Maddy

It depends a lot on which teeth they're pulling and the condition of those teeth. Trying to dig out teeth that crumble into a stinking mess or removing things like canine teeth can be more difficult and involved.

$775 for a very small dog does seem a little high to me- I've had 30+ kg dogs done for far less- but it's hard for people to guess at whether your vet is overpriced without knowing what the vet had to do. In my experience, extractions have always included a general dental to clean up whatever is left, so your vet may also have done that.

You also don't mention whether the bill included pre-anesthetic bloods, any fluids, ABs or extra pain relief.

5 hours ago, KobiD said:

 

You're a tough bunch eh. Put forward an opinion which IMO is not even opposing and it all becomes filled with emotion. Feel free to judge however you please Mady. I won't be offended.

 

You all continue to misconstrue everything I post, blowing it out of proportion and adding big dramatic undertones. Are we watching the 7pm news?? I've not used the words inferior, I haven't related them to being serial killers, or any other nonsense things. You're all very good at putting words in peoples mouths.

 

Simply that as a layman walking off the street, looking for a pet to add to a family (inclusive of small children and other small animals) that a rescue or any other adopted dog with no known history can present a risk to the buyer/new owner. Yes you can generally see what you get in size and temperament but you don't see the whole picture after a few visits. With a puppy from a pound you get no history; it will be what it is... and from a breeder you at least get some history (but that is not to say that anything is guaranteed either). End of the day all dogs can pose a risk. They are animals and they have sharp teeth and tolerance levels just like the rest of us.

 

This whole inferior vs superior debate is pointless. Everyone here is well aware that there is no right or wrong when it comes to people and their beliefs (however it appears from you all, that there indeed is). The dog I find superior when it comes to being a pet could very well be inferior if used to work cattle, and vice versa.  Many rescues can be (and indeed are) matched to people who best compliment each other.

 

As per my initial post, I have a problem with anyone who tries to turn a profit through the sales of rescued animals. Costs should cover expenses, and if they don't then perhaps overall prices need to be re-evaluated and public perception changed/educated on why things cost what they do, but my opinion, and my opinion only is that taking a dog off someone to try and flip for a profit is not very ethical. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone here and saying that's what you do... and even if you wanted to you would be free to do so because my opinions/beliefs mean nothing to anyone but myself anyway.

You raise points, ignore rebuttals and move on to the next point, which is abandoned just as quickly when challenged (or even denied outright).

If we were allowed to use the word that refers to the creatures of folklore that live under bridges (and are fond of eating billy goats), I'd be pretty tempted to suggest some of that particular word was happening here.

1 hour ago, KobiD said:

As humans we judge all day every day. We do so consciously and subconsciously, yet we are so focussed on equality as a society. I like to call a spade a spade.

 

It doesn't mean they are inferior.. But everything is generally unknown. You can't ask about the parents, the dogs nature, what they like, dislike, etc. Their history is typically only as long as they've been in the shelter, and while you can learn a lot about them in a short time it's well known that many dogs won't show their true colours until months later once settled. Same can be said for all dogs, yes... however you can typically piece a bit more together when meeting owners, seeing how they interact with their animal in its natural environment.. and in the case of pups you can at least get half of the backstory.

 

As I said.. It doesn't make them inferior, however it does place more risk on the buyer.

Everything is literally right in front of you. In an adult dog, you can see any health issues, you can see any behavioural issues, you're not guessing based on parentage, YOU'RE LOOKING RIGHT AT IT.

Jesus H. Christ.

You're correct about the judging though. I'm doing some judging right now >.>

10 hours ago, KobiD said:

Any need for the dramatisation?

 

If you're comparing them to breed standards then yes, they are inferior. It doesn't mean they are any less of an animal or less able to love or be loved. It doesn't mean they should be undervalued or under priced for what it costs to adequately rehome them either... and ultimately when you take on a rescue you are giving them a chance at a better life. One where they will be a loved family pet vs shuffled around in fosters or pts. That's before you even begin to touch on the many reasons why an animal ends up in rescue in the first place..

 

And of course any animal has the potential to have faults in training, temperament, or health. Some could say certain purebreds carry higher risks than the typical rescue. 

Are they? Have you undertaken a study of purebred rescue dogs, comparing each against the breed standard, ideally as a blind study to ensure bias is minimised? Because if not, you're judging dogs based just on the fact that they're rescues. Pedigreed dogs end up in rescue. Nice examples of their breeds end up in rescue. Being a pretty and nicely conformed dog doesn't protect you from an owner's changing circumstances, or being lost and not reclaimed, or any of the other reasons dogs end up in rescue. 

Like I said, if you think rescue dogs are inferior, that's cool. But I disagree, because I'm yet to see any real evidence to suggest that rescued dogs are somehow worse than dogs purchased directly from someone selling them (which, let's not forget, includes backyard breeders). If you have that evidence, front it up. I'd be very interested to see it.

9 hours ago, PANDI-GIRL said:

Hi  @sandgrubber  the site has lots of information, if you click on  PHOTOS  the different  topics  will display  

 

One thing on Balanced Canine  I disagree  with, they say  kibble can only have 28%  meat in the formula  , post on 1st  may,

 

Robert from Stay Loyal  told me, via email  Stay Loyal has over 45%  meat meal  in the kibble,  with over  80%  of the  protein  in the food coming   from meat.

 

April 27th,  Topic  Kibble  Data , is in the photos  under a bowl of kibble,  then click on the green link  at top,   

On the spreed sheet  press,  Overview,   hope it works  for you.   

They have information about what they test for but I couldn't find any information about what method they use for testing. And method does matter- some methods give you very accurate results but are long and difficult procedures, involving more expensive reagents, other methods are cheaper and quicker but won't give you the same accuracy or precision. 

Ideally, they would publish the methods used by the lab they contract the testing out to, along with the raw data and final numbers. If you're going to make claims, you need to allow others to test them, to see if your results can be reproduced.

I've done a fair bit of food testing and just saying "We tested food X and found worrying levels of Pb, Hg, As and whatever else" isn't even close to sufficient. They've obviously spent the cash to have the tests done, why not publish actual results?

My personal experience with sedation is that I've only ever once had it offered by a younger vet, who didn't seem very confident about the whole thing. Besides that, it's always been without sedation (with one other exception) and that's worked for us. We have larger dogs and I did request it once and probably wouldn't do it again. The dog didn't handle the sedation well but that's an individual thing so things might be different for your dog.

For my last two oldies- where we had the luxury of time to plan things for them to go together- we had it done at home and I'd definitely recommend that route if possible. We set up blankets outside in the sun, cooked them a huge greasy breakfast and had tubs of chocolate Rolo pudding so that they could enjoy their final moments with a forbidden treat. It was still incredibly painful to say goodbye but it was a gentle, quiet passing- somewhere they felt safe and happy, with full tummies and the people who loved them. We had as much time as we needed to sit with them (in the best setting I could have wanted for that) and overall, although it was hard, I can look back on that day with good memories. 

8 hours ago, Lhok said:

I forgot to mention this particular RSPCA branch runs a boarding kennel as well. I wonder if they re purpose the other runs to add to their boarding kennels? This particular branch didn't do low cost desexing  or any real community stuff as far as I could tell, They used to but it got less and less over the years. They also had odd hours to opening too which made it hard for people working to claim back pets.

I'm also not sure why the council can't have the land the pound is currently on. From my understanding the RSPCA was given the land to use for the pound. I might be wrong about that though.

--Lhok
 

I'd assume boarding facilities would perhaps be used for things related to enforcing the act, like holding seized animals? But who knows. Our northern RSPCA facility had boarding (of exceptionally poor quality, ironically) and then closed it down  After that, they closed off half their adoption kennels to make them into inspectorate kennels, despite there never being more than a couple of dogs at a time in the inspectorate section- and it certainly wasn't secure, just roped off from the public. They're forever shuffling things around in a way that makes the least efficient use of facilities and funding. That said, RSPCA Tasmania has been churning through the leadership since the financial scandal a few years back so new leadership, new ideas, new leadership gets replaced, rinse, repeat, waste money, etc. NSW still has the same one, yeah? Steve Coleman?

4 hours ago, KobiD said:

I'm not pointing the finger at anyone in particular. I haven't specified what is acceptable pricing and what is not.

 

You seem to have singled out what you wanted from my original post and made taken it to heart. Go and read it again and you'll see after the part you decided to quote in bold it continued to say "but then you shouldn't really expect everyone who puts in the hard work running the show to do it at their own expense (of time and effort) either. Then you get into the old not for profit organisation business model where some people rake it in, while the business itself makes not money. It really comes down to the individual/businesses intent and ethics more than the dollars involved."

 

If you want to run a business and make a profit from selling used dogs for a premium price, then go for it. I wish you all the best. That is the beauty of it all. You can do as you please. You can be offended by those who question price or not. You can take others opinions to heart or leave those you disagree with to have their own beliefs. It's a bit rough comparing a living animal to a used car, but ultimately a rescue dog is very similar; you're buying an animal whose origin/history is typically unknown. In my eyes you are 'rescuing/saving' an animal.. distinctly different than shopping or buying a breed of your choice (from responsible breeder or not). In saying that my decision to include a rescue pup as part of our family was based more inline with giving it a chance than weighing up the costs involved.

 

I'm sorry if I've offended you at all.

What I've said (several times) was that rescues inadvertently devalue their dogs and their own work by not charging a fee that reflects the true cost of rescue. 

The fact that a dog's history is "unknown" does not make the cost of rehoming it any less. A puppy can have all sorts of faults in temperament or health that may not be apparent until the dog is older, but no one expects puppies from breeders to be cheaper because of that fact.  

As for it being a bit rough to compare a dog to a car.. You talk about rescue dogs as is they were inferior to dogs from breeders and your own generosity of "giving your dog a chance", like it was some (hopefully) reformed criminal who may or not ultimately shank you in your sleep. 

If that's your attitude to rescue dogs, cool, we can agree to disagree. 

They've done something similar down here - dropped two animal care centres, opened up a vet clinic in the north (right around the corner from an established low cost vet clinic) and claimed it was all about "going back to the core mission".

My opinion is that running pounds forces them to deal with larger numbers of animals and the associated work involved in rehoming them, to avoid horrendously high kill rates (because high kill rates means less donations). By going back to a model of private surrenders, they have less animals to deal with and achieving lower kill rates is easier. 

To be fair, if they can't protect animals from themselves, I think it's a good thing that they scale back the number of shelters that they have. But on the other hand, enforcement of legislation should never have been handed over to a non-government group to start with. If the laws were administered appropriately (by a government department, using government funding), there would be no need for the RSPCA for anything other than as a lobbying group, which would require much less in terms of public donations, leaving more money for actual rescue groups who actually care for lost/homeless animals.

2 hours ago, KobiD said:

It seems you assume that I expect a business to run in the red just because it's a rescue. Not even the case. I 100% that a rescue should be financially stable. How that is achieved is up to that particular group/organisation..

 

My opinions purely revolve around a groups intent. Are they in the business of rehoming dogs responsibly or are they in the business of making a dollar. We all know that the majority of rescues (particularly small ones) tend to put the animals welfare first. In a perfect world you could say both could exist, but I tend to be a bit sceptical of peoples ethics once dollars become the main motivator. That is all.

And who are we to judge the intent of others? Do you know exactly why some other group is charging the prices it charges? Do you know the ins and outs of their financial situation? Do you know enough to be able to say- beyond any doubt- that they rescue only for profit or do you just assume that, because maybe they are actually financially responsible and don't want to run at a loss?

Even if a small rescue group is lucky enough to have the finances to pay their CEO/coordinator/founder, who cares? If someone is doing 8+ hours a day in rescue, why the hell shouldn't they be paid, if the funds are available? Suggesting that rescuers don't deserve pay is again completely devaluing them and the incredibly difficult work they do. 

