Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scratch

Is it any wonder.......

54 posts in this topic

Diva   

It has become much harder to legally breed dogs on a small scale as a dedicated hobbiest over the past 20 odd years. Bigger denser cities, tighter planning controls. Perth’s two dog limit has been in for how long? Twenty years at least. Fewer stay at home parents, more pressure on time, no free weekends, hard to do it right if you don’t want to move your lives to acreage  and commute for hours. Doing it commercially like the designer cross breed folk is easier, make it your job, large scale, commercial.

But if you don’t want to make it your job, and you want be legally compliant, and you want to do more than just keep a couple of dogs you breed repeatedly together? Too hard and too much impact on the rest of the family for many these days. Add the social stigma of breeding and the stress of trying to find really good homes, why bother.  When I was working in a career that wasn’t compatible with living rural and had to either import or breed to get what I wanted, I imported. Costly but less stressful than trying to jump the regulatory hoops. Now I don’t work full time I can take a different path, but if I wasn’t so in love with my breed I wouldn’t be doing it at all. 

Edited by Diva
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   
1 hour ago, Scratch said:

The gardener certainly had an influence no doubt. But for some reason the pedigree breeders thought barely breeding dogs was the best way to combat it?? I really understand the point about breeders not wanting to have their dogs fall into the hands of people breeding  mixed breeds. But you know, I think worse things could happen. That very big winning kennel I started at way back in the 80’s had a very wise man at the helm. They bred. A lot. They showed. They won, a lot.  And I’ll never forget him saying to me that he’d rather see people cross breeding with his pet sold pedigree pups than trying to breed non pedigree purebreds with them. Obviously he’d rather not have seen people indiscriminately breeding from any of the pups he sold, but faced with a choice, he’d choose to see the cross breeding rather than his lines popping up in non pedigree purebreds. It took me a while to find the same peace with that statement as he had, but I did. Because what harm does it actually do to the pedigree breeder. They can continue to have amazing dogs, breed amazing puppies the majority of which will go to great pet homes and not be bred from, win at shows. NOTHING about a pedigree breeders dogs change if one of their puppies happens to land in the hands of indiscriminate breeders. Yes, it may or may not be an excellent life for the puppy who ends up being indiscriminately bred. I understand how that’s hard to accept. 
If pedigree breeders bred more pups for the pet market, inevitably some would land in the hands of less than exemplary breeders, but in doing so, there would also be many more pedigree dogs out there in homes and in the community, winning hearts and perpetuating them as desirable. Breeding barely enough to meet the wants & needs within the breed fraternity is never going to help the breed flourish in the community. 
the oodly whatsits have taken the front foot and now that there are so many in the community, it’s all people see, so naturally, that’s what the majority think they want. Add that they are usually much more available too! 
maybe there is mis education and elitist thinking, but it’s not exclusive to the non pedigree market.

 


 

Also what the purebred pedigree breeders seem to completely forget is the massive gene pool of unregistered purebreds to be found for the puppy farms to draw from.  They dont need your certificated purebred puppies to stock their kennels anyway.  Just ring the family with a litter or another puppy farm with the breed or breeds they want.

 

Breed less registered dogs every generation, then the only place that breed can be found is the unregistered ones out there in barckyard and puppy farmer land. 

I know a lady with over 200 purebred Cavaliers and Poodles. 

Was once an ankc member but became fed up the the harassment and snobbery,

Decided pet people are far nicer. so another lost. Last I saw her she had three ex greyhound properties with licences for from 140 to 170 dogs. 

 Millionaire now too.  You will never find her in the phone book or an add. All sales are solely from word of mouth.

 

 

 I love my purebreds and I like to continue the legacy of the breeders before me, but I also know financially (looking at the results of her decision) financilly I shot myself in the foot..

 

When the Stumpy Tailed cattledog had been bottlenecked into just one only ankc kennel with registered purebreds, what did the ankc do?

 

they opened the stud book to classify suitable dogs to "upgrade" to purebred status.

 

HUNDREDS of dogs were assessed for classification.

 

one comfort for the day when each breed ends up close to extinction. 

The ANKC WILL AGAIN, open the studbook and "upgrade" from the unregistered gene pool. 

