Larger Scale Registered Breeders

[Steve]

No one other than the person involved can say what their motivation is - and that particular code is about motivation. I can have one litter with no other goal but to make back some of the money I have paid out to keep my dogs and I can have 20 litters because I believe that breeding more is better for the breed and I have greater choices to choose which ones best suited to breed from.

Some breeders believe that what is best for the breed is to limit the number of dogs which can be used for breeding and protect their bloodlines which radically limits gene pools.Some believe that only champions should be bred others that only those proven to work should.Others believe that making more available for breeding and increasing the gene pool with more choices etc is what is best for the breed. Some will feel that its O.K. to sell off those they dont want to keep for breeding to pet shops - which is within their code of ethics some even bump them off but unless the person who is doing any of these things actually says that their primary goal is not for the purpose of improving the breed its a judgement based on speculation.

At the end of the day it has to be about what your goal is and what risks you may face in striving for that and what you are and are not prepared to compromise on to achieve it.

There are few activities that humans can be involved in where they are seen as less proficient and less expert if they are less active.

In dog breeding we have now gotten to a point where breeders brag they only breed a litter every couple of years, where we take advice and make laws based on animal rights propoganda and ignorance rather than on

science, experience and what is best for the dog as well as the breed.

There is a hard case to be made where less and less dogs are being released into the gene pool each year Australia wide for breeding that this is doing much to improve the breed.

[Miss B]

There is a difference between someone breeding on a larger-than-average scale, and someone breeding on a larger-than-average scale specifically to supply the pet market and provide an income for themselves. Personally I don't really care how many litters a breeder is having, it's not about 'how many' - it's about 'how'. Are the dogs all well looked after, with their needs being met. Are the dogs being health tested, and are those with poor results being eliminated from the breeding program. Are they aiming to produce quality puppies, are their dogs contributing to the breed in a positive way.

[toy dog]

there is such a thing as hoarding too don't forget that as i've come across a few in my time, the breeder cannot see what they are actually doing to the dogs as they are denied basic care in the end because they have too many for each dog to get individual care.. and many others just turn a blind eye they know whats going on but still those dogs suffer.

i think it sticks out a mile what the goals of a breeder are whether its for just plain money or for a purpose other than money motivation. and yes, if you do it all properly you lose out on money rather than gaining it. i refuse to do a tally on how much money we've actually spent because i don't want to spoil my enjoyment of my dogs.

i think it also depends on what breeders attitudes are with a certain breed of dog, if they are wanting to share their knowledge and dogs with newcomers this can also make a big difference in numbers. it also ties in with the breed clubs the attitudes there for the betterment of the breed.

i think that many reg breeders think that we don't need advertising and because of this i think we are disappearing in to the background. also ignorance has a lot to do with it too, these days the cross bred is being marketted better than a pedigree so we are loosing people this way out of the purebred dog world.

i don't think its about money or people wanting to spend less or what they can afford looking at how its always been in the past 25-30 years ago or more and looking at now. much the same really.

[Steve]

There is a difference between someone breeding on a larger-than-average scale, and someone breeding on a larger-than-average scale specifically to supply the pet market and provide an income for themselves. Personally I don't really care how many litters a breeder is having, it's not about 'how many' - it's about 'how'. Are the dogs all well looked after, with their needs being met. Are the dogs being health tested, and are those with poor results being eliminated from the breeding program. Are they aiming to produce quality puppies, are their dogs contributing to the breed in a positive way.

Yes but problem is who decides what is a contribution to the breed in a positive way.

Some for example would tell us that doing cross bred matings is contributing in a positive way, some tell us that only breeding dogs with low or no hip scores or patella scores is contributing in a positive way.Others select what they think is the best dog regardless of hip or patella scores because they think this is what is contributing in a positive way.

Some will say breeding only dogs which are champions is contributing in a positive way others will say only dogs which are good at doing the work required are contributing in a positive way. Some say the breed standard matters most others say it is what matters least.

Some say limiting the amount of dogs which are used for breeding is positive others say putting all dogs on main register is better. Animal rights will tell us we breed too much even when some breeds only breed a dozen or so each year australia wide.

[teekay]

My question to the ANKC is - define the 'pet market'. Is it puppies to be supplied to pet stores? Or is it selling puppies to good homes to people who have no intention to show or breed, but want the qualities that a purebred dog has?

Isn't the provision of Limited Registration allowing people to supply the 'pet market'?

Hmm - good point - I hadn't even considered that.

Not all registered dogs are "show" quality or have the right amount of working drive for main register - limited registration is a provision for that. It also stops dogs with faults being bred from and those puppies being registered. You might have 2 dogs out of a litter of 8 that are considered of high enough quality to be put on the main register, you might not have any or you might have 8. So no, i don't think limited registration is a provision for the pet market, i think it's a way of bettering the breed.

