# The great backyard breeder debate!



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

I'm hoping to get an interesting discussion going. Puppy mills are one thing, but what is it about backyard breeders we hate so much?

Are they really contributing that much to overpopulation or should that be on the shoulders of the owners being responsible for dogs they buy? Isn't a clean environment, well socialized puppies and people who care about the dogs enough?

What if you don't care about health testing, it's not like we test ourselves before having babies! Besides, backyard bred dogs can be a whole lot healthier than those show bred dogs! Some of the best dogs are in rescue and many great dogs come from bybs! 

When is it okay to buy a dog from a backyard breeder? When getting a dog from a "show/working/reputable breeder" is just plain too hard is it okay? What about the average dog owner who has no idea what they are doing getting a certain breed of dog, but is going to do it no matter what? A good breeder isn't going to give them that breed in a million years, yet they will probably be fine with it. Not to mention.. there wouldn't be enough dogs from good breeders to go around. Why is my definition of a good breeder better than yours anyway?  

What if I only like the backyard bred version of a breed? (working lines too intense/drivey, show lines looks are over exaggerated and they are less healthy, random pet bred ones.. juusst right.) Am I wrong to support that? If you really want what you want (say, a Rottie), why can't I get my Dane-a-doo from a breeder too? 

These are all obviously hypothetical and not how I personally feel. These are just other thought's I've seen or know others might say. Do we villainize the "backyard" breeder a little too much? I'd only buy my dogs from a breeder I feel is reputable and try to educate others to do the same, but ethics of dog breeding can get so tricky. 

Sometimes I do worry I'm just being a closed minded doggy snob though. Anyone else feel the same?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> What if you don't care about health testing, it's not like we test ourselves before having babies!


Many people do



> Besides, backyard bred dogs can be a whole lot healthier than those show bred dogs!


Data?



> When is it okay to buy a dog from a backyard breeder?


My general feeling is that it's not. However, if they're doing the appropriate health testing, take a gamble *shrugs* It being "too hard" to get a good dog from a reputable breeder, however, is not a decent reason



> What if I only like the backyard bred version of a breed?


If that's what you like, perhaps you're looking at the wrong breed?


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

> Are they really contributing that much to overpopulation or should that be on the shoulders of the owners being responsible for dogs they buy?


Some breeds it is a resounding YES. The number of BYB pit bulls that are euthed in my county alone is staggering. Different breeds in different areas- CA had a BYB chihuahua explosion in shelters, as weird as it may seem. Two hours away from us, shelters can't GIVE away beagle puppies.



> Isn't a clean environment, well socialized puppies and people who care about the dogs enough?


For some people, yes. For most people that deal with the BYB puppies when they are relinquished to shelters untrained at a year old, no.



> What if you don't care about health testing, it's not like we test ourselves before having babies!


Well, no we don't. But we also make the choice as to who we want to procreate with- dogs don't. 



> Besides, backyard bred dogs can be a whole lot healthier than those show bred dogs!


okay.



> Some of the best dogs are in rescue and many great dogs come from bybs!


okay.



> When is it okay to buy a dog from a backyard breeder?


For me? never. For some people? every dog.



> When getting a dog from a "show/working/reputable breeder" is just plain too hard is it okay?


Well, define "plain too hard."



> What about the average dog owner who has no idea what they are doing getting a certain breed of dog, but is going to do it no matter what?


Thats why we're trying to educate.



> A good breeder isn't going to give them that breed in a million years, yet they will probably be fine with it.


So the solution should be to support good breeders so that they breed more, not support bad ones.



> Not to mention.. there wouldn't be enough dogs from good breeders to go around.


see above.



> Why is my definition of a good breeder better than yours anyway?


Well, what is your definition?



> What if I only like the backyard bred version of a breed? (working lines too intense/drivey, show lines looks are over exaggerated and they are less healthy, random pet bred ones.. juusst right.) Am I wrong to support that? If you really want what you want (say, a Rottie), why can't I get my Dane-a-doo from a breeder too?


Do you like health problems? There are a fair number of people (myself included) that have NO problem with "dane-a-doos" IF the breeder is health testing their stock (amongst other things, AKC registration not one of them.)

These are all obviously hypothetical and not how I personally feel. These are just other thought's I've seen or know others might say.


> Do we villainize the "backyard" breeder a little too much?


I think part of the thing is that everyone defines BYB differently.



> I'd only buy my dogs from a breeder I feel is reputable and try to educate others to do the same, but ethics of dog breeding can get so tricky.


Doing the BEST with what is AVAILABLE is not "ethically tricky." For petes sake, I'm not asking that the dog be made of gold. I'm asking that the dog not have crappy hips.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> I'm hoping to get an interesting discussion going. Puppy mills are one thing, but what is it about backyard breeders we hate so much?
> 
> Are they really contributing that much to overpopulation or should that be on the shoulders of the owners being responsible for dogs they buy? Isn't a clean environment, well socialized puppies and people who care about the dogs enough?
> *Depending on the breed and area, yes, it contributes to the overpopulation. One typical characteristic of the BYB in my area is that they produce a LOT of dogs. Which means they cannot possibly offer a guaranteed place for life for a dog if the owner falls ill etc. So the dogs end up at shelters. Clean and safe is good but that only covers the first few months of life*
> ...


I come from the horse world. There, to a large degree, it is about health and performance. Soundness and temperament. If a dog breeder is looking towards health and temperament AND taking responsibility for the animals they produce, then in general I am fine with that. The problem is that far too few are doing so. I really hate driving by the houses with signs out front for "Cockapoos, Yorkiepoos" and such when I know they only have less than a half acre of land and there is no real chance that the dogs are not being over bred and under cared for.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> What if I only like the backyard bred version of a breed? (working lines too intense/drivey, show lines looks are over exaggerated and they are less healthy, random pet bred ones.. juusst right.)


This is an interesting question in my opinion because there are a lot of breeds that I find too exaggerated when bred by 'responsible' breeders (the 'responsible' is in quotes because I believe there are breeds that it is impossible to breed ethically in the state they are in today), and whose backyard bred version I like much more. BUT, as much as I would like a fluffy, but not overly fluffy German spitz and a Roman-nosed but not too Roman-nosed English bull terrier, I still wouldn't buy them from a BYB. Since many of the dogs produced by BYBs end up in rescue, the logical, ethical way to go is... rescue! Lots of breed-specific rescues have dogs that don't look quite like their breed standard say they should, but can still look (and be) perfect to someone.


----------



## Lappdog (Dec 2, 2013)

Whistlejacket said:


> This is an interesting question in my opinion because there are a lot of breeds that I find too exaggerated when bred by 'responsible' breeders (the 'responsible' is in quotes because I believe there are breeds that it is impossible to breed ethically in the state they are in today), and whose backyard bred version I like much more. BUT, as much as I would like a fluffy, but not overly fluffy German spitz and a Roman-nosed but not too Roman-nosed English bull terrier, I still wouldn't buy them from a BYB. Since many of the dogs produced by BYBs end up in rescue, the logical, ethical way to go is... rescue! Lots of breed-specific rescues have dogs that don't look quite like their breed standard say they should, but can still look (and be) perfect to someone.


Rescued: Spot on. 

Whistlejacket, exactly what I was going to suggest. 

The thing I'll add to the discussion to answer the original question is that the only real situation I've seen in which I felt BYBing was ok was a couple working ranches I've seen run by serious (and good) dog people who bred dogs, not to sell, but to work on the ranch. Not too many people do that, but the ones who do do for a reason (they get the exact dog they need, they need a large number of dogs, they were able to have the dogs teach each other the jobs, etc), and they take care of the dogs forever. They didn't sell them, they didn't give them away, and they were responsible with them. An exception, to be sure, but as we're on a discussion about ethical breeding, I found that an interesting addition. 

BYBing for sale/profit? Totally irresponsible. Maybe one day we won't have overfull shelters and BYBs won't be the place that people go when they want a cheap puppy they can get rid of as soon as it grows up. Sadly that's not the case today.


----------



## Fade (Feb 24, 2012)

I started doing research on this just to see and was astonished about the problems effect dogs today. It really opened my eyes to the need for people to step up and start screening the dogs they breed. Honestly in 20 yrs I have no idea what the state of the average dog will be...the health issues are so bad now for them if things keep going the way they are...and they will ... 

I will pick a couple breeds as an example about the need to be more responsible in breeding dogs. Since all dogs have genetic issues ill choose a couple breeds.
Cavalier King Charles Spaniels and Golden retrievers.

30-70% of cavies develop a painful and life threatening condition called syringomyelia in which fluid builds up in the spinal cord near the brain. In some cases the brain will swell beyond the capacity of the skull.
By the age of 5...50% of cavies have a heart problem. By the age of 10...they believe almost 100% of them will have heart problems.

Golden Retrievers.
It is estimated in some studies...( these are not really hardcore studies ) ..that SIXTY PERCENT of Goldens will die of cancer. That is CRAZY. A friend of mine has lost her last 3 goldens to cancer. Bailey just died last week. Jerry died last month. Their other one they tried chemo on and he died too.
add into that all the other golden problems. Thyroid issues. Hip and elbow issues.

This is directly related to years of irresponsible breeding. If someone can screen and breed to reduce the amount of dogs with these health problems is that benefit not obvious? The amount of dogs in the world is sad yes its a huge problem. But the human race has bred our "best friends" into walking genetic disasters...eventually if it keeps going on mans best friend will only get worse. its a big problem. If ever generation of dog gets a worse version of the genetic disorder its parent passed on to them and how quickly dog generations can go...imagine the damage even 10 more years will do. We already see crippled dogs with hip hip dysplasia so bad they have to be on very heavy duty pain meds....you might think these dogs are old dogs....no not at all...3...4....5 years old. They should be in their prime.

If you can not be sure your dogs do not have a problem like this...and then they make puppies. No matter what you do, how much you care, how much you take care of the dogs. you just contributed to the problem. Even if its just a ity bity problem...your dog just passed that on to a whole new litter...which might pass that on to their litters...this is how the whole issue got out of control. no one saw the importance of it.

I started a project on facebook about this.

Ive been busy and not added to much but there are some VERY interesting dog health reports I have found

https://www.facebook.com/ThePuppyTruth


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

It's hard for me to say. I am 100000% against puppy mills. Disgusting, deplorable human beings who can live with themselves and treat animals that way in such horrid conditions. And while I'm not "for" BYB's (which is such a broad term anyway, I even hate to use it), most that I've seen/heard of are not horrible people. They "love" their dogs (in their own way) and are often just misinformed. And think breeding is just... a natural thing and that WELL HEY all females NEED to have babies at least once *head smack* or "Hmm, maybe I could make a few extra bucks". 

But do I think they're just as bad as puppy mills? No. Most BYB's I know... their dogs are also their pets, so they're in a home, given the proper air/heat during climates, they sleep in their owners beds, or at least in a comfy dog bed, they often have a backyard, are fed food morning and night, etc. They're not sickly little animals curled up into cages SOLELY for the purpose of breeding. No, they're usually not being health tested, and there is usually no contract, and yes I am sure a lot of them will end up in the shelters (which is honestly my #1 issue with ANY type of breeder - I really really could put aside a lot of things if you just micro-chipped your pups, so that if they ever ended up in a shelter, they would end up BACK with you, but alas, most BYB's wouldn't want that). 


I see the appeal for normal folk, who just want a dog, but don't know a lot about them. "What's the difference in this $1500 puppy and this $300 one in the classifieds ads?" and it's honestly really hard to explain to a lot of people. Because it's SO much more than just a price tag. I mean, you also get the people who are all "I paid $5000 for this PUREBRED Micro Tiny Teacup Yorkie! He WAS from a GREAT breeder!" simply because of the high price tag. There are a LOT of people out there who think breeding dogs is such a HUGE rolling-in-the-dough industry. My step-dad once asked me why I don't breed dogs, because I'd make a lot of money, and I love dogs so much? Ugh... it's just ignorance really.

But I mean... BYB could define so many different types of people. Like, I really could care less about a 'hobby breeder' or 'pet dog breeder' (because that is what 90% of the population wants, is it not?), who doesn't compete in sports, dog shows, etc, doesn't care about titling. Heck even minimal health tests. But if they're dogs are well enough loved members of their household, see a vet on a regular basis and are in general good health, and there are people wanting these dogs. I'm not going to stress over it. When I hear of/see of a 'breeder' with their dogs chained in their backyard all day with minimal contact, not proper vetting, or proper feeding, and have never seen a vet in their lives. I'd have a heck of a lot more of a problem. Neither are ideal of course. And neither are breeders I'd choose to support in the future.

But... it really sucks. I think there will always be a market for 'BYB's' simply because most of the population doesn't look at dogs the way we do (on this forum). And honestly pretty much everyone I know with dogs (even if they're not 'into' them very much) have kept them throughout their whole lives. I don't think I personally know of anyone who rehomed a dog actually now that I think about. But I've never known anyone that gave up a dog to a shelter. I guess I'm just lucky. 

Bottom line is, the world sometimes sucks. But it's not a black or white issue.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> 1: Are they really contributing that much to overpopulation or should that be on the shoulders of the owners being responsible for dogs they buy? Isn't a clean environment, well socialized puppies and people who care about the dogs enough?
> 
> 2: What if you don't care about health testing, it's not like we test ourselves before having babies! Besides, backyard bred dogs can be a whole lot healthier than those show bred dogs! Some of the best dogs are in rescue and many great dogs come from bybs!
> 
> ...


1. Anybody who breeds a dog just because they can is contributing. If you are breeding dogs with no testing, not even the slightest idea of what they might become, and selling them or giving them away with no contract, you are adding another dog to the world that's got no business being there, and that's just the way I see it. Unless you can guarantee that dog will always always have a home.

2. We should. I don't care who it offends, I feel we should all be screened for genetic problems before reproducing. If you don't care about health testing, go to a shelter.

3. Never. No it's not okay. If going to a breeder is too hard, go to a shelter or a rescue. But if an ethical breeder feels the breed is not right for you, you should probably trust them.

4. There are breeders who breed for less drive, for a different look. A BYB is breeding for money or because pupys r so kawaii *w*. If you don't care for a dog up to standard, shelter or rescue. 

5. Absolutely not. Sock it to 'em.

I am in no way against a breeder, an ethical breeder. But I define an ethical breeder as someone who is breeding for a goal -other than looks-, who is at least attempting to title their dogs in something or make them a good working dog, someone who health and temperament tests, someone who is selling under a contract and can guarantee that dog will not end up in a shelter.

I had to stop volunteering at the shelter in my town because of the faces. The faces of dogs who came from people who didn't care about health testing, or showing, or contracts. Faces that were just so glad to see a bowl get slipped under their door, and the highlight of their day is getting their kennels sprayed out so they can chase the water. If those dogs had come from ethical breeders, and their sorry owners didn't want them, they would be back at home, not in a cage waiting for either a miracle or a needle. And faces who will stay there until their holding period is up because someone thought it was easier to go to a BYB.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Xeph said:


> If that's what you like, perhaps you're looking at the wrong breed?


In Chihuahuas the "deer" Chihuahuas are portrayed in ancient drawings/scultures/what have you just as much as the appleheads and they are more moderate, yet have the same Chihuahua personality as the less healthy, more miniaturized "applehead" show dogs. Why they only standardized appleheads I'll never know, they're prone to so much more crap than the deerhead dogs. Am I wrong for wanting a deerhead Chihuahua when they're clearly distinct from other breeds and I like them better than the applehead dogs? What if someone bred them responsibly with health testing and such?


----------



## Scottsmum (Jan 3, 2014)

Hrm... I don't know how different the BYB culture in Australia is to America but here are the reasons I don't like BYB. (Remember my perspective is Aussie, I have also worked in a vet clinic and I've seen some stuff) 

All too often the pups produced from BYBs are result of "oh I think it's good for little Missy here to have a litter"

Or they're an unplanned litter - usually to a very young bitch who came into heat before the owner realised what was going on. 

If it's an unplanned litter - the father is very often a brother or a son ... Hello bad genetics. 

I often worry that the bitch and the pups aren't receiving the nutritional support they need 

People think it's a good way to make money (and the pups don't receive their shots and microchips etc)

Unless you've been around breeding dogs your whole life you won't necessarily know what to look for - how will you know if your bitch needs medical intervention? At least first time breeders of purebred dogs can (/should be able to?) access their own breeder for support. You're hardly going to call the bib for support are you?

It makes me cross that people think it's a money making venture - I know someone who paid for an overseas holiday with two litters of BYB pups.


I don't actually have a huge gripe with someone wanting a litter from a pet - BUT there are so many conditions attached to that statement. 
What are you contributing to? 
Why are you doing it?
Have you had your pets health cleared?
Has the mating been planned?
Do you have the knowledge and support you need to ensure your bitch won't suffer


I think as animal lovers you owe it to animals to give them the best possible lives and for me that includes giving them the best start in life and ensuring they're comfortable and well cared for while pregnant and whelping.

So many other thoughts - but this is it in short.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

My personal opinion...

I think it depends on the BYB's ethics and morals, if any. If the BYB knows what they are doing, has done health testing, has selected dogs carefully that they are going to place together, has the pups on good nutrition from the get go, is careful about what homes the pups go to, and you're aware of the risks you're taking with a BYB... I personally can't judge on that. I don't think a dog needs a piece of paper to come from a good background.


----------



## Mint (Sep 4, 2013)

RCloud said:


> My personal opinion...
> 
> I think it depends on the BYB's ethics and morals, if any. If the BYB knows what they are doing, has done health testing, has selected dogs carefully that they are going to place together, has the pups on good nutrition from the get go, is careful about what homes the pups go to, and you're aware of the risks you're taking with a BYB... I personally can't judge on that. I don't think a dog needs a piece of paper to come from a good background.


Imho, I don't think a breeder who has pups that come from health tested, carefully selected parents on a good diet and also screens potential buyers really qualifies as a BYB.

Pet bred =/= BYB, imho. I've always viewed a BYB as someone who did little to no thinking when selecting the parents, not giving a hoot about health testing, and shoving their pups out the door as quickly as they can to get a quick buck, not someone who health tests and cares for the future of their pups.