 

When the King Charles Spaniel no longer resembled the dogs in the paintings of the Cavalier King..... someone offered a reward to anyone who could recreate the dogs in the paintings with the original longer face with their loving master King Charles I, known as the Cavalier King  etc..............the challenge was taken up and the new creation named the Cavalier King Charles.................

 

"cavalier
/ˌkavəˈlɪə/
 
HISTORICAL
1.  a supporter of King Charles I in the English Civil War.
 
2. a small spaniel of a breed with a long snout.           "

 

 

Which rather makes a complete mockery of the elitist's who think the only hall mark of the "purebred ankc registered dogs" is PURITY...

 

Probably why have so little time for those who think parentage dna to verify who the mum and dad was to have a certificate to PROVE what the breeder already knew. 

But their think its guarantee of their PURITY..   

Money is far, far more usefully spent on DNA profiling for genes that are detrimental to their health and well being 

 

WELL there's not a single Australian Stumply Tailed Cattle dog, except from that lone kennel with unbroken descent that all the parentage verification's in the world can be traced back past the name of the dogs graded to inclusion in the upgrade register.

 

PURITY is not the be all and the end all of being elite.

 

Soundness, both health, mental and breeding ability along with conforming with the standard for the breed is and always has been the basis for the old time breeders who created them in the first place.  Our job was to preserve them for future generations to enjoy... so far its not looking like those before us would be pleased to see what is happening.

 

is it to late to get real again?

 

I sure hope not.

 

 

 

Edited by asal
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cosmolo   

As someone who deals with lots of new puppy owners I think under supply of pedigree dogs is absolutely an issue. 
 

It’s hard to convince people who are genuinely ready for a puppy that they will need to wait 6-12 months for a pedigree puppy to become available. 
 

Many clients I have would be willing to wait 1-3 months but the wait times are often longer than that even when they’re flexible with location of the breeder etc. 

 

Also when was the last time the pedigree dog world did anything to promote pedigree dogs to the GENERAL public? They aren’t advertised in the many places people look for advice. In my 15 years as a dog trainer I have never received any information, positive promotion etc regarding pedigree dogs. That’s fine for me because I’ve done my own research. But plenty of industry professionals wouldn’t have and they’re being asked for advice regularly!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Don Burke was and is still unfairly made the punching bag for the situation - then an now.  It's a chicken and the egg thing.  Show breeders had already cut off the supply to the general pet public who didn't give a toss about glowing pedigrees - who just wanted a good pet of the approximate breed/type they liked: big, little, quiet, active, pretty, smooth, fluffy whatever.  The cross breds were already rock solid filling the gap when he came along and talked about them.  Not everybody is dog mad, not everybody is gardening mad, not everyone just wanting a pup watched the show.  Didn't need Don Burke to fill the petshop windows with pups, it was already done.  Pure-bred breeders had shot themselves accurately in the foot already, yet he has always been blamed for doing it.  Sure he gave things a push, but wouldn't have taken the big stand against 'the elitists' if they hadn't rounded on him with blame for something of their own responsibility.

 

On the stats, I have no idea, but every farm in our district breeds and sells for the non-showing market.  Usually pure-bred but not working dogs, more household backyard pets - never see them advertised, word of mouth places them. Not puppy-farming in any way, just their own pet dogs.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rebanne   
49 minutes ago, Cosmolo said:

 

 

Also when was the last time the pedigree dog world did anything to promote pedigree dogs to the GENERAL public? They aren’t advertised in the many places people look for advice. In my 15 years as a dog trainer I have never received any information, positive promotion etc regarding pedigree dogs. That’s fine for me because I’ve done my own research. But plenty of industry professionals wouldn’t have and they’re being asked for advice regularly!

Before the internet dog breeders used to advertise in the Saturday papers. My breed of interest way back then was the GSD and the club had notices in both the Age and the Sun. I know at one stage clubs were advertising on Gumtree but I think Gumtree stopped them. I seem to recall that DogsVic also advertised with their previous names. Even local obedience clubs used to advertise in local papers. I got into Greyhounds via a friend who was researching for a new dog. Can't quite recall if it was via the internet or not but she was able to research breeds that interested her and spoke to several breeders and actually visited a couple (not Greys). She would be considered very much general public and all previous dogs had been un papered and several from pounds. So the info has always been there. Yes you  have to be interested enough to research but that is true of most things in life.