I would be interested in the ANKC's interpretation of "pet market" but personally I don't consider a breeder who is breeding solely so people can have pets ethical. The breeders I know breed for themselves because they want a puppy out of a litter. The show quality puppies are then sold into show/performance homes where those homes are available and the rest are pet homed on the limited register with desexing agreements. Yes some of those puppies go into pet homes but it's not what i would consider to be the "pet market".

This statement is something I find very difficult to comprehend. I have learned a lot about registered dog breeding since joining this and other dog forums but as hard as I try and understand what is so wrong with breeding for the 'pet market' I just can't.

I am not into the 'Show' scene so I will admit I have limited knowledge of it but as long as all the usual good breeder practices are in place; health checks, screening homes, good care for the dogs etc (as mentioned in an earlier post) are taking place and the only problem you have with the breeder is that they have no intention of keeping any of the dogs, what is the problem?

What we all share on this forum is our love of dogs. A dog who is a beloved pet provides endless joy, love, devotion and more. In return a pet dog in a loving home receives love, care, attention and more. How can someone who is supplying the means to all this joy/love be doing a bad thing. Try as I might, to see others point of view, I just can't see this one.

For example, a friend of mine owns 2 dogs. A male and female. They are newly registered breeders. They have a mentor to help them. They love their dogs with a passion. All relevant health checks done, they decide to breed their first litter. Everything goes well, the pups are cared for in their home. The pups are loved and good quality, caring homes are found for each one. My friend is sad to see them leave but keeps in touch with each and everyone of the new homes. He will always care about the well being of those pups and would have them back in a heartbeat if anything went wrong. Now 6 families have gorgeous healthy, well balanced, happy dogs to bring joy into their lives. This is unethical?

[Roseclipt]

It is a real can of worms. The thing is that most dogs today are for companion purposes - most of us no longer keep greyhounds to run down kangaroo for the table, or retrievers to bring back a duck for dinner. Our lives no longer depend on our dogs for survival.

The main issue must be excellent care (kennel or Vet.), proper socialisation and environmental enrichment. The biggest kennels of the past - kennels like the Send Great Danes - kept over three hundred Danes at any one time. They had 1 kennelman/kennelmaid to 2 - 3 dogs, which provided a fabulous level of care to the dogs. They were a show breeder, but the dogs were also obedience trained. There is a clip on youtube, which shows the great temperaments, etc. Today, wages are an issue for any large breeding establishment. How could anyone afford to pay the kennel help for a high level of care?

[Inevitablue]

Hmmmmm it's a good debate.

With the limited rego, what about breeders on here who say they will never sell a mains registered dog. Is only keeping a dog/bitch for themselves to show and breed, and selling all others as pets, contributing to the genetic diversity of their breed?

[loveretrievers]

My husband and I had this same discussion when we bought our puppy a few weeks ago. The breeder had 3 litters. Had a couple litters that I had enquired about a couple months before when I said I wanted a show quality puppy. She was honest and said this wasn't the litters for me then. 5 litters though in a space of 6 months seems like a lot. At the same time her dogs are gorgeous. They win titles lovely temperments. It was the kind of puppy I wanted. So why wouldn't the rest of the population want one of these puppies too if it's the breed they are looking for. She had no problem selling these puppies. When you look at what my puppy came with there wasn't much of a profit with main registration, vet checks etc She had a lots of mouths to feed and bills associated I'm sure.

I don't know anything about breeding either and it would happen no matter how many litters she had, joe blogs is going to take his puppy over to his friends place to mate with their dog and share the profit. That's extremely sad. Cause this gorgeous dog she produced for me by finding the right lines by importing and getting proper health checks for her dogs, if the people buying from backyard breeders just waited, paid a couple hundred more they would get a nice quality puppy from someone that will be there anytime they need help and a health garuntee to boot.

[BJean]

There are few activities that humans can be involved in where they are seen as less proficient and less expert if they are less active.

In dog breeding we have now gotten to a point where breeders brag they only breed a litter every couple of years, where we take advice and make laws based on animal rights propoganda and ignorance rather than on

science, experience and what is best for the dog as well as the breed.

There is a hard case to be made where less and less dogs are being released into the gene pool each year Australia wide for breeding that this is doing much to improve the breed.

It's tragically true so I should not find it funny.

[BJean]

I don't know anything about breeding either and it would happen no matter how many litters she had, joe blogs is going to take his puppy over to his friends place to mate with their dog and share the profit. That's extremely sad. Cause this gorgeous dog she produced for me by finding the right lines by importing and getting proper health checks for her dogs, if the people buying from backyard breeders just waited, paid a couple hundred more they would get a nice quality puppy from someone that will be there anytime they need help and a health garuntee to boot.

I believe you learn more about the breed each time you breed -

if your inclined to learn that is

[Liebhunde]

Another thing Ive noticed on this forum in regard to this question of larger scale breeders...is the recent publication of the numbers of litters and puppies thereof of certain breeders in a certain breed. All information which is free to the general public so no laws were being broken. However the comments and asumptions by members of this forum would lead people too believe that these larger scale breeders are in their view irresponsible puppy farmers in it only for the money. The publication of these lists prompting one breeder to respond in a no doubt negative frame of mind. And I dont blame the breeders concerned. These puppy farming asumptions are just that assumptions..and while there may be some registered breeders whos paractices are less than best it cannot be presumed that the breeder heading the list is by any means prompted by profit only..In my experience their motives are quite the opposite. I would say those breeders have every right to be incensed by the publication of those stats and the judgements made on them. A clever way to criticise and condemn while doing nothing that could be considered libellous.; Just a thought I had....

Edited August 11, 2011 by Liebhunde

[SwaY]

Another thing Ive noticed on this forum in regard to this question of larger scale breeders...is the recent publication of the numbers of litters and puppies thereof of certain breeders in a certain breed. All information which is free to the general public so no laws were being broken. However the comments and asumptions by members of this forum would lead people too believe that these larger scale breeders are in their view irresponsible puppy farmers in it only for the money. The publication of these lists prompting one breeder to respond in a no doubt negative frame of mind. And I dont blame the breeders concerned. These puppy farming asumptions are just that assumptions..and while there may be some registered breeders whos paractices are less than best it cannot be presumed that the breeder heading the list is by any means prompted by profit only..In my experience their motives are quite the opposite. I would say those breeders have every right to be incensed by the publication of those stats and the judgements made on them. A clever way to criticise and condemn while doing nothing that could be considered libellous.; Just a thought I had....

You forgot to add the link ;)

Registered Litter listings - Great Danes

[SwaY]

And some buyers are kidding themselves if they think that some of the large scale breeders are not in it for the $$.

A poll on How many litters a year....

[Liebhunde]

Thanks for the link..helpful ...for some. "[ Some" being the operative word in this discussion.

[Danois]

I would say those breeders have every right to be incensed by the publication of those stats and the judgements made on them. A clever way to criticise and condemn while doing nothing that could be considered libellous.; Just a thought I had....

Why be incensed at the publication of the stats? If they're doing the right thing then they have nothing to be worried about.

It is neither a criticism nor condemnation to simply draw together stats and present them as a big picture - it is simply a statement of fact.

And just maybe, those in the know are well aware of the breeding practices of some breeders.

Just a thought I had...

[Liebhunde]

So many thoughts...the simple drawing together of facts and the resulting dissaproval and condemnation..truely deserved??

Edited August 11, 2011 by Liebhunde

[Danois]

IMO, a breeder who has registered over 50 puppies (in a breed which does not produce overly large numbers in a year) a year (and leaving aside the large number of other puppies who are born out of that breeder's stock) will attract my criticism especially when you see the quality of some of the puppies being produced. Even more so when other breeding practices (of which there is evidence) can be called into question.

[stormie]

So many thoughts...the simple drawing together of facts and the resulting dissaproval and condemnation..truely deserved??

If a breeder is breeding on a large scale, aiming for healthy, quality pups each time and then also carefully selects the home, then I wouldn't be so disapproving of this. If, however, a breeder is breeding on a large scale and the resulting puppies sold on main reg as breeding stock where lesser quality pups are produced, then yes, I disapprove of this.

But hey, maybe I'm more sensitive to others on the subject because I'm one of the people who's has to hold some of those as they go off to heaven, because they are so poorly conformed that each step is painful, or because the temperament isn't sound etc etc.

[Liebhunde]

IMO all breeders can produce poor stock. Luck of the draw. I am continually surprised however by situations which contradict well publicised statements of ethics by some of the well known breeders ..even those considered top breeders. And keeping these contradictions secret ..so they think..... happens so often. The truth does out though eventually ...just another thought...;)

And so concludes my contribution to this interesting discussion.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Liebhunde

[Zombie Bait]

To me if a "large scale breeder" is treating the animals well, proving they are breeding to standards and to the betterment of the breed (either through showing or trialling) and properly screening potential homes, then that is great. But if that same "large scale breeder" is not treating the animals so well (lack of enrichment, penned or kennelled close to 24 hours a day, lack of proper veterinary treatment) and flooding the market with substandard examples of the breed, rarely, if ever, trialling or showing the dogs and selling to any tom, dick or harry, then I think they are just registered puppy farmers.

I speak from experience in my own breed. The breeder I bought my girl from is a lovely woman who I have a lot in common with but after finding out more about her breeding practices, I have to put her in the registered puppy farmer basket. She breeds multiple litters from untried dogs across 3 breeds and is supplying only to the pet market as the dogs produced are sub standard. I think she is a lovely woman and I love my Sierra but I will never buy another pup from her again and will advise others to run a mile if they are thinking of it.

In regards to the "outing" of certain large scale breeders in my next chosen breed, it has been an eye opener and something that will make me ask a lot of questions in regards to my future pup in terms of breeding practices. I thank Sway and her collegues for compiling this list and making it so easily accessable to the public. If these breeders are proud of their prodgeny and thier practices then why are they so angry at being "outed" for the amount of dogs they have produced or enabled to be produced? Maybe that is the question that should be raised Liebhunde.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Ridgie Lover