I like pet bred labs because I don't really want the temperament of a field bred one, and most of the show bred ones are giant flabs of meat.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I suppose it depends how you define BYB. I think a common definition is whether they show or not. I don't think that's a good way to define it. Showing a dog is prohibitively expensive and time-consuming and if only champions were bred we would have not enough dogs and the genetic bottlenecking would be crippling. I also think that if only health tested dogs were shown it would impact genetic diversity adversely as well, unless health testing became more affordable and easily accessible (having to go to a repro specialist across the state is not accessible). 

On the other hand, those who are breeding with no regard for the lives and long-term welfare of their pups are despicable and clearly responsible for dogs dying for lack of homes. No way around that. So I think it comes down to caring and long-term responsibility. Whether they ultimately actually care personally about the dogs they produce.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Mint said:


> Imho, I don't think a breeder who has pups that come from health tested, carefully selected parents on a good diet and also screens potential buyers really qualifies as a BYB.
> 
> Pet bred =/= BYB, imho. I've always viewed a BYB as someone who did little to no thinking when selecting the parents, not giving a hoot about health testing, and shoving their pups out the door as quickly as they can to get a quick buck, not someone who health tests and cares for the future of their pups.
> 
> I like pet bred labs because I don't really want the temperament of a field bred one, and most of the show bred ones are giant flabs of meat.


But a lot of people do. I guess the real question is just what is a BYB.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

A backyard breeder: someone who puts little to know thought into the reproduction of their dogs. This covers oops litters and purposefully bred random dogs. BYBs may have a clean facility and healthy looking dogs. Their dogs may see the vet every year and be of good temperament. Their dogs might even be registered with a registering body. These dogs will not be titled and they will not compete in any kind of dog events. There may be contract but the breeder won't make any solid guarantees. Dogs may be widely (and grossly) out if standard. Think over/under coated, huge/tiny...

A reputable breeder: health tested, proven dogs who are not put together higgly piggly. Reputable breeders guarantee their pups for two years or longer and will take them back at anytime. This does not mean AKC only, this does not mean Purebreds only. You can doodle anything (IMO) if you health test. Reputable breeders don't contribute to shelter populations and will be active in the ring/sport/rescue world. 

Don't buy from a BYB because it's easier. Don't buy from a BYB because it's faster. Don't buy from a BYB because it's cheaper. It's never easier, faster, or cheaper in the long run. 

Don't like what you see in the ring? Don't like the drive of a working dog? Don't like the energy of a sport dog? I can promise you that there is a breeder somewhere that breeds what you like in a reputable way. Or rescue. Rescues have everything under the sun.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> What if you don't care about health testing, it's not like we test ourselves before having babies!


We also don't intentionally breed humans into strange colours/shapes that affect health and longevity.

IMO if you're going to mess with the genome (especially in the name of looks) you have a responsibility to put *at least* that much effort into ensuring the changes are healthy.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

BYB doesn't mean much in my opinion. It's dog code for 'breeder I don't agree with' and that's about it.

I have yet to find a breeder I 100% agree with on everything. I've yet to find that magical ideal. In some breeds you will have to compromise more than others... or go find a different breed.

There's a lot of grey in there and what I would be comfortable with and what someone else would be comfortable with are not always overlapping. I aim to go to breeders that health test (I've become even more strict on this) and do breed for some purpose and most importantly stand behind their dogs. At the end of the day though I am not sure the breeder who health tests out the wazoo but has a breed that dies at 8 is more responsible than the breeder who breeds dogs that live to 16 but doesn't health test. So ethics are a tricky thing, imo.

That all said, people breeding dogs willy nilly DEFINITELY contributes to some bad things. Like Rescued said, pit bulls are crazy overpopulated. There's other breeds in other areas that are just as overpopulated. Breeding a pit bull in this day and age 'just cause' and breeding a papillon 'just cause' are going to have two very different results, more than likely. Sadly it seems to be that the breeds that are the most in trouble are the ones littering craigslist. 

I will always try to go to someone who is doing their dogs and their breed well in my mind.


----------



## Scottsmum (Jan 3, 2014)

Mint said:


> Imho, I don't think a breeder who has pups that come from health tested, carefully selected parents on a good diet and also screens potential buyers really qualifies as a BYB.
> 
> Pet bred =/= BYB, imho. I've always viewed a BYB as someone who did little to no thinking when selecting the parents, not giving a hoot about health testing, and shoving their pups out the door as quickly as they can to get a quick buck, not someone who health tests and cares for the future of their pups.
> 
> I like pet bred labs because I don't really want the temperament of a field bred one, and most of the show bred ones are giant flabs of meat.


I agree. I think there is a clear hobby breeder Vs BYB Vs stud breeder. I just read an interesting article where one council here in Australia is introducing breeder permits and to sell pups you must list your permit number in the ads. Doubt it will force bybs to be more responsible but should be interesting to see if it makes any difference.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

A "BYB," _to me_ (everyone defines it somewhat differently), is someone who likely loves their dogs and takes good care of them, but who doesn't understand what's involved in breeding healthy, sound dogs. They don't do health testing, just vet checkups. They don't carefully match pairs for the best structure. They usually own one or two pairs that they breed over and over, or one "stud" that they breed with several females (multiple times for each pair). Whether they show or not doesn't tip a breeder one way or the other as far as I'm concerned, although BYBs don't show their dogs. They do not belong to a breed club. They usually do not have a mentor or act as one. They are breeding to make money, not to improve a breed.

In contrast, a responsible breeder (again, _to me_) is working toward a specific goal -- usually to improve a breed. They will use outside blood and will not breed the same pairs over and over (as their goal is to produce a pup that's better than either parent, and then to continue their breeding program with that dog). They are familiar with the breed standard and usually strive to meet it (I could see a responsible breeder veering away if the standard was producing too-extreme dogs, however). They will often (but not always) show, but will at least health test. They will very carefully match their breeding pairs for the best possible health, structure, and temperament. They will belong to a breed club and meet the code of ethics. They usually have a mentor and may act as one. They will usually break even or lose money; if they make a profit, it's not a big one.

I don't agree 100% with this chart, but it's pretty good: http://casadelmango.com/breeder-comparison/


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

I am VERY against puppy mills, and also against those BYBs who breed dogs just to get some cash. I can't say I am 100% against BYBs though. Caeda came from one, the woman was very nice, compassionate, stayed in touch, took good care of the mom during pregnancy. She seemed to have a pretty good understanding of dealing with a pregnant dog and puppies, she had been around dog breeding before (I can't recall if she said it had been a previous dog of hers or a close friend, but she did mention having been taught a bit about breeding). Caeda was an oops litter. Caeda was also the first puppy to leave the litter. My home was 20mins away from where I picked her up, the woman called me 30 mins after I left to make sure Caeda was doing ok, she called me again an hour and a half later and again the next day. Not a fan of the BYB, and I do understand and respect the objections against them, but I have to give the woman I got Caeda from a bit of leeway, she really cared, she took good care of them and she wasn't charging purebred prices ($300....she said it basically covered vetting, a bit of food, and gave her a couple of dollars). Did I intentionally buy from a BYB....no, at the time I didn't know much about them other than the puppy mill (which I wouldn't have bought from). 

That basically explains my stance on the BYB. I'd love to demonize the BYB, for all of the good reasons that everyone has mentioned about BYBs, but fact is I've got an awesome, healthy dog that came from a breeder who did care the best she could for the mother and the puppies. I just can't say I'm completely against them.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

Honestly, there are probably breeds where the BYB produced dogs are in fact healthier than the 'reputably' bred dogs... which is the reason why there are breeds I would rescue, but not buy. I'm thinking of backyard-bred French bulldogs, for example, with their longer snouts. I think a longer snout in a French bulldog is very much a desirable trait because of the improvements it can bring to the animal's health, but 'reputable' breeders won't select for it because it doesn't match their idea of what 'bettering the breed' means.

I don't really know where I'm going with this actually, but I'll say that I don't think that 'reputably'-bred dogs are that much healthier than backyard-bred ones in general. I still think health testing should be done because it's the ethical thing to do, but I admit that I think that sometimes breeders who are considered good have priorities that I consider are wrong, and breeders are not the only ones who produce 'good' dogs (precisely because what's 'good' varies from a person to another).


----------



## Dagger (Jan 23, 2014)

I was under the impression that only breeding healthy, well-tempered specimens of the breed _is_ part of responsible breeding.


----------



## pawsaddict (Apr 17, 2013)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> Are they really contributing that much to overpopulation or should that be on the shoulders of the owners being responsible for dogs they buy? Isn't a clean environment, well socialized puppies and people who care about the dogs enough?


I like that responsible breeders have a waiting list of people that are ready to welcome their puppy home. They also screen these home a bit to determine if the dog will thrive in the home (of course, this is not always the case. BYBs tend to breed without knowing if they will find homes for all of their puppies. If their puppies can't find homes, they end up being dumped somewhere to try and survive on their own or they end up in a shelter. BYBs also seem to care more about the money than the family it goes to, which sets the puppy up for a potentially hard life (maybe in a shelter). I think the owners are responsible for caring for the puppy they buy, but I think the incident of families giving up a dog because they bought it on a whim and weren't really ready or giving the dog up because it's not the right breed/puppy for their family would decline if BYBs took the time to find the right families. BYBs usually will not take a puppy back if the owners can no longer care for it. Also, BYBs tend to breed their Dams a lot rather than taking the appropriate amount of time in between each litter. All of these things just tell me that BYBs care more about the money than the dogs.



ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> What if you don't care about health testing, it's not like we test ourselves before having babies! Besides, backyard bred dogs can be a whole lot healthier than those show bred dogs! Some of the best dogs are in rescue and many great dogs come from bybs!


There are many purebred dogs in shelters and rescues; they do not all come from BYBs. With a BYB, you are really taking a gamble. They will not stand behind their puppies should they not be healthy.



ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> What about the average dog owner who has no idea what they are doing getting a certain breed of dog, but is going to do it no matter what? A good breeder isn't going to give them that breed in a million years, yet they will probably be fine with it.


Not true. Many dogs end up in shelters, rescues, or on the streets because people buy a certain breed without knowing what they are getting into. "Oh, my husky is too energetic." "Oh, my heeler nips at my kids feet." Blah, blah, blah. A reputable breeder cares about their puppies and want to find the best homes possible for them. This means making sure the owners are educated in the breed they are bringing home and that the right puppy is matched to that particular family. It also means turning people away who may not be the right fit for the breed. 



ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> What if I only like the backyard bred version of a breed? (working lines too intense/drivey, show lines looks are over exaggerated and they are less healthy, random pet bred ones.. juusst right.) Am I wrong to support that? If you really want what you want (say, a Rottie), why can't I get my Dane-a-doo from a breeder too?


I think there are many different lineages and options out there offered from breeders. For example, if you don't want a German Shepard with a sloped back then search out a breeder that breeds from working lines. Take the time to research and ask questions about the Sire and Dam so you know whether the dog will have the traits that you want. Also, like I said, with a reputable breeder, the right puppy will be matched to you. If you want a mixed dog, then I strongly feel that people should rescue over supporting a BYB. I'm sure there are some wonderful BYBs out there, but I feel that reputable breeders and rescues need our support more.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

for me personally there are breeds I would have no issue purchasing from a BYB so long the the parents are well cared for and have good temperaments, but there are some breeds I would not even consider purchasing from anyone who didn't health test. any large/giant breed I would not touch from a BYB under any circumstances, I probably would not rescue a giant breed either. I want known lines with longtivity and health testing behind them. 

essentially breeds with a lot of crippling health issues that affect a large percentage of the breed, I want backing behind the dog. 

breeds that are generally healthy, I am A-OK with risking a BYB, though its not my first choice. 

for mix breeds, if I were to go to a breeder, I would not consider a BYB, if I was going to a breeder for a mix its because I WANT testing behind the dogs, without the testing, WTH am I paying for? I can get a shelter mix with no backing behind it just fine lol


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

No argument there, a responsible breeder is the best-- However, a do have one idea to put forth-- the timing thing-- in our family, we have certain periods of time (work schedules, vacation time off to be home for a puppy- schedule is made 11 months in advance) in which we could incorporate a pup into our lives smoothly-- and this has always run counter to the breeding schedules, for the most part.
We give our pets fine lives (only our first dog, a DA pitt, during the time we lived in a condo in the city with no yard, was rehomed to our parents' nice suburban home with a huge backyard ) with us and are committed to them. 
That timing thing is important... 
For us now we have I guess a BYB (2 working dogs somewhat accidently bred together, owner was away taking care of mother's affairs during an illness, and property caretaker was not vigilant) LGD pup who is doing well (he can really guard the animals and us!).... Owner still has 2 of the pups out of a litter of 10 (or 11) so she is devoted to them....No health issues so far, but he is only 8 months old...
Anyways just wanted to interject that timing is important and can make the difference whether a dog works out in his new home or not And just saying (breeders perspective) that you arent committed cause you dont have your life/ work/ schedule predicted in advance to be able to accommodate the breeding schedule is not helpful....


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

The buyer's timing has nothing to do with how responsible a breeder is, though.

Also, for LGDs and mushing dogs and herders and other things like that -- working dogs -- showing's not important to me at all. Take Alaskan huskies, for example. They're a type, not a breed. Obviously their breeders don't show them. But they do health test, keep careful records, match dogs carefully to create the best pups, and sell them on contracts to carefully-selected homes, just like a good breeder of show dogs would do. Basically, these dogs prove themselves through their work (while a companion dog like a shih tzu or a minpin benefits more from outside observers (judges) evaluating its structure, movement, and temperament at shows). If you're getting a pup from a line of dogs who live long lives and do their work well, you're setting yourself up for success.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

I generally agree with what Laurelin and Crantastic said. Especially Laurelin's point about not agreeing 100% with a particular breeder's choices. For example, I would have loved to have found a standard poodle with an undocked tail. Unfortunately, I the only breeders I found who didn't dock were sketchy (e.g., no health testing, breeding the same dogs over and over, mixing sizes). So, I found a breeder who I consider reputable and ethical, and compromised on the tail.

One aspect of breeding that I haven't seen discussed here is knowing the dogs' pedigrees. Health testing the parents is great, but there are so many medical conditions thought to be hereditary for which there are no reliable, predictive tests. Temperament is similar in that puppies may inherit personality traits from grandparents or great-grandparents. I want a puppy from someone who not only does appropriate health tests, attends to temperament, and proves their dog in some way, I also want the breeder to find an optimal - _not convenient_ - match for their dog. I want a breeder to know what health issues are exist in the pedigree and be able discuss the temperaments of those dogs.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

HollowHeaven said:


> 1. Anybody who breeds a dog just because they can is contributing. If you are breeding dogs with no testing, not even the slightest idea of what they might become, and selling them or giving them away with no contract, you are adding another dog to the world that's got no business being there, and that's just the way I see it. Unless you can guarantee that dog will always always have a home.
> 
> 2. We should. I don't care who it offends, I feel we should all be screened for genetic problems before reproducing. If you don't care about health testing, go to a shelter.
> 
> ...


I would rather see a breeder who works their dogs, like ranchers who breed and sell dogs from real working parents. I don't care how pretty your dogs is ... I want INSTINCT, can the dog WORK.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

This is a little off-topic, but I think there's a common misconception that show dogs can't work, that shows are just beauty contests. They really aren't. Showing your dog is one tool you can use when breeding the best dogs possible. It should go along with health testing, and (ideally) with proving your dogs in some other way -- either through the work they were originally bred for, or sports, or therapy work, or search and rescue, or whatever else.

Also, the way a show works (again, ideally) is that the judge compares each dog _not_ to the other dogs in the ring, but to the standard -- the (impossible) ideal dog of that breed. The judge isn't just looking at color and markings and length of coat, but at structure, at movement, at the correctness of the dog's bite. The judge is also gauging temperament, whether the dog can handle being in a ring with other dogs and with standing still and letting a stranger feel it all over. The judge is looking for dogs that are structurally sound (unlikely to develop physical issues in the future), temperamentally sound, and healthy. It's good for breeders to put their dogs in shows because it's always helpful to get an unbiased, outside opinion of their dogs' quality. And it's not just about finding the prettiest dog.

(Is this a perfect system? No, nothing is. Sometimes a judge will put up a dog who is flashy or extreme rather than a more deserving dog, and sometimes a judge will put up a dog because the handler is amazing and makes a not-as-amazing dog look great. But it's still worth it to get an outsider's opinion of your dog, and it's also never a bad thing to get your dog used to focusing on you around other dogs and to be okay with a stranger examining him or her.)


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Personally, I label a "backyard breeder" as someone who intentionally breeds their dogs. They can range from people who breed purely for money and have no regard to the dogs to people who love their dogs, have clean facilities, dogs live in home etc. I don't put oops litters in the same category and just call them irresponsible owners for not keeping their dogs apart or getting them fixed. 

I have a friend who breeds Yorkies. Their dogs are in the home, they are well cared for, very loved members of the family. They make sure all the dogs have shots, papers, and then sell the puppies at 8 weeks. They are not health tested. They are not titled. They are bred solely for companion animal purposes. It's so easy to hate backyard breeders until you see how...tame it can really be? This is with a breed that is popular right now though. I don't see many of them in shelters at all around here and when they are, they generally get snatched up. I suppose it wouldn't feel nearly as tame if it was a breeder of Pitties.

We cannot deny how difficult it can be for the average owner to get a dog from a reputable breeder. Some of us on this forums have been burned by breeders of breeds we feel we could handle. Even I had a hard time getting my puppy. Many didn't breed often, so I'd be waiting well over a year or two for a puppy (which who knows if I'd be able to have one then..). Others were show lines that just looked horrid in my opinion, and the breeder I talked to was just.. off. I didn't want an overly herdy drivey line either. In the end I got very lucky to find my breeder and be able to get a puppy relatively quickly. Most people would not be this lucky, as they don't even know how to talk to a good breeder properly to win the breeder over. 

I fear my family members would not even be savvy enough to get a dog from these breeders. I recently talked to a Corso breeder who is extremely picky about where her pups go and has a 12 page app. Good breeders don't want to give to purely pet homes. They want homes that are savvy and title their dogs in sports (depending on the breed of course). I'm not saying that they are all that bad about it.. but if I'm intimidated I can imagine the average person fleeing for their lives. Don't even get me started on breed specific rescue. I can't even get a dog from a local Dane rescue because my fence doesn't directly attach to the door! (I walk my dog to the fence on a leash). We recently had a purebred 14 week old GSD puppy at my rescue. 30 applicants in less than a week. Yikes! To make it clear, I would not endorse them ever go to less than good breeder if they so choose the breeder route.

Most homes are companion homes, so I don't really see the need for every dog to be titled or work proven to be breeding worthy (temperament absolutely). I strongly believe health testing should be done and at a very minimum dogs have a contract that requests puppies if not wanted are returned to breeder.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> This is a little off-topic, but I think there's a common misconception that show dogs can't work,


There is so much of this. "I'd rather have a dog who can WORK than looks right" is something I hear a lot of. 

Well. Sure. Except... they're not really one or the other? Jack and Frost have conformation titles! They also have performance titles and hunt. Know what that makes them, to me? Dogs worth being bred. The *breeder* choosing to take the conformation title as a go ahead - well, that's a different thing altogether and every buyer should be looking for dogs who are being bred in accordance to practices the buyer approves of (you are supporting those practices with your wallet). If you want a dog that works look for one that works - and that also has health testing and maybe that confirmation title ON TOP OF IT.

It's not either-or.

Back-yard breeder for me is really pretty basic, on the subject of the op:

It's someone breeding pet dogs, without titling the dogs in anything, an understanding of genetics, or an understanding of what appropriate health issues in the breed are or how to really socialize the puppies and match them up to the owner or to have a 'breeding plan' (Good breeders are breeding TOWARD something, not just to make puppies). 

I expect them to love the parent dogs and love the puppies. I just don't expect them to really know what they're doing or to have any interest in learning.

And gotta address this:


> Many didn't breed often, so I'd be waiting well over a year or two for a puppy (which who knows if I'd be able to have one then..)


If you don't know if you can have a puppy in a year, do you know you can have a DOG in a year? I'm sorry. Waiting around for a year or two to get a decently bred puppy should be part of the expectation of anyone looking for one. Taking the first one that's available when you decide you want a pup, just... burns me up. Waiting a year is not a hardship. It can be annoying and you can want, want, want that puppy but it is not a now or never deal. If your circumstances say you have to get that puppy RIGHT NOW or you can NEVER have a puppy because something will change-

You aren't in stable enough circumstances to have a puppy, period. If you get the puppy now, a year from now you're still going to have a puppy. Just a bigger, more badly mannered because it's likely still a teenager one.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

CptJack said:


> Waiting around for a year or two to get a decently bred puppy should be part of the expectation of anyone looking for one. Taking the first one that's available when you decide you want a pup, just... burns me up. Waiting a year is not a hardship. It can be annoying and you can want, want, want that puppy but it is not a now or never deal. If your circumstances say you have to get that puppy RIGHT NOW or you can NEVER have a puppy because something will change-
> 
> You aren't in stable enough circumstances to have a puppy, period. If you get the puppy now, a year from now you're still going to have a puppy. Just a bigger, more badly mannered because it's likely still a teenager one.


0_0 

A year _or two_? IMO that's way too long to reasonably expect someone to wait. 4-6 months sounds fine to me and of course people _can_ wait as long as they like for the perfect pup. But no, I don't think people should *have* to wait two years for a puppy, nor will they realistically. They'll find another source.

That said, I agree with you entirely that if you don't think you'll be in a position to have a dog in one or two years *definitely* don't get a puppy or a dog. The length of commitment is much longer than that.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

aiw said:


> 0_0
> 
> A year _or two_? IMO that's way too long to reasonably expect someone to wait. 4-6 months sounds fine to me and of course people _can_ wait as long as they like for the perfect pup. But no, I don't think people should *have* to wait two years for a puppy, nor will they realistically. They'll find another source.
> 
> That said, I agree with you entirely that if you don't think you'll be in a position to have a dog in one or two years *definitely* don't get a puppy or a dog. The length of commitment is much longer than that.



The last is mostly my point. I mean I'd be chewing at my own limbs if I had to wait 2 years, knowing I wanted and was in a position to have a dog, and couldn't get one until then-

Unless that was the dog I really, really wanted. In which case I'd wait almost any length of time because that's... just kinda how it works. If I just wanted *A* dog, I'd probably hit craigslist, put word out among responsible breeders for a retired or failed show dog, or look into dog pounds.

But I if I had to have a SPECIFIC KIND OF DOG - I'd wait before going to a BYB or mill, if you know what I mean? Because that's not just 'GIVE ME A DOG'. It's looking for something very, very specific and if I'm waiting on something specific it's a long bit different from just wanting a dog in general and having to wait. Most people going to good breeders are looking for something specific. Not just breed, but a puppy from a specific breeding from that breeder. They want what they want very, very particularly and getting a dog from somewhere else won't cut it.

And yeah, again to hammer that second point: "Who knows if I can have one in two years?" Well, you I hope, since you're still going to have that puppy then! Some circumstances make a puppy easier at a given time, but they tend to cycle around periodically (vacation time, season, what have you). Things that make a puppy absolutely impossible? Aren't conducive to a young dog, either.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

CptJack said:


> There is so much of this. "I'd rather have a dog who can WORK than looks right" is something I hear a lot of.
> 
> Well. Sure. Except... they're not really one or the other? Jack and Frost have conformation titles! They also have performance titles and hunt. Know what that makes them, to me? Dogs worth being bred.


Yep. There are only show/working splits in a few breeds. Many breeds can (and do) achieve performance/working titles as well as conformation championships. One or the other is good, but both are great.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Wait time probably depends on the breed. A couple of the breeds I want at this point in time... 2 years would be common unless you want to import. There's just not many litters born in the US. More common breeds though? I think that would be way too long.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> Wait time probably depends on the breed. A couple of the breeds I want at this point in time... 2 years would be common unless you want to import. There's just not many litters born in the US. More common breeds though? I think that would be way too long.


Ah, but are you waiting for a puppy of a breed/from a breeder, or from a breed*ing* or specific dog?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

CptJack said:


> Ah, but are you waiting for a puppy of a breed/from a breeder, or from a breed*ing* or specific dog?


For some breeds it could be just a puppy of that breed. There's a couple I'm interested in that may have 1-2 litters a year period in North America. But I doubt JQP is going to decide on these breeds. They've probably never heard of it.

There is one breeder I'd kill for a puppy from and would definitely wait a couple years for them.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> For some breeds it could be just a puppy of that breed. There's a couple I'm interested in that may have 1-2 litters a year period in North America. But I doubt JQP is going to decide on these breeds. They've probably never heard of it.
> 
> There is one breeder I'd kill for a puppy from and would definitely wait a couple years for them.


That's kind of what I mean, I guess. 

If you just want A Dog (or puppy), then waiting around isn't something that's likely going to be asked of you.

If you want a Dog of a Specific (Common) Breed (From a responsible breeder - and assume same for the rest), you're going to have to wait a while.

If you want A Dog of a Specific Rare Breed, you're going to have to wait longer.

If you want A Dog from a Specific Breeder you're going to have to wait still longer.

If you want A Dog from A Specific Dog/Breeding, you may as well kick back and settle in: you're going to be here for a good long while.

I'm pretty specific in what I want at this point. I won't be ready for another dog for (many) years. ONce I get close I will start poking around to get even more particular and be prepared to wait for an age and a half because it's... what I want. Not just A Dog, not just a Rat Terrier, but a Rat Terrier from THAT bloodline, and THIS breeder. So even after expressing interest there may be time waiting for the dog to gain titles and health tests and maturity and then heat and then breedings that may or may not take, and THEN pregnancy and whelping and raising.

But I'll get what I want. (If it's still what I want, then.)

(And I'll add to this, somewhat sheepishly, I find: I CAN GET IT FASTER IF I COMPROMISE kind of annoying, when people know what they want and then decide they don't care because they don't want to wait._


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

My definition of a BYB is pretty much synonymous to a irresponsible breeder. So by that definition, it's pretty straight forward to say I don't like BYBs. Similarly, I don't consider responsible breeders that don't care about show standards BYBs.

I thought that was pretty much what everyone thought of when they talk about BYBs but apparently not.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> Most people going to good breeders are looking for something specific. Not just breed, but a puppy from a specific breeding from that breeder. They want what they want very, very particularly and getting a dog from somewhere else won't cut it.


Isn't this thread more about what average dog owners want, and why they go to a BYB, and how to get them to find a good breeder instead? I think most people want A dog, perhaps of a particular breed, but have no idea about specific breedings, etc. If I decided I wanted a purebred/purpose-bred dog (not so likely, but just for an example), I wouldn't have any concept of particular breedings or any of that. And there is NO way I'd wait a year or 2 for a pup. So, IDK, how to convince someone like me to try to find a good breeder and not a BYB?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> Yep. There are only show/working splits in a few breeds. Many breeds can (and do) achieve performance/working titles as well as conformation championships. One or the other is good, but both are great.


As with most dog things it just.... depends.

I'd be a fool to get any dog with working lines and titles, even combined with show. They are wonderful and perfectly suited to some... but not me. My life is just not set up for a dog who needs intense exercise daily or has strong, specific drives that need an outlet. When it comes to acquiring a dog its easy to say working titles are important and indicate good breeding or "the best" of a breed. But on the ground reality for me is that I'd be much better suited to a dog who doesn't have them. I doubt I'm unusual in that regard.

IMO its *much* more responsible for me to seek out a dog without that lineage, because that's the kind of home I offer. A lot of people argue that its irresponsible to breed dogs without instinct or drive for their breed's "job" but I think that's very shortsighted and a little egotistical (not saying you do this at all Cran, just a general argument). 

I don't think it matters if someone breeds a sound, healthy lab with no retrieving drive for example. In fact, I think I'd be doing a very responsible thing by giving my business to that breeder, because that's the kind of dog who will find the most fulfilling life in my home.... Which is what this is all about.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Then you'd be one of the people who'd be better off going with someone who only shows and who is out to breed the best companion labs they can, or from someone who doesn't show but health tests/carefully breeds for structure, health, and temperament. As I've said, I consider both of those to be responsible breeders, and not BYBs.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Willowy said:


> Isn't this thread more about what average dog owners want, and why they go to a BYB, and how to get them to find a good breeder instead? I think most people want A dog, perhaps of a particular breed, but have no idea about specific breedings, etc. If I decided I wanted a purebred/purpose-bred dog (not so likely, but just for an example), I wouldn't have any concept of particular breedings or any of that. And there is NO way I'd wait a year or 2 for a pup. So, IDK, how to convince someone like me to try to find a good breeder and not a BYB?


This was the original intent of the post, yes. 

The average person does not want/need an overly drivey version of the breed of dog they are interested in. I had a friend come with me to a dog show and tell me how ugly show bred Labs, Goldens, Pugs etc are. They need that personality, but they want the look of the pet bred byb look they are used to.


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

Yes we waited a year for a Greater Swiss Mt dog (and that was even to get on a waiting list)-- and the litter we were waitlisted for (behind 8 other people)-- 7 out of 8 pups died during the C section....
we gave up....

And honestly, these were all great breeders we were looking at... but d/t the small gene pool -- our puppy (working LGD lines) probably has a far better shot at being long lived and healthy....(saw a flyer at our Feed store)...


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

CptJack said:


> There is so much of this. "I'd rather have a dog who can WORK than looks right" is something I hear a lot of.
> 
> Well. Sure. Except... they're not really one or the other?





Crantastic said:


> Yep. There are only show/working splits in a few breeds. Many breeds can (and do) achieve performance/working titles as well as conformation championships. One or the other is good, but both are great.


I know several poodle breeders who have dogs with both performance and conformation titles. Katie's groomer has a picture on her web site of four MACH dogs all sired by one of her conformation / performance dogs. A breeder who assisted me while looking for Katie has conformation and obedience titles on her dogs, plus several a certified therapy dogs. Katie's breeder shows in conformation, but not performance sports; however, she is very active in breed rescue which takes a great deal of time and money. I can understand why many breeders choose one or the other - it's expensive and time consuming to train and show dogs in one venue, doubly expensive to do it in several.



zhaor said:


> My definition of a BYB is pretty much synonymous to a irresponsible breeder. So by that definition, it's pretty straight forward to say I don't like BYBs. Similarly, I don't consider responsible breeders that don't care about show standards BYBs.
> 
> I thought that was pretty much what everyone thought of when they talk about BYBs but apparently not.


While part of my definition of responsible breeding includes attending to breed standards (unless breeding mixes for specific purposes beyond making money), I don't consider breeders who don't show in conformation irresponsible. I would, however, see neither competing nor working breeding dogs as a potential red flag.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Just some other thoughts:

Things that *I* think ALL breeders should do:

Basic health testing. Hips and elbows on big dogs, patellas on little ones, cardiac on breeds that tend to drop from it. 
Take back any dog that they've bred, OR have something in place to assure that the dog does NOT become a burden on the shelter system

....

and thats it. That is pretty much how I personally define a BYB. Not really a lengthy list, is it? Of course titles are nice, working is nice, breed stuff is nice, ect ect (and don't get me wrong, thats what I would look for in a breeder) BUT when you really get down to how breeders can make sure that they aren't damaging the lives that they bring into this world?

All they need to do in my eyes is breed with the intention of producing healthy puppies that will never end up in my shelter.

Not so complicated, I dont think.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Rescued said:


> Just some other thoughts:
> 
> Things that *I* think ALL breeders should do:
> 
> ...


That's the essential, stuff, yeah. I would also add: don't breed the same pair over and over.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Isn't this thread more about what average dog owners want, and why they go to a BYB, and how to get them to find a good breeder instead? I think most people want A dog, perhaps of a particular breed, but have no idea about specific breedings, etc. If I decided I wanted a purebred/purpose-bred dog (not so likely, but just for an example), I wouldn't have any concept of particular breedings or any of that. And there is NO way I'd wait a year or 2 for a pup. So, IDK, how to convince someone like me to try to find a good breeder and not a BYB?


Why would you not? I have puppy want BAD but I would be willing to wait 2 + years for a pup from one of my fave breeders and I am the most impatient person you have ever seen, if I can wait so can anyone else. If this is a person's first time with that particular breed they can use that time to research!


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> That's the essential, stuff, yeah. I would also add: don't breed the same pair over and over.


I mean, are those the only two things *I* would look for in a breeder? nope. But as far as "BYB" goes- breed healthy dogs, and don't make them my responsibility as a shelter worker. ITS NOT COMPLICATED.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

aiw said:


> As with most dog things it just.... depends.
> 
> I'd be a fool to get any dog with working lines and titles, even combined with show. They are wonderful and perfectly suited to some... but not me. My life is just not set up for a dog who needs intense exercise daily or has strong, specific drives that need an outlet. When it comes to acquiring a dog its easy to say working titles are important and indicate good breeding or "the best" of a breed. But on the ground reality for me is that I'd be much better suited to a dog who doesn't have them. I doubt I'm unusual in that regard.
> 
> ...



Well, yes and no. It, again, depends upon the breed and what the title is. Would a dog whose parents have CGCs and therapy dog certification or a title in rally be any harder for you to live with? Or anyone else to live with? Unlikely. I don't think anyone has to do both to be a responsible breeder (DEPENDS!) but I don't like that people hear performance titles and think field trials and cracked out dogs. Jack's titled in weight pull. Frost is titled in earth dog stuff (somewhere). They hunt most weekends in the appropriate seasons now. How hard are they to live with? They're not, because they're also well balanced dogs of their breed, which is high energy but not insane. 

There are a LOT of titles that count as 'performance'.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Why would you not? I have puppy want BAD but I would be willing to wait 2 + years for a pup from one of my fave breeders and I am the most impatient person you have ever seen, if I can wait so can anyone else. If this is a person's first time with that particular breed they can use that time to research!


If I wanted a dog from my "fave" breeder or out of a particular dog, etc., then, yes, I would wait. If I want A dog, then I want a dog in a timely manner. If that breeder isn't having a litter in that time, they should recommend someone else of comparable quality who is. Obviously, in this case I personally would just trot on down to the shelter, but let's say hypothetically that unwanted dogs are not in supply and my only choices are a BYB or a "good breeder". Now why, under those circumstances, would I want to wait a few years to *maybe* get a dog, *if* the breeding worked out? Life is short, I don't want to be dogless for several years.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

Willowy said:


> If I wanted a dog from my "fave" breeder or out of a particular dog, etc., then, yes, I would wait. If I want A dog, then I want a dog in a timely manner. If that breeder isn't having a litter in that time, they should recommend someone else of comparable quality who is. Obviously, in this case I personally would just trot on down to the shelter, but let's say hypothetically that unwanted dogs are not in supply and my only choices are a BYB or a "good breeder". Now why, under those circumstances, would I want to wait a few years to *maybe* get a dog, *if* the breeding worked out? Life is short, I don't want to be dogless for several years.


If more people sought out breeders that took responsibility for their dogs, then I think the market would shift enough that the supply would be there to not make it necessary to shortcut to an irresponsible breeder. 

There doesn't seem to be the homeless/shelter dog problem in Northern Europe that we have here in the US. Yet, people still own dogs and apparently have a variety of dogs to suit their needs. That is even without widespread S/N. So, it indicates to me that if more people considered where the dogs were coming from and didn't do things like "just one litter so the kids can see them miracle of birth...." then there would still be enough dogs to go around without the dogs getting dumped into the shelter system.

As an example. my neighbors had a yorkie and a toy poodle. Their relatives said "Aww, cute, I want a puppy" so they bred the dogs. One litter, all the dogs got homes with friend and family but there was zero guarantee to take the dogs back if something happened and zero health checking of beyond standard vaccines. Lo and behold, the female got pregnant again on her next heat. Those dogs did NOT have homes ready for them, as far as I know, they ended up "free to a good home" on craigslist or similar. No responsibility for the animals they produced at all.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

While we are on the subject, I just ran across a Doodle breeder who tests hips, elbows, patellas, eyes, heart and more.

http://www.bernedoodles.com/index.html


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

I agree with willowy on the waiting thing...I'll wait a few months for a puppy from a good breeder but a year or two, nope, never gonna happen. honestly I don't care how bad I want that puppy, I WILL end up with something else in that timeframe even if its less then ideal. and 99.9% of the population is going to have that opinion which puts many good breeders out of reach for the average person.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Miss Bugs said:


> I agree with willowy on the waiting thing...I'll wait a few months for a puppy from a good breeder but a year or two, nope, never gonna happen.


Yep I agree, life is short and it's really freaking ridiculous to expect me to wait years for a new dog, especially in the case that my current dog were to die or something.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Kayota said:


> Yep I agree, life is short and it's really freaking ridiculous to expect me to wait years for a new dog, especially in the case that my current dog were to die or something.


If it were a rare breed, I'd wait. I'd probably have another dog whilst I'm at it. I'm a two dog kind of person though. 

It varies from person to person. But if it were me, if I didn't want to wait, I'd just go with a more popular breed from a reputable breeder or rescue.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Kayota said:


> While we are on the subject, I just ran across a Doodle breeder who tests hips, elbows, patellas, eyes, heart and more.
> 
> http://www.bernedoodles.com/index.html


For some reason, I'm a little more put off by this kind of kennel with so many dogs and "breeds" than the small home breeder who doesn't health test. :/


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Hmm i was perfectly okay waiting a year and a few months for my APBT pup. It's EXACTLY what i want totally worth the wait


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Hmm i was perfectly okay waiting a year and a few months for my APBT pup. It's EXACTLY what i want totally worth the wait


If you don't know/care exactly what you want, why would you be willing to wait? (keeping in mind I mean if there were no dogs in rescue/shelters or if someone were unwilling to take a second-hand dog). It's not a reasonable thing to ask of most people.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Willowy said:


> If you don't know/care exactly what you want, why would you be willing to wait? (keeping in mind I mean if there were no dogs in rescue/shelters or if someone were unwilling to take a second-hand dog). It's not a reasonable thing to ask of most people.


 Well if you don't know what you want perhaps you shouldn't be getting a dog?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Well if you don't know what you want perhaps you shouldn't be getting a dog?


Are you saying that people who want a dog but aren't particular about what kind of dog shouldn't have a dog? For what reason? Are they inadequate as dog owners somehow? What if they know what breed they want but aren't particular about what individual dogs/breeders they get the dog from?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Are you saying that people who want a dog but aren't particular about what kind of dog shouldn't have a dog? For what reason? Are they inadequate as dog owners somehow?


I think if you do not know what characteristics you are looking for in a dog it means you need to do more research so you know what will fit your lifestyle


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Ok. . .what if several breeds meet your lifestyle needs, or if you have narrowed down the breed but don't care much about anything else? Someone has to be a total dog geek to have a dog? There are a lot of things I know I don't know about the dog world, and don't much care to learn. I just want a DOG. And most people don't even know there are things they don't know. I think this is a major reason so many people go to BYBs. . .


----------



## JazzyTheSiberian (Feb 4, 2013)

Right now I am willing to wait. Simply because I wouldn't get a dog for at least 4 years. I still live with my parents, & plan on going to college for at least two years.



RabbleFox said:


> If it were a rare breed, I'd wait. I'd probably have another dog whilst I'm at it. I'm a two dog kind of person though.
> 
> It varies from person to person. But if it were me, if I didn't want to wait, I'd just go with a more popular breed from a reputable breeder or rescue.


Implying that I was in a position to get a dog, it would depend on the breed on how long I would wait. 

There are few "rare" breeds I am looking into. There are not many breeders in the US, so I would be willing to wait awhile.I also have considered importing.

Though for the majority of breeds I am looking into, I wouldn't wait more than two years. More likely a year or less.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I would say if you just want a dog and don't care about specifics, then rescue is probably your best bet. If you know the breed I don't see why you'd have to be a super dog nerd to get one unless it was something really rare? For most relatively common breeds it's not too hard to find a semi-decent to good breeder having pups within the year.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

If you are interested in multiple breeds chances are you will be able to find a decent breeder who will have puppies within a year..


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Well, I was hypothetically going with the assumption that rescue is not a thing. Which of course will probably never happen in the US. But some people don't consider a second-hand dog an option for whatever reasons.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

It's not even that hard to get a rare breed within six months. I mean, if you're super specific and you want, say, a black and white toy-sized male AKK with blue eyes, you may have to wait a year or more. But if you just want a male AKK, or even a black and white male AKK, I'd say it'd be six months max. For a more common breed, it'd be even faster, especially if you were willing to go outside your immediate area. The people waiting years are usually the people who are waiting for a specific breeding ("I ONLY want a puppy from X dog and Y bitch"), who are waiting for a specific breeder who only breeds once or twice a year, or who want something super rare where there may be only a couple of litters bred per year in the country.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Well, I was hypothetically going with the assumption that rescue is not a thing. Which of course will probably never happen in the US. But some people don't consider a second-hand dog an option for whatever reasons.


I prefer the term pre-enjoyed rather than second hand or used. Maisy was pre-enjoyed by two different families before she came to me. Although, the amount of enjoyment is debatable. She had 3 different homes and twice at the shelter before she was 5 months (not including the breeders home).

Although that's my philosophy on anything. used cars aren't used their pre-enjoyed, etc.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

RabbleFox said:


> If it were a rare breed, I'd wait. I'd probably have another dog whilst I'm at it. I'm a two dog kind of person though.
> 
> It varies from person to person. But if it were me, if I didn't want to wait, I'd just go with a more popular breed from a reputable breeder or rescue.


yeah I would wait for a rare breed if I were really dead set on having one.


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

I really really want a bloodhound, but I can't for years at least. But, if I had the money and the time was right I could find a decently bred bloodhound and have it within months. I want a male without any black on him, so that might make the wait a bit longer but I don't see why I should have to wait longer than six months to a year when I am ready to buy the puppy.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

I was prepared to wait for a well-bred puppy from a breeder I believed to be ethical. Originally, we planned to get a puppy a breeder who was planning a litter (her bitch was bred the week after I first contacted her); unfortunately, the breeding was unsuccessful. Again, I was prepared to wait until the breeder tried again, but I did start researching other breeders and found Katie.

I want a second dog and am very much willing to wait for another puppy from Katie's breeder. I'm torn between getting a brown pup and a pup from Katie's sister (not sure if she would have brown pups). That would be a 1 to 2 year wait. I'm also interested in a somewhat rare breed (I believe there are less than 300 in the US), and know I'd have a long wait for a pup, probably longer if I wanted to go with a semi-close breeder.

Still, I don't think wanting a dog NOW is a reason to support a breeder you find less than ethical.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Kayota said:


> While we are on the subject, I just ran across a Doodle breeder who tests hips, elbows, patellas, eyes, heart and more.
> 
> http://www.bernedoodles.com/index.html


A good start, but WHY do people insist on breeding on prelims?? Just get the dog freaking OFA'ed.

http://www.bernedoodles.com/georgie_mini_goldendoodle_hips_and_elbows.jpg 
http://www.bernedoodles.com/Aurora_golden_retriever_hips_elbows.jpg


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Rescued said:


> A good start, but WHY do people insist on breeding on prelims?? Just get the dog freaking OFA'ed.
> 
> http://www.bernedoodles.com/georgie_mini_goldendoodle_hips_and_elbows.jpg
> http://www.bernedoodles.com/Aurora_golden_retriever_hips_elbows.jpg


I didn't look closely at the breedings and dates, but some of the SA and CERF reports were several years old. My understanding is that the results are only good for one year, so the tests would need to be done within the year prior to breeding.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

cookieface said:


> I didn't look closely at the breedings and dates, but some of the SA and CERF reports were several years old. My understanding is that the results are only good for one year, so the tests would need to be done within the year prior to breeding.


Yeah once I saw that all of their current "breeding dogs" had OFA prelims listed, I didnt even look at the rest of the stuff.

See, this is why its SO FREAKING HARD for puppy buyers to make an educated decision. Kayota is more educated in this stuff than the average first time buyer, and even she was fooled.

Also, a bunch of the prelims were done at 12 months when a dog is still developing, so not worth much.


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

Rescued said:


> Also, a bunch of the prelims were done at 12 months when a dog is still developing, so not worth much.


Actually, OFA prelims are fairly accurate. http://www.offa.org/hd_prelims.html



> A recent publication* compared the reliability of the preliminary evaluation hip grade phenotype with the 2 year old evaluation in dogs and there was 100% reliability for a preliminary grade of excellent being normal at 2 years of age (excellent, good, or fair). There was 97.9% reliability for a preliminary grade of good being normal at 2 years of age, and 76.9% reliability for a preliminary grade of fair being normal at 2 years of age.


A good prelim rating, esp if the dog is "Excellent" or "Good" is reliable indicator the dog will have normal (anywhere from excellent to fair, but not dysplastic) hips as an adult. Whether or not that's satisfactory for people as puppy buyers is up to them, but OFA prelim ratings are hardly worthless. People tend to suggest they are quite often, but the research says otherwise.


----------



## Pasarella (May 30, 2013)

I had a mini "doxie" from a BYB .Must say I wasn't happy.first of all she has sick eyes,she will become blind by her age,and this is for not doing health testing,she is nothing like a dachshund should be in her personality,I am just so happy I decided to get another doxie but from a good breeder this time,if I would't I would never ever get a doxie again and would think thst they are terrible dogs the rest of my life.Now she lives with my mother,where she can be only dog in the house(she got dog agressive at a sudden by age 5,5 years).Late I found out that the breeder I got my dog from is with somekind of menthal sicknes and uses some drugs,that makes her not care about her dogs,so she had 15 starved doxies,that bred by them selves and mothers eated their pups from starvation,some dogs came to my father that lives next to that house,they where fureless,skin and bones,biten. So yeah I really hate BYB and I regret I bought a pup from there.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Emily1188 said:


> Actually, OFA prelims are fairly accurate. http://www.offa.org/hd_prelims.html
> 
> 
> 
> A good prelim rating, esp if the dog is "Excellent" or "Good" is reliable indicator the dog will have normal (anywhere from excellent to fair, but not dysplastic) hips as an adult. Whether or not that's satisfactory for people as puppy buyers is up to them, but OFA prelim ratings are hardly worthless. People tend to suggest they are quite often, but the research says otherwise.


Oh I totally get that they aren't worthless- my post in the other thread had the article that went into detail as to the percent changes of dogs that go from passing prelim to failing official and it isnt a LOT.

that being said, she has a number of dogs that had "fair" prelims at only 12 months. I would like to see a breeder redo those at the very least.

Also, I get breeding a dog off of prelims because the individual situation warrants it, and then getting the official done once the bitch is done whelping or whatever, but I don't get why this breeder never completes her prelims, kwim?


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

Rescued said:


> I don't get why this breeder never completes her prelims, kwim?


Yes, I definitely do. That is fishy. Especially since she uses a giant breed in her programs. Definitely suspect and reason for pause!


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Emily1188 said:


> Yes, I definitely do. That is fishy. Especially since she uses a giant breed in her programs. Definitely suspect and reason for pause!


AND especially since a BUNCH of them aren't even OFA prelims, but a certification from an independent radiologist. Which I've never heard of doing instead of OFA?

http://www.bernedoodles.com/Gemini_hips_001.jpg

OH, and a lot of her CERF aren't even submitted, or weren't made public:

http://www.bernedoodles.com/Gemini_eyes_001.jpg

but when you OFA search the dog, no CERF:
http://www.offa.org/display.html?appnum=1366448#animal

yeah just weird. something is fishy.


----------



## Pasarella (May 30, 2013)

Ok this lady was sick,not every BYB is sick.But then whatever-you are lying to people,because you ar not selling dachshund!You are selling pure mutt!
What I mean is these isn't dachshunds!They are just mutts,that has a dachshund somewhere in them and looks a little bit like one.


This is the dog I got from a BYB.Well yes,she reminds a doxie,but only till you put a real one next to her,then she looks more like toyterrier mix or something

This is how dachshunds look like!

Patch Van Woerden(grand fahter to both of my dogs)

Fanta Fellini(my dog)

I don't know how there is in US,I live in the oposite side of ocean,but here none of the BYB dogs looks like they should look like,they usually have some health problems,they may be agressive or very fearless-in one word unstabile.And it reaaly brakes my hearth when somebody asks me-how can you live with those terrible dogs?My... have one she/he bites even his owner,barks all the time,etc. 
When I ask them if the dog has a pedigree they always say "no".

I will have puppy litter in may(mating my female next month),I have looked for a male for her,for over a year,she has been to shows,she has a working diploma,I still have to get certificate so I can legaly breed dogs,I will always be ready to take any my pup back and I'm thinking to spay/neuter those dogs that will be taken just as companions,because the sad true is,that some of these "just companions" later has many litters.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

But so many people wouldn't look beyond "they test" their dogs.


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

Miss Bugs said:


> I agree with willowy on the waiting thing...I'll wait a few months for a puppy from a good breeder but a year or two, nope, never gonna happen. honestly I don't care how bad I want that puppy, I WILL end up with something else in that timeframe even if its less then ideal. and 99.9% of the population is going to have that opinion which puts many good breeders out of reach for the average person.


Yup ... I couldnt agree more. And for us in our household pups work best d/t to our lifestyle, animals, child.....


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Miss Bugs said:


> I agree with willowy on the waiting thing...I'll wait a few months for a puppy from a good breeder but a year or two, nope, never gonna happen. honestly I don't care how bad I want that puppy, I WILL end up with something else in that timeframe even if its less then ideal. and 99.9% of the population is going to have that opinion which puts many good breeders out of reach for the average person.


Yeah, even I am not waiting a year for a puppy unless I really want a specific breeding. Let us also keep in mind that if more people are going to reputable breeders, the waiting lists get much longer. The puppies are going to be given priority to performance homes too.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> Yeah, even I am not waiting a year for a puppy unless I really want a specific breeding. Let us also keep in mind that if more people are going to reputable breeders, the waiting lists get much longer. The puppies are going to be given priority to performance homes too.


On the other hand, if more people expected more from their breeders, then the breeders would have to raise their standards to meet the new market status quo. So the wait lists really wouldn't end up any longer for the more popular and common breeds.


----------



## Jen2010 (Feb 12, 2013)

It seems like most people on this thread are against BYB. Personally, I don't think buying your dog from a BYB is going to increase the numbers at the shelters. People get rid of their dogs for a variety of reasons and while I don't agree with it, it's going to happen. Someone who has a baby and doesn't have time for their dog anymore will get rid of it whether it's purebred from a breeder or whether they got it from a local classified ad. The same goes for allergies, work changes, moving, etc.

For me, I don't buy from breeders because:
1. They're too picky about who they sell their dogs to. I don't plan to put my dogs in shows, give them bottled water, etc. Does that make me unworthy? I also don't like the look of the docked tails/ears.
2. If I'm ready for a dog or puppy I don't want to have to wait. My husband and I spent almost 2 years waiting for the right situation for us and deciding on what type of dog we wanted. I wouldn't want to wait another year or more to get one after that.
3. They're too expensive. I'm not going to spend over $1000 to buy a dog. I'm sorry, I'm just not. That's not to say I wouldn't spend whatever is necessary to look after a dog. Our dog gets very good quality food and goes for her regular vet visits. I'll provide for her whatever she needs.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

Jen2010 said:


> It seems like most people on this thread are against BYB. Personally, I don't think buying your dog from a BYB is going to increase the numbers at the shelters. People get rid of their dogs for a variety of reasons and while I don't agree with it, it's going to happen. Someone who has a baby and doesn't have time for their dog anymore will get rid of it whether it's purebred from a breeder or whether they got it from a local classified ad. The same goes for allergies, work changes, moving, etc.


Except that a good breeder will take back a dog if a buyer has to give it up. They will then work to place the dog into another home. The people that sell in the classified ads aren't taking back the dogs so when life happens, those are the dogs that end up in shelters. They are also the puppies that get dumped at shelters when they don't sell quickly enough and start to get annoying.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Honestly, I have not seen breeders being too picky about who owns their dogs. I do show (now) but didn't when I bought my dogs and my family growing up certainly didn't. And bottled water? LOL Most breeders are willing to work with you if you're honest about what you want and what you can provide the dog.

And yes, a dog from a good breeder usually has a first refusal clause or something similar. If I need to rehome Mia, for example- it ain't happening, then I am supposed to tell the breeder and if I cannot find her a suitable home then she goes back to the breeder. Does it always work? No. But I have seen dogs pulled from the shelter once their breeder is located. Good breeders do NOT want their dogs ending up in shelters.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I would buy from a ranch dog or working breeder bad used many of them here health test their dogs because unsound dogs can't work. But they sometimes crossbreed and don't show their dogs so I suppose they would be considered by. By some people's standards they would be considered BYB ... By it doesn IMHO make them bad


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

Pasarella said:


> Ok this lady was sick,not every BYB is sick.But then whatever-you are lying to people,because you ar not selling dachshund!You are selling pure mutt!
> What I mean is these isn't dachshunds!They are just mutts,that has a dachshund somewhere in them and looks a little bit like one.
> 
> 
> ...


I think the top Dachshund looks healthier and I prefer the look IMO. I actually prefer the look and structure of a lot of BYB dogs vs. show bred.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> Honestly, I have not seen breeders being too picky about who owns their dogs. I do show (now) but didn't when I bought my dogs and my family growing up certainly didn't. And bottled water? LOL Most breeders are willing to work with you if you're honest about what you want and what you can provide the dog.
> 
> And yes, a dog from a good breeder usually has a first refusal clause or something similar. If I need to rehome Mia, for example- it ain't happening, then I am supposed to tell the breeder and if I cannot find her a suitable home then she goes back to the breeder. Does it always work? No. But I have seen dogs pulled from the shelter once their breeder is located. Good breeders do NOT want their dogs ending up in shelters.



...I. Don't compete. I don't show. I don't breed. I don't have any interest in doing any of the above. I feed kibble. I don't give bottled water. 

I *co-own* Frost and have to stick him on a plane to another RT owner for breeding this weekend. 

I didn't even have to pay an adoption fee for him. Her only requirements were first right of refusal, and for Frost, that she retain breeding rights for a while and I send the odd picture.



Jacksons Mom said:


> I think the top Dachshund looks healthier and I prefer the look IMO. I actually prefer the look and structure of a lot of BYB dogs vs. show bred.


Yep. And that top doxie is not show standard, but it is almost certainly purebred. That doesn't mean they aren't sick, the woman isn't sick, they weren't neglected, they shouldn't have been health tested, etc. Nowhere near. But I don't like the look of a lot of show doxies at ALL. Too exaggerated for me.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

spyro said:


> Couldn't agree more. The Dachshunds with their chests practically touching the ground... come on now! How is that healthier? How is it superior? It's not.


I also agree with this, in fact, the doxie at the top looks a lot like doxies used to look back in the early days of the breed.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

I've found that breeders aren't really that picky. Like, when I was getting Merlin, it took four different rescues 2+ weeks to get back to me. I contacted a couple breeders and they all got back to me within a couple days. We emailed a bit, I told them what I was looking for. I wanted a young dog but not a puppy. Dog didn't need to be show quality. Dog needed natural velcroness. Dog needed to be ok in off leash situations. I don't have a fenced in yard, I'm not a professional (I work for $8.50 an hour), and I'm pretty young (21). 

The breeders in Michigan didn't have any adult dogs available. My mom pushed me to contact a breeder in Ohio and ta-da, Merlin was available. We emailed a bit more and she said I could come pick him up. He is titled. He is crate trained. I didn't pay $1,000 for him (he was $600). 

Well bred dogs aren't hard to come by. IMO, there is really no reason to support a BYB. If you aren't willing to wait, go to a different breeder. Don't want to pay too much, then shop around. 

I'm a less than ideal home and I had no problem in tracking down an available rat terrier in less than 2 weeks.


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

I think it may not be feasible for the average person to go and cultivate a relationship with a Breeder (although it certainly helps if you have a dog resume-- it is actuallly one of the reasons we have our BYB LGD pup-- eventually I would like a Pyreenean Mastiff from a breeder in Nevada, and I do feel it helps if you have had a similar dog .... we do love our pup for himself-- its such an adventure learning the Ins and Outs of a different breed!)....

You can do emails and phone calls, but really what does that mean to a Breeder often a couple hundreds of miles a way?...

Its easier if the Breeder knows someone you know (thats how we got our Giant Schnauzer).... etc.... 
I dont fully blame them, the world is full of well intentioned but ill prepared dog owners....


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

RabbleFox;2774090
I'm a less than ideal home and I had no problem in tracking down an available rat terrier in less than 2 weeks.[/QUOTE said:


> Well I challenge you to do that for a Greater Swiss Mt Dog -- and I think we are a pretty good match....


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

Haven't read the thread but IMO, you'd have to differentiate between a Byb and what I call a hobby breeder. My definition of a Byb is someone who gets a couple dogs, they have puppies, yay. A lot of them live outside, they look at it as a money maker but they aren't a mill or hoarder. A hobby breeder, IMO, keeps dogs in the house, well taken care of, doesn't look at them as a money maker but doesn't show or do dog sports nor do they do health testing.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Jen2010 said:


> It seems like most people on this thread are against BYB. Personally, I don't think buying your dog from a BYB is going to increase the numbers at the shelters.


Where do you think shelter dogs are coming from? It's not from reputable breeders -- they take their dogs back if the owner can no longer keep them.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> Where do you think shelter dogs are coming from? It's not from reputable breeders -- they take their dogs back if the owner can no longer keep them.


yes, yes, and yes.

I work in a shelter. An overwhelming majority of dogs were originally purchased as a (x breed) puppy from a breeder and then relinquished to the shelter when the owner didn't want them anymore (or couldn't take care of them, ect. ect).

The other portion of purebred dogs that come into the shelter? Health expenses that became too much for the owner to afford.

(and I am NOT saying that mutts are healthier, but a weirdly large portion of our dogs with preventable health issues (aka hips, versus something like fleas or mange) are purebred. LIKELY this is because they're being surrendered with this information versus just picked up and the AC officers notice what they notice.

So anyway. Healthy dogs that dont end up in a shelter. It shouldn't be the gargantuan task it seems to be.


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> Where do you think shelter dogs are coming from? It's not from reputable breeders -- they take their dogs back if the owner can no longer keep them.


Yes, good breeders will take them back. Often the family will not call the breeder or the buyer resells the dog to an unknown party. Breeders will not pay back for the dog but the buyer thinks he paid x amount for the dog and he is going to get something for the dog. the smart breeder will chip the pup and will have it registered in their name so if the dog does end up in a shelter the breeder will be notified. Seen this happen a few times.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Rescued said:


> Yeah once I saw that all of their current "breeding dogs" had OFA prelims listed, I didnt even look at the rest of the stuff.
> 
> See, this is why its SO FREAKING HARD for puppy buyers to make an educated decision. Kayota is more educated in this stuff than the average first time buyer, and even she was fooled.
> 
> Also, a bunch of the prelims were done at 12 months when a dog is still developing, so not worth much.


Yeah I had no idea they had to be done yearly.


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

BYB are supported because of;
price- often a lot cheaper than a pup from a breeder who tests. Still a lot of people out there who have never heard of hip dysplasia and if they have do not fully understand the disease or the cause.

advertisement-BYB advertise in newspapers, craigslist, other puppyfind websites. their pups are put out in places people see and cruise when looking for a pup. 

will sell to anyone- BYB do not care, you have the money, you get a puppy Does not matter if you have had 20 dogs or all your dogs have been HBC. good breeders weed out the bad owners

impulse buying. BYB do not care. Good breeders encourage the wait for it idea.

BYB are far more supported by the majority, than a good breeder


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

BernerMax said:


> Well I challenge you to do that for a Greater Swiss Mt Dog -- and I think we are a pretty good match....


Swisses are rarer. So they won't be as affordable as a Rat Terrier or as available. But! I'm willing to bet I could find a young adult Swiss available in the Tri-State area (Michigan/Ohio/Indiana) who comes from health tested parents, is registered, and needs a home within a ~3 month time frame. I'm not saying he'll be $600 but I'm guessing he won't be a $5,000 animal. 

According to the Greater Swiss Mountain Dog breed club website, there are 5 breeders within the tri-state area for me to contact. More if I include Illinois. 

It's just not that hard... You (general you) can't just say "Oh there aren't any litters with cheap puppies within 30 minutes of me. Guess I have to go with a BYB! Weeeee!!!1!" I'm willing to drive so I guess that makes my search area broader. And I'm willing to pay a reasonable amount for a dog that meets my criteria.


----------



## Pasarella (May 30, 2013)

*Jacksons Mom*,top dachshunds just looks healthier,I dunno about the first one,that is just a pic from archieve,the dog was lost,but the other is/was mine and she has inborn eye sicknes that will make her blind after couple of years(she is turning 6 next month).Somehow she got illnes that normaly Dam and Sir gets checked for before breeding them.
And I can promisse that the pusebreed ones aren't sick,they are perfectly heathy,happy dogs with stable psyche.Nothing wrong with them,they can move properly,the male even has first degree working diploma


----------



## Pasarella (May 30, 2013)

If you like the two top dogs better,than you just like black& tan mutts and you should go to shelter and look for one,not go to BYB buy a mutt and tell everybody you have a purebreed doxie.
Did some research on that first one I didn't know,he is a mixed dahchund,sorry,but that doesn,t change anything because I saw a cooment that told that the mixed one is purebreed.Actually,as human who is much in these dahchsund things I can say that the only thing that remaisn dachshund in that dog is the color and size,nothing else.
And actually it really makes me upset that some you thinks that there is something wrong with my dog because she has such a big chest.
I'm sorry about the oftopic(ore maybe it is somehow realted to the thread).Lets say I am just telling that there is no need to go to a BYB to get healthy,happy and active dachshund,because the responsibale bred ones can moe too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5LgtFGUjZw

Too short legs,huh?Probably can't even moeve properly.I'm sorry,this just made me mad.Dachshunds are the best for me,speciaaly mine and there is nothing wrong with this breed.They still can hunt real wildboars and they do ant the big chest and short legs is not an obstacle!


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

Pasarella said:


>





spyro said:


> Couldn't agree more. The Dachshunds with their chests practically touching the ground... come on now! *How is that healthier? How is it superior? It's not.*


Re: the bolded part. The dog pictured would have a difficult time doing the job it was designed to do. Chests should be deep and full with plenty of capacity to house the heart and lungs, essential qualities for arduous underground work. Keels should be quite prominent to aid in 'pushing' the dirt aside much like a boat pushing through the water. Fronts and rears should be compact, legs should be short and easily foldable for work inside the extremely close quarters of a badger den.

Apologies for going slightly o/t.


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

petpeeve said:


> Re: the bolded part. The dog pictured would have a difficult time doing the job it was designed to do. Chests should be deep and full with plenty of capacity to house the heart and lungs, essential qualities for arduous underground work. Keels should be quite prominent to aid in 'pushing' the dirt aside much like a boat pushing through the water. Fronts and rears should be compact, legs should be short and easily foldable for work inside the extremely close quarters of a badger den.
> 
> Apologies for going slightly o/t.


I agree and I do not think the dog in the picture appears to be purebred at all? The ears are small and triangular; I've never met a PB Doxie with ears like that at all. The muzzle is short, the skull is domed, and the whole face reminds me a Chihuahua more than a Doxie. I've seen lots of Doxies bred every which way, good, bad, and other, lol, but I've never seen anything that looked like the dog in the pics. I'd guess there's some Chi or something else in there. I've seen Doxies with extra length of leg before but not to that extent. Nothing about that dog looks purebred to me, I've been confused this whole time.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Pasarella said:


> If you like the two top dogs better,than you just like black& tan mutts and you should go to shelter and look for one,not go to BYB buy a mutt and tell everybody you have a purebreed doxie.
> Did some research on that first one I didn't know,he is a mixed dahchund,sorry,but that doesn,t change anything because I saw a cooment that told that the mixed one is purebreed.Actually,as human who is much in these dahchsund things I can say that the only thing that remaisn dachshund in that dog is the color and size,nothing else.
> And actually it really makes me upset that some you thinks that there is something wrong with my dog because she has such a big chest.
> I'm sorry about the oftopic(ore maybe it is somehow realted to the thread).Lets say I am just telling that there is no need to go to a BYB to get healthy,happy and active dachshund,because the responsibale bred ones can moe too
> ...


Boars??? Lol. I hope this is a typo because as someone who lives in an area where feral hogs and wild boars are prolific and can reach 250lbs. Doxies are bred to go to ground against animals like badgers ... Though I doubt a modern doxie could hold its own against an animal like a badger anymore. 

I don't mean to brag but my 14 year old JRT can still hunt circles around any doxie I have come across .


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Boars??? Lol. I hope this is a typo because as someone who lives in an area where feral hogs and wild boars are prolific and can reach 250lbs. Doxies are bred to go to ground against animals like badgers ... Though I doubt a modern doxie could hold its own against an animal like a badger anymore.
> 
> I don't mean to brag but my 14 year old JRT can still hunt circles around any doxie I have come across .


 I quickly found this link that contains a few pictures, Im sure there is quite a bit more info out there. Doxies are well-known for blood tracking among other duties, they're a very versatile dog. German engineered, lol.

http://borntotracknews.blogspot.ca/2010/02/what-do-working-dachshunds-do-in-winter.html

And yes, they're still widely used to hunt badger.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Kayota said:


> Yeah I had no idea they had to be done yearly.


See I didn't know that either! I thought things like OFA's were a one time thing, see you can always learn something  that's why I like threads like this.


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> See I didn't know that either! I thought things like OFA's were a one time thing, see you can always learn something  that's why I like threads like this.


OFA is the name of certifying body, not a test. Some health tests, like hip and elbow x-rays, are considered a one time thing. Same with any DNA tests. However, some eye and cardiac tests should be done annually or at least prior to breeding, to ensure that at that point in the time, the animal has no eye or heart disease. That can change though, which is why re-testing is necessary. 

Health testing isn't simple unfortunately, which is why buyer education is so important.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

The more you know! Re: travel, I'm not willing to go more than an hour drive for a dog unless there is something really special about it or its in immediate danger. An hour is long even but with ffaxon she was in danger of being pts and i really connected with her when saw her pic so i went and got her the next day.


----------



## LoMD13 (Aug 4, 2010)

petpeeve said:


> I quickly found this link that contains a few pictures, Im sure there is quite a bit more info out there. Doxies are well-known for blood tracking among other duties, they're a very versatile dog. German engineered, lol.
> 
> http://borntotracknews.blogspot.ca/2010/02/what-do-working-dachshunds-do-in-winter.html
> 
> And yes, they're still widely used to hunt badger.


Those dogs in the pictures do seem to have more length of leg than show-bred though. I don't know much about them honestly, is there a breed split?


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

As ffor the dachshunds, im sorry but i take offense to the sentiment that my moms dogs arent truly dachshunds because they came from bybs. they aare eevery bit as dachshund as your show dogs.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

Kayota said:


> The more you know! Re: travel, I'm not willing to go more than an hour drive for a dog unless there is something really special about it or its in immediate danger. An hour is long even but with ffaxon she was in danger of being pts and i really connected with her when saw her pic so i went and got her the next day.


Huh, only an hour. I'm not picking on you, it just seems like a short distance to me. 

I wonder what is "typical" that people would be willing to drive for their desired breed of dog. I would think that it would be more like anything that can be done round trip in a day (since overnight hotel costs and dog or kid sitting at home would up the $$ amount). My parents drive an hour to buy groceries a few times a month, so an hour's drive for a dog that I'd have 10+ years seems like nothing.


----------



## LoMD13 (Aug 4, 2010)

An hour seems like an extremely short drive for a dog to me. I do that a few times a week so it's not out of the ordinary. i'D be willing to drive up to 8 hours one way for a dog.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Hehe, yeah, I have to drive an hour just to get to Walmart . I would do a pretty long road trip to get a dog---what's a few hours driving compared to 15 years with the dog?---but then I sometimes go to Minneapolis (6 hours) just for funsies so I'm probably biased, LOL.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

I was lucky enough to spend some time in Germany about a decade ago. Part of the trip involved a home stay with a lovely family with working dachshunds. I do mean died in the wool working dogs, not hunt-titled or just a certificate, but dogs that did the job day in and day out. I'll say this for their dachshunds, and their friends' dachshunds, they looked somewhere between the conformation style and the questionable BYB pictured above. I'm referring to length of leg and exaggeration of chest depth and girth, plus shortness of back. That seems about _right_ structurally to me considering the nature of the job that the dogs were doing. Something else to consider is that like many other breeds conformation shows often feature dachshunds carrying more weight than working conditions would favor.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

An hour? I drive that far to go to a new restaurant. We drive 2.25, one way,not get to LL Bean.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

LoMD13 said:


> Those dogs in the pictures do seem to have more length of leg than show-bred though. I don't know much about them honestly, is there a breed split?


 I believe the wirehaired variety is used more for the blood tracking duties. They are 'allowed', as per breed standard, to be slightly longer on the leg when compared to smooths and longhairs. Probably due to the other breeds that were uniquely infused way back when to make up the wire we see today. 

The smooth b&t pictured earlier in the thread, though, has very poor overall structure imo and is not suited for much work of any kind.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Ha I drove from Minnesota to Ohio to pick up an oops litter mutt, so I might throw off the bell curve, but... for the right breeder and puppy I'd make a mini-vacation out of almost any distance.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

InkedMarie said:


> An hour? I drive that far to go to a new restaurant. We drive 2.25, one way,not get to LL Bean.


An hour drive is a hell of a long way for me. im not near any major cities so its essentially traffic ffree. Family has never driven more than 30 mins to get anywhere and that takes you through three or more towns depending on where you go.

ii have to admit have entertained the idea of going out of state for some of the rarer breeds im interested in--eurasier, lundehund, xoloitzquintle


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

I drove four hours to get Merlin. I'd gladly drive up to 8 hours to pick up the right dog. Longer than that if it's the super right dog. I'm a road tripping kind of gal though.

The best part about picking Merlin was that he was car suck the whole way home. Mmmm... Pre-digested food smell. Thankfully we bright extra ratty towels to chuck out as we went.


----------



## SDRRanger (May 2, 2013)

sassafras said:


> Ha I drove from Minnesota to Ohio to pick up an oops litter mutt, so I might throw off the bell curve, but... for the right breeder and puppy I'd make a mini-vacation out of almost any distance.


I drove 6 hours each way to pick up Ranger from a shelter. In March weather. 

I'd drive as far as needed for the right dog.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

also part of why i say an hour is because when i got faxon i had a ton of stops to make there and back and in the end i left at 7 am and got home at 3 pm.

aalso, my opinion is skewed bc for the most part i want shelter dogs and i can usually find what i want locally. i


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

LoMD13 said:


> An hour seems like an extremely short drive for a dog to me. I do that a few times a week so it's not out of the ordinary. i'D be willing to drive up to 8 hours one way for a dog.


Lol. I drive an hour each way to get some groceries, or see a movie. My husband has commuted a couple of hours each way for work every day. The ride to my older kid's school on the bus is 45 minutes.

Jack came here/was delivered. I drove about 4 to pick up Frost. Well, rode. My husband did the driving.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Regardless of the distance you could cover in an hour (city vs highway driving) it's still... just an hour?

I'd be willing to drive 5-6 hours each way (so basically a day round trip), more if there was a specific breed/breeder I wanted a dog from. There aren't many breeders here so it is realistic for us to have to go to Quebec/Ontario if we wanted a specific breed, in which case I'd prefer to fly and have the puppy in the cabin with me than drive and have to stop somewhere overnight.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

Kayota said:


> An hour drive is a hell of a long way for me. im not near any major cities so its essentially traffic ffree. Family has never driven more than 30 mins to get anywhere and that takes you through three or more towns depending on where you go.


In your case, since you're interested in shelter dogs, this works just fine. 

But I think an unwillingness to make a little effort may be part of the problem with people not going that little step further to find a better breeder. If someone doesn't want to wait for a local breeding from a responsible breeder, then they are just going to have to drive or have a dog shipped. If they don't want to drive/ship, then they need to wait. People want instant gratification though and end up buying a puppy from an ad in the paper.

Then again, some days I have to drive several hours for work so even though I don't like driving, I can deal with it when it there is a good reason for it.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I was willing to spend $700-$800 on plane tickets to go get Casper (his breeder lives in a remote location in northern Ontario and I'm on Prince Edward Island). When she found out how much it was going to cost me, she shipped him to me instead -- and I knew two people who had actually visited her and could vouch for her, so I was happy with that! But I still would have paid it, because I wanted this specific rare breed and I plan to have him for 10+ years. In the grand scheme of things, that trip would have been nothing.

For Crystal, I only had to drive 45 minutes (twice, once to meet her and once to pick her up). There are a few good papillon breeders in the Maritime provinces and at most, I would have had to do a day trip, maybe an overnight. But I found Crystal's breeder right here on PEI, and she's great. 

If you want something very specific -- like a rare breed, a pup from a certain breeder, a pup from certain parents, etc. -- you'll have to wait longer and may have to travel farther.

If you want something uncommon, like a toller or a schipperke, you may have to drive a few hours, or possibly fly yourself and/or the pup. You may have to wait, but I doubt you'd have to wait more than a few months.

If you want something more popular, like a healthy lab or beagle or GSD, you likely won't have to drive very far, or wait very long at all.

If you just want a dog and aren't picky about breed, you can probably find a good match in a few weeks, although I always advise people like that to go with a shelter or rescue rather than a breeder, anyway.

So, yeah. I don't think anyone is saying that if you want a dog, you should be prepared to wait a year for it. If you want a _very specific_ dog, then yes. If you're not willing to wait or travel for that rare breed from a good breeder, then owning that specific breed's probably not _that_ important to you, and you should choose something else rather than run to a BYB.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Shell said:


> In your case, since you're interested in shelter dogs, this works just fine.
> 
> But I think an unwillingness to make a little effort may be part of the problem with people not going that little step further to find a better breeder. If someone doesn't want to wait for a local breeding from a responsible breeder, then they are just going to have to drive or have a dog shipped. If they don't want to drive/ship, then they need to wait. People want instant gratification though and end up buying a puppy from an ad in the paper.
> 
> Then again, some days I have to drive several hours for work so even though I don't like driving, I can deal with it when it there is a good reason for it.


Part of why go to shelters is bc im impatient lol. ibut i should retract that or at least in crease the distance to two and a half hours--before i got faxon i was looking seriously at going to st louis to get a rescue greyhound  i have also thought of flying in a good crestie pup when the time comes but if im still here thats the same drive, st louis is the closest major airport.i


----------



## GrinningDog (Mar 26, 2010)

Knowing what I know NOW, I consider a breeder a BYB if they do not, at the very least:

1. breed away from health and temperamental problems (through health testing and careful selection of breeding stock)
2. take puppy back if owner can no longer care for it
3. breed for a goal, besides money-making (i.e. not the same pair over and over)

I have several more criteria for a breeder I'd personally want to support, but those above are my absolute essentials. I'm fairly firmly against breeders that neglect those essentials, no matter how well-meaning they are. Do I _hate _them and the people that buy from them? No! But I think they are in the wrong, absolutely. In general, I think BYB and puppy mill dogs feed the shelter system and perpetuate/worsen health and temperament problems.

I expect to wait about 6 months - a year once I start seriously looking for my next dog. I know I'm going to be paying over a $1000, possibly well over, for a show potential of a rare breed. I have no problem making a mini vacation out of the pup pickup. Adding a new family member for 15+ years is a big freaking deal. To me, patience, planning, money, and time are not wasted on that.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Kayota said:


> An hour drive is a hell of a long way for me. im not near any major cities so its essentially traffic ffree. Family has never driven more than 30 mins to get anywhere and that takes you through three or more towns depending on where you go.
> 
> ii have to admit have entertained the idea of going out of state for some of the rarer breeds im interested in--eurasier, lundehund, xoloitzquintle


 Well, yeah, an hour on the interstate is 75 miles of corn fields. . .I don't see how that makes a difference? I went to Council Bluffs to get Toby from the shelter, which I think is 120 miles or so. A couple hours with bathroom breaks anyway. I know some people have a lower tolerance for driving though and I don't blame them.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Kirsten&Gypsy said:


> Knowing what I know NOW, I consider a breeder a BYB if they do not, at the very least:
> 
> 1. breed away from health and temperamental problems (through health testing and careful selection of breeding stock)
> 2. take puppy back if owner can no longer care for it
> ...


What breed are you thinking if? Just curious. If you want it to be a surprise, no need to answer.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

What is the problem with breeding the same pair over and over? I get that especially for the female having pups is taxing so you want to limit her whelpings, but is that the only objection?


----------



## Pasarella (May 30, 2013)

So poor knowledge about dachshunds...But ok,thread isn't purebreed doxies vs BYB doxies so I'll just stop 

And yeah 1 hour ride is such a small distance.My puppy that will arive to me next month,now lives 1000km away. But yes,she is something speacial,she is a brindle dachshund,but every dog that is going to be mine is speacial


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Most of the breeders I'm looking at right now are across the country.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Pasarella said:


> So poor knowledge about dachshunds...But ok,thread isn't purebreed doxies vs BYB doxies so I'll just stop
> 
> And yeah 1 hour ride is such a small distance.My puppy that will arive to me next month,now lives 1000km away. But yes,she is something speacial,she is a brindle dachshund,but every dog that is going to be mine is speacial


It's just what is aesthetically pleasing. I dislike the look of show doxies. They are too extreme for me. A lot of people feel that way. A lot of people also like the deep chests and too short legs so... Whatever floats your boat. 

I prefer a much more moderate Doxie.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

aiw said:


> What is the problem with breeding the same pair over and over? I get that especially for the female having pups is taxing so you want to limit her whelpings, but is that the only objection?


What's the purpose of breeding the same pair over and over?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Crantastic said:


> What's the purpose of breeding the same pair over and over?


If they make healthy well-tempered puppies? I mean there might be an issue with genetic diversity if one or both is used too often but if they go well together why not?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> What's the purpose of breeding the same pair over and over?


I would imagine the same as any breeding... the breeder feels they're incredibly matched and produce excellent specimens of the breed.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Okay, but a reputable breeder doesn't breed the same pair over and over. The goal is to produce puppies that are better than either parent, and to continue the breeding program with the next generation. What is the point of breeding the same pair over and over and selling all of the pups? Just money?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Wouldn't their breeding benefit other breeders? IF they produced a breeding-quality dog in more than one litter, which isn't a given anyway. 

And, yeah, if people want to buy puppies, someone has to make puppies. Better a health-testing breeder who will keep their pups out of shelters than some skeezy puppy mill, yes?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Oh, of course breedings are repeated sometimes, especially if the first litter doesn't produce a show/breeding pup in the right gender, or if another breeder requests a repeat breeding because they want a pup for their own program. But the only people you see breeding the same pair a bunch of times seem to be what I'd refer to as BYBs -- they only _have_ the one pair, or one male and a few females that they use over and over. They are not trying to further a breeding program.

(And even in breeds where a few dogs are really popular, you don't often see the same _pair_ being bred over and over.)

So repeat breedings _alone_ aren't enough to condemn someone, in my opinion. It's repeat breeding combined with the other possible red flags on my list.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OK, I guess I'm saying that if someone is doing it right (health testing, keeping their dogs out of shelters, etc.), is it really necessary for them to be "furthering a breeding program"? I guess I don't see a problem with people breeding to produce pet puppies as long as they're responsible about it.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Isn't there some saying about not being able to get something fast, cheap, and good? I'm not willing to compromise on good (i.e., a puppy from a reputable breeder), so I'll either need to wait or pay more (or possibly both).


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Willowy said:


> OK, I guess I'm saying that if someone is doing it right (health testing, keeping their dogs out of shelters, etc.), is it really necessary for them to be "furthering a breeding program"? I guess I don't see a problem with people breeding to produce pet puppies as long as they're responsible about it.


The problem I have with it is that there are already SO MANY dogs being killed in shelters regularly... why do we need to breed more just for the sake of breeding more?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

aiw said:


> I would imagine the same as any breeding... the breeder feels they're incredibly matched and produce excellent specimens of the breed.


It doesn't really work that way.

The breeder is breeding with a goal in mind. Not just to say 'these are awesome dogs and this breeding works well'. It should be improving every generation and moving toward that goal.

Breeding the same pairing over and over is just treading water, and it's limiting the gene pool by flooding it with those dogs' off spring and a bunch of full siblings from different breedings. There's no gain. For the breed, I mean.

And that's what most really good breeders are trying to do: benefit the breed (according to what they see as a benefit). They're not breeding just to produce puppies.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

As I've said before, I don't have a problem with people producing pet puppies as long as they health test, carefully match their pairs, provide a contract and guarantee, take dogs back if the new owners can't keep them, etc. -- basically, do the same things I'd expect a good show breeder to do, minus the showing. However, I don't think that breeding one pair over and over is responsible breeding. It's kind of the definition of churning out pups for cash, isn't it?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

ireth0 said:


> The problem I have with it is that there are already SO MANY dogs being killed in shelters regularly... why do we need to breed more just for the sake of breeding more?


 Depending on who you talk to. . .there aren't. They don't believe in overpopulation. And in any case, whether you believe that or not, it is true the majority of the dogs dying in shelters are pit bulls, Labs, hounds, etc---big hairy beasts who end up being too much for most people. There is a great demand for small dogs, and puppymills are picking up the slack. I'm not saying a pit bull or Lab owner ought to be breeding their pet but I do think that a responsible small breed breeder probably should be producing more pups to meet demand.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I have said before and will say again that when you pay for an animal you are paying for the practice that brought the animal to you to continue.

If you pay an adoption fee, you're paying a shelter to keep running or a rescue to keep rescuing.

If you pay a breeder you are voting with your wallet in support of what they do, so they can continue to do it. This is going to vary based on what's important to you. If you want a dog from a breeder working to produce working dogs, a certain look, certain level of health testing, whatever - you are paying for them to continue to do that.

And if you pay a petshop you're enabling them to continue to sell dogs. 

If you pay a bad breeder with sick and neglected dogs, you're paying for them to continue doing that.

At this point I don't really care where most people get their dogs. I just wish more people were aware that they're supporting and enabling the people they got their dog from and didn't justify doing so as 'rescue' or 'just this once' or 'but I didn't want to wait' or whatever else.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Crantastic said:


> As I've said before, I don't have a problem with people producing pet puppies as long as they health test, carefully match their pairs, provide a contract and guarantee, take dogs back if the new owners can't keep them, etc. -- basically, do the same things I'd expect a good show breeder to do, minus the showing. However, I don't think that breeding one pair over and over is responsible breeding. It's kind of the definition of churning out pups for cash, isn't it?


If they're doing everything else right I don't really see what difference it makes? Maybe there's something I'm not thinking of though. Of course there's a limit to how many litters a female should have---I wouldn't want to see them making her have more than 3, maybe 4---so that would limit the number of times they could breed the same pair, but I think breeding the same pair a few times is better than breeding the same male to a zillion different females.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Well I'll play devil's advocate. Let's say you're breeding a breed with low number litters- like papillons. A bitch and dog bred 3 times will probably leave you with the same amount of puppies as a large breed pair bred once. I've known breeders in paps to repeat breedings quite a bit for this reason. One breeding may only give you 1-2 puppies and that's not much to choose from to continue on your lines.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> -- they only _have_ the one pair, or one male and a few females that they use over and over. They are not trying to further a breeding program.


I don't really see how the former is linked to the latter. Isn't the idea of any breeding program to create good examples of the breed? I just don't see the objection if the pair really is well-matched. I can definitely see why throwing together any two dogs who happen to be in the neighbourhood is a problem, but if you have a good pairing it doesn't seem to me that using a different sire the second time is important.

I also really don't think only having two dogs is a mark against a breeder. If anything I would lean the opposite way.



> Breeding the same pairing over and over is just treading water, and it's limiting the gene pool by flooding it with those dogs' off spring and a bunch of full siblings from different breedings. There's no gain. For the breed, I mean.


Well if you are breeding the same bitch it'll only be a few breedings, (say 4 max) I can't see how that would have any substantive effect at all on the breed as a whole. Especially when you consider breeding practices of "responsible" show owners who often sire hundreds of litters.

I suppose I think healthy, pet dogs is an acceptable goal in itself. This is likely linked to my view of 'breed' as a concept. I don't feel much allegiance to it, the important responsibility is to the individual dogs produced. Which is why I think its acceptable to breed out of standard if the dogs are healthy, and I don't really mind if people's breeding goals conflict with or don't further it.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

aiw said:


> I don't really see how the former is linked to the latter. Isn't the idea of any breeding program to create good examples of the breed? I just don't see the objection if the pair really is well-matched. I can definitely see why throwing together any two dogs who happen to be in the neighbourhood is a problem, but if you have a good pairing it doesn't seem to me that using a different sire the second time is important.
> 
> I also really don't think only having two dogs is a mark against a breeder.



No. The goal of a breeding program is for the next generation to always be better than the last one. Not 'Good', but a metaphorical and evolving ideal that always, always (should, and is hoped to) improves upon the generation before it. Not to stop at 'good'.

Jack is good. Jack is titled and healthy and fit. He's got bad ears though, and is kind of timid and is pushing close to oversize.
Frost is better, based on what their breeder wanted to achieve. He's smaller, his head is right, his temperament and confidence are more sound. So's his hunting ability.
Frost is being bred to a dog that works with what weaknesses he does have -even better hunting ability, slightly bigger ears, a more delicate build, richer colors- to produce puppies that are better than him - we hope.

This is all simplified but the nature of the thing. 

If they'd stopped at breeding Jack's parents, the dogs would stay 'good but with X, Y, and Z minor flaws that the breeder can see and wants to improve upon'. It's a journey, not a destination.

THAT, to me, is why I wouldn't to see someone in a breed I was serious about breeding the same pair repeatedly. I don't particularly give a crap if someone else does, but for me striving to improve and contribute (in ways I agreed with) to the breed I'm passionate about is a big thing I want to financially support.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Pasarella said:


> So poor knowledge about dachshunds...But ok,thread isn't purebreed doxies vs BYB doxies so I'll just stop
> 
> And yeah 1 hour ride is such a small distance.My puppy that will arive to me next month,now lives 1000km away. But yes,she is something speacial,she is a brindle dachshund,but every dog that is going to be mine is speacial



byb =/= not purebred. byb = poorly bred purebred. my mom's dachshunds have the same doxie traits and attitude as yours do.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm not sure that's possible, or even desirable (trying to make each generation "better" than the next). Especially when talking about dogs, in which each generation is only 3-4 years apart, that sounds like it could lead to some serious issues. I'm no geneticist but that just seems not quite right somehow.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I feel like two topics have gotten twisted up here, and it's just getting confusing. 

Repeat breedings from people who are striving to produce something specific -- like a show-quality, breeding-quality female papillon to use in their breeding program -- make sense to me.

Owning one pair of dogs that you breed over and over just so you can sell puppies doesn't make sense _to me_. What's the point, besides making yourself some money?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Kayota said:


> byb =/= not purebred. byb = poorly bred purebred. my mom's dachshunds have the same doxie traits and attitude as yours do.


That could be a regional thing. I know on the cat forum, many of the breeders are not from the US, and where they are, all registered breeders have to meet certain criteria and are therefore "good". So to them any "BYB" is producing non-registered, possibly non-purebred animals. They don't really have a concept of a registered yet poorly bred purebred.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

Personally, the only justifiable reason I can think of to do a repeat breeding, is when

a) sire and dam are from truly exceptional lines, and
b) first litter has produced ALL champions, or at least virtually all


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Crantastic said:


> Owning one pair of dogs that you breed over and over just so you can sell puppies doesn't make sense _to me_. What's the point, besides making yourself some money?


What's the point of producing puppies as pets (which you say you have no problem with)? It's to produce healthy well-tempered pets. If you can do that with the same 2 dogs for as many litters as the female should have, what's the difference between that and breeding different males with different females?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> Owning one pair of dogs that you breed over and over just so you can sell puppies doesn't make sense _to me_. What's the point, besides making yourself some money?


Producing good specimens of your breed. Same as any other breeder.

Maybe its just a difference of opinion here. IMO its more of an esoteric 'good of the breed' issue which is just not very important to me, personally. I do realize people have differing opinions on that front, and as CptJack says, they should support whatever practices they feel are better. For myself, I don't see how it materially affects the dogs in question. If the pairing was good once and produced healthy pups it doesn't become unacceptable a second or third time, IMO. Not unless the health status of the dogs changes.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

aiw said:


> Producing good specimens of your breed. Same as any other breeder.
> 
> Maybe its just a difference of opinion here. IMO its more of an esoteric 'good of the breed' issue which is just not very important to me, personally. I do realize people have differing opinions on that front, and as CptJack says, they should support whatever practices they feel are better. For myself, I don't see how it materially affects the dogs in question. If the pairing was good once and produced healthy pups it doesn't become unacceptable a second or third time, IMO. Not unless the health status of the dogs changes.


I think for me it's a matter of goal? Like if your goal is producing pet quality puppies and you're doing that, and they're physically healthy and temperamentally sound, go for it. 

I just don't get it, and don't particularly want to see it. If I'm INTO a breed enough to want to own that breed, I'm concerned about the well being of the breed. I'm concerned about the direction it is going to go. I won't buy from someone producing dogs that I don't really like, or who are breeding in a direction I don't approve of. I want to support who is going to influence the breed in a direction I support. So that's where my money is going to go, and it influences my perception of the quality of the breeder.

Like - WHY are they spending that much money and time to continually produce the same thing (or near enough)? There's a disconnect for me there. I don't think it's unethical. I just think it's extremely weird.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

aiw said:


> Producing good specimens of your breed. Same as any other breeder.


It's not, though. Show breeders aren't trying to produce pets. Pets are a (lovely!) byproduct. Show breeders aren't just trying to produce good examples of their breed to sell, but to produce great examples of their breed to... breed. They want to help improve the breed over time.

As I've said, though, I don't have a problem with breeders deliberately producing pets as long as they're doing so responsibly (doing the things I like to see from a show breeder, minus the showing). I don't see breeding one pair over and over as being responsible. So yeah, maybe it is just a difference of opinion thing.

(Also, I think we probably have different definitions of "over and over," which doesn't help. I have looked into some designer mixes for people and I'm seeing bitches being bred every time they come into heat, not just three times in their lives. Three times from the age of two to about... seven? (What's the upper limit for safe breeding?) That wouldn't be a big deal to me. Owning one pair or a couple of pairs yet always having pups around? Red flag.)


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> (Also, I think we probably have different definitions of "over and over," which doesn't help. I have looked into some designer mixes for people and I'm seeing bitches being bred every time they come into heat, not just three times in their lives. Three times from the age of two to about... seven? (What's the upper limit for safe breeding?) That wouldn't be a big deal to me. Owning one pair or a couple of pairs yet always having pups around? Red flag.)


I do agree with that. Not because of the purpose of the pairing, but because having so many litters is really rough on the female. I'm not okay with sacrificing the interests of the dam and sire to get more pups.


----------



## TheOtherCorgi (Sep 18, 2013)

This is kind of a slippery topic and I hesitate to list out things that would make a breeder a bad choice for someone. I would say the most important quality a breeder could have is honesty; that way you can decide for yourself if that person is right for you. 

I would say that if someone’s first consideration in choosing a dog is how much money that dog will cost then they are probably coming at the process from an incorrect perspective. 

That’s the same way with breeders; if making a buck is the most important thing to them then they aren’t someone I’d be interested in buying from. And no, I don’t count puppy mills in the “breeder” category. 

Plus, not every breeder is going to fit ever person’s needs. Not everyone is going to want a sweet, fluffy couch potato. Not everyone is going to want a hunting dog. Not everyone is going to want a high drive herding dog. Some people want a faster agility dog, some want a sled dog, some want a ranch dog, and yeah, some want a very low maintenance, back ground pet. 

If that breeder fills a niche and is rewarded for that, they will continue to breed regardless of what anyone else thinks is ethical. 

What I personally look for in a breeder is someone who is very very knowledgeable. Someone who *likes* the fact that I’m asking a million questions and someone who can back up what they say and someone who doesn’t have to make another breeder or breed look bad to sell their dogs. 

So, if I ask someone if their dogs are healthy and they say, “yes,” I’m going to want to see health certificates. I’m going to want to know how long their dogs typically live and what health problems are common. 

If someone says their dogs are so healthy they don’t do certificates, then I’d probably drop them like a hot potato. OR, if I was otherwise very interested, I’d ask for references from their puppy buyer and vet. If they weren’t willing to produce those, that would be the last piece of information I would bother trying to get from them. 

If someone tells me they focus on producing performance dogs, then I need to see agility titles and I’d want to come to an agility trial to see how their dogs act and also to see how people act around them. 

If someone wants a dog that’s going to be a good companion and doesn’t really have a set standard in mind of what would work for them and what would not, then I feel that maybe volunteering with a shelter and offering to foster dogs would be the best way to start. Coming from personal experience, sometimes it’s hard to say what you like when you don’t even know what you don’t like. 

One huge red flag for me is if someone says, "Well, my dogs are superior because all of Suzie Q's dogs are high on leg/have no drive/ are dog aggressive." I don't really care what Suzie Q is producing. If I did, I'd be talking to her right now, not you. I want to see what YOU are producing. That also goes true for people who are producing doodles- I don't care for that tired old argument that your mixed breed is healthier. PROVE IT TO ME THAT THE DOGS YOU PRODUCE ARE HEALTHY. I don't give a rat's behind that "most" labradoodledoos are healthy. THAT doesn't mean the dogs YOU produce will be healthy. 

I also feel that both parties, both the breeder and the buyer, should be realistic. Buyers should choose a dog that’s going to fit into their lifestyle and breeders need to be realistic about what they’re producing. 

And for heaven’s sake people, just because you have a dog with “AKC” papers doesn’t mean your dog is a champion. 

The best advice I got from someone when looking for a breeder was that, “Everything has a certificate now!! Ask to see it!!”


----------



## TheOtherCorgi (Sep 18, 2013)

Ok, one last thing lol 

The most damaging thing you can do is to assume something or make a broad generalization about something. 

For example, just because someone is producing hunting dogs doesn't make their dogs healthy. 

Or just because someone is breeding for show only that their dogs are easy to get along with. 

In that same vein, it's just as damaging to say that all show breeders produce unhealthy dogs OR that all purebred dogs are sickly because they're purebred. 

Wish I got paid by the word here hahahaa


----------



## TheOtherCorgi (Sep 18, 2013)

spyro said:


> These standards you refer to... AKC or UKC? Fact of the matter is that most dog breeds no longer do what they were designed to do. If they were, mine would be fighting in a pit.
> 
> I don't think any animal bred specifically for dwarfism will be superior in any way to a dog with average length legs. Not saying that the example above represents a healthy example (holy easty Westy) but I would always prefer a dachshund with longer legs and shorter back (if dachshund was breed of choice).


hahah don't talk to a cardi owner about easty-westy fronts being unsound.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

spyro said:


> These standards you refer to... AKC or UKC? Fact of the matter is that most dog breeds no longer do what they were designed to do. If they were, mine would be fighting in a pit.
> 
> I don't think any animal bred specifically for dwarfism will be superior in any way to a dog with average length legs. Not saying that the example above represents a healthy example (holy easty Westy) but I would always prefer a dachshund with longer legs and shorter back (if dachshund was breed of choice).


just because most dog breeds aren't used for their original form of function anymore should mean that breeders should lose focus of that origin when breeding


----------



## Jen2010 (Feb 12, 2013)

> Where do you think shelter dogs are coming from? It's not from reputable breeders -- they take their dogs back if the owner can no longer keep them.


So does that mean that if you rescue a dog, you're actually supporting back yard breeders?

What if BYB were completely eliminated. Do you think fewer people would own dogs? I believe people would still get dogs and still have reasons to get rid of them whether they came from a breeder or not. Not everyone will return their dog to the breeder. They might be embarrassed or ashamed to do so. People would be better informed before getting a dog, sure, but the problem would still exist. What if breeders were getting too many dogs back? All of those unwanted dogs have to go somewhere. Breeders would likely start making it harder and harder to buy a dog.

I'm not against buying from a breeder, I'm just not against buying a dog off a local ad either.

If anything should be controlled it should be who's allowed to get a cat! Lol! There's a way bigger issue there.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Just because something (like giving dogs back) doesn't always work, doesn't mean that breeders shouldn't try to do the right thing by asking for dogs back or at the very least asking to know/approve of a new home. Sometimes it doesn't work but I've seen all sorts of situations where the dog goes back to the breeder like they are supposed to. If that option wasn't there where would these dogs end up? And if it fails and the dog ends up in the shelter system a lot of times the breeder is eventually notified and the dog pulled, especially if there's microchips. I've even seen instances where breed rescue pulls a dog and then someone recognizes it may be So and So's lines and the dog gets sent to the breeder that way. Even if it fails, it's still worth doing and trying.

If you buy a rescue dog you're supporting that rescue because you're giving them money. You're not giving money to the original producer of the dog. There's a big difference. 

When you buy a dog you are essentially endorsing that breeder and their practices. Only you can decide what is ethical for you. 

If you are getting too many dogs back then you need to take more time placing dogs, imo.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Jen2010 said:


> So does that mean that if you rescue a dog, you're actually supporting back yard breeders?
> 
> What if BYB were completely eliminated. Do you think fewer people would own dogs? I believe people would still get dogs and still have reasons to get rid of them whether they came from a breeder or not. Not everyone will return their dog to the breeder. They might be embarrassed or ashamed to do so. People would be better informed before getting a dog, sure, but the problem would still exist. What if breeders were getting too many dogs back? All of those unwanted dogs have to go somewhere. Breeders would likely start making it harder and harder to buy a dog.
> 
> ...


If BYB were eliminated then there would be A LOT less dogs in shelters. I think there will always be a need for shelters but we (as buyers) need to reduce that number. 

When you (purchaser) buy from a bad breeder (A company) you support that breeder (their company). That's the short of a long story, anyhow.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> If you buy a rescue dog you're supporting that rescue because you're giving them money. You're not giving money to the original producer of the dog. There's a big difference.
> 
> When you buy a dog you are essentially endorsing that breeder and their practices. Only you can decide what is ethical for you.


Yes, this.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

Jen2010 said:


> So does that mean that if you rescue a dog, you're actually supporting back yard breeders?
> 
> What if BYB were completely eliminated. Do you think fewer people would own dogs? I believe people would still get dogs and still have reasons to get rid of them whether they came from a breeder or not. Not everyone will return their dog to the breeder. They might be embarrassed or ashamed to do so. People would be better informed before getting a dog, sure, but the problem would still exist. What if breeders were getting too many dogs back? All of those unwanted dogs have to go somewhere. Breeders would likely start making it harder and harder to buy a dog.
> 
> ...


It isn't that without BYBs fewer people would own dogs necessarily, it is that there would generally be more consideration taken into choosing a breed, deciding which dog fits, doing research, and not having so many impulse buys. Yes, SOME people may not take the dog back to the breeder out of embarrassment or whatever, but it would be a lower number of dogs into shelters if someone had knew they had the option to return the dog or the support to work through a temporary issue and keep the dog. 

If breeders are getting too many dogs back, then they are breeding too many and/or not screening well enough. I think we've had maybe less than a 5% return rate on the rescue dogs since I've been volunteering. We've had several that we've helped through behavioral problems or temporary housing crises and such that then stayed in their home. I don't see any reason that a good breeder can't have an even better success rate. 

The dogs in local ads are often even worse than the casual family with two dogs has a litter or two and sells them. They are often puppy mill fronts, hoarder situations, or at the least, the female dog is being bred on every heat which is hard on her body. These puppies are rarely from a thoughtful match of dogs giving consideration to their health-- even without health testing someone can at least chose dogs with solid temperaments and no obvious defects on a regular vet check, and yet, they don't. The left-overs from these litters are often dumped at shelters and the breeder doesn't care because they made enough money to make it worth doing again. They don't care that the ones that land in shelter might die. 

Where your money goes when you buy or rescue a dog supports the continuation of the practice of that rescue or breeder. It isn't like the rescue is going to pass along a chunk of their fee to the original breeder that allowed a dog they produced to end up at risk of being PTS. Shelters and rescues make a tiny portion of their operating budget from adoption fees anyway. 
Buying directly from a breeder, "good" or "bad", is an incentive for them to continue to breed. It is up to the buyer to examine the breeding practices to see if they feel good about giving the financial "two thumbs up" to more of same.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Addressing what was said on page 7, I drove 5 hours one way to pick up Wesson. One of my puppies will be going to someone three hours away from me, another puppy will be going to North Carolina and will either be shipped, or they'll pick him up. Another puppy could end up all the way across the country in Oregon.

Cripes, I'll be driving 10 hours *one way* to get Wesson bred.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

I was very close to settling for a BYB when it came to English Bulldogs. For a while now I could not find ONE breeder that even mentioned health testing and many of their dogs cost upwards of $3000 and I wasn't about to settle on THAT much for a dog that would likely end up with health issues.

Luckily, I recently stumbled upon not one but TWO Bulldog breeders that health test out the wazoo and strive for health and temperament above anything else. Hallelujah! 

Why can't it be mandatory for breeders, in order to register their dogs with AKC/CKC, that their breeding dogs be health tested for at least the basics (for the breed, at the time, being registered i.e. Boston Terriers tested for luxating patella and juvenile cataracts). That way registration might actually mean something other than "Yup, this dog is pure bred".

(sorry if these sentences don't make sense... I think I'm having a migraine aura right now lol)


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Shell said:


> Buying directly from a breeder, "good" or "bad", is an incentive for them to continue to breed. It is up to the buyer to examine the breeding practices to see if they feel good about giving the financial "two thumbs up" to more of same.


This really puts into words why I feel a little different about rehoming a rescue vs. a breeder dog. To the dogs of course its all the same (which is the biggest consideration) but when you buy from a breeder you've increased the dog population. That's okay if you're able to stand by the dog for its lifetime, but not really if you need to rehome. Rescued dogs on the other hand would have still existed if you'd never taken them home, they'd just be homeless.

Somewhat tangential, but those are my thoughts.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Why can't it be mandatory for breeders, in order to register their dogs with AKC/CKC, that their breeding dogs be health tested for at least the basics


Because AKC always has been ONLY a registry. They cannot make those requirements. That is up to the parent clubs


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

Xeph said:


> Because AKC always has been ONLY a registry. They cannot make those requirements. That is up to the parent clubs


Well, those parent clubs need to hop to it! 

Or would something like that not work? (sorry, my noodle really isn't working right now)


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

It all has to be voted on. Required health testing in my breed continually gets shot down. They couldn't even agree that top winning animals at the national had to be hip and elbow x rayed, so they created TWO different designations. Select (for animals not hip and elbow rated) and Select Excellent (for those that are hip and elbow rated).

It would be one thing if animals didn't have their scores yet because they weren't old enough for their ratings, but there are select animals that are well past the age of OFAs that don't have numbers.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

Xeph said:


> It all has to be voted on. Required health testing in my breed continually gets shot down. They couldn't even agree that top winning animals at the national had to be hip and elbow x rayed, so they created TWO different designations. Select (for animals not hip and elbow rated) and Select Excellent (for those that are hip and elbow rated).
> 
> It would be one thing if animals didn't have their scores yet because they weren't old enough for their ratings, but there are select animals that are well past the age of OFAs that don't have numbers.



That's a bit of a bummer... What were other reasons why people were opposed to it (other than age)?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Jen2010 said:


> So does that mean that if you rescue a dog, you're actually supporting back yard breeders?
> 
> What if BYB were completely eliminated. Do you think fewer people would own dogs? I believe people would still get dogs and still have reasons to get rid of them whether they came from a breeder or not. Not everyone will return their dog to the breeder. They might be embarrassed or ashamed to do so. People would be better informed before getting a dog, sure, but the problem would still exist. What if breeders were getting too many dogs back? All of those unwanted dogs have to go somewhere. Breeders would likely start making it harder and harder to buy a dog.
> 
> ...


Lol I was thinking about this, Josefina was very likely bred by someone and them dumped at the local AC when the rest of the litter couldn't sell :/, so does that mean I am supporting BYB's ?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Lol I was thinking about this, Josefina was very likely bred by someone and them dumped at the local AC when the rest of the litter couldn't sell :/, so does that mean I am supporting BYB's ?


Did you give money to the person who bred Josefina? Then no.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Lol I was thinking about this, Josefina was very likely bred by someone and them dumped at the local AC when the rest of the litter couldn't sell :/, so does that mean I am supporting BYB's ?


How would you think that you are supporting the breeder that dumped her at AC? Of course no money is transferring back to her breeder. Do you think you are supporting the breeder because you are giving them an "out" for the dogs they don't want or can't sell? 

The breeder that dumped them there was willing to take the chance that the dogs would die there, so it doesn't seem like they would be caring much about having an out. One of the litters we got into rescue was left in the woods, so even the existence of a shelter didn't seem to matter.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Shell said:


> How would you think that you are supporting the breeder that dumped her at AC? Of course no money is transferring back to her breeder. Do you think you are supporting the breeder because you are giving them an "out" for the dogs they don't want or can't sell?
> 
> The breeder that dumped them there was willing to take the chance that the dogs would die there, so it doesn't seem like they would be caring much about having an out. One of the litters we got into rescue was left in the woods, so even the existence of a shelter didn't seem to matter.


Yes I was referring to contributing to the "out" irresponsible breeders.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> That's a bit of a bummer... What were other reasons why people were opposed to it (other than age)?


It was quite some time ago. and I was not involved in the voting, so I couldn't tell you


----------



## pawsaddict (Apr 17, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> It's just what is aesthetically pleasing. I dislike the look of show doxies. They are too extreme for me. A lot of people feel that way. A lot of people also like the deep chests and too short legs so... Whatever floats your boat.
> 
> I prefer a much more moderate Doxie.


I agree. I, too, dislike the look of today's show doxies.









I prefer the look of the historical dachshund









and today's working dachshunds.









To me, these dogs can do more workwise than today's show dachshunds. I also think that today's show dachshunds are prone to more structural issues than their working counterparts. This is just my personal opinion, though (just like how I prefer the look of working German Shepherds more than show German Shepherds ). Like Rabblefox said, different strokes for different folks (but this might be for another thread). 

More to the point of this thread, just like with many other breeds, there are reputable breeders out there who breed working dachshunds and many reputable breeders out there who breed show dachshunds.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## pawsaddict (Apr 17, 2013)

Pasarella said:


> So poor knowledge about dachshunds.


Actually, many people here are quite knowledgable about many breeds, including dachshunds. Just because a doxie isn't up to show standard, it doesn't mean it is a mutt or from a BYB.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Well, I think everyone pretty much agrees that we shouldn't go to byb's, but I'm still not sold that it's going to be easy for average owners to get dogs from reputable breeders.

How am I supposed to convince average joe that he should get a Golden Retriever from a show breeder? This is the temperament he would need, but he hates the blocky head and the stocky body. He likes the ones his friend breeds because they are family pets and look like what he is used to.

He doesn't want a contract because when he buys a puppy, the breeder shouldn't be allowed to tell him what he can and can't do with it. He doesn't want a relationship with the breeder at all, it is his business. That doesn't mean he will give up his dog for no good reason or breed it, he just wants to make all of his own decisions with the dog. 

He doesn't believe show bred dogs are healthier anyway just because they are health tested, he thinks the extremes are ruining them. Goldens are known for cancer issues, who cares about good hips? He's also not going to pay that $1000 just for the extra health testing and support he doesn't care about anyways. 

Average joe can be stubborn, which is why byb are here to stay.

I know everybody is saying that it is so easy to find what you want if it is a common breed, but I didn't have that experience at all. I found 2 breeders in my state I could even get a puppy from within a few months (of course I only wanted a girl), and it's not a rare breed. Most people aren't going out of state, and neither was I. Only one of those breeders were breeding for the majority of puppies being in pet homes and the waiting lists were filled up before the dogs were even bred. My puppy's litter only had 1 puppy go to a pet only home. I'm sure area has a lot to do with it though. I'm not saying people should go to byb ever, but after thinking about it I can't really blame them.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

I don't get why average Joe doesn't want to pay for health testing. He's cheap and doesn't care if his dog inherits a preventable* disease?

*Preventable in the sense that you can test for it and avoid breeding crap dogs.


----------



## Jen2010 (Feb 12, 2013)

> It isn't that without BYBs fewer people would own dogs necessarily, it is that there would generally be more consideration taken into choosing a breed, deciding which dog fits, doing research, and not having so many impulse buys.


 This is true. I wish more people would do research before getting a dog or puppy (of any breed).


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

RabbleFox said:


> I don't get why average Joe doesn't want to pay for health testing. He's cheap and doesn't care if his dog inherits a preventable* disease?
> 
> *Preventable in the sense that you can test for it and avoid breeding crap dogs.


Yes he is cheap. However, he isn't convinced elbow, hip and heart health testing is going to save "show" Golden from their higher rates of cancer. The point is that extremes in the show dogs are just as bad as not health testing to some people, so choosing the lesser of 2 evils. In other words, due to extremes and smaller gene pools, some show line breeds can be less healthy than byb versions or no better. (I don't know if the cancer thing is for real, I've just heard it from a few people, even someone who has showed Goldens. I could use some enlightenment on the subject). I don't pull these things out of my butt. People tell me these things. Haha.

In my own experience, I don't know many byb Goldens to be crap dogs. I work at a vet clinic, volunteer in rescue, and do many other dog related things. I see a loooot of Goldens from backyard breeders and most of them are nice, happy, healthy and are getting up in age too. The few show line Goldens we have come in suffer from allergies and other health problems. I'm still not going to call them crap dogs though, ha. I'd be really scared of getting a show line Golden though because of that, even if it's not the reality of things.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

I think that if people were more educated about what happens to the parent dogs of these newspaper ad puppies and what happens to the puppies all too often, then caring dog owners would want to support more responsible breeders. If someone is selfish or impatient enough to say "I want this type of dog and I want it NOW and I don't give a crap that within the next year several of my new dog's brothers and sisters will land in a shelter destined to die" then maybe they cannot be steered to a more responsible breeder but for those that don't know, once they learn, they may be willing to wait 6 months for a dog or go with a different color pattern or a male rather than a female or whatever in order not to support the irresponsible breeder.

To me, it isn't even that much about show standards, but about taking responsibility for the health and well-being of both the parent dogs and all the puppies produced. Promote their health by testing for the diseases that we have good tests for, promote the well-being of the parent dogs by not breeding the females every heat and limiting litters over a life, having homes lined up before breeding so there aren't "leftover" puppies and taking back any dog that needs a home.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Honestly the whole question of what makes a BYB is really a struggle for me. I think for me it boils down to simply "is the breeder going to be responsible for this puppy for its whole life" if the original buyer can't keep it.

I have really weird mixed feelings about health testing. I feel like I see a lot of breeders DO health testing but then not USE the health testing in a meaningful way, like they're just going through the motions because everyone looks for health testing but they're going to just breed whatever they like anyway. Like, thinking about hip x-rays... first of all, a single hip x-ray is just a moment in time. And hips that are borderline can look better or worse based on whether sedation was used, positioning, how well muscled a dog is, etc. And I've seen some really sketchy things done with hip x-rays, people giving each other advice about various ways to "get around" a lower rating in order to justify breeding a particular dog... which is discouraging and counterproductive. Like, why is HD still so prevalent in so many breeds while Guide Dog organizations have been able to reduce its incidence SO much without compromising on their dogs' ability to do their job? And unfortunately I think it boils down to... because in an organization like that, there is no one person's ego invested in any particular line or dog and there can more of an objectively followed dedication to actually reducing the incidence for the greater good. Breeders are just people with normal human feelings, and it's hard to not breed that dog you've pinned a lot of work and hopes on without trying to job the system. It's nothing personal if Guide Dogs washes a dog out of their breeding program. 

I've seen breeders with no understanding whatsoever of genetics claim there is no way my client's dog that has the textbook symptoms of and just tested positive for Exercise Induced Collapse could have it, because... science says it's not in their lines? Somehow? And this from a breeder who DOES test some of the dogs for EIC. And more crazy things than I could even begin to remember let alone recount.

I'm not saying health testing is bad or useless. I'm saying that health testing is a tool that can be useful, or can be useless IF the breeder 1. Doesn't understand it 2. Doesn't ACTUALLY use it to make thoughtful breeding decisions 3. Follow up with the puppies they produce to see if it's doing what they think it's doing. 

/ramble


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

One of the things I love about the breeder I am seriously considering is that she posts failed results on her page, even so far as the x-rays and details of the dog's surgery and recovery. There is another breeder I've looked at that I noticed results were sporadicly posted and until I looked the dogs up I realized that the reason it seemed like only some dogs were tested was because only passing results had been posted. Sketchy.


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

I don't believe in the label "backyard breeder". There are breeders I would buy from, breeders I would recommend, breeders I would never buy from, breeders I would never recommend, and breeders that I have no opinion on whatsoever. None of these are necessarily mutually exclusive. Some of the breeders I recommend most frequently are breeders I would never purchase from for myself. Some of the breeders I would die to get a puppy from are breeders I never wish to recommend to others (not without learning more first). 

For a while I've been looking for breeders/dogs/litters that really match up to what I'm looking for in a GSD, one that will be a companion, IPO prospect, and just a good example of the breed. I've gone through breeders that do extensive trialing and competing at national and international levels, breeders that do the "basic" OFA hips (or European equivalent) and IPO1 minimum, breeders that have a couple of dogs with novice titles in various performance venues, and breeders that only have one or two of their breeding stock titled.

The two breeders highest on my list would be the breeder with the dogs that have competed as a part of the WUSV and FCI world teams (and at other national level competitions over the years)... and one breeder who only has a couple of titled dogs in her breeding program. I like both equally, albeit for different reasons, and may actually be leaning towards the latter (with the untitled breeding stock). I'm sure for that reason alone there will be those who label her a "backyard breeder", but frankly I have more confidence in that breeding program than I have in many, many others that check all the boxes.



Crantastic said:


> Okay, but a reputable breeder doesn't breed the same pair over and over. The goal is to produce puppies that are better than either parent, and to continue the breeding program with the next generation. What is the point of breeding the same pair over and over and selling all of the pups? Just money?





CptJack said:


> It doesn't really work that way.
> 
> The breeder is breeding with a goal in mind. Not just to say 'these are awesome dogs and this breeding works well'. It should be improving every generation and moving toward that goal.
> 
> ...


I don't know. To be honest, these days I'm more about preservation than I am about improvement. I feel that this continuous quest for something "better" is a large part of what has led us to the extremes we already have, and that a good dog is a good dog, even if things can be "better". I would be exceptionally happy with a good representation of the breed, especially if what the breeder views as "better" is not the same as my vision! If there is a breeding where both dam and sire are accurate, good representatives of the breed in all aspects and produce good puppies that are also accurate representatives of the breed... how is that not a service to the breed? How does that not benefit the breed as well?

And regarding breeders who do more than one repeat breeding, whether or not they limit the gene pool depends on the pairing. In a breed like the German Shepherd Dog, you are already having problems with big name producers of the present and the past, with many popular studs being backmassed upon in current breedings. So if you pair together two dogs that are free of these big name dogs in the pedigrees, I'd say that the resulting pups would be an excellent addition to other breeding programs out there. Repeat breedings would put more of those dogs out there that could be considered somewhat of an outcross within the type/lines. 

Long ramble, but essentially the way I see it is that repeat breedings and simply breeding good dogs can indeed be a benefit to the breed. But that's just my opinion, and frankly one of the reasons why I no longer use the term "backyard breeder" and "reputable breeder". It's really all just your own personal perspective and opinion.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Equinox said:


> I don't believe in the label "backyard breeder". There are breeders I would buy from, breeders I would recommend, breeders I would never buy from, breeders I would never recommend, and breeders that I have no opinion on whatsoever. None of these are necessarily mutually exclusive. Some of the breeders I recommend most frequently are breeders I would never purchase from for myself. Some of the breeders I would die to get a puppy from are breeders I never wish to recommend to others (not without learning more first).
> 
> For a while I've been looking for breeders/dogs/litters that really match up to what I'm looking for in a GSD, one that will be a companion, IPO prospect, and just a good example of the breed. I've gone through breeders that do extensive trialing and competing at national and international levels, breeders that do the "basic" OFA hips (or European equivalent) and IPO1 minimum, breeders that have a couple of dogs with novice titles in various performance venues, and breeders that only have one or two of their breeding stock titled.
> 
> ...


Agreed completely on every point.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

IMHO there are a lot of show breeders whose practices are questionable to me even if their code of ethics member, they only breed at most one litter a year etc ... Some of them have more dogs them I am comfortable with and kennel them ... I have never been comfortable with kenneling.

While joe blow BYB dog breeder might not (or may ... Who knows) health test, but most of them have one maybe two pairs of "breeding" dogs and a good number of them keep their breeding dogs like pets, they live with them in their home and the puppies are born and raised in the home.

Not saying they are better ... Just saying.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Equinox said:


> I don't know. To be honest, these days I'm more about preservation than I am about improvement.


My breed is new, new, new though, and people are tearing off in 900 directions at once with it, already. Some of those directions I don't like at all - for me - and wouldn't want to see, but conversely? There are people who are going exactly the direction I want to see, which is bringing some of those working traits into the dog breed and holding something of a moderate physical standard. The improvement doesn't have to be bigger, smaller, or more extreme. Just better. And given the lack of consistency in my breed all over, with temperaments and sizes and work ability? You don't breed with purpose you're going to get a wreck.

And some people ARE.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Equinox said:


> I don't know. To be honest, these days I'm more about preservation than I am about improvement. I feel that this continuous quest for something "better" is a large part of what has led us to the extremes we already have, and that a good dog is a good dog, even if things can be "better".


I particularly agree with this, very well said.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Some people will always go to extremes, but from what I've seen, breeders who are striving for "better" are striving to breed as close to the standard as possible -- for example, taking a dog with a muzzle that's a little too long and an earset that's a little too high and breeding to a bitch with a muzzle that's a little too short and an earset that's a little too low, working towards a happy medium. Nothing extreme, just trying to get as close as possible to that ideal example of the breed. They're working to improve the breed or at least maintain it -- and that doesn't just mean in looks or structure, but in health and temperament as well (for example, I know a bunch of AKK breeders who are breeding for friendliness now in addition to proper structure, because the breed has problems with extreme shyness).


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Is anyone else having trouble viewing Page 10 of this thread?


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

aiw said:


> Is anyone else having trouble viewing Page 10 of this thread?


Nope. Just went there and no problem.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

aiw said:


> Is anyone else having trouble viewing Page 10 of this thread?


I did last night. Things clear up eventually.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

I mean obviously things will never be perfect. But I just don't understand the reasoning that "this isn't perfect, therefore it's not worth going to the trouble of doing."

As in, I guess I don't understand why this is even a _debate_... is anyone not with the idea that breeders should strive to make* reasonable* efforts to produce healthy dogs that never end up in shelters?

Or is nobody here arguing that. I just don't understand how its even possible for breed (people purposely breeding mutts versus purebreds) or working/ sport titling (what can the dog achieve) or conformation (does the dog look like it "should) to come, in importance, before healthy dogs that don't end up in shelters. 

Like, if the dog has crippling elbow dysplasia and cannot do anything for its entire life but short on leash walks (my neighbors BYB year old lab) or it ends up being euthanized and thrown in a dumpster at a county shelter (my neighbors BYB pit bull).... I'm pretty sure nobody cares if the dog is a doodle or if its an aussie that can work stock... KWIM? Is anyone following me?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

A good number of ACD breeders have dogs that are PRCA-b, now I know they can't all be PRCA- A ... But some breeders have a lot of pattern B dogs and it worries me a little, I hAve also seen a lot of dogs with "fair" rated hips.


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

Rescued said:


> I mean obviously things will never be perfect. But I just don't understand the reasoning that "this isn't perfect, therefore it's not worth going to the trouble of doing."
> 
> As in, I guess I don't understand why this is even a _debate_... is anyone not with the idea that breeders should strive to make* reasonable* efforts to produce healthy dogs that never end up in shelters?
> 
> ...



I am fine with a dog from working parents who lived (or at least their grandparents did, if parents are still young dogs) healthy long lives out working. THats it. I have had plenty of pedigreed dogs its still a crapshoot on predicting health. Although I do think the Germans do have a good system... one of my best dogs-- a BOxer came out of working German lines (imported sire) ......


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

Traveling my brother drove from Indiana to Texas to get a dog. A dog he saw on Petfinder.com. I have drove a 5 hour one way to get a dog. I have taken a 2 day trip one way with people to get a horse. 

The thing that worries me about a BYB, is what I am buying a true dog of that breed. BYB sometimes do not know that a litter can have multiple fathers, does the BYB watch the bitch while in heat to make sure no other males got to her. It is hard to say when you buy that puppy and as an adult makes you wonder if you have what you paid for. For this reason alone if I wanted a certain breed of dog I think I would go to a breeder and stay away from the BYB


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I drove 5 hrs one way to pick up Josefina ... She was originally supposed to be a foster but we fell in love with her and she became a foster fail lol.


----------



## dilbert (Nov 1, 2008)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> Isn't a clean environment, well socialized puppies and people who care about the dogs enough?


Too often, by their very nature, BYB do not provide "well socialized puppies". They often relinquish the puppy at 6 weeks (or earlier) rather than the veterinarian/expert/professional recommended minimum of 8 weeks (with 9 or 10 weeks gaining more preference). By sneding the pup home at 6 weeks, the puppy is not well dog-to-dog socialized and misses on some of the most important socialization and bite-inhibition training. I was once able to observer three litter-mates in the same puppy class. Two of the pups went home at 8 weeks (to different homes), and the third at 9 weeks. The 9 week pup still had a litter-mate to play with during that additional week. Both I and the trainer were _amazed_ at how much of a softer mouth (i.e. better bite-inhibition) the pup that went home at 9 weeks had. It was not a subtle difference, but a significant one. That one extra week with her brother made an incredible difference. Now the ones that went home at 8 weeks were pretty good, but not nearly as good. So I can only imaging how poor bite-inhibition a pup that goes home at 5 or 6 weeks must have. (Granted that anecdote is a one sample case and does not make it an absolute. But it is very compelling evidence to back-up the growing call to wait until 9 weeks before sending puppies home.)

The reason BYB send them home earlier is so they can make more money. They don't have to pay for food to feed a bunch of pups when they are weaned off of mom. 

Most BYB do not have an unconditional (and required) return policy. My breeder's contract requires me to give her first option before I give away or sell my dog at _any_ age. 

Finally, most BYB to not vet potential buyers and then do not educate them before sending a pup home with them. Cash is cash.


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

I read all through this thread and I think Equinox summed it up the best. Rescued had some good points also.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Well, I think everyone has made good arguments, though I was hoping for some more devil's advocate. But hey.. responsible dogforum. 

In the end I don't think I can totally villianize a "backyard" breeder over a "reputable" breeder in my breed breeding merle to merle. No dogs in shelters though at least! I feel as if we should distribute our disgust equally for breeders that do bad things, but maybe that's just me. Bad breeders, sketchy breeders everywhere! 

I agree with most of you completely, which is why I bought my dog from a breeder who tries to do it all right. Hopefully joe schmoe will at least understand the shelter dog issue, if nothing else.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Had a guy post in 3 FB groups about how he wanted a purebred German Shepherd Dog for a family pet.

You know how much he wanted to spend? A hundred dollars. That's right, $100. Anything else was "out of his price range". He didn't want to hear anything about proper breeding or health testing.

Sorry, but there comes a point where you're being so incredibly unreasonable, you deserve whatever you get. Not everybody can afford a $1200 dog. I get it. But $100 for a purebred dog that is supposed to be for your children and be stable and sound and not have issues?

Yeah, ok dude.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Xeph said:


> Had a guy post in 3 FB groups about how he wanted a purebred German Shepherd Dog for a family pet.
> 
> You know how much he wanted to spend? A hundred dollars. That's right, $100. Anything else was "out of his price range". He didn't want to hear anything about proper breeding or health testing.
> 
> ...


How Schmoe is a cheap arse. I should hope he went to the local animal shelter and picks up a dog there. Ugh.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

Dilbert: where in WNY are you? I was born & raised in Tonawanda


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

> The thing that worries me about a BYB, is what I am buying a true dog of that breed. BYB sometimes do not know that a litter can have multiple fathers, does the BYB watch the bitch while in heat to make sure no other males got to her.


haha this is VERY true! my manager has a Pit bull x Great Dane from a BYB...that is NOT what she bought, he was supposed to be pure bred Pittie, she met both parents then he grew into this(the tan dog):









she saw ads a year later from the same BYB for Pit X Dane puppies and the dane pictured looks exactly like her dog lol


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I should hope he went to the local animal shelter and picks up a dog there. Ugh.


He did not. He bought a dog for $50 that somebody else was giving up because they didn't have time for it. Better than buying from a crappy breeder directly, still crappy because he did 0 research at all.

Icing on the cake? He claims he rescued the dog.

This was all in the span of two hours, by the way.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Xeph said:


> He did not. He bought a dog for $50 that somebody else was giving up because they didn't have time for it. Better than buying from a crappy breeder directly, still crappy because he did 0 research at all.
> 
> Icing on the cake? He claims he rescued the dog.
> 
> This was all in the span of two hours, by the way.


$50? A steal! Does he also claim the dog came from champion working lines?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Oh it didn't matter because "He don't care about none of that" (his words).


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Xeph said:


> Oh it didn't matter because "He don't care about none of that" (his words).


Lololololol. 

I hear proven show dogs always end up with cancer and three legs by the age of 4 anyway.


----------



## dilbert (Nov 1, 2008)

InkedMarie said:


> Dilbert: where in WNY are you? I was born & raised in Tonawanda


Born in Tondwanda. Grew up in Williamsville/Amherst. Now physically in Rochester since 1998, but my heart is still in Buffalo. Go Bills:.. um... well... there's always next year.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Go Bills:.. um... well... there's always next year.


Always remember: They're not the Browns


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

dilbert said:


> Born in Tondwanda. Grew up in Williamsville/Amherst. Now physically in Rochester since 1998, but my heart is still in Buffalo. Go Bills:.. um... well... there's always next year.


Small world! I graduated from THS in 1978, left the next day to move to NH. I lived on Kibler, off Fletcher, few streets up fro Two Mile Creek.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Miss Bugs said:


> haha this is VERY true! my manager has a Pit bull x Great Dane from a BYB...that is NOT what she bought, he was supposed to be pure bred Pittie, she met both parents then he grew into this(the tan dog):
> 
> View attachment 135002



Does that dog freak anyone else out? It looks like it's staring into my soul... Not even blue eyed black dogs give me the heeby jeebys like this dog is right now ...
I actually usually like dogs that other people would call "creepy".


----------