 

Have you never heard of the big Dogs Day Out? Never seen the ads for that or the Pet Expo where many breed clubs had stalls?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diva   

I know lots of ANKC, AKC, UK KC and SKK breeders and not a single one think of themselves as ‘elite’. They would laugh hysterically at the term for the most part.

 

I think that is just a lazy term used to denigrate purebred breeders. People get aggrieved by something and go after the whole cohort. You find those folk in every hobby. 

 

Generally breeders mirror the population, no more snobby than anyone else. But often they worry very much about how the pups they produce are looked after in their new homes. Once bitten and all that, and many have been bitten. And it is a hobby, they will do it at the scale they find most enjoyable and least stressful. 

 

When I was growing up, most dogs were mixed breeds, really mixed . Hardly a pure bred to be seen. I don’t think that pure breeds once dominated and ‘lost’ that position somehow. They had a bit of a surge for a while, but mixed breeds have always been the majority where I have lived. I see far more pure breeds around here though now than I ever did growing up. 

 

Showing was more popular for a while but social, economic  and demographic conditions no longer favour it as a hobby. More can be done to build it, but Australia will never again have the big backyards and stay at home parents they used to. We are an urban society, despite our rural mythology, and getting more intensively so. It is sad for those who long for the good old days but it needs to find a new sustainable normal. I think the loss of small scale  pure breeders is largely due to those structual changes in society and the regulatory changes which follow. 

 

It is true that mixed breeds are no longer the same type, with the rise of commercial scale cross breeding like doodles. And people generally are more more ignorant about animals of all types, less connected to the realities of animal husbandry (funny old term, lol), less interested in expert opinion, more happy to fall for marketing and celebrity endorsement and quite desperate to prove they are virtuous. Not just in dogs, it is society wide. 

 

i think the most dangerous dogma is that all dog breeding is bad. I don’t know what you do with people who don’t understand that we co-evolved, dogs and us. And then the pervasive  idea  that all purebreeds are inherently unhealthy and closed stud books always lead to disaster. The research coming out of UC Davis shows that just isn’t true. You don’t know for any given breed until you actually study their genetic diversity, how well that diversity is distributed and how well breeders are using it. Mine is quite healthy actually, not just in real life but genetically at population scale. No need to cross breed them, no sky falling in, just safeguard the quality our predecessors created and be willing to use the emerging tools to do so.

Edited by Diva
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tdierikx   

Most of the registered breeders I have met in real life have been lovely people, genuinely seeking the best homes possible for their pups - be they main or limited registered.

 

If a breeder does all of the health tests, vet certifies their pups, microchips, and registers before sale, then what is the problem with them supplying a good number of pups to the pet homes that want them? If the same breeder lives rural, and has say 20 dogs - 4 stud males and up to 16 bitches of breeding age and good health status - if they bred most of those bitches annually for 3 years, then that would be a fair number of pups produced, yes? Especially if the breed is one that produces litters of 6 or more. The breeder is also complying with all other husbandry requirements for the care and welfare of the dogs in question.

 

However, some see the above example as "puppy farming" or "not ethical", or having any number of other "nasty" connotations... why?

 

I believe the "snobbery" aspect to pedigree pet ownership is more related to the pet owners - I've come across many who fit that bill to a tee - that their pet is somehow more "relevant", "better",  and "prized" than a mixed breed pet purely because of it's parentage. Personally, I've owned bot pedigrees and muts, and all have been loved and cherished for their individualality, not their parentage - each has enriched my life in different ways, but ALL for the better.

 

T.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rebanne   

I don't have a problem with providing pups for pet homes, not at all. But most breeders only have a couple of dogs to breed from. In your example above @tdierikx what happens to those 16 bitches after they have had their 3 litters? Sure some may be rehomed as adults but with limited room what happens to the ones that aren't moved on quickly. And the breeder would most likely keep replacement pups so how many dogs do they actually end up keeping at any one time? The 4 stud dogs could be kept if they were unrelated to each other and used over the other dogs daughters but even they would need to be moved on in the end. Yeah I think that's puppy farming, the dogs are seen like livestock not as pets.

 

Then you have the backyard breeder, the real one, people like me that have pets first, show and breeding dogs second. I have a 3 dog permit. I have a litter and keep a pup to run on. End of breeding until someone dies as my dogs stay with me for life. If I had a more popular breed, one that has plenty of enquiries, I might breed another litter for "orders" but as I love my dogs and breeding is risky I doubt I would risk them too often. Just wouldn't interest me. I'd actually be more likely to breed my unwanted breed to help keep the breed going then breed a popular one, my reasoning being there are usually plenty of other people keeping the popular breed going.

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tdierikx said:

I believe the "snobbery" aspect to pedigree pet ownership is more related to the pet owners - I've come across many who fit that bill to a tee - that their pet is somehow more "relevant", "better",  and "prized" than a mixed breed pet purely because of it's parentage. Personally, I'

I have stopped breeding.  I never liked shows.  When I was breeding I don't know how many times I was accused of being a byb because I didn't show.  (I did do health testing and was selective about temperament. I generally used studs with both showing and working credibility). The snobbery aspect is real. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scratch   

I’m really enjoying this discussion.. thanks everyone. It’s really good to hear from all sorts of people with different perspectives & experiences. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   
19 hours ago, sandgrubber said:

I have stopped breeding.  I never liked shows.  When I was breeding I don't know how many times I was accused of being a byb because I didn't show.  (I did do health testing and was selective about temperament. I generally used studs with both showing and working credibility). The snobbery aspect is real. 

YES SO TRUE.

 

as for the one Tdierixk described both that person and sandgrubber would be pillaried by their fellow members... my friend was even show secretary of her breed club, but the thought police decided even though she was showing as well as breeding  and winning mind you.   She was breeding too many litters to their opinion and began dailing the RSPCA in hopes of either getting her charged with something (instant cancellation of membership) or the stress would make her give up.

 

As for me. one chap who I bought one of my  male's from decided he wanted him back and I was getting rspca visits every fortnight for over 4 months, even the rspca in the end decided one more complaint from that source would be facing a stalking charge. (Mind, the reson he offered him to me was he had recently imported a new male and the new one was determined to kill my boy.  on the way home noticed his mouth seemed crooked to one side, straight to the vet and learned one side was broken!  Yet his previous owner had not even noticed)

 

My hubby hated the show scene and banned me from showing. so the knives were out for me and it wasnt the puppy people doing the targeting... one of my so called friends in the Chihuahua Club boasted at a show in front of a group of my friends, that the call that ended in Stringy being seized was theirs.  

 

As Sandgrubber said "the snobbery aspect is real"

 

Nancy and Betty took to "borrowing" one of my dogs with my prefix every now and then and showing in my name to champion to get the thought police to leave me alone. Frankly I thought it disgusting they felt they needed to do this to protect me.

 

My biggest laugh was when Betty was too ill to get to shows later in her life and asked for someone to give her a lift.  So I volunteered.  If there had ever been any doubt how the "thought police" viewed me. it was utterly evident the day they were busy fawning over darling Betty as she introduced me to them as my darling friend.  They were utterly shocked to see her say that about the dreadful puppy farmer... gee it was worth the looks on their faces to be there to see it.

 

That was in the 80's and 90's if anything its worse now. Make no mistake. Its about time the ANKC's reminded their members ALL members have the right to march to their own drum, not the tune the  self appointed thought police like

 

So many lovely people have left because of the self appointed thought police.  I have lost count of the number of people who have burst into tears who had rang looking for a puppy and my crime?  I was nice to them?. 

Explained what they needed to do to become a member and help them find a nice pup..............They had been made to feel so guilty when they made the mistake of dialing a thought police's number in their search for a pup with the view to become a member and wanted main register.   Its today's swear word , has been for quite some decade now.

 

Also to answer the question what would you do with your old dogs... You keep them as pets.   might be hard to digest but it sure happens.  Think the most disgusting thing our government tried to do a few years ago when it tried to slip in that amendment to the act. was not only wanted to make it illegal to keep any breeding bