestock, and definitely don't have a problem with how livestock are raised :/. I looked at one of the puppies' collar the last time I was in. It's mostly codes, some I could decipher (mltpo = maltipoo, m/f for for male/female, etc.), some I couldn't. But I did see that it was a Hunte Corp breeder.


I am sorry, but I had to say something about this: I have read where you chastise truly reputable breeders and people who buy from them, but OTOH, you say you dont have a problem with a "clean" puppy mill? Sorry but I am failing to see the logic behind this reasoning. The dogs might have their basic needs taken care of, but there is more to taking care of a dog than just the basics.

What about health and temperament testing?

What about socialization?

What if the owner cant keep the dog for any reason? 

What if the dog develops a hereditary condition that is "supposed" to be covered by the "guarantee" some stores sell their puppies with?

See, all those things are covered when you go with a good breeder.

Sorry but I think ALL commercial breeding facilities and those places who get their dogs from them should be shut down.

In general about BYB's, I think that can mean different things in different areas. Here, BYB isnt a good thing and when someone uses the term BYB, when describing a breeder, it usually means they are telling you not to purchase from them. But like I said, in other areas, it could be different.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I am sorry, but I had to say something about this: I have read where you chastise truly reputable breeders and people who buy from them, but OTOH, you say you dont have a problem with a "clean" puppy mill? Sorry but I am failing to see the logic behind this reasoning. The dogs might have their basic needs taken care of, but there is more to taking care of a dog than just the basics.


Wait, what? Willowy has mentioned multiple times that she's against even the clean and "well run" puppy mills and that they are not acceptable places to raise puppies. Not sure where you got any of your post from.


----------



## sclevenger (Nov 11, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> That's not what I meant by BYB at all though. I mean the people who think Mitzy is so cute and must have puppies, and they found this intact male down the street (or bought him specifically to mate with her) and have some puppies. Not people who work their dogs on a farm, not people who really know anything about the breed. Just people who make a careless and fairly random decision to breed a couple dogs together because they want to see what will happen and the puppies will be cute. If they put any more thought into it than that, like knowing anything about their breed and the lines, then I don't know if I consider them a BYB anymore and they are into a grey area.


So if they know anything then they are no longer byb? I mean, the breeder I'm referring to, literally was mom and pop who loved their Aussie boy so much they wanted to breed him, so they bought another female to do that? Not much of a difference with Mitzy right? Other then they happened to have a decent knowledge on Aussies and worked 2 of them on their farm.

I'm not sure I see the difference... so to you, byb are people who literally have no knowledge what so ever? 

So, I guess my question is, at what amount of knowledge moves them into another catagory? And what catagory would that be? 

P.S. I am not being snarky lol. Honestly just trying to see what your saying as I misunderstood.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I am sorry, but I had to say something about this: I have read where you chastise truly reputable breeders and people who buy from them, but OTOH, you say you dont have a problem with a "clean" puppy mill? Sorry but I am failing to see the logic behind this reasoning. The dogs might have their basic needs taken care of, but there is more to taking care of a dog than just the basics.


I think you misread her post. She's clearly against all mill situations, whether the mill is clean or not


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

elrohwen said:


> Wait, what? Willowy has mentioned multiple times that she's against even the clean and "well run" puppy mills and that they are not acceptable places to raise puppies. Not sure where you got any of your post from.


Forgive me if my comprehension if her post was off, but The gist I got was she was saying "well, I dont like either, but if they have to be, I would rather see them clean and well run" and "not every mill you see on TV is like that". I personally dont care how well run and clean they are, I dont think they should be, period.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

sclevenger said:


> So if they know anything then they are no longer byb? I mean, the breeder I'm referring to, literally was mom and pop who loved their Aussie boy so much they wanted to breed him, so they bought another female to do that? Not much of a difference with Mitzy right? Other then they happened to have a decent knowledge on Aussies and worked 2 of them on their farm.
> 
> I'm not sure I see the difference... so to you, byb are people who literally have no knowledge what so ever?
> 
> ...


It's everybody's personal definition. You don't have to have the same definition as I do, I just wanted to clarify what my definition is. To me, if you know about your breed, know something about lines and correct temperament, work the dogs, etc, then I wouldn't label you as a BYB right off the bat.

I mean, I love Watson. I think he has a good temperament and is a pretty dog. He's been bred twice. How is it that much different? Ok, so he has health tests and his championship, but at the heart of it everybody breeds because they think their dog is nice and they want to carry on those traits. That's not a bad reason to breed a dog. 

Yes, to me, BYB are people who have pretty much no knowledge and just want to make some puppies. Maybe to make some extra money, maybe to show the kids the meaning of life, whatever.

Once people have more knowledge, then they are into a grey area. I don't have a category for everything, so I don't know what I would call them. I wouldn't call them a BYB any more, but other people probably would. I wouldn't call them a "great breeder" either. But there is a heck of a lot between great breeder and BYB who doesn't know anything.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Forgive me if my comprehension if her post was off, but The gist I got was she was saying "well, I dont like either, but if they have to be, I would rather see them clean and well run" and "not every mill you see on TV is like that". I personally dont care how well run and clean they are, I dont think they should be, period.


I think her point is that most people are against the mills that area dirty and obviously neglectful, but don't have an issue with the clean well run mills. Not that Willowy is ok with those mills, but that the general public is ok with them, and that is a problem. If we tell people that the only mills that are bad are the run down neglectful ones, we're missing the opportunity to educate people that the clean corporate ones are bad for dogs too.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

elrohwen said:


> Once people have more knowledge, then they are into a grey area. I don't have a category for everything, so I don't know what I would call them. I wouldn't call them a BYB any more, but other people probably would. I wouldn't call them a "great breeder" either. But there is a heck of a lot between great breeder and BYB who doesn't know anything.


"Hobby", I think, is the term generally applied to the grey area of breeders between clearly defined "byb" or "reputable". I'm okay with the term "hobby", and I think it should be used more often. Many backyard breeders are actually hobby breeders, in my experience. Champions in the lines (but maybe not the direct parents), health testing/vaccinations done at the time of purchase, sells selectively, takes a puppy back if the puppy needs to be rehomed, usually doesn't own both parents, does research, etc.

I think it's ridiculous that someone can do all of those things, but not actively show/compete with their dogs, and still be considered a backyard breeder by many people in the dog world.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

elrohwen said:


> I think her point is that most people are against the mills that area dirty and obviously neglectful, but don't have an issue with the clean well run mills. Not that Willowy is ok with those mills, but that the general public is ok with them, and that is a problem. If we tell people that the only mills that are bad are the run down neglectful ones, we're missing the opportunity to educate people that the clean corporate ones are bad for dogs too.


I kind of like how the AR movement is painting all mills like those dirty run down ones they show, because if the public sees all of them like that they will want to do more to stop them, at least that is my opinion.

And thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding, sometimes I dont comprehend what I read correctly LOL.


----------



## sclevenger (Nov 11, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> It's everybody's personal definition. You don't have to have the same definition as I do, I just wanted to clarify what my definition is. To me, if you know about your breed, know something about lines and correct temperament, work the dogs, etc, then I wouldn't label you as a BYB right off the bat.
> 
> I mean, I love Watson. I think he has a good temperament and is a pretty dog. He's been bred twice. How is it that much different? Ok, so he has health tests and his championship, but at the heart of it everybody breeds because they think their dog is nice and they want to carry on those traits. That's not a bad reason to breed a dog.
> 
> ...


I wasn't trying to discredit or make your definition fit mine. I only wanted clarification as I misunderstood your first post. 

I guess to me, I know personally and of a whole lot of people who breed, well, just because is all I can guess. Some know next to nothing, literally, had a friend breed her little fluffy mixed breed to someone's Corgi because they would be cute..some know the basics,... and some are a little more knowledgeable, my grandfather's aunt used to breed chis, because she juat loved them, the breed and liked sharing them with the neighborhood. 

I guess for me, it's easier to lump all those people as byb... some bad, some better, but still the same instead of trying to find the gray area of who qualifies as a byb and whatever comes after that lol. 

It gets so confusing. I'll have a set way and then I come across a breeder and my whole views change based on that one alone. It's odd.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Hiraeth said:


> "Hobby", I think, is the term generally applied to the grey area of breeders between clearly defined "byb" or "reputable". I'm okay with the term "hobby", and I think it should be used more often. Many backyard breeders are actually hobby breeders, in my experience. Champions in the lines (but maybe not the direct parents), health testing/vaccinations done at the time of purchase, sells selectively, takes a puppy back if the puppy needs to be rehomed, usually doesn't own both parents, does research, etc.
> 
> I think it's ridiculous that someone can do all of those things, but not actively show/compete with their dogs, and still be considered a backyard breeder by many people in the dog world.


See, I've always thought of hobby breeders as reputable, but on a very small scale. Like the person who has had 3 litters total. They aren't "advancing the breed" by breeding so little and keeping so few dogs, but they are breeding good dogs, probably with health testing and titles and whatever. 

But that's just the definition in my head  Or maybe we have similar definitions of the term "hobby" breeder, but it's just such a broad term and a grey area to be a hobby breeder, as least as far as health testing and titling go. But net is that they are breeding pretty decent dogs, taking good care of the puppies, and caring about where they go and taking them back if necessary. The other stuff is details and whether a person finds them necessary is a personal decision.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I kind of like how the AR movement is painting all mills like those dirty run down ones they show, because if the public sees all of them like that they will want to do more to stop them, at least that is my opinion.
> 
> And thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding, sometimes I dont comprehend what I read correctly LOL.


I do think that, on the flip side, people say "I'm so against puppy mills!" and then turn around and buy from one because "the cages were so clean! and the dogs all had access to water!" and they have no idea that they just purchased from a puppy mill. As if clean cages and water are all it takes to raise puppies correctly. I think it needs to be clear to the general public that there is more to being a good breeder than just raising puppies in a sterile environment.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

elrohwen said:


> I do think that, on the flip side, people say "I'm so against puppy mills!" and then turn around and buy from one because "the cages were so clean! and the dogs all had access to water!" and they have no idea that they just purchased from a puppy mill. As if clean cages and water are all it takes to raise puppies correctly. I think it needs to be clear to the general public that there is more to being a good breeder than just raising puppies in a sterile environment.


Yep ^^ that. If someone thinks that all puppymills are filthy and horrible, if they go to a mass breeding facility and see that it's clean, they'll think it's not a puppymill. 

Honestly I'd rather see a lot more BYBs if it meant puppymills went away. Most BYBs at least take reasonably good care of their dogs. The other types I really hate---and I don't think they can be called BYBs even---are those who just don't bother to spay their dog or keep her indoors while in heat, and she has puppies under the shed and the humans just don't care. If the puppies live long enough they might put an ad up at the laundromat, if nobody takes them they might dispose of them or just wait until they all wander off. . .ugh. If I had to think of a descriptor for that kind of people it wouldn't be a nice name .


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

My definitions:

reputable breeder: does all the necessary health testing, shows and/or competes their dogs (I've dealt with 3 of these)

hobby breeder: no health testing, showing/competing is sometimes but produces nice puppies in their home, but not too many (I've dealt with one of these)

byb: no health testing but alot of puppies being produced, may be less than sanitary conditions (my first dog came from one, before I knew better)

puppy mills: I think we all know what they are


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

David92 said:


> The reason why the forums people were saying shown BCs are bad is because they are in a way. They're not working dogs, to many people whom own working bred BCs show quality BCs are nothing but a mockery and insult to a breed that has had purpose for hundreds of years. And as for not finding titled working dogs, they are actually quite common - if you're known in the working dog circuits that is. In the UK, amongst the people my family has worked with [in the working rings] and on farms, there are people treat a quality working BC better than they sometimes treat their kids... letting a pup of such a dog go to someone with not a smidge of knowledge on what a working dog is like is something they'd do only after cutting off an arm sorry to say.
> 
> But show BCs have caused terrible rumbles in the BC world for a while now. People who like the drive of working dogs find show dogs to be "sorry excuses", and people whom like show dogs find working dogs are too much "dog".
> 
> ...


My point was.. I ended up buying from a breeder I was not as comfortable with because of this closed minded idea that BCs should never be bought from show breeder.. which were the only ones doing everything I wanted (health tests, special socialization programs, breeding for overall good pet and performance). I decided that I don't give a flying flip what the BC community says and I'm buying one from whatever breeder I want in the future. I've met some lovely mixed show lineage BCs who excel at agility and definitely ACT like Border Collies. I've also met pure working line Border Collies who do not care one bit for it. While I'd love to support those who believe the only good BC is one who can herd.. I just don't think I can anymore.

I also don't have issues with a breed changing or different "lines" in a breed.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

This is why I think we need to stop dividing the lines between puppy mill v. hobby v. BYB v. show. We need to simplify- ethical v. unethical. An ethical breeder does not breed for profit, they do their best to produce healthy dogs with proper temperaments and they support the dogs they produce, i.e., they are careful about whom they sell to and they take back any dog sold any time for any reason. Any breeder who does not do those things is unethical.

If you look at it that way, a hunter who breeds his favorite beagles together is ethical, reindeer people are ethical (assuming they take back dogs, I have no idea) and some of our favorite posters who breed are also ethical. Puppy mills are all unethical, whether dirty or clean.

ETA: I ain't touching the show v. work BC debate. That is the third rail of the herding dog world.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

David92 said:


> You really think working dogs aren't health tested? What a silly comment and obviously whomever you dealt with wasn't worth their salt as the saying goes. If anything working dogs are more strict with their health testing because simply put - a working dog with poor hips is useless and typically neutered immediately [the chances of it ever being bred are slim to nil]. A show dog with poor hips, well as long as it's passable grade and still meets standard we'll breed it - just look at the countless reports of flaws with show breeding or did you never watch the BC's "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" [that's just a smidge of the truth] - and if it's really bad we'll do the next "sucker" that comes along a "favor" by selling them a cheaper pet quality dog.
> 
> I think the closed minded mentality belongs more to you than them.


Haa. Did you miss the part where I said "working trial dogs" are not easy to find? Those are the responsibly bred BC with the health testing and whatnot. I'll get right on to finding my nearest trial so that I can get involved in the community to finally be able to find a breeder that will eventually give me a puppy. That was the issue I had.. finding the right kind of breeder was nearly impossible for me because the standards of BC forums were out of my realm. I could be very very bad and buy from a show breeder (who absolutely care about their dogs a whole heck of a lot!) or buy from a hobby farm breeder.. which is the closest I could come up with as far as a "real" Border Collie. 

Pedigree dogs exposed is a load of crap with some truth hidden in there. I'm quite educated and open minded. I don't like the BC politics and think they are ridiculous.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> Haa. Did you miss the part where I said "working trial dogs" are not easy to find? Those are the responsibly bred BC with the health testing and whatnot. I'll get right on to finding my nearest trial so that I can get involved in the community to finally be able to find a breeder that will eventually give me a puppy. That was the issue I had.. finding the right kind of breeder was nearly impossible for me because the standards of BC forums were out of my realm. I could be very very bad and buy from a show breeder (who absolutely care about their dogs a whole heck of a lot!) or buy from a hobby farm breeder.. which is the closest I could come up with as far as a "real" Border Collie.


I know show line BCs with OTCH titles and all sorts of things. I get that people don't like the big coats and puppy faces and super uniform look, but I don't get the general hatred of them. If you like a different type, get a different type, but it doesn't mean they are horrible dogs who can't do anything.

I find BC politics to be ridiculous. I'd have to fall into a breeder I really liked, because at this point I can't imagine the process of doing research on breeders. And then there's the whole issue of never allowing you to register with AKC. Um, I like to do sports, and the AKC puts on a lot of competitions around here. Of course I'm going to register my dog with the AKC.



> Pedigree dogs exposed is a load of crap with some truth hidden in there. I'm quite educated and open minded. I don't like the BC politics and think they are ridiculous.


I actually thought PDE was quite good. Sure, it's over the top sometimes, but I think it exposed some of the health conditions that people have considered normal in those breeds for years. I think there is starting to be a shift away from exaggerated dogs who have health problems because they are exaggerated. Or if not a true shift, at least a mental shift among a lot of people.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

elrohwen said:


> I know show line BCs with OTCH titles and all sorts of things. I get that people don't like the big coats and puppy faces and super uniform look, but I don't get the general hatred of them. If you like a different type, get a different type, but it doesn't mean they are horrible dogs who can't do anything.
> 
> I find BC politics to be ridiculous. I'd have to fall into a breeder I really liked, because at this point I can't imagine the process of doing research on breeders. And then there's the whole issue of never allowing you to register with AKC. Um, I like to do sports, and the AKC puts on a lot of competitions around here. Of course I'm going to register my dog with the AKC.


ABCA Border Collies are allowed to register with the AKC and participate in performance events but will be banned if shown in conformation. At least that was the rule last time I looked. I really don't get it. There are a lot of breeds that are working dogs that can do both just fine. Aussies sure as heck don't have the same crazy politics..

I've met plenty of show bred BCs and BC people. They were all nice.. and the dogs were nice. A lot of them were moderate. I also met a very nasty lady (at a dog show, mind you!) that said her BC was the REAL kind from working stock lines and he was here for agility. He wasn't like those SHOW Border Collies and was timid like they are SUPPOSED to be. Oookay lady.. 

Finding a breeder was near impossible for me. My anxiety about it was awful.. so I let my husband choose his own darn dog from where he wanted.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

If I buy a BC it'll probably be a sporter version. I just know those breeders and people better. I know which breeders are producing what I am interested in. I also like the look and structure of the sporters better....

There's a lot of variation in show BCs. The ones I see that are 'all around' dogs are pretty moderate and are nice dogs to boot. I saw a picture a few days ago of one that looks like a chow. I kid you not... it was 10 months old and looked like a chow. Not an attractive BC at all. I feel like there are more than just 'show' lines. There are people really breeding exaggeration and for specials dogs and then those breeding for light show, light sport, light work type dogs. There's a lot of sporter collies that are a generation out of show or working dogs. It's not quite as cut and dried. Within 'performance BCs' there are lines bred for agility, for flyball, and for obedience. They are not all producing the same type of dog!

I understand the argument against show and sport breeding and on some level I get it. I've watched BCs work and it's amazing and awesome. It needs preserving. But I also know that when I am searching for a dog I want to end up with the dog that fits me more than I want to make a political statement. I think lines in BCs are more than here to stay. Part of the reason I still think a lot about another rescue next.... 

Pedigree Dogs Exposed was a good thing. I even know a lot of show people who were very knee jerk against it that are not anymore. Obviously she did some sensationalism and still does on the blog but it is overall I think a kick in the pants to promote healthy dogs. It's not going to do enough on it's own but it started dialogue. And we needed that.

I don't remember anything about BCs in PDE though. I don't think show bred ones are more or less unhealthy than other varieties? They are still not very exaggerated comparative to other breeds. Fluffier? Yeah but...


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I've heard of breeders who won't sell to you if you want to show AKC. Even performance events. Which is ridiculous. The confirmation part is whatever. Those dogs aren't going to win in the ring anyway because the type they are looking for is so specific. But to have breeders ban you from ever competing in anything AKC is stupid.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Yeah.. I don't think a true working breeder would have allowed me a pup anyway if that's the case. Sorry but I use AKC. 

I don't like the overly exaggerated BCs at all. The super fluffy ones with the large foreheads? Not for me at all. I might be able to handle a sporter from the right breeder in the future.. but a sporter for my husbands first agility dog was not happening. I really don't care what kind of BC you like or want.. as long as it suits you. The large majority of them still have the same quirky tendencies regardless of type. 

What about breeds that are rare and there is little to no health testing done on such dogs? Are they still a "byb"? If I were to get a Koolie I'd have to compromise on so many levels it is not even funny!

Oh and on PDE: I just don't like it. Is it good it got people to talk? Sure. But I don't like super biased information. Of course it has been a long time since I've watched it.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

There are a decent number of working breeders that will sell to sport homes. Some only sell to working homes. I think it is more wanting to place as many dogs in working homes to see how they turn out as workers though more than 'ebil sport people'. A lot of working breeders don't care a whit.... probably not the top tier of breeders though. I don't think there are near enough working breeders to supply everyone who wants a BC.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

You do realize she owns a working bred border collie, right?

Also definition of hobby farm: 

"hob·by farm
noun
a small farm operated for pleasure or supplemental income rather than for primary income."

Not 'all farms are hobbies'


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

I have never understood the "no working breeder will sell to me" business, I have heard that a lot..has anyone who says that actually TALKED to those breeders? because I have encountered plenty that say "working homes only" but as soon as you spoke to them and said you were looking for a working bred sport dog, their response was always "awesome! you are more then welcome to a puppy then". they just don't want their working bred dogs to go to a standard pet home that does nothing with the dog and the dog goes crazy. the majority of sport people I know have well bred working border collies that have never seen and never will see stock. my own Misty was from a working cattle ranch, puppies were "working homes only" we contacted them, said we were looking for a sport dog, and they were more then happy to let us have a puppy. there are a LOT of BCs from the top of the top working trial breeders in sport only homes, 

no registering AKC is semi common though, its because they don't want any money supporting AKC. it is a problem in some locations where AKC is the biggest game in town, but in most places there are plenty of other options. 

as for where I would buy from?

Puppy mill-no

BYB- depends on a persons definition of a BYB, by my definition(random person breeding there pets together-no testing or anything) no, I would not. 

responsible breeder- absolutely, but my definition of responsible breeder is someone who health tests, screens homes, cares about the puppies and where they go and breeds for some actual purpose even if that purpose is good temperament. beyond that I really don't care lol


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

David92 said:


> You call yourself "open minded" and yet call working BCs belonging to that of a "hobby farm breeder". Seems a little hypocritical doesn't it - particularly when Pedigreed Dogs, if you just bothered looking, wasn't a lot of hype [I mean everyone knows the R. Ridgeback, that ridge is a genetic fault really (seeing as in Africa you find ridged and ridge-less dogs as common as the other quite against what breeders will try spouting) and ridgeless puppies were indeed once drowned by some of the less moral-less breeders to "hide" that their dogs fathered / mothered undesirables... and that's but one example if you looked].
> 
> But I take it you're American and really don't know *real* working type BCs. Try saying that their dogs are a "hobby" to a Scotsman or even a British farmer with years and years of work into his working BCs and he'll run you out of the village faster than you can say, "sh*te".


Alright.. this is the last time I'm going to reply to you because I really, really don't care for confrontation. I think you misread my post or I'm not communicating clearly. 

I have a working bred ABCA Border Collie. She is not from working trial titled parents that are fully health tested aka "the real working Border Collie". SHE is from a hobby farm. I never said anything else about whatever being a hobby to "real" BC breeders? I have a lot of respect for the "true working BC".. BUT all I was saying is that I did not have that option to purchase a puppy from that kind of breeder nor do I think they should be the ONLY option. They are difficult to find. I either had to choose from a breeder who showed or from a hobby farm.. and since I had read showing the Border Collie was a mortal sin.. I chose to buy my puppy from a hobby farm. 

I don't like how closed minded the general attitude is on BC forums about breeding BCs. I don't think there is anything wrong with breeding away from original function, whether that be for family pet with less herding drive or for sport. I was just throwing in a casual complaint that the breeding attitude and me believing it led me away from a breeder that I rather would have supported. I try my best to do what is "right" but got seriously confused because of it. They were a responsible dog breeder.. but not a responsible BC breeder in the eyes of BC forums because they showed. Also, I know everyone there doesn't share those beliefs.. but that's the basic attitude of the forum. I guess I shouldn't use the words closed minded. They just have a strict view of things I guess. It seems you are very pro only working bred BC as well.. which is cool I suppose. 

Yes, I am American. I must not know a darn thing! (sarcasm) 

Sorry for the confusion?


----------



## Margot49 (Oct 2, 2015)

Reading these discussions, I think we all have a pretty good grasp on what a puppy mill is. Having shown dogs in Conformation and Obedience, if I were looking for a pure bred dog, of any breed, I would do my research and go to a Reputible breeder. Of course, I have been in dogs long enough to know what to look for and can pretty much understand a pedigree. I would want proof of any testing for possible genetic inheritance factors in that breed. Oh, I would have lots of questions and know what answers I would expect. I am wise enough now to know not to take a puppy because I feel sorry for it or it's the last one, etc. I did limited breedings over the years and I can assure you, I never made a profit! 
Just because a dog is shown in Conformation does not mean they don't also compete in Obedience, Herding, Tracking, etc. There are many dogs out there with multiple titles. Who doesn't want the dog that conforms to the Standard and can also do what it was originally bred to do?! When I first decided to get my first Sheltie, I did my homework. I looked at a number of litters. I ended up getting a small puppy that just stood out. I could not have chosen a better pup and from a Reputible breeder. She was my heart dog and did very well in Obedience. Her "line" actually did well in Obedience. I later got dogs for Conformation and a few of my "show" dogs were Herding Certified. Granted, others could have cared less.
Really, when it comes down to breeders, everyone needs to do their research. Something does not look right or feel right, don't get the dog.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> Yes, I am American. I must not know a darn thing! (sarcasm)


I honestly thought you were Canadian. I have noooo idea why.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

David92 said:


> You really think working dogs aren't health tested? .


Depends on what you type of working dogs you are talking about...
High end police, military, and personal protection dogs. Yes.
Hounds and most hunting dogs... No
Bird dogs. It is a mixed bag...
Herding dogs bred on ranches... Almost never.



David92 said:


> If anything working dogs are more strict with their health testing because simply put - a working dog with poor hips is useless and typically neutered immediately [the chances of it ever being bred are slim to nil]..


This is a false statement... What happens to working dogs that have a health issue pop up... It goes in the ground... Some working dog people keep their old dogs... We/I always did... I OWED them a good old age. But looking back I wonder if we did them a favor... It is very hard on a dog that has worked its entire life to watch the younger dogs load up. 
But again.... Working dogs that have a health issue that will prevent them working long term... In the ground.... 


And things like bad hips... Even a working dog with bad hips can work a few years before it breaks down... If it is a good working dog... It has more than likely been bred a time or two.... 



David92 said:


> A show dog with poor hips, well as long as it's passable grade and still meets standard we'll breed it -


You do not understand hip grades.... There is no such thing as a dog with a passable grade but bad hips... If the dog has bad hips, the hip grades will reflect that...



David92 said:


> just look at the countless reports of flaws with show breeding or did you never watch the BC's "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" [that's just a smidge of the truth] - and if it's really bad we'll do the next "sucker" that comes along a "favor" by selling them a cheaper pet quality dog.
> .


Pedigree dogs exposed is propaganda written produced and starring an active radical animal rights person.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Depends on what you type of working dogs you are talking about...
> High end police, military, and personal protection dogs. Yes.
> Hounds and most hunting dogs... No
> Bird dogs. It is a mixed bag...
> ...


I was thinking exactly ALL this!


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

Just because you think Americans are a bunch of bumbling idioits as a people group doesn't change the fact that your claim isn't true...js


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Oh man and me without my popcorn.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

I smell... Butthurt.
Tons of it. Lol

When you resort to name calling, your entire argument is invalid, by default.

op2:


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

David92 said:


> Oh my goodness, what a clown.


When the name calling starts it is a sure sign that someone has nothing to support their position. 

LMAO is all I can say to that.... I should have known better than to engage in conversation with someone with such narrow minded views based on what they heard and read on the internet rather than real world experience..... 

I am not going to go line by line and insult by insult to defend my position... No need... Your response says it all...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Dude, whenever I say that hunters put their dogs in the ground when they don't consider them useful, _somebody_ jumps all over me. I will certainly be quoting this thread in the future . 

And it is true that Americans have a different attitude toward animals. Much more property-centric. Not just the "I'll do whatever I want with my property!" people but regular pet owners too. Less recognition of an animal as an individual. Just an observation.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

Willowy said:


> And it is true that Americans have a different attitude toward animals. Much more property-centric. Not just the "I'll do whatever I want with my property!" people but regular pet owners too. Less recognition of an animal as an individual. Just an observation.


Reminds me. I think I saw an article on how the UK has passed some livestock welfare laws., requiring basic things like the ability to express natural behavior. I wish that kind of stuff made its way across the pond. If you want to stop puppy mills, you have to make it better for the broiler chickens first...


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> Yeah.. I don't think a true working breeder would have allowed me a pup anyway if that's the case. Sorry but I use AKC.
> 
> I don't like the overly exaggerated BCs at all. The super fluffy ones with the large foreheads? Not for me at all. I might be able to handle a sporter from the right breeder in the future.. but a sporter for my husbands first agility dog was not happening. I really don't care what kind of BC you like or want.. as long as it suits you. The large majority of them still have the same quirky tendencies regardless of type.
> 
> ...


I think sport bred BCs are a mix btw show and working lines, right? Please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Dude, whenever I say that hunters put their dogs in the ground when they don't consider them useful, _somebody_ jumps all over me. I will certainly be quoting this thread in the future .
> 
> And it is true that Americans have a different attitude toward animals. Much more property-centric. Not just the "I'll do whatever I want with my property!" people but regular pet owners too. Less recognition of an animal as an individual. Just an observation.


I'm gonna fly in here and say I don't know what kind of trash you live around, but hunters here give their dogs their earned retirement. They don't just say 'ah well it's broke' and shoot the dog.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

BigLittle said:


> Reminds me. I think I saw an article on how the UK has passed some livestock welfare laws., requiring basic things like the ability to express natural behavior. I wish that kind of stuff made its way across the pond. If you want to stop puppy mills, you have to make it better for the broiler chickens first...


Yeah that always killed me, they dont allow cropping and docking because it is "cruel", but those same laws allowed a farmer to put his no longer useful working dogs "in the ground".


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

HollowHeaven said:


> I'm gonna fly in here and say I don't know what kind of trash you live around, but hunters here give their dogs their earned retirement. They don't just say 'ah well it's broke' and shoot the dog.


They exist in California. I would occasionally see an ancient coonhound, foxhound, lab, other working breeds not typically seen in the area end up dumped in the shelter. You just know it's probably not somebody's beloved pet. My friend in high school had a genetic wreck of an ACD. He had inherited blindness (onset was in adulthood), knees were a mess, heart defects. She said the breeder dumped him in the shelter at 8 weeks. Probably a castaway from the cattle farming in the area, as I can't imagine a shady byb or mill testing for those kinds of defects.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

HollowHeaven said:


> I'm gonna fly in here and say I don't know what kind of trash you live around, but hunters here give their dogs their earned retirement. They don't just say 'ah well it's broke' and shoot the dog.


Right?

Same here, though we dont have as many hunters here as we do ranchers and farmers, and most are like the farmer in "babe" LOL, they treat their dogs good, they come in their houses at night (sans LGD of course), some even COOK for their animals, in fact, that is what people did before dog food was invented LOL, they have their dogs the leftovers from whatever they cooked that night, and some old timer farmers and ranchers still do that today.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Is it a surprise that for many people, dogs are still primarily utilitarian? I mean, unless you've met every hunter/ farmer/ rancher in your (general your) area, I think it's very likely that _some_ dogs unable to work are being culled no matter where you (general you) live.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

sassafras said:


> Is it a surprise that for many people, dogs are still primarily utilitarian? I mean, unless you've met every hunter/ farmer/ rancher in your (general your) area, I think it's very likely that _some_ dogs unable to work are being culled no matter where you (general you) live.


Totally agree. Even if the dogs aren't culled by outright killing them, plenty end up in some sort of rescue/shelter/rehome situation. My friends have a basset who was a washout from a local basset hunting pack. I know people with washout herding dogs they've rescued. And I don't even live in a place where hunting/herding is super common (because we're less rural and closer to cities)


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

No doubt dogs that don't make the cut get culled, but I have hardly heard of it in the euth fashion. Usually they're sent out with people who want them as pets.

There's not a lot of true working dogs here -like for livestock- but there are PLENTY of hunting dogs, and while yes there are a ton of buttwipes who don't treat their dogs right most I know care about their dogs and don't dump them out or kill them because they get old. They let them teach the younger ones, they let them rest.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

elrohwen said:


> Totally agree. Even if the dogs aren't culled by outright killing them, plenty end up in some sort of rescue/shelter/rehome situation. My friends have a basset who was a washout from a local basset hunting pack. I know people with washout herding dogs they've rescued. And I don't even live in a place where hunting/herding is super common (because we're less rural and closer to cities)


Sure, I dont know everyone, but the majority of folks here dont cull their dogs.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

It is a HUGE stretch to go from what I said.


JohnnyBandit said:


> This is a false statement... What happens to working dogs that have a health issue pop up... It goes in the ground... Some working dog people keep their old dogs... We/I always did... I OWED them a good old age. But looking back I wonder if we did them a favor... It is very hard on a dog that has worked its entire life to watch the younger dogs load up.
> But again.... Working dogs that have a health issue that will prevent them working long term... In the ground....
> .



To this....





Willowy said:


> Dude, whenever I say that hunters put their dogs in the ground when they don't consider them useful, _somebody_ jumps all over me. I will certainly be quoting this thread in the future .
> 
> .


Once again.... Take a specific statement and paint it with a broad brush... 

Just does not work.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

HollowHeaven said:


> No doubt dogs that don't make the cut get culled, but I have hardly heard of it in the euth fashion. Usually they're sent out with people who want them as pets.
> 
> There's not a lot of true working dogs here -like for livestock- but there are PLENTY of hunting dogs, and while yes there are a ton of buttwipes who don't treat their dogs right most I know care about their dogs and don't dump them out or kill them because they get old. They let them teach the younger ones, they let them rest.


Yep.

I know a lot of ranchers who have rehomed their herding dogs who didnt pan out with friends and family who just want a great pet. Now I know some might even call that cruel (probably the same folks who think returning a dog to their breeder if they dont pan out as say, a show / breed prospect is cruel), but you have to understand. These are REAL WORKING RANCHES, not "hobby farms" or "weekend herding trial" people (not that there is anything wrong with those, either  ) and they cant keep every dog that doesnt work out.

Also, what (if any) breed mixes would you all consider reputable? I know there are many sporting people who cross say, aussies and BC, and ACD's and aussies, or BC. There are also hog hunters that breed their own line of dogs, and ranchers who have started their own "breeds" as well.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

BigLittle said:


> Reminds me. I think I saw an article on how the UK has passed some livestock welfare laws., requiring basic things like the ability to express natural behavior. I wish that kind of stuff made its way across the pond. If you want to stop puppy mills, you have to make it better for the broiler chickens first...


We already have livestock welfare laws similar to that. They achieve nothing. Honestly, legislation isn't going to do crap to change anything, ESPECIALLY in agriculture or as passed by the USDA. 

The USDA passed new legislation they claimed was targeted at Puppy Mills. Supported by and lobbied for by the HSUS (and the enforcement of which is headed by a "former" HSUS lawyer.). The USDA, commercial farms and some AR groups have also been trying to use the recent Avian Influenza outbreak to target hobby flocks (Privately owned, cage free small coop kept or free range flocks). They've blamed everything except the industrial mass production flock model that is the root of the issue.

Guess who the newer "anti-puppy mill" laws actually affects? Responsible hobby breeders such as those that breed for work & show. Guess who it does not affect at all? Puppy Mills. So long as the Puppy mill is USDA registered, which most all already are to begin with, they can continue to operate as is and sell over the internet sight unseen.

But the small breeders with 4+ breeding age female ANIMALS (don't all have to be dogs) suddenly have to apply for USDA license and meet *commercial* regulations (the puppy mill standard) all while worrying about AR nuts calling in tips for inspections, enforcement of which, again, is headed by an HSUS plant. (and if that wasn't peachy enough, compliance is up to the interpretation of the individual inspector.)

Want to affect puppy mills & broiler chickens? Its not laws we need, its public education, putting pressure on the USDA & FDA to back OFF of legislation that is making it difficult to obtain our animals and our food through our own choices and more humane options. 

Its difficult to buy humanely raised beef, pork and chicken directly from the farmer unless you're going to process it yourself (which in some areas you can't). Or take it to a USDA processor in which case you may not even get back the actual animal you took in, and there isn't much you can do against an unethical USDA processor as they generally have a monopoly on local business and farmers & ranchers are at their mercy usually. Its becoming increasingly difficult to raise your own also.

And if the USDA & local municipalities continue to legislate small, responsible breeders (and farmers / ranchers) out of existence, the only options will be puppy mills (and industrial farms / CAFO) and the shelters stocked by BYB, Puppy mills & imports.

More repetitive and redundant laws are not the answer.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

No, the only thing that will change things is to outright outlaw the selling of dogs in pet stores, and commercial breeding facilities all together


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> No, the only thing that will change things is to outright outlaw the selling of dogs in pet stores, and commercial breeding facilities all together


Except the outlaw of commercial breeding facilities will never happen, as the USDA and HSUS has already made clear. That is the standard of operation they made moves to *protect*.

And outlawing pet store puppy sales does nothing to stop puppy mills, as most pet sales from such commercial operations are actually done through online brokers or as direct sales to unsuspecting buyers. Even Rescues are buying puppies & adult dogs in bulk from puppy mills these days and calling it "rescue", thus keeping them in business.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

The answer can't be "no laws" but it needs to be "different laws". Which, as pointed out, isn't gonna happen. There's a lot of money in commercial farming and no politician is going to do anything that affects their $$$. The political world would have to completely change.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

There is a world of difference between APHIS and a law that simply requires egg-laying hens have enough space to turn around.

APHIS is an overtly pro-mill, pro-AR bill. Not all animal law is created equal.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

BigLittle said:


> There is a world of difference between APHIS and a law that simply requires egg-laying hens have enough space to turn around.
> 
> APHIS is an overtly pro-mill, pro-AR bill. Not all animal law is created equal.


Except that it isn't the only legislation for animal welfare & management. The AWA (Animal Welfare Act) alone is far more expansive and in quite a few sections includes wording for allowing the animal the space and opportunity to express species typical behavior. (and again, isn't the only animal welfare legislation on the books)

But going through that, a LOT of industrial farms do not meet requirements, despite being USDA licensed, regulated & inspected.

Adding more and more redundant laws solves nothing. Change requires education, a change in society as a whole, a change in our state and federal governments and actually enforcing the laws we already have (and scrapping some that shouldn't even exist).


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

The fact that I didn't even know we had those laws on the books is telling... No wonder redundant laws are being passed. I wouldn't be surprised if those pushing for them like me just assumed there were no laws in the first place with how things are enforced.

But it sounds like USDA is broken and corrupt, which isn't too much of a surprise to me.


----------



## Pasarella (May 30, 2013)

Glad Latvia doesn't allow selling puppies,kittens and ferrets in pet stores.So it is up to the breeder to sell it's puppies.We have only bunch of BYB who breed everything,as many times as they wish and sell them illegally.To sell puppies here the breeder must have special certificate that proves that the breeder is educated in animal welfare,they must be at least 8 weeks old,vaccinated,micro chipped and registered in common database.Now this applies only on reputable breeders...or not so reputable,but the ones who have pedegree dogs,the rest do what they like and no one is controlling that.But this soon could be over,president of our federation,told they are going to qualify people who will act like regular buyers,who ask about the shots and micro chipps on the phone,where and when they can buy the puppy,then they will go there with a person from our food and veterinary service(these people can't pretend to be a buyer,that would be illegal,they always have to tell who they are and that ruins pretty much every raid they make,people hide what they have to hide) and make the purchase so they have a proof that they did sell a month old puppy without vaccination,and micro chip.Hope this works!
Also every single dog in Latvia starting from 1st July,2016 must be micro chipped and registered so it is not so easy to just abandon the dog on the streets or tie it to a tree in the woods and leave it there to starve.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

BigLittle said:


> The fact that I didn't even know we had those laws on the books is telling... No wonder redundant laws are being passed. I wouldn't be surprised if those pushing for them like me just assumed there were no laws in the first place with how things are enforced.
> 
> But it sounds like USDA is broken and corrupt, which isn't too much of a surprise to me.


Oh, sure it is, its a branch of the GOVT, LOL.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Since this thread is somewhat active again, I had a conversation about this topic with some breed-specific people a few days ago and I found the stances and opinions slightly disturbing. 

The breed-specific people were completely adamant that the ONLY breeders who are reputable show their dogs *in the ring* (not in sports) and breed championship dogs. Therapy dog breeders - not reputable. Breeders who health test, certify, everything else on the list but never step in the show ring are backyard breeders, according to the opinions I've heard. Since Danes don't really have field lines versus show lines like other breeds do, my questions about "what happens when a breeder is breeding field lines versus show lines and they aren't breeding to standard, they're breeding to work" got totally ignored. 

I was just really bothered by this mentality for many reasons. First of all, when a "normal/casual/non-showing/" (whatever you want to call it, they're not inferior, they're just looking for a pet) dog buyer wants a puppy, they think about it for months, then decide they want a puppy and generally want it RIGHT NOW or in the fairly near future. They don't want to get on a waiting list for a $2-4K puppy they will have home in a year and a half. Idealistically, yes, that would be fine. Realistically, no, that's not going to happen a vast majority of the time. I didn't want to wait that long for a Dane, and I'm a fairly well informed puppy buyer. So telling someone who is a casual dog owner, who has finally made the exciting decision that *yes, they want a puppy*, that they need to wait a few years for a puppy from show dogs is just going to go in one ear and out the other for many people.

On top of that, I did a search for AKC registered Dane breeders within 200 miles of me. There are 6. If they're reputable, they produce one litter a year, two at most. Danes have litters of 6-10, generally. So, at most, they are producing between 36-72 puppies a year combined. And if you calculate that half of those puppies are show prospects who will only be sold to showing homes, that means that these breeders have anywhere from 18-36 puppies available for pet homes a year.

Of course, these numbers are all guesses, but they give ballpark ranges of available puppies from "reputable show breeders" within 200 miles of me. Even at the top end of these estimates, 36 puppies a year is not even CLOSE to enough to support the demand for Danes as pets. So, if "reputable show breeders" can't cover demand, people are of course going to turn to other sources for a puppy they just want as a pet. 

It just makes me so angry that people show up and ask about buying a puppy and get told "you have to meet this very specific list of qualifications otherwise your breeder is a byb and your dog will have multiple health problems and probably not lead a long life". Real life isn't like that. Instead of running the puppy buyer off by giving them a list of unrealistic expectations (and presenting it in an elitist and exclusive manner), why not tell them the absolute base line of what they need to look for to get a healthy family pet? Health testing, meet the parents, bitch isn't bred every year, not multiple litters on the ground, early socialization, etc. 

Everyone wants different things out of their dogs. Most people want pets. Some people want sports. Some people want show dogs. Some people want therapy dogs. Many people want a mixture of those things. Etc, etc. Why do some people expect the SAME EXACT breeders to be able to produce dogs with those very different qualities? 

I understand the intentions behind the insistence that everyone purchase from a currently showing breeder and two championship parents, but it's very close-minded to not realize that a lengthy list of requirements, at least a year wait and a several thousand dollar puppy is going to scare most "casual" potential puppy buyers off, which means they're more likely to not take *any* of the advice and resort to a byb instant gratification purchase. 

/endrant


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah, I think there have been threads about that before. For instance, I'm "just" a pet owner. I have low expectations. I'm perfectly OK walking into a shelter or answering an ad on craigslist and leaving with any random dog I find agreeable. But say we fix our overpopulation/unwanted dog problem (haha! Wishful thinking) and there aren't so many dogs in need of homes, so I have to buy from a breeder. Life is short, I'm NOT going to be dogless for couple years while some breeder thinks about which stud they want to use. I'm not an instant gratification kind of person but I wouldn't wait longer than 6 months or so (at least there needs to be some buns in the oven by then). And I wouldn't/couldn't spend a month's pay on purchase price of a pet. On the other hand, I also don't want to get a puppy from some yahoos who don't care about anything other than making a quick buck. So, yeah, I think it would be in the dog world's best interests to encourage a "better BYB". Health testing, some semblance of early enrichment for the pups, a decent understanding of genes and heredity, etc. 

Showing is an extremely expensive hobby, which is sometimes used to justify high puppy prices. If showing means nothing to me, why should I subsidize some else's hobby?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Yeah, I think there have been threads about that before. For instance, I'm "just" a pet owner. I have low expectations. I'm perfectly OK walking into a shelter or answering an ad on craigslist and leaving with any random dog I find agreeable. But say we fix our overpopulation/unwanted dog problem (haha! Wishful thinking) and there aren't so many dogs in need of homes, so I have to buy from a breeder. Life is short, I'm NOT going to be dogless for couple years while some breeder thinks about which stud they want to use. I'm not an instant gratification kind of person but I wouldn't wait longer than 6 months or so (at least there needs to be some buns in the oven by then). And I wouldn't/couldn't spend a month's pay on purchase price of a pet. On the other hand, I also don't want to get a puppy from some yahoos who don't care about anything other than making a quick buck. So, yeah, I think it would be in the dog world's best interests to encourage a "better BYB". Health testing, some semblance of early enrichment for the pups, a decent understanding of genes and heredity, etc.
> 
> Showing is an extremely expensive hobby, which is sometimes used to justify high puppy prices. If showing means nothing to me, why should I subsidize some else's hobby?


Puppy cost from a good breeder isnt just "funding their hobby" (note I said from a GOOD breeder, NOT Joe Blow down the street who bred Fifi to Fido). I for one would happily wait a year or more for a puppy from a litter that was that well thought out VS "My bitch is in heat! Your stud is available, let's breed!" The reason so much thought goes into a good litter, is because the breeder is weighing the strengths and weaknesses of her options for pairings and seeing which stud compliments her bitch. Maybe the stud she wants wont be available until next year, who knows? In fact I am waiting that long for my next dog, because I want the right dog from the right breeder.

Good breeders dont breed for money, they breed to better their breed and / or add to their own programs.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Puppy cost from a good breeder isnt just "funding their hobby" (note I said from a GOOD breeder, NOT Joe Blow down the street who bred Fifi to Fido). I for one would happily wait a year or more for a puppy from a litter that was that well thought out VS "My bitch is in heat! Your stud is available, let's breed!" The reason so much thought goes into a good litter, is because the breeder is weighing the strengths and weaknesses of her options for pairings and seeing which stud compliments her bitch. Maybe the stud she wants wont be available until next year, who knows? In fact I am waiting that long for my next dog, because I want the right dog from the right breeder.
> 
> Good breeders dont breed for money, they breed to better their breed and / or add to their own programs.


Totally agreed. My breeder waited a year to breed Titan's mother to his sire because the sire wasn't available when she originally wanted to breed. The sire complimented the bitch in many ways which my breeder explained to me. She literally talked to me for 30 minutes about why she picked him.

Just because someone doesn't show doesn't mean they won't research, know the weaknesses of their dogs and the strengths of others and then pick a good match. 

On the flip side, just because someone does show doesn't mean they WILL pick a good match. There are show breeders who fall into the category of "reputable" by the standards they listed who breed harle x harle. That is NOT good match selection. There are show breeders who breed their bitches to the latest "in" male to get high dollar puppies. And then there are show breeders who are amazing, and careful, and thoughtful and deserve every penny (and probably more) that they get for their puppies. 

What if after 30 years of showing, someone wants to retire, but may still want to produce a litter or two of the breed they dedicated their life to learning about and bettering? What if they have a disability and they don't have the money to hire a handler for their dog? Those people are automatically bybs because they aren't actively showing?

Painting everyone who shows with the same brush has the potential to be just as inaccurate as painting everyone who doesn't show (field line breeders, therapy dog breeders, police dog breeders, hobby breeders, back yard breeders) with the same brush.

I understand that a lot of my comments come off as "anti show breeding" sometimes, and I don't mean them to. In fact, I'm about to put myself on a year and a half long wait list for a black Dane from a well known show breeder. I'm clearly NOT anti show breeder. I'm just not anti everyone-who-isn't-a-show-breeder and end up defending them because so many other people (not necessarily on this forum) are.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I never said that nobody is/should be willing to wait years for a puppy. People can do whatever they want and wait however long they want to wait. *I* wouldn't wait that long. I'm not sure how many people would---do you think maybe half? I'm not even sure if that many. I hope that if a breeder I contacted wasn't going to have a litter soon, they could point me toward someone else they know who will have a litter sooner. Like I said, life is short and I'm not willing to be dogless for any particular length of time.

ETA: I'm also not sure why I should subsidize someone breeding to better the breed or "adding to their own program"? If they just want to do that they should be willing to sell the puppies who aren't bettering the breed or right for "their program" for a reasonable cost. (Note: I don't mean "bettering the breed" as in breeding healthy, mentally sound dogs. All breeders should do that. I mean I have no interest in whether the breeder has grand designs of changing the breed in such and such a way---that's their hobby. I just want a good dog)


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Being honest I probably wouldn't be willing to wait more than a year (IE I would want my puppy within a year's time), and I'm pretty high on the 'dog person' scale and understand all the pros to a well thought out breeding from a good breeder.

It's really hard for me to imagine that Joe Public who just wants a family pet would be okay with waiting any longer than that. 

Serious dog people who want a specific line or specific breeding? Yea okay. The general pet owning population? Highly doubt it.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I never said that nobody is/should be willing to wait years for a puppy. People can do whatever they want and wait however long they want to wait. *I* wouldn't wait that long. I'm not sure how many people would---do you think maybe half? I'm not even sure if that many. I hope that if a breeder I contacted wasn't going to have a litter soon, they could point me toward someone else they know who will have a litter sooner. Like I said, life is short and I'm not willing to be dogless for any particular length of time.


It sounds like you havent had much experience with breeders, not judging, just making an observation.

Most good breeders, if they say "Well I dont have anything right now and my next planned litter is (if you were to contact them right now) next fall" or something like that, they will usually follow with "but I do know of some other breeder who will be having litters sooner, if you dont want to wait that long." pretty much every breeder I have contacted that was worth their salt did that. It's the ones who always seem to have puppies right now that I would be wary of. 

In the world of good breeders, waiting 6 mos to a year for a pup isnt unheard of. In fact, I wont be adding a puppy to my household until fall/winter 2016, but I am contacting breeders now, and a few have litters now, but they did recommend breeders to me who were planning litters more on my timeline, they COULD have tried to push a puppy on me, but they didnt. In fact, most of those pups you see on breeder's websites are usually sold because people like me inquire early and waiting lists are established. In fact, most are done by order the breeder was contacted, so the earlier you inquire, the better.

I am not saying you said people shouldnt, I am just trying to enlighten you as to WHY someone would do that, and why it is a good idea, if you want the right puppy.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I'd wait for a bit if it was like... a super specific breeding that I absolutely knew in and out and adored. Maybe if a friend had a dog I loved and they knew they were breeding in a couple years I might jump on that. (But that's assuming I already had dogs and was adding a 3rd or 4th) But yeah I am not the type to wait long (at all) when I know I'm able financially and time-wise to get a dog. I got Mia within a week of starting to look, Summer was within a week, I got Hank TWO DAYS after I moved to my new house. LOL

I don't do well without a dog. If I find myself dogless (heaven forbid), I'll probably have a dog the next day. Or at least be in line for a dog the next day.

Now, my next dog I'll be a little bit more patient. But I'm not going to wait more than about 6 months.

Also as much as we like to say 'breed the best to the best' there is a LOT of merit to breeding just 'good' dogs. You save genetic diversity that way and there's nothing wrong with breeding just plain good dogs.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Laurelin said:


> I'd wait for a bit if it was like... a super specific breeding that I absolutely knew in and out and adored. Maybe if a friend had a dog I loved and they knew they were breeding in a couple years I might jump on that. (But that's assuming I already had dogs and was adding a 3rd or 4th) But yeah I am not the type to wait long (at all) when I know I'm able financially and time-wise to get a dog. I got Mia within a week of starting to look, Summer was within a week, I got Hank TWO DAYS after I moved to my new house. LOL
> 
> I don't do well without a dog. If I find myself dogless (heaven forbid), I'll probably have a dog the next day. Or at least be in line for a dog the next day.
> 
> ...


This is why I always look for next dog while I still at least have one haha. I wanted to wait until Lincoln was at least 2 before I started looking at add another, that way he will be more mature, and I will have a little time to have fun with him before all that puppy stuff starts again haha.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Well sure. But some people can only have one dog at a time. I don't expect them to go dogless very long either


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

ireth0 said:


> Being honest I probably wouldn't be willing to wait more than a year (IE I would want my puppy within a year's time), and I'm pretty high on the 'dog person' scale and understand all the pros to a well thought out breeding from a good breeder.
> 
> It's really hard for me to imagine that Joe Public who just wants a family pet would be okay with waiting any longer than that.
> 
> Serious dog people who want a specific line or specific breeding? Yea okay. The general pet owning population? Highly doubt it.


Exactly! And the people I was talking to simply couldn't wrap their minds around the fact that for most people *deciding* if they can afford/accommodate a dog is the "long" part of the process. They want the locating of said dog to be fairly straightforward!

If every person within a 200 mile radius of me who wanted a Dane purchased from one of the 6 AKC breeders around, wait lists would be something ridiculous like 5 years long. 

Why don't people see that a middle ground between bybs and show/sport breeders is necessary for people who want a pet without a writing a several thousand dollar check and waiting years? The sooner EVERYONE starts to recognize that fact, the sooner we can begin educating the "regular" pet dog buyers (i.e. people who don't do dog sports or hunt or show, etc.) how to purchase a healthy puppy within a reasonable time frame from a reasonable breeder that will grow into a great dog.

I wish there were more breeds with programs like the CCA (previously mentioned in this thread, I think?) for Goldens. Non-competitive assessment of a dog for the breed standard and certification that a dog meets the standard at an acceptable enough level to produce offspring. Perhaps not championship offspring, but sound, stable puppies who will turn into sound, stable dogs. It's a fabulous program and whoever spearheaded it deserves recognition and awards for it (imo).

ETA: A lot of my commentary is coming from a Great Dane perspective, especially the comments about years long wait lists. Is it different in other breeds? If you want a puppy of your chosen breed from two championship dogs whose breeder actively shows and does all of the other right things, about how long are you going to wait? And about how much are you going to pay?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

ireth0 said:


> Being honest I probably wouldn't be willing to wait more than a year (IE I would want my puppy within a year's time), and I'm pretty high on the 'dog person' scale and understand all the pros to a well thought out breeding from a good breeder.
> 
> It's really hard for me to imagine that Joe Public who just wants a family pet would be okay with waiting any longer than that.
> 
> Serious dog people who want a specific line or specific breeding? Yea okay. The general pet owning population? Highly doubt it.


Nope, because no one has patience to wait for anything anymore. :/, for those people, there is always shelters and rescue.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Hiraeth said:


> ETA: A lot of my commentary is coming from a Great Dane perspective, especially the comments about years long wait lists. Is it different in other breeds? If you want a puppy of your chosen breed from two championship dogs whose breeder actively shows and does all of the other right things, about how long are you going to wait? And about how much are you going to pay?


For Rat Terriers? Two Ch dogs from actively showing breeders with health testing *in my area*? Not long - definitely less than a year, probably more like 6 months, and you may find a litter on the ground at any given time. That's really, really unusual.

That said, no, I'm not waiting more than a year for a puppy, like ever. There's just no need. There are plenty of breeders around me I consider 'good enough' - what that means varies by breed, but they're people I feel just fine giving my money to support without doing insane waits for a dog. By the time I decide I want a dog, you've got six months MAX before I'm finding a dog.

ETA: I have no shortage of patience for most things in life. I am not someone who needs instant gratification for everything, but I'm not going to wait for a year or more when I could get something that meets my needs just as well much sooner and often for less money. If it was a specific breeding sure, but if I want a sheltie and one breeder is going to take 3 years to get a puppy from and another is going to take 6 months, I'm going to go with the one I can get in 6 months even if that one has less comprehensive health testing or doesn't show. I just don't gain anything substantial (FOR ME) with that wait.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I agree to a certain extent.

When my dad was looking for dogs a couple years ago I was keeping my eye out at the shelter for them and referred them to a couple dogs, but none were right for one reason or another (which is fine, not every dog is right for every family) and then they went and bought a puppy from a byb. (My step-mother wasn't sure if the dog was purebred or not kind of byb)


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I never said that nobody is/should be willing to wait years for a puppy. People can do whatever they want and wait however long they want to wait. *I* wouldn't wait that long. I'm not sure how many people would---do you think maybe half? I'm not even sure if that many. I hope that if a breeder I contacted wasn't going to have a litter soon, they could point me toward someone else they know who will have a litter sooner. Like I said, life is short and I'm not willing to be dogless for any particular length of time.
> 
> ETA: I'm also not sure why I should subsidize someone breeding to better the breed or "adding to their own program"? If they just want to do that they should be willing to sell the puppies who aren't bettering the breed or right for "their program" for a reasonable cost. (Note: I don't mean "bettering the breed" as in breeding healthy, mentally sound dogs. All breeders should do that. I mean I have no interest in whether the breeder has grand designs of changing the breed in such and such a way---that's their hobby. I just want a good dog)


Most breeders do sell non-breeding / working prospects for "a reasonable cost".

For example, you can expect to pay about 1,800-2,500 for a breeding / working prospect Doberman puppy from health tested, titled lines with initial veterinary care and ear cropping / docking included in that price. A pet quality pup on a spay / neuter contract would be about 1,000 - 1,500. More than reasonable considering the amount of testing and planning that needs to go into a well bred Doberman litter from a good breeder. 

eta: (Healthier breeds that require less testing or in which testing is not the norm...You might be able to get a breeding / working prospect for 900-1,500. But would still expect to pay $400-900 for pet prospects in most cases that I've seen. In my breed a nice pup can cost as much as 1,600 - 2,000 depending on pedigree... But in my breed only one breeder *in the world* currently goes the extra mile with health tests. One other breeder does very minimal health testing.)

Thousands and thousands of dollars go into responsible breeding via showing or working, raising and evaluating breeding stock, investing in good breeding stock, health testing that stock, lost litters, lost investments, wash outs, ect. If breeders did not price in a manner that reflects that, the ONLY breeders would be the wealthy. The sports are the hobby, the breeding is an investment in the future of the breed. If you want the benefit of their efforts within the breed and the extra mile they go to be a good breeder, you invest in their breeding program by paying a fair and reasonable price for the results of that program and those efforts.

Breeders who can afford to charge $50 to a couple hundred a pup even for pet prospects, are more than likely cutting corners.

ETA: And yeah, like other posters all the responsible breeders I know, if they have no pups available in a current or upcoming litter, they will direct inquiries to other breeders with upcoming litters with room on their waiting list or direct them to breed specific rescue or offer older pups who didn't work out or retired dogs when available. They don't just expect you to wait forever. Personally, I won't get on random wait lists because even if I like the breeder, it doesn't mean every litter they have will be a good fit for me or produce a pup thats a good fit for me. I wouldn't even put down deposits unless the litter is on the ground and a pup is confirmed available for me.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Nope, because no one has patience to wait for anything anymore. :/, for those people, there is always shelters and rescue.


There's a difference between patience within a reasonable and unreasonable limit, depending on what the buyer is looking for.

If I want a black male Great Dane with no white whatsoever from championship parents who have the heavier-boned aesthetic I like in a Dane, I should expect to wait at least two years to get that puppy.

If all I want is a male Great Dane from healthy parents, two years is outrageous. 

Suggesting that someone go to a shelter or rescue to adopt a dog from an unknown background because they don't feel like waiting years is a bit silly. There should be an option to purchase from an ethical breeder with a 6 month or less wait time for owners who want a puppy with a known heritage and *somewhat* predictable personality.


----------



## sclevenger (Nov 11, 2012)

Hiraeth said:


> Exactly! And the people I was talking to simply couldn't wrap their minds around the fact that for most people *deciding* if they can afford/accommodate a dog is the "long" part of the process. They want the locating of said dog to be fairly straightforward!
> 
> If every person within a 200 mile radius of me who wanted a Dane purchased from one of the 6 AKC breeders around, wait lists would be something ridiculous like 5 years long.
> 
> ...


To answer your question with my very recent Berner experience.... 2 years, $2500 +/- ..... neither of those were okay.... so I found an amazing breeder much like your Dane breeder.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

And to be fair in my case it just so happened that Luna popped up at the shelter the weekend we were moving into dog friendly housing (was still a month after that before I was allowed to take her home but regardless...). Otherwise I would have been patient and waited for the right dog to come along and not just adopted one readily available because it was available.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> And to be fair in my case it just so happened that Luna popped up at the shelter the weekend we were moving into dog friendly housing (was still a month after that before I was allowed to take her home but regardless...). Otherwise I would have been patient and waited for the right dog to come along and not just adopted one readily available because it was available.


But there's a difference in taking just any dog you can find from any source and not being prepared to wait for years to get what you want. 

If I want a sheltie, I'm not going to go adopt a hound mix. If I really want a sport bred dog I'm not going to take a conformation one. If I want a dog who is as close to promised to have good temperament, health and performance and possible, I'll wait for it. 

But if I want a sheltie and my option is down to 2500 and a 2 year long wait for a sheltie from a breeder who does conformation shows, checks all the marks and ALL the health testing and 500.00 and 6 month wait for a sheltie from parents with some health testing and who have CGCs, are therapy dogs, produce therapy dogs or produced some local agility dogs, or just are around for me to meet and assess - AND all I really want is a sheltie with decent temperament who can do some agility-

Why in the name of hades would I go to the breeder who conformation shows and does all the health testing? I don't care that much. Breeder 2 breeds what I want and is getting it to me a year and a half faster, for 2,000.00 less.

All that matters to me is that it's a sheltie, who is a nice dog and won't die when it's three. Asking 'me' (metaphorically) to wait for the breeder who does it all right and charges 4 times as much just doesn't make any sense.

That's not unwillingness to wait for what I want, that' unwillingness to wait and pay for things that don't matter to me.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Yea that's not what I was saying at all?

I mentioned earlier that I wouldn't want to wait more than a year if I were looking at a purebred puppy and didn't think most people would.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

sclevenger said:


> To answer your question with my very recent Berner experience.... 2 years, $2500 +/- ..... neither of those were okay.... so I found an amazing breeder much like your Dane breeder.


Because I'm being very particular about my next puppy, I've contacted 3 breeders about him. One in MI (5 hour drive), one in KY (7.5 hour drive) and one in IL (8 hour drive). 

Only one had 2016 puppies not spoken for. Two require an immediate deposit to be wait listed for a 2017 puppy. None could guarantee a 2017 breeding of the showing dogs I was interested in (obviously). All three very realistically explained to me that with my specific wants, I should hope for 2017 but it may be 2018 before a puppy comes along that fits my physical requirements AND is what I want in a dog. Each told me that I'm looking at $3.5-4K for a puppy.

Almost no pet buyer wants to go through that wait, or pay that much. Now, granted, my requirements are far more specific than most pet buyer's, but pretty much anyone who wants a Dane from a showing breeder and two CH parents is waiting a year. Unless they get lucky and a sale falls through or a puppy ends up not meeting a wait listed buyer's requirements and becomes available.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> Yea that's not what I was saying at all?
> 
> I mentioned earlier that I wouldn't want to wait more than a year if I were looking at a purebred puppy and didn't think most people would.


Sorry, I came in late and must have missed some of the conversation. Or conflated you with Owned.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Sorry, I came in late and must have missed some of the conversation. Or conflated you with Owned.


Sokay. It's almost the end of the week and my brain is also going mush.


----------



## sclevenger (Nov 11, 2012)

Hiraeth said:


> Because I'm being very particular about my next puppy, I've contacted 3 breeders about him. One in MI (5 hour drive), one in KY (7.5 hour drive) and one in IL (8 hour drive).
> 
> Only one had 2016 puppies not spoken for. Two require an immediate deposit to be wait listed for a 2017 puppy. None could guarantee a 2017 breeding of the showing dogs I was interested in (obviously). All three very realistically explained to me that with my specific wants, I should hope for 2017 but it may be 2018 before a puppy comes along that fits my physical requirements AND is what I want in a dog. Each told me that I'm looking at $3.5-4K for a puppy.
> 
> Almost no pet buyer wants to go through that wait, or pay that much. Now, granted, my requirements are far more specific than most pet buyer's, but pretty much anyone who wants a Dane from a showing breeder and two CH parents is waiting a year. Unless they get lucky and a sale falls through or a puppy ends up not meeting a wait listed buyer's requirements and becomes available.


Ya, that's what I ran into with the "top" and "great" berner breeders. And all I wanted was a healthy, stable, pet puppy. Not be wait listed for 2 years and asked to pay almost $3000. Just no. 

Now in your case with your next Dane, absolutely I would wait. If/when I ever get another Aussie, I will wait for the tight breeding, markings and all that stuff.



CptJack said:


> But there's a difference in taking just any dog you can find from any source and not being prepared to wait for years to get what you want.
> 
> If I want a sheltie, I'm not going to go adopt a hound mix. If I really want a sport bred dog I'm not going to take a conformation one. If I want a dog who is as close to promised to have good temperament, health and performance and possible, I'll wait for it.
> 
> ...


Agree with all of this. Completely.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> Thousands and thousands of dollars go into responsible breeding via showing or working, raising and evaluating breeding stock, investing in good breeding stock, health testing that stock, lost litters, lost investments, wash outs, ect. If breeders did not price in a manner that reflects that, the ONLY breeders would be the wealthy.


I don't put any value in someone proving their dogs via show or work. I might like to see therapy work or a CGC, but if I've met the parent dogs and am happy with them, that's enough for me. If it's not meaningful for me I don't want to pay extra for it. I do appreciate the breeder putting a great deal of though into ensuring, to the extent possible with living creatures, that they're breeding healthy and stable animals, and caring properly for the individuals they have, beyond that I don't give a flip about "the breed" or their grand visions for the future. I'm not sure that's even in the best interest of the individuals or future generations. As stated before, only breeding "the best of the best" is a good way for a breed to go extinct. 

I'm not even sure if I'd be comfortable supporting a show breeder---show standards have caused problems more often than not---but I think that would depend on the individual. If they're trying to decrease problems for a problem-prone breed, super, but if they're breeding structurally unhealthy dogs for the sake of show standards, nope.

As for prices, if someone is charging $600 per puppy (in a large breed with large litters), that really ought to cover expenses. If it actually costs them more than $6000 to raise a litter, I definitely don't want to live in such a high-expense area! I wouldn't expect prices as low as $50-$100---that's what I would pay for an oops puppy if the owners got them vaccinated and de-wormed. But when we're talking about thousands of dollars, I don't think that's a realistic expectation for most dog owners. Well, in the Midwest anyway. I suppose cost-of-living is higher on the coasts.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Hiraeth said:


> There's a difference between patience within a reasonable and unreasonable limit, depending on what the buyer is looking for.
> 
> If I want a black male Great Dane with no white whatsoever from championship parents who have the heavier-boned aesthetic I like in a Dane, I should expect to wait at least two years to get that puppy.
> 
> ...


that depends entirely on supply and demand.

In the case of well bred dogs, supply is generally low and demand is generally high.

Most of the responsible breeders I know, have established waiting lists. Because those that breed regularly only produce a couple litters a year, and those that are even more selective, maybe a litter every year or two. Which means demand is high, supply is low. Litters are costly and time consuming to produce. 

Now, if good breeders bred indiscriminantly, multiple litters per year, back to back heats and used repeat breeding off of in house bitch & studs like most BYB... Then they'd be able to meet that demand and pump out enough puppies that people could get them quickly with minimal to no wait, just like they can from BYB and mills.

But do we actually WANT that to happen? I don't.



Hiraeth said:


> Only one had 2016 puppies not spoken for. Two require an immediate deposit to be wait listed for a 2017 puppy. None could guarantee a 2017 breeding of the showing dogs I was interested in (obviously). All three very realistically explained to me that with my specific wants, I should hope for 2017 but it may be 2018 before a puppy comes along that fits my physical requirements AND is what I want in a dog. Each told me that I'm looking at $3.5-4K for a puppy.


Er... Yeah, I'd run for the hills. That is crazy.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

So you're basically saying that normal dog owners are just sorta stuck with substandard breeding practices :/. Granted, for everyone to have a puppy on demand would require a large oversupply. 

I still think that decent breeding practices and a reasonable wait time is possible without getting too fancy.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I don't put any value in someone proving their dogs via show or work. I might like to see therapy work or a CGC, but if I've met the parent dogs and am happy with them, that's enough for me. If it's not meaningful for me I don't want to pay extra for it. I do appreciate the breeder putting a great deal of though into ensuring, to the extent possible with living creatures, that they're breeding healthy and stable animals, and caring properly for the individuals they have, beyond that I don't give a flip about "the breed" or their grand visions for the future. I'm not sure that's even in the best interest of the individuals or future generations. As stated before, only breeding "the best of the best" is a good way for a breed to go extinct.


Then your option is not to go through that breeder. They breed to their goals and standards and pricing will reflect that, not what a buyer might value out of the program. Plenty of people think a dog is disposable and only worth the cost of a bag of food, its not a breeders job to price at that evaluation to coddle that perspective. 

Not all breeders breed "the best of the best", that isn't what responsible breeding is about and is an ignorant and naive method as its completely subjective and leads to detrimental practices and perspectives like popular sire syndrome. You can put titles on both ends on a two legged mutt with a cleft palette with enough time and money. Responsible breeding is breeding considerate and appropriate pairings to improve on the parents and, ultimately, try to improve the health of the breed. Balancing strengths and weaknesses, evaluating a dog's structure & conformation, working ability, pedigree, health, temperament and matching it with another dog who will compliment it. Giving the offspring better odds. You may not give a crap about the preservation or condition of the breed as a whole, but they should. And what they do will reflect their investment in their dogs and their breed.



> I'm not even sure if I'd be comfortable supporting a show breeder---show standards have caused problems more often than not---but I think that would depend on the individual. If they're trying to decrease problems for a problem-prone breed, super, but if they're breeding structurally unhealthy dogs for the sake of show standards, nope.


I actually don't disagree. I dislike that many show breeders will only use what is currently available in the ring or titles and generally will not even consider non-show lines even if they have titles on the other end. Lots of good, healthy prospects are set aside because they can't title easily in the ring or have a minor flaw that is easy to improve on in a generation or two. But again, your opinion of a show titles worth is irrelevant in how they price the puppy, the cost of pursuing it however is relevant to the cost of the puppies produced.



> As for prices, if someone is charging $600 per puppy (in a large breed with large litters), that really ought to cover expenses. If it actually costs them more than $6000 to raise a litter, I definitely don't want to live in such a high-expense area! I wouldn't expect prices as low as $50-$100---that's what I would pay for an oops puppy if the owners got them vaccinated and de-wormed. But when we're talking about thousands of dollars, I don't think that's a realistic expectation for most dog owners. Well, in the Midwest anyway. I suppose cost-of-living is higher on the coasts.


Apparently its realistic enough, most good breeders I know have waiting lists... More people willing to pay, than they have puppies available.

And its affected by more than just cost of living in their area. They have to invest in multiple dogs, it costs a lot to raise, work, test, evaluate. And the dogs they invest in, many never even get bred. Those that do, are bred minimally. I know breeders that will only breed a bitch 2 - 3 times before retiring her. Some breeds require yearly, repeated health tests for some conditions. Stud fees, Traveling to the right stud dog, transporting the right stud to the right bitch, collecting, storing, shipping semen and AI (all of which helps genetic diversity, especially in breeds with small populations or that are rare in a country)... It all costs money. And the costs don't end with the breeding: Pre-natal and post-natal care, emergency expenses, ect. The breeding may no take, the litter may be small, it may be a singleton, the litter may not thrive... And even if its a good sized litter and all are healthy... It still takes additional time and expenses to raise a litter.

Do some breeders price outrageously? Absolutely. There are some Doberman Puppy millers & BYB who do jack all with their dogs that charge $4,000+ per pup *and have no problem selling*.

But when you know what actually goes into a well bred litter, whether you share their opinion and values or not, the prices most responsible breeders charge are reasonable.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Gumiho said:


> that depends entirely on supply and demand.
> 
> In the case of well bred dogs, supply is generally low and demand is generally high.
> 
> ...


I think you're misreading my posts, if you think this is what I'm saying. Demand needs to be met for puppies on multiple levels in order to keep buyers away from bybs. 

It's not even levels, because levels or tiers introduce the idea of heirarchy or superiority and inferiority.

Demand needs to be met across multiple platforms of buyers while breeders maintain ethical practices. There need to be show breeders who breed puppies for people who find buying a puppy from championship dogs important (whether because they want to show or because that's what they want in a pet). There need to be ethical breeders who breed healthy, temperamentally sound puppies for people who want pets without a drastic waiting period. 

Without the ethical breeders who breed pets and can meet the demand that the show breeders can't, people will always be turning to bybs. 



Gumiho said:


> Er... Yeah, I'd run for the hills. That is crazy.


It's actually not *that* crazy because of the breed. Dane bitches should really be bred between the ages of 3-5 (some people breed at 2, I would not buy from someone who did). So twice at most, if at 3 and 5, or once if bred at 4. So championship bitches at most produce 16-20 pups in their lifetime (based on average litter size) of which perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 will be show prospects.

They can experience multiple complications and their vet bills are higher. Show breeders don't let puppies go until 10 weeks old, normally, meaning they have 5 weeks after the puppies are weaned where they are feeding a massive amount of kibble. 

All of those things lead to a much higher price. Colored Danes are even more pricey. If you think about the odds of a bitch producing harlequin puppies from a non harle x harle cross, generally 1/3 puppies will be harles. Meaning a championship bitch will produce (on average) 6 harle puppies in her lifetime with no guarantees any of them are preferably marked (white necks, no grey). This is why properly marked harles from CH parents are astronomically pricey by most standards.

On top of that, I'm not a show home, so I don't get priority when purchasing from show breeders. I will get choice of the puppies left after the showing buyers have their picks. Since I want a black Dane with no white, which is a show-marked puppy, odds are that there will not be a puppy available that meets my requirements by the time I am able to choose one.

ETA: A lot of other giant breeds are the same way. Long waiting lists for "show proven" lines. The color standard adds an extra layer of complexity to Danes. 

I'm pretty sure getting any puppy from champion parents in less than a year's time is very unlikely for many/most breeds.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I really dont think you get it, so I will break all your supposed issues with why breeders do what they do:



Willowy said:


> I don't put any value in someone proving their dogs via show or work. I might like to see therapy work or a CGC, but if I've met the parent dogs and am happy with them, that's enough for me. If it's not meaningful for me I don't want to pay extra for it. I do appreciate the breeder putting a great deal of though into ensuring, to the extent possible with living creatures, that they're breeding healthy and stable animals, and caring properly for the individuals they have, beyond that I don't give a flip about "the breed" or their grand visions for the future. I'm not sure that's even in the best interest of the individuals or future generations. As stated before, only breeding "the best of the best" is a good way for a breed to go extinct.


You contradict yourself, first you "appreciate" all the breeder's hard work, than you turn around and say "beyond caring for the dogs they have, you dont give a flip" about their visions for the future. Excuse me but that is not appreciating their work, then because part of bettering a breed IS looking to the future.



> I'm not even sure if I'd be comfortable supporting a show breeder---show standards have caused problems more often than not---but I think that would depend on the individual. If they're trying to decrease problems for a problem-prone breed, super, but if they're breeding structurally unhealthy dogs for the sake of show standards, nope.


That hugely depends on the breed, for some breeds, ideally, I would like to see show AND working titles, but conformation titles are always good, because dogs with genetic defects (in some breeds) usually dont get put up.



> As for prices, if someone is charging $600 per puppy (in a large breed with large litters), that really ought to cover expenses. If it actually costs them more than $6000 to raise a litter, I definitely don't want to live in such a high-expense area! I wouldn't expect prices as low as $50-$100---that's what I would pay for an oops puppy if the owners got them vaccinated and de-wormed. But when we're talking about thousands of dollars, I don't think that's a realistic expectation for most dog owners. Well, in the Midwest anyway. I suppose cost-of-living is higher on the coasts.


I am not rich, and I am likely going to spend thousands of dollars for my nextdog. Shoot, even a rescue or shelter or "cheap" breeder dog can cost, I know someone who had to spend $3000 on hip surgery on a rescue dog because their hips were so bad.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

My brother is researching and contemplating Golden Retrievers. To get a puppy from the typical fully health tested show breeder is average $1800+. He is a pet only home and doesn't want to pay that. I personally think it is ridiculous for such a popular breed. I can get an Aussie for half the price with all the health testing. 

The kicker is that those $1800-$2500 dogs are not any more likely to live a long life without cancer (or even other health issues).. because no matter where you get your Golden from there is always that risk pretty much the same. So for my brother.. a breeder that does a couple of health tests (mainly hips), doesn't show or shows minimally is perfectly reasonable for him. I can't even argue with him that he definitely should go to a super expensive breeder who shows for all the typical reasons. One of the main arguments is that you are getting a healthier dog so the upfront fee will pay for itself with less vet bills.. well.. not in every breed..


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> As for prices, if someone is charging $600 per puppy (in a large breed with large litters), that really ought to cover expenses. If it actually costs them more than $6000 to raise a litter, I definitely don't want to live in such a high-expense area! I wouldn't expect prices as low as $50-$100---that's what I would pay for an oops puppy if the owners got them vaccinated and de-wormed. But when we're talking about thousands of dollars, I don't think that's a realistic expectation for most dog owners. Well, in the Midwest anyway. I suppose cost-of-living is higher on the coasts.



If the breeder is doing things correctly.... $6000 might not cover it...

The costs begin LONG before the breeding takes place..... 

One could EASILY have at least $4000 in health testing alone....

Then add in food, shots, wormer, health certificates ( I do not know if it is this way in every state. But in Florida a dogs cannot be legally sold without a health certificate signed by a vet. And ALL dogs have to have a health cert before you ship them by airline. ) assorted expenses, etc. $6000 might not cover it. 
Then as a breeder you are tied to that owner and puppy for life. Expected to support and advise..... 


In any case.... It is not so much about covering costs... Why should a breeder sell their puppies for cheap? There is zero good reason to do so. 



Speaking on the health testing thing.... As more and more health tests come out... And new ones come out all the time.... More and more people are becoming test blind.... Everything in their breeding decision is based on what is on those test result papers.... Some breeders are starting to forget to look at the dogs... Tests are a tool to help you make good breeding decisions. Not the sole criteria in which a decision should be made....


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

The bottom line is, IMO, the definition of responsible breeder is too narrow - everyone's definition varies some, but there is a commonly accepted one and I have a problem with that - and I think that there are a lot of breeders out there who care about their dogs, who are producing health, sound, dogs that are good pets that are getting swept into 'BYB' territory and people steered away from them. 

It is not uncommon for someone to say 'I don't want a show dog, so what should I go to a show breeder, pay for that and wait a year?' and for the answer to be about health testing and visions of the future. 

I don't think it's wrong that someone who just wants a pet to go to a 'show' (conformation) breeder, but I ALSO think there is nothing wrong with someone who is breeding for good physically and mentally sound PETS, and I think maybe we'd all benefit if we stopped making that as, Sass would call it, a dirty sin. 

Don't pay to rescue puppies from crappy conditions. Don't pay to support puppy mills. Don't pay breeders who keep parents or puppies in crappy conditions. Don't pay for people who are dumping their dogs or pups in shelters.

DO pay for what is important to you for whatever reason. 

And if that's a sound pet and you want to go to a breeder who loves their dogs, cares about their dogs, and is producing what you want and can show you that? Good for you.

And if you want to go to a breeder who shows, works, does all the health testing, has extensive contracts and guarantees and they're producing what you want? Also good for you. 

\


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

CptJack said:


> The bottom line is, IMO, the definition of responsible breeder is too narrow - everyone's definition varies some, but there is a commonly accepted one and I have a problem with that - and I think that there are a lot of breeders out there who care about their dogs, who are producing health, sound, dogs that are good pets that are getting swept into 'BYB' territory and people steered away from them.
> 
> It is not uncommon for someone to say 'I don't want a show dog, so what should I go to a show breeder, pay for that and wait a year?' and for the answer to be about health testing and visions of the future.
> 
> ...


Yes, this is how I feel.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> My brother is researching and contemplating Golden Retrievers. To get a puppy from the typical fully health tested show breeder is average $1800+. He is a pet only home and doesn't want to pay that. I personally think it is ridiculous for such a popular breed. I can get an Aussie for half the price with all the health testing.
> 
> The kicker is that those $1800-$2500 dogs are not any more likely to live a long life without cancer (or even other health issues).. because no matter where you get your Golden from there is always that risk pretty much the same. So for my brother.. a breeder that does a couple of health tests (mainly hips), doesn't show or shows minimally is perfectly reasonable for him. I can't even argue with him that he definitely should go to a super expensive breeder who shows for all the typical reasons. One of the main arguments is that you are getting a healthier dog so the upfront fee will pay for itself with less vet bills.. well.. not in every breed..


What part of the country is your brother in?


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> What part of the country is your brother in?


Ohio. The best place ever.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> If the breeder is doing things correctly.... $6000 might not cover it...
> 
> The costs begin LONG before the breeding takes place.....
> 
> ...


Very well said!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> Ohio. The best place ever.


Opinions on that vary...  


My arms do not reach that far in that breed. I know a couple of breeders down here... 

I helped friends of my wife and then a friend of mine find golden puppies.... If memory serves me, wife's friends paid a grand... Nice Pup.... My friend paid more but was looking for more.... He ended up buying two as well. I know he paid $1600 for the young pup... Then the breeder had one they were holding back to see how it turned out. It was not going to be what they had hoped. I think it was about 8 months old. He ended up buying that one as well.

But you often find that the going price on a breed is pretty close all over the place....


In late 2012 when I was looking for a Labrador Pup for my wife, I talked to a BUNCH of breeders all over the place... I was not opposed to putting on on an airplane or flying there myself and bringing it home.... $1500 give or take was the going price.....


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I keep trying to like posts. 

I think y'all are misunderstanding Willowy here. There's nothing wrong with not giving a hoot about conformation showing in a breeder. To me it wouldn't factor into things. I just plain... don't really care about it. I'd go to breeders that show if they have what I like. But breeders that don't show could also have what I like too.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

When it comes to goldens, I would rather pay more for a solid, health tested golden from solid lines, given the health issues in the breed.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> In any case.... It is not so much about covering costs... Why should a breeder sell their puppies for cheap? There is zero good reason to do so.


Breeders can charge what they want but frankly I am not going to pay the prices I see in some breeds and from some breeders. There's just other dogs I like just as much that are a lot cheaper.



OwnedbyACDs said:


> When it comes to goldens, I would rather pay more for a solid, health tested golden from solid lines, given the health issues in the breed.


You can't health test for cancer.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> When it comes to goldens, I would rather pay more for a solid, health tested golden from solid lines, given the health issues in the breed.


I know too many people that know the breed around here that tell me you're screwed no matter what. There are some good lines out there somewhere I'm sure.. but here they are highly inbred, full of allergies, cancer, etc. Those ARE the ones from reputable breeders who do it all. In my experience at least.. allergies and cancer are no different from your (decent) backyard breeder to your reputable breeder in this breed. So why pay more if that is the case?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Health testing is great and all but there's soooo many health issues you can't test for. I can get eyes and knees and now NAD in paps (NAD is brand new and was a test we desperately needed). But I'm still concerned about epilepsy and collapsed trachea. And knees aren't always foolproof either. 

But it's kind of a moot point. You can health test and not show.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> I know too many people that know the breed around here that tell me you're screwed no matter what. There are some good lines out there somewhere I'm sure.. but here they are highly inbred, full of allergies, cancer, etc. Those ARE the ones from reputable breeders who do it all. In my experience at least.. allergies and cancer are no different from your (decent) backyard breeder to your reputable breeder in this breed. So why pay more if that is the case?


I know, some of the breeds are so messed up that buyers are screwed no matter what they do, and that is sad 



Laurelin said:


> Health testing is great and all but there's soooo many health issues you can't test for. I can get eyes and knees and now NAD in paps (NAD is brand new and was a test we desperately needed). But I'm still concerned about epilepsy and collapsed trachea. And knees aren't always foolproof either.
> 
> But it's kind of a moot point. You can health test and not show.


Sure there is no way to prevent and test for everything, but its nice to see a breeder who consciously gives it the ole "college try".


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> Health testing is great and all but there's soooo many health issues you can't test for. I can get eyes and knees and now NAD in paps (NAD is brand new and was a test we desperately needed). But I'm still concerned about epilepsy and collapsed trachea. And knees aren't always foolproof either.
> 
> But it's kind of a moot point. You can health test and not show.


Yep and. Rat Terriers (for example) have almost no incidence of elbow/hip/eye/cardiac issues - little bit of knee, but still danged unusual and really rare. Your risk of getting those problems even in a dog from lines without health testing is slim. Epilepsy crops up some, but that's not something you can test for - it's something you want to know about in the lines or not, maybe, but sometimes it just happens. The only real common issue is skin/hair related and random. 

So the testing that's done doesn't... really apply to the breed in any real way. Doing the testing achieves very, very little.

Yet it's still the hallmark of a 'responsible' breeder across all breeds. Breeders do it because they're expected to, buyers who are looking for a 'responsible' breeder use it to weed people out, but in at least this particular breed it is of very, very little benefit.

ETA: I was wrong. Knee issues are even more rare than hips. So, you know. It's mostly skin related stuff for which there is no genetic testing available.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Yep and. Rat Terriers (for example) have almost no incidence of elbow/knee/hip/eye/cardiac issues. Your risk of getting those problems even in a dog from lines without health testing is slim. Epilepsy crops up some, but that's not something you can test for - it's something you want to know about in the lines or not, maybe, but sometimes it just happens. The only real common issue is skin/hair related and random.
> 
> So the testing that's done doesn't... really apply to the breed in any real way. Doing the testing achieves very, very little.
> 
> Yet it's still the hallmark of a 'responsible' breeder across all breeds. Breeders do it because they're expected to, buyers who are looking for a 'responsible' breeder use it to weed people out, but in at least this particular breed it is of very, very little benefit.


Because health testing is better than not health testing, even though it doesnt "get" or prevent everything.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

It's a grey area. There are certain breeds that are very prone to issues and are also typically heavily health tested and there are other breeds where health testing is rarely done if ever and the breeds have very low rates of health problems.

I like health testing. But health testing doesn't mean a dog/line is healthy or not.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Because health testing is better than not health testing, even though it doesnt "get" or prevent everything.


Yes. Health testing as a rule is good, but when you're health testing for things that only occur in the breed at rates *LOWER* than the very, very best lines of most other breeds, what precisely have you accomplished by doing it?

When something is a problem in a breed, by ALL means health test, but health testing a Rat Terrier for HD is like testing YOU for heartworm. It MIGHT theoretically someday be there, but in the absence of symptoms or reason to suspect something is awry, it's a waste of time and money. And come to that, you might be more likely to find Heartworm in a healthy human being than hd in a rat terrier.


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

I wish we had a "Like" on this forum. I hate having to Quote posts just so I can say I like them. I like what CptJack and Laurelin's post have said. I got Kris from what many people would consider a backyard breeder but I bought her without papers even though she is a purebred as you do not need papers to compete in Sports and I was getting her spayed. She was the last of the litter and they had to move into a trailer so could not keep her. I paid $350.00 for her. Heart problems are bad in Dobermans but the more I read, the more it seems to me that even the ones from breeders who test, still some end up dropping dead. I am not in a position to pay the prices they are asking for Dobermans but can certainly give one a good home and the proper Vet care.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

CptJack said:


> The bottom line is, IMO, the definition of responsible breeder is too narrow - everyone's definition varies some, but there is a commonly accepted one and I have a problem with that - and I think that there are a lot of breeders out there who care about their dogs, who are producing health, sound, dogs that are good pets that are getting swept into 'BYB' territory and people steered away from them.


Me, too. And honestly, conformation showing/titles isn't something I care about at all. It doesn't even make it onto the list of things I'd be looking for. 



Laurelin said:


> Health testing is great and all but there's soooo many health issues you can't test for.


Right. And people can make questionable breeding decisions with the health results they get, anyway. 

Something like a golden, the #1 thing I would look for is longevity and incidence of lymphoma. Above hips, elbows. How many of the puppies you have produced died of lymphoma? At what age? I've seen too many really young goldens dying for me to ever be able to touch the breed anyway but conformation showing would mean diddly squat next to health concerns you CAN'T test for.


----------



## CrystalGSD (Jun 27, 2014)

CptJack said:


> The bottom line is, IMO, the definition of responsible breeder is too narrow - everyone's definition varies some, but there is a commonly accepted one and I have a problem with that - and I think that there are a lot of breeders out there who care about their dogs, who are producing health, sound, dogs that are good pets that are getting swept into 'BYB' territory and people steered away from them.
> 
> It is not uncommon for someone to say 'I don't want a show dog, so what should I go to a show breeder, pay for that and wait a year?' and for the answer to be about health testing and visions of the future.
> 
> ...


I basically agree with this.

All I want is a mentally sound, moderately healthy dog with a nice temperament. Unless I want the dog for something specific, I could easily find a dog that meets my criteria from what others would call a 'BYB' on craigslist; many people would probably look down on that, but if the dogs are in good conditions and they are obviously cared for by the owners, then I honestly could not care less.

Honestly, just as long as the dogs are cared for and the owner cares about them and their wellbeing, do as you please.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

I also have a hard time with dogs who are just well cared for being the only criteria. 

I like to see breeders actually caring where the puppies going to.. like at the very least asking some questions. I went to a BC breeder where they didn't ask a single one, so I walked. Seriously bad idea to sell a BC to anyone. I want to see more breeders whether health testing, not health testing, showing, or doing nothing but breeding good pets.. taking some responsibility by screening buyers a bit and requiring dogs be returned to them. Or at least, ya know, asking questions and not selling the puppy if the person seems like a bad fit.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

I'm reviving this thread based on a conversation that is going on with a specific breed page on FB. Full disclosure, I skimmed a lot of this thread so I'm sure there is some repetitive stuff about to be here but anyway. So the question was posed to the breeders on the page to define a Puppymill. There is one breeder in particular that always seems to have a litter on the ground, and so it sparked a huge debate about the difference between a "commercial breeder" and a "puppy mill". From what I've skimmed on this thread, the terms are used interchangeably. But are they the same thing? 

To paraphrase, the general consensus in the comment thread was that a puppymill just cranks out puppies with financial gains being the only motivator. A commercial breeder is one who has a lot of dogs, but breeds to advance the breed, health tests, DNA tests, shows/works their dogs, keeps one back from each litter, sells only under contract, keeps them in a clean environment, socializes them, etc. Where the primary motivator for a CB would be to improve the breed. (there was a whole separate comment thread about the role of culling in breeding)

What are your thoughts on this? Is it possible to be a commercial breeder and to NOT be a puppy mill? ARE there reputable commercial breeders out there? Is a puppy mill labeled as such solely based on number of dogs/puppies?


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

It's possible to have a large scale breeder who really does do all of the health testing, works dogs, has fantastic temperaments, etc. I know of hunting breeders who work this way. 

Back in the old days, the people who really made a difference in breeds futures were rich people with large farms, tons of staff, and tons of dogs. You can't really make a big dent in a breed without going through a lot of dogs. Breeding one litter every couple years is great, but it's not going to set the direction of the breed long term. So I do sort of appreciate people who have the money and time and want to run a large operation and really influence the breed. But I am also wary of getting a dog from them because once you have that many dogs living in kennels, it's easy to overlook behavior issues, or not put as much work into the dogs as you originally intended, etc etc. It's much easier to do harm instead of good when you're breeding on that scale. I'm much more comfortable buying from that person who has one litter every two years. 

For me personally, puppy mill breeders do not health test or work their dogs. The dogs may live in fantastic conditions and get basic care, but they are essentially livestock kept to make money without a long term interest in the future of the breed.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I wouldn't think a commercial breeder would health test or show/work their dogs, or breed to "advance the breed", whatever that means. Isn't the point of "commercial" breeding to produce puppies for sale?


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

So what would you call a breeder then who has a lot of dogs, but actually DOES all of those things?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't know. . .are there actually breeders like that? I've heard of people who got entirely unsocialized "kennel dogs" from show breeders, so I'm sure there are large-scale show/work breeders. But those who actually socialize all their dogs? I don't know what I'd call them, maybe large-scale breeders or something. Commercial would mean their main purpose is commerce, yes?


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I don't know. . .are there actually breeders like that? I've heard of people who got entirely unsocialized "kennel dogs" from show breeders, so I'm sure there are large-scale show/work breeders. But those who actually socialize all their dogs? I don't know what I'd call them, maybe large-scale breeders or something. Commercial would mean their main purpose is commerce, yes?


There are people who have kennels and get field trial championships or IPO titles on their dogs. So the dogs are worked.

Are they socialized to the point where they can live in a house or mingle in a crowded downtown area? No idea, and I would guess probably not. Which is the main reason I wouldn't be interested in buying from them. 

I think someone is a commercial breeder if the dogs are their primary source of income. People who breed a couple litters might make a profit off of them, and I don't have a problem with that, but they're not going to quit their day jobs over a couple extra $1k per year. But a commercial breeder is breeding to sell dogs. They might also be breeding for their own show/working/hunting purposes, but they support their enterprise by selling and training dogs for other people. If they're taking care of the dogs and working them I really don't have a problem with it in theory. There are people who want dogs for working purposes and don't care if the dog is a good house dog.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

Maybe if I quoted some of the comments it would help to clarify the opinions that I'm seeking.



> IMO, people are quick to judge a legitimate breeder as a mill strictly from a numbers standpoint. Most of those who are attempting to label, con't understand the reasoning behind most breedings from the start. As a breeder, your breedings should be based around the preservation of quality through a standard and/or particular line. 90% of breeders are retaining the gem (pick of the litter) from the pairings. very rarely is every dog a foundation dog. AT best 1-3 top prospects will become someone's foundation. Others are culled or sold as pets. When an outsider (non-breeder) sees this, their first reaction is to place a label on it as milling. Again, without a full understanding of what it is that breeders are setting out to achieve. I wouldn't sweat it. They say you're only as good as your last litter. If it's still producing the goods, there is nothing for anyone to say. JMO.


and



> Just because you have ONE litter a year doesn't mean it's QUALITY! I think it's too easy for a pet owner to call any breeder having more than one litter a year a puppy mill. They don't really see behind the scenes or know that it's actually healthier to breed back to back because they have been brainwashed by uneducated public opinions. I believe there is a huge difference between commercial breeder and mill. A puppy mill is a kennel that keeps their dogs in deplorable conditions. If you are bettering the breed and able to place every pup with a loving family then you are good. I personally keep something, whether it be a co-own or get pups back from every litter I have produced.


Now the breeder in the second quote says she breeds back to back, then breaks. She does this twice, then retires the bitch. She claims it's healthier than breeding every other season for 6/7 years.

Anyway it's an interesting discussion and obviously the people I've quoted are breeders that are defending their choice to breed a lot of dogs. I know just from watching their pages that they actually do DNA test, offer health guarantees, work/show their dogs, etc. So in these cases you have breeders that have a large quantity of dogs and many litters per year, but they do not of course consider themselves mills.

Just curious on everyone's take on whether this is simply justification, or whether it's possible to be a responsible breeder with large quantities of pups.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

There is evidence that breeding back to back is healthier, assuming the bitch has recovered well from her previous litter. I have more of an issue with total litters and the bitch's age at her first litter than how quickly they are bred.

I think on some level we need people who are breeding a lot of dogs and really getting to see the results of their breedings and react to that. If you rarely breed, you're not going to get as much information and you're not going to be able to make better decisions the next time based on your limited information. But I also don't like the blanket "protect all of the breeders!" people who don't think you can say anything bad against another breeder ever.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

If someone is killing healthy puppies (you said there was a side discussion on that so probably someone else made it an issue like I did, lol), I find them disgusting and deplorable and I would never support them. I'll call them all sorts of insulting names including puppymill. I don't agree that the quality of their "product" determines their ethicality. Their actions determine their ethicality.

LOL on the "uneducated public opinion". I hear that a lot from farmers. They don't like anyone having any negative opinion of anything they do, ever, because they're sooper speshul. Anyone who isn't sooper speshul like them can't have an opinion. Oh, unless your opinion is that everything they do is awesome. Then you can tell everybody else about that opinion.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

Yeah I can't get behind the idea of culling no matter what. If the puppy isn't fit for a breeding program, sell it as pet quality like every other breeder. And I like that they call it "culling" vs. "killing". I mean let's call a spade a spade.

The second person I quoted said they've never culled - all her puppies are placed, whether for pet or show or work. The breeder that sparked the debate (not one of the quoted breeders) in the first place culls his litters regularly. I'm not OK with that, and is one of the main reasons why I didn't go with that breeder when I was doing my initial research and looking for a puppy. There should never ever ever be a reason for that in my mind, except perhaps in the most extreme cases of deformation/health where there is no chance the puppy can live. The sad thing is that the #1 breeder in my breed actually produces some great dogs, and the vast majority of dogs out there today are down from his lines...but I can't agree with his ethics based on what I've read.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

They deliberately use weasel words like that, because "cull" doesn't always mean kill (selling a pup on a pet contract could be called "culling"), so they can hide behind the uncertainty of what they're actually doing. You know someone knows what they're doing is wrong when they use euphemisms.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> They deliberately use weasel words like that, because "cull" doesn't always mean kill (selling a pup on a pet contract could be called "culling"), so they can hide behind the uncertainty of what they're actually doing. You know someone knows what they're doing is wrong when they use euphemisms.


Here is the dictionary's definition of the word "cull":

cull (kŭl)
tr.v. culled, cull·ing, culls
1. To pick out from others; select.
2. To gather; collect.
3. To remove rejected members or parts from (a herd, for example).
n.
Something picked out from others, especially something rejected because of inferior quality.

I think you have heard it used incorrectly, as have I. many people think it means to "kill" and it CAN, but not always.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Um. . .that's exactly what I meant. They use "cull" when they mean "kill", and rely on other people's uncertainty of what they mean to deflect criticism. 

It's pretty clear that someone means "kill" when they say "others are culled or sold as pets", but when it's not in context like that someone might not be sure what they mean and might not be as critical as if they said what they mean clearly. Because, yeah, if they think what they're doing is right, they'd talk about it in clear and unambiguous language.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

In the quote above, he said "cull or place with pet homes" which... tells me that cull means kill in this case. But who knows I guess. It is an extremely valid point that we shouldn't assume "kill" when we hear breeders use that term since regardless, the purpose is to remove that dog from any breeding program.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I have heard "cull" used a lot "He isnt panning out so I will have to cull him from the breeding program", I am not saying that it CANT mean kill, I was just saying that it doesnt ALWAYS mean kill.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I am not saying that it CANT mean kill, I was just saying that it doesnt ALWAYS mean kill.


I don't think you understand my point. I'm saying that's exactly WHY the people who do kill use that word, to profit from its ambiguity. So someone will think "well maybe he doesn't mean kill so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt" instead of immediately going "eww he kills puppies ugh what a horrible person". It's fully deliberate.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I don't think you understand my point. I'm saying that's exactly WHY the people who do kill use that word, to profit from its ambiguity. So someone will think "well maybe he doesn't mean kill so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt" instead of immediately going "eww he kills puppies ugh what a horrible person". It's fully deliberate.


Again ... just because it can doesnt mean it always does, sure people use it in that context (although, it would technically be incorrect, as far as the dictionary is concerned). Just because people in your area is it in this way doesnt mean everyone who uses this word means it like that.

just saying, but I am a "benefit of the doubt" kind of person, though.


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

When I was a teenager I worked at a kennel that bred Rhodesian Ridgebacks. I am talking about back in the 50's. When they had a litter of Ridgebacks, they culled all the pups who were born without a "perfect" Ridge. By cull, I mean put them down. It was really hard seeing these healthy puppies being culled just because their Ridge was a little off. As Ridgebacks had very large litters anywhere from 12 to 14 pups it still left them with usually 8 to 10 pups and I guess they figured that was still alright. Nowadays I know the breeders would probably just sell them for a lesser price, or I would hope so.


----------



## sydneynicole (Apr 2, 2015)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Again ... just because it can doesnt mean it always does, sure people use it in that context (although, it would technically be incorrect, as far as the dictionary is concerned). Just because people in your area is it in this way doesnt mean everyone who uses this word means it like that.
> 
> just saying, but I am a "benefit of the doubt" kind of person, though.


Willowy literally said exactly what you are arguing in the post that sparked your debate with her lol. "because "cull" doesn't always mean kill". I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with her about tbh. She never even said anything about people in her area using it as a synonym for kill? Maybe you need to reread the post you responded to originally. Her point is only that it sounds better to say cull than kill if you regularly kill 'imperfect' animals, when you're talking about puppies. To say outright that you 'kill puppies' would be off putting for most potential buyers - so they say cull instead because it could mean a couple different things.

Anyways, I don't see why putting down otherwise healthy pups is even a thing anymore. Put them on a spay/neuter contract - or, if you're really worried about it, have them speutered before they leave the grounds (even though I'm normally against pediatric speuters). Just doesn't make sense to me, and no amount of debate could make me see the sense in killing a puppy that could have otherwise lived a long and full life.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

TGKvr said:


> What are your thoughts on this? Is it possible to be a commercial breeder and to NOT be a puppy mill? ARE there reputable commercial breeders out there? Is a puppy mill labeled as such solely based on number of dogs/puppies?


I think it's an interesting question and I've given it some thought in the past as well. 

Several years ago when I lived on my own, I had a conversation with my landlord. He was a really friendly old man and he loved jazz and dogs. It so happened he used to breed Saint Bernards, he bred them most of his adult life. He lived on a farm with all the stables rebuilt into kennels and with lots of outdoor space for his dogs. He had a lot of dogs, all of them purebred Saints, with FCI pedigrees. I've seen pictures and the dogs had lots of space. He loved his dogs, took good care of them, he showed them too and had top winning dogs at the time. He was very proud of his dogs. 

But apparently his dogs were also the main source of his income. He always had litters either already on the ground or on their way. 

Sooo... When I discovered that last bit of information I didn't know what to think anymore. Was this guy a puppy miller? I don't know. I don't really want to think of him that way, because in my eyes a puppy miller doesn't care about the dogs, thinks they're replacable and only uses them for profit. 
I guess I would consider him a commercial breeder, because he absolutely made money off his dogs, enough to make a living out of it. But he also loved his dogs, was proud of his dogs, showed them off in the breed ring, and took care of them well. 

So yes, I think a commercial breeder and a puppy mill do not have to be the same thing.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Also general question, I have heard that breeders an europe and other countries dont usually health test, is this true? and if it is would you (general) consider international breeders' stock to be less reputable since they might not be health tested or genetically tested?


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

Avie said:


> I think it's an interesting question and I've given it some thought in the past as well.
> 
> Several years ago when I lived on my own, I had a conversation with my landlord. He was a really friendly old man and he loved jazz and dogs. It so happened he used to breed Saint Bernards, he bred them most of his adult life. He lived on a farm with all the stables rebuilt into kennels and with lots of outdoor space for his dogs. He had a lot of dogs, all of them purebred Saints, with FCI pedigrees. I've seen pictures and the dogs had lots of space. He loved his dogs, took good care of them, he showed them too and had top winning dogs at the time. He was very proud of his dogs.
> 
> ...


Yeah I think this is where I end up with it as well. I do think it's absolutely possible. Is it common? Probably not. But certainly possible. The care of the dogs and the ethics of breeding practice, to me, mean more than anything else including just straight numbers.

@ACD - In my breed group, all of the international breeders I'm aware of do health testing & DNA testing, etc. I would apply the same standard to any breeder regardless of location. If I'm going to buy a pure breed puppy, I'm going to ensure they health test and all that no matter what. So I would venture to say that you can't necessarily assume the dogs themselves are of lesser quality than those from a breeder who health tests, but it sure makes it easier to make a decision and it offers peace of mind if you know they do it. As to whether they're "reputable" or not though is a matter of subjective discussion. **ETA: just health testing alone does not grand "reputable" status to ANY breeder, IMO.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Also general question, I have heard that breeders an europe and other countries dont usually health test, is this true? and if it is would you (general) consider international breeders' stock to be less reputable since they might not be health tested or genetically tested?


I think it depends on the country and their kennel club's policies. Here in the Netherlands, almost all breeders health test because it is mandated by the Dutch kennel club and the breed clubs. The health tests that need to be done differ depending on breed. But I can imagine that health testing is not so common in eastern European countries or southern European countries. 

I wouldn't necessarily consider a breeder less reputable if they didn't health test, keeping in mind that health testing isn't readily available everywhere in the world. But I would consider a breeder less reputable if they didn't keep health in mind at all. For instance, breeding dogs with epilepsy, deafness, or eye issues, or continuing to breed dogs that have produced offspring with health issues.


----------



## Pasarella (May 30, 2013)

Health tests are also mandated in Latvia in our kennel club, we have another organization who claim to work with purebreds, but this one is the only one ho mandate to health check. Depends on the breeds, I guess they have done some research before demanding that this breed needs this tests and this one these.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

Maybe I missed something. Long thread. But haven't we missed a category: 'Reputable' breeders who don't deserve their reputation. The fancy includes a group that put ribbons above almost everything else, and will breed for extreme and unhealthy type, use only popular sires, largely ignore issues of inbreeding, and gloss over temperament problems. I'd sooner go to a family-type BYB than someone who 'proves' their dogs and makes light of everything but conformation. Of course, health testing is good, but given all the things you can't test for, I'd also look for a breeder who knows their lines well, back a few generations, and can tell you how long dogs lived and what health problems they had.


----------



## Prozax (Aug 26, 2014)

Avie said:


> IBut I can imagine that health testing is not so common in eastern European countries or southern European countries.


And why is that? Just curious.


----------



## MastiffGuy (Mar 23, 2015)

sandgrubber said:


> Maybe I missed something. Long thread. But haven't we missed a category: 'Reputable' breeders who don't deserve their reputation. The fancy includes a group that put ribbons above almost everything else, and will breed for extreme and unhealthy type, use only popular sires, largely ignore issues of inbreeding, and gloss over temperament problems. I'd sooner go to a family-type BYB than someone who 'proves' their dogs and makes light of everything but conformation. Of course, health testing is good, but given all the things you can't test for, I'd also look for a breeder who knows their lines well, back a few generations, and can tell you how long dogs lived and what health problems they had.


There is actually very little you can not test for, in the last 25 yrs there have been huge advances in many of the tests and what can and can not be tested for. (US and Canada).
I can not speak as to some of the Euro countries and yes middle eastern tests are very limited as to what is available.

Also there has been a huge push away from breeding for the extreme in the last 15 years. 
Many breeds are actually bred back to a more traditional look.

Not real sure why every posts you make about purebreds always has a comment about extreme breeding for certain qualities, and against testing it seems.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Prozax said:


> And why is that? Just curious.


Those countries don't exactly have a shining reputation. Almost all our puppy mill dogs are imported from countries like your own, often with forged papers, false vaccination records and false health tests (if there are records of health tests at all). I'm sure there is a legit dog fancy that does health test and does everything right and properly and with a lot of care. But I feel they are probably few and far in between. 

Of course I have no personal experience with Romania, but I do with Bulgaria. I hope Romania is faring better than Bulgaria, because that country is rotten and filled with corruption. I don't mean that in a spiteful way, I have family living there. It's just an observation. But as someone from northwestern Europe, there is a strong feeling that the people living in eastern Europe do not really care about rules and regulations the way we do here.


----------



## Prozax (Aug 26, 2014)

Avie said:


> Those countries don't exactly have a shining reputation. Almost all our puppy mill dogs are imported from countries like your own, often with forged papers, false vaccination records and false health tests (if there are records of health tests at all). I'm sure there is a legit dog fancy that does health test and does everything right and properly and with a lot of care. But I feel they are probably few and far in between.
> 
> Of course I have no personal experience with Romania, but I do with Bulgaria. I hope Romania is faring better than Bulgaria, because that country is rotten and filled with corruption. I don't mean that in a spiteful way, I have family living there. It's just an observation. But as someone from northwestern Europe, there is a strong feeling that the people living in eastern Europe do not really care about rules and regulations the way we do here.


I just thought you were talking about legit breeders and I was surprised to hear your opinion. The technology and hardware is not here, but breeders send most of their samples in the west to be tested  The Romanian kennel club has introduced compulsory hip testing for most of the molosser breeds and that's actually being enforced. But for the other breeds, responsible breeders do test for the specific affections and do their best to promote their breed. There's actually a lot of people from Western Europe and USA who buy pedigreed dogs from Romania, so they must be doing something good.

It may be surprising, but there aren't puppy mills in Romania. I really don't know why, maybe the legislation does not allow it, but that's just the way it is. Puppies with fake papers are imported here as well and weirdly enough from the west of the country  Most of the dogs with no pedigree have hungarian or ucrainean passports. Most of them with false vaccines and deworming unfortunately. Just forgot to add, that there's plenty of bybs though.

Im not sure of Bulgaria's situation but Romania is really struggling with corruption. Good efforts have been made in the past few years but there's still a long road ahead. All of the countries from the former communist block still bear wounds and scars from that period. But there's really committed and passionate people here, I wouldn't just dismiss these countries from this point of view.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

MastiffGuy said:


> There is actually very little you can not test for, in the last 25 yrs there have been huge advances in many of the tests and what can and can not be tested for. (US and Canada).
> I can not speak as to some of the Euro countries and yes middle eastern tests are very limited as to what is available.
> 
> Not real sure why every posts you make about purebreds always has a comment about extreme breeding for certain qualities, and against testing it seems.


There are few tests for cancer and the available tests are not very useful . . . the #1 killer for many breeds. Same for epilepsy. No tests for being bloat prone. It is possible to test for homozygosity in regions important for the health of the immune system, but these tests are hard to find and almost no one does them. The tests for hips and elbows and many other orthopedic problems are Xrays . . . not very reliable as they reflect some combination of environment and hereditary factors in a poly-genetic trait. I'm not against testing. I just don't think it's a substitute for keeping morbidity and mortality information and using it as a basis for breeding decisions. Also, some tests aren't what they seem.

As for extreme traits, maybe they aren't breeding for them so much in mastiffs, but pugs, bulldogs, Frenchies, pekes, cavvies . . . OMG. And look at the AKC stats for breed popularity. The brachy group is fast gaining popularity . . . 

As for "every post you make about purebreds" . . . you obviously don't read all my posts, or are generalizing from a few posts I have made that offended you. I do have strong opinions about breeds that originated from a very narrow genetic base, and about 'qualzucht' (torture-breeding), which I express from time to time. But then, I'm far from the only person voicing strong opinions on these forums.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Prozax said:


> I just thought you were talking about legit breeders and I was surprised to hear your opinion. The technology and hardware is not here, but breeders send most of their samples in the west to be tested  The Romanian kennel club has introduced compulsory hip testing for most of the molosser breeds and that's actually being enforced. But for the other breeds, responsible breeders do test for the specific affections and do their best to promote their breed. There's actually a lot of people from Western Europe and USA who buy pedigreed dogs from Romania, so they must be doing something good.
> 
> It may be surprising, but there aren't puppy mills in Romania. I really don't know why, maybe the legislation does not allow it, but that's just the way it is. Puppies with fake papers are imported here as well and weirdly enough from the west of the country  Most of the dogs with no pedigree have hungarian or ucrainean passports. Most of them with false vaccines and deworming unfortunately. Just forgot to add, that there's plenty of bybs though.
> 
> Im not sure of Bulgaria's situation but Romania is really struggling with corruption. Good efforts have been made in the past few years but there's still a long road ahead. All of the countries from the former communist block still bear wounds and scars from that period. But there's really committed and passionate people here, I wouldn't just dismiss these countries from this point of view.


That's really interesting to read, thank you for taking the time to explain.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Prozax said:


> I just thought you were talking about legit breeders and I was surprised to hear your opinion. The technology and hardware is not here, but breeders send most of their samples in the west to be tested  The Romanian kennel club has introduced compulsory hip testing for most of the molosser breeds and that's actually being enforced. But for the other breeds, responsible breeders do test for the specific affections and do their best to promote their breed. There's actually a lot of people from Western Europe and USA who buy pedigreed dogs from Romania, so they must be doing something good.
> 
> It may be surprising, but there aren't puppy mills in Romania. I really don't know why, maybe the legislation does not allow it, but that's just the way it is. Puppies with fake papers are imported here as well and weirdly enough from the west of the country  Most of the dogs with no pedigree have hungarian or ucrainean passports. Most of them with false vaccines and deworming unfortunately. Just forgot to add, that there's plenty of bybs though.
> 
> Im not sure of Bulgaria's situation but Romania is really struggling with corruption. Good efforts have been made in the past few years but there's still a long road ahead. All of the countries from the former communist block still bear wounds and scars from that period. But there's really committed and passionate people here, I wouldn't just dismiss these countries from this point of view.


Thank you for taking the time to explain.

I didnt mean for it to sound like I was saying that all breeders outside the US and canada were "lesser" because they may or may not health test, I was just curious about everyone's views on it. 

I do apologize of I unintentionally insulted anyone, though.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

I was having a conversation with a friend earlier about buying from a breeder vs. adoption (this person is staunchly "adopt don't shop"). I was trying to explain that breeding has a place in this world if done ethically and responsibly, and in looking for some info to send her I came across this article. Just... there are so many problems I have with this thing.

http://www.dog-adoption-and-training-guide.com/adoption-vs-breeders.html


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

TGKvr said:


> I was having a conversation with a friend earlier about buying from a breeder vs. adoption (this person is staunchly "adopt don't shop"). I was trying to explain that breeding has a place in this world if done ethically and responsibly, and in looking for some info to send her I came across this article. Just... there are so many problems I have with this thing.
> 
> http://www.dog-adoption-and-training-guide.com/adoption-vs-breeders.html


That was actually pretty good for a laugh.

Who knew that dogs from shelters are all completely potty trained, do not chew, are not rambunctious, and already trained!


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

Right?? Hahaha!!!!


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

TGKvr said:


> I was having a conversation with a friend earlier about buying from a breeder vs. adoption (this person is staunchly "adopt don't shop"). I was trying to explain that breeding has a place in this world if done ethically and responsibly, and in looking for some info to send her I came across this article. Just... there are so many problems I have with this thing.
> 
> http://www.dog-adoption-and-training-guide.com/adoption-vs-breeders.html


So many things wrong with that article but I did need a laugh!


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

InkedMarie said:


> So many things wrong with that article but I did need a laugh!


Oh lord ... I couldnt even get through the whole thing I just ... LOL.

I am so tired of people saying that shelter dogs are "healthier" ... every dog I have had die early was rescued/ shelter, all the dogs from breeders, if they died of natural causes live a long time, we still have my very first show dog I got when I was 16, he will be 16 years old this may <3


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

TGKvr said:


> I was having a conversation with a friend earlier about buying from a breeder vs. adoption (this person is staunchly "adopt don't shop"). I was trying to explain that breeding has a place in this world if done ethically and responsibly, and in looking for some info to send her I came across this article. Just... there are so many problems I have with this thing.
> 
> http://www.dog-adoption-and-training-guide.com/adoption-vs-breeders.html


I skimmed it. Not exactly accurate information.

Oddly, I was talking to someone the other day about rescue vs breeder. She is very pro-rescue (but supports responsible breeding), but spoke at length about potential issues (i.e., baggage) adopted dogs can have. Entirely different perspective.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

sandgrubber said:


> No tests for being bloat prone.


I don't have the info on hand but there is now a test for being bloat prone.


----------