The people behind many of the smaller rescues are working their fingers to the bone, 24/7, with no weekends, no public holidays, no sick leave, no super, no support. Family, money, home and health are sacrificed for the rescue (which itself is not great for mental health) and yet people balk at the idea of paying them. Because they should ONLY do it for love? Next time our car breaks down, I might ask our mechanic if he'll be doing the work for free. After all, if he loves cars, he should be willing to put his own money and time into fixing ours.

4 hours ago, KobiD said:

I wasn't talking profit on a per animal basis. 

 

My point being that a rescue should be interested in primarily rescuing and re homing animals. Not in lining the pockets of the CEO/owners. That's not saying one should have to live on the edge of poverty or dip into personal funds to do so either. 

 

I'm not sure how I feel about individual pricing on animals based on demand either though. Most people almost always feel like more dollars correlates with better product; ultimately perceiving some dogs as being better simply because they carry a higher price tag. 

It adds up to the same thing. Of course rescues should be about helping animals but there is no reason rescues can't also have a bank account in the black. If you have an emergency situation pop up and you don't have spare cash in the bank, you have to do a last minute scramble for funds- which may result in prolonged suffering or even death for an animal- and I think most people would agree that it's an irresponsible way to run a rescue. We should have funds to spare if needed. Many don't/can't because regular expenses eat up every cent they get.

I know of incredibly few rescuers who pay themselves anything or "line their pockets", beside groups like the RSPCA and very large rescues. Show me a small rescue that has a paid CEO and I'll show you the chupacabra I found. And then we can both marvel over things that don't exist.

Not to be rude bro, but these attitudes are exactly why rescuers are their own worst enemies. If the rescuers who try to improve the financial stability of their group are accused of "lining their pockets" by people who enjoy playing the poverty-stricken martyrs, nothing will ever get better.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off for an early long weekend on the yacht. 

(yacht = my desk, MS Excel, plugging in some numbers to see how far behind the latest rescue dog has got me)

Edited to update: Looks like I'll lose only $434 on this dog, as long as he's rehomed within two weeks. I guess I'll have to defer the payment on my mercedes this month. Oh well.

9 minutes ago, The Spotted Devil said:

I agree @Maddy

 

The same expectation applies to breeders and it's not a reasonable one. I'm not talking LIVING off the proceeds but nothing wrong with a little profit here and there to invest in your future dogs. Honestly the -oodle breeders charging $3K plus must think we are absolute idiots.

Exactly. Even if a rescue makes a substantial profit on an individual animal, it's not as if they'd be spending that money on a down payment for their new yacht. 

For me, it got to the point that I felt guilty spending my own money- to buy myself necessary things- because that was money that could have (literally) gone to the dogs. And honestly, I still do feel guilty buying myself things and then grumbling over the most recent vet bill, as if being a rescuer means you should have to give up everything and live like a pauper. Trouble is, we've all bought into the idea of the stereotypical rescuer, who lives in a disheveled hovel while throwing money at vets and feed stores. It's utter garbage. Yeah, I want to help dogs but why should that mean my house has to look like something out of an episode of Hoarders? 

On 03/05/2018 at 8:12 AM, KobiD said:

It's a tough on to answer isn't it. I don't feel that a rescue should be making profit persay, but then you shouldn't really expect everyone who puts in the hard work running the show to do it at their own expense (of time and effort) either. Then you get into the old not for profit organisation business model where some people rake it in, while the business itself makes not money. It really comes down to the individual/businesses intent and ethics more than the dollars involved.

 

People will pay as little as they can, or as much as they can justify. That's just how people work. Once you realise what you get for your $350 it's not so bad. For our rescue that included initial worming, vaccinations, and spaying. It basically means free dog.. and if the owner can't afford that off the bat you really have to ask if they can afford to own an animal. I'd like to think I'm tight as a fishes in general, and really don't splurge on expensive doggy gifts.. but she still costs a significant amount to own and maintain.

Why is that? Making a profit on individual dogs means rescues can be less reliant on donations, which is a very good thing, given that donations are not a reliable source of income.

On the couple of occasions I have made a profit on a dog, that profit has been immediately eaten up by the next dog/dogs that come along. You might come out in front by $20 on a dog, only to have the next one be a bilateral cryptorchid (quite common in the breed I rescue) and that dog puts you $200+ in the hole, before you've even had it a week. 

More to the point, why shouldn't rescue be able to at least recover the entire cost of rehoming a dog? Breeders can charge $2000+ for a puppy, with the reasoning being that it covers first vaccs/microchip/health testing of parents, and most people seem happy with this. But when a rescue has to cover desexing, complicated dental work (because you can't rehome a dog with teeth falling out of its head) and other serious health issues to get the dog fit and healthy for rehoming, people whine about the price because A) It's an adult dog, so it should be very cheap, or B) It's a mutt/unwanted dog, so it's somehow worth less. 

The general public has been led to believe that rescue dogs have less value because rescues charge so little. When I first started in rescue, $180 was an expected price for the breed I rescue. $180 for a purebred dog, desexed, chipped vaccinated, parasite treated, extensively assessed and rehomed with the basic necessities for the breed. At a price like that, the general public can only assume we're still making a profit (because that's how any business works, right?) so the dog must be worth absolutely nothing to start with. And if this dog is worth nothing but the group are charging $180, there must be some wiggle room in the price for negotiations. And that's how you get to the situation of people questioning rescues on cost or trying to haggle. We can't expect the general public to just know how much a dog costs to rehome and we can't expect them to attach a monetary value to the animal itself when we won't. 

If you buy a dog from Gumtree or a breeder, you pay for the dog itself (and often not much else). When you buy from rescue, it seems almost verboten to charge money for the actual animal. And I think that's a stigma we put on ourselves. Thou shalt not sell dogs, or make profit from dogs because rescue. And that makes no sense. 

Personally, I've been mostly self-funding for the last 10 years or so and I've spent tens of thousands of my own dollars, so that other people can have these lovely dogs as pets, for a price that almost never reflects the true cost. And I don't think that's a noble thing to do, I think it's a financially stupid thing to do, because it's not sustainable and once the well runs dry, it's another rescue closed down. It has gotten to the point that I've given dogs away, because rehoming them sooner ends up losing me less money than caring for them for six months plus. That's the situation- trying to minimise the crippling losses, to keep saving dogs, when there is no reason the situation should be as it is.

I mostly feed raw but we use TotW as a backup food. I've tried a lot of other kibbles and looked at ingredients for heaps more, but TotW has definitely been the easy winner. I buy the High Prairie variety and I've never had a dog refuse it. Also, dogs don't seem to get upset tummies, soft poo or any other problems. Only downside is that it's hard to buy locally, but that might just be a Tasmanian thing.

12 hours ago, corvus said:

The greyhound industry needs to address their socialisation practices as a priority. To me, this is putting the cart before the horse, and I hope it doesn't prove costly for people's small animals. Assessing greyhounds for predatory behaviour is a curly issue, and evidence for the efficacy of assessments is pretty thin on the ground AFAIK. 

Pretty much. As I've told many adopters, you can test a dog for hours and not see anything worrying, but a small dog squealing or a game of chase getting out of hand can be enough to trigger predatory behaviour. You can't guarantee that a dog will never react to arousing stimuli, in the way it was bred to react. Worst still is greyhounds who have been "trained" not to chase, as these dogs are usually the sneaky ones who will appear to pass assessment comfortably but out of human supervision, absolutely can't be trusted.

Prey drive exists in all breeds to some extent but what a lot of people don't understand is that for racing greys, it has been strongly selected for- to the point that they'll continue chasing the lure with broken limbs or other severe injuries. They will joyfully kill themselves for the chase and I think a lot of people just can't understand that intensity of drive until it is in front of them, killing the neighbour's cat. In my experience, only 5% of greys are safe with cats or other small animals and ~25% fail small dog testing badly enough to be a real worry (I'm talking about the dogs who devolve into a baying, frothing mess at the sight of a small dog).

Early socialisation is definitely something that needs addressing but also, selecting for greyhounds of more moderate drive. No greyhound should have to be put to sleep because its own genes make it a danger to the community. Greyhounds with extreme prey drive are almost doomed from birth, unless they're lucky enough to find a very understanding and experienced sighthound home, which is not all that likely.

Oddly enough, since the live baiting scandal, I've noticed a definite trend towards dogs with higher natural (as opposed to trained) prey drive and with it, some bizarre, wonky temperaments. Overall, more likely to be resource possessive, more likely to fight, much higher prey drive and very highly strung, manic dogs. I'm not a fan of this new greyhound at all and they definitely don't make good pets.

3 hours ago, Rebanne said:

The leash requirements have not changed for greyhounds in Victoria. I believe Tasmania has also loosened the muzzle laws. I'm very happy with the change.

From what I understand, two organisations will be "approved organisations" and issue green collars but there are also provisions in future for dogs from non-approved organisations/private rehoming and basically, the dog just has to meet the criteria.

The trouble is, the criteria are so vague in the most important areas that I think we'll run into trouble fairly quickly.

For example, this is the criteria for prey drive:

"The development of activities and assessment criteria to assess the greyhounds prey drive around other small animals, such as small dogs. The activity must ensure the safety of the small animal being used in the assessment."

And from there, no guidelines on what passes or what fails. And no obvious way for this to apply to greyhounds from non-approved sources. Assessors also have to be "suitably qualified" but again, no details of what this might possibly mean. There is no recognised course for assessing greyounds and even if there was, a couple of days doing a short course could not possibly compare to years of experience.

So, for the moment, it seems really only possible for greyhounds to go unmuzzled if they come from one of the two approved organisations, which will spell the end for small rescues, who can't offer unmuzzled greyhounds. This may lead to more Tasmanian greyhounds being euthanised, in the long run, as both the approved organisations are based in the south of the state.

My dogs help me control my weight by eating most of my meals for me. They're very thoughtful like that* :|

*Unless the meal only contains vegetables. In which case, I'm on my own. Literally. They check my plate, decide it's not worth their time and retire to various beds for their other occupation: making sure my bed linen isn't too smooth/soft by peppering it with short, prickly greyhound/whippet hairs.

3 hours ago, DogsAndTheMob said:

I can’t  find kelpies on the drop-down menu!

There was one dog that definitely looked part kelpie to me but kelpie wasn't on the list. A lot of these mixes must be more common US mixes because they don't look like any of the common mixes we have in pounds.

6 minutes ago, Powerlegs said:

What we could do with all that money!  

I honestly can't see how they fund it. It's hard enough getting donations to cover the essential things, like vet work, let alone justifying spending money to buy dogs from their breeders. 

50 minutes ago, westbrrok said:

Maybe this post will help you.

This sort of crap makes rescues look very bad and only supports the sort of garbage that people like Willem have to say about rescue. I honestly don't see how they could afford to buy dogs, pay for vet work and still charge an adoption fee that people will pay, without ending up in huge debt? 

Meanwhile, I've just gotten back from the vet, picking up a greyhound who apparently was so "injured", the track vet recommended euthanasia, so the trainer dropped him off to be destroyed. My own vet said she couldn't find anything wrong with him (that industry reform is going swimmingly, I see) and called me to collect him.

I didn't ask for that phone call- and honestly, if there were other immediate options, I'd have suggested them- but here I am again, with another dog that I shouldn't have to deal with, because someone else couldn't be bothered doing the right thing by their dog. 

And this is what it comes down to: if shitty breeders discover they can guilt rescues into paying to save dogs, they absolutely will. I've even had a greyhound trainer try to do it and it just goes to show how utterly shit these people are. Unfortunately, saying "no" and knowing that the dog will die.. that's a heartbreaking situation to be in and I can understand the temptation to pay for their lives. But you can't. It's like that whippet thread in General- if the OP "saves" the mum, she's putting money into the pockets of those breeders and rewarding them, and as much as it hurts to walk away from those dogs (knowing the suffering they will continue to endure), it has to be done, or we will end up like the US, where it's evidently already becoming an issue.

7 hours ago, Powerlegs said:

Looks like they read my post  and have offered to delete the account for us. 

They didn't send me anything   Am I not prettttty enough, is my heart tooo broooooken *self-pity weeping*

1 hour ago, Ren said:

My current dog is adopted from a shelter, but I plan on buying from a good breeder for my next dog.

 

This seems like a good a topic as any to ask, so I was wondering, at what stage is it appropriate to contact a breeder? 

I've heard some people stay on waiting lists for months, to years. Patience is virtue if you're waiting for a great pup, but the thought of waiting so long does worry me.

 

My situation is that my current dog almost 14 years old, I think it's possible he could make it to 15 though. I don't want another dog until he's passed away.

Is it normal to research, find the desired breeder and stay on a waiting list now, or only once I'm really in the position to purchase a pup?

I wouldn't like to be 'dogless' for a long period, but since situations can change, would a breeder be bothered by early contact? The process is a bit new to me.

 

 

 

I guess it depends on the breed and the breeder you're considering. If it's a very common breed, you probably won't have to wait long as you'll have a greater choice of breeders to start with. On the other hand, if it's a rarer breed or you want a puppy from a specific breeder, you may be waiting longer.

In my case, the breed is less common and I want a puppy from a very specific sort of breeder, so that means waiting. If I get lucky, it'll be less than 12 months from first contacting. If I don't get lucky.. who knows. Maybe years. But I'd rather wait to get exactly what I want, so it suits me just fine. Your situation may be different.

As far as contacting breeders, same, really. If the breeder has several litters a year, it'd be worth contacting them to introduce yourself, but I'd suggest being clear that you aren't ready yet (and will let them know when you are ready). On the other hand, if your chosen breeder only has a litter once every few years, you might want to ask to be put on a waiting list, provided you know roughly when the next litter will be (and if that suits your plans).

6 minutes ago, Papillon Kisses said:

Good point!

To me, it's pretty simple. A puppy from a BYBer might cost.. say $500. That will include maybe a microchip, maybe a first vaccination and maybe a worming. Often, from what I've seen down here, it includes none of the above and the prices (even on less desirable crossbreeds) are $800+. So for your money, you get nothing but a dog and a gamble on temperament.

On the other hand, buy from a rescue and pay an average adoption fee of $350 and you get definitely desexed, microchipped, vaccinated, flea/worm treated and temperament assessed. The rescue dog might not be an 8 week old puppy but if (like WT), you want to reduce a pet to value for money spent, the rescue looks better.

3 minutes ago, Papillon Kisses said:

SO, GETTING BACK ON TOPIC...

 

I wonder if it might help to state what the adoption fee is including at a fraction of the price. Something along the lines of:

 

Fido’s adoption fee of $x comes with the following inclusions (or includes the following, or helps cover the follow, etc):

Full vet exam

Desexing

Dental scale, polish and extractions under anaesthsia

Heartworm test

C3 or C5 vaccination (whatever you do)

Microchipping

Lifetime registration (or whatever is applicable in your state)

Flea, tick, intestinal and heartworm treated

... and anything else you do.

 

State it from the outset in a huge list and maybe it would help people better appreciate the adoption fee? 

 

And no, you are not too strict.  

Most rescues (that I've seen, anyway) have this sort of information with their adoption price. You could go one step further and set out exact costs, something I've done before, but so many of these people seem to think they could do it cheaper somehow. "Oh, desexing cost $180, I bet that's using an expensive vet" (it's using an incredibly cheap vet who does a 20% discount for rescues). People who want to nit-pick this stuff will helpfully offer you plenty of advice on how you could save costs, don't worry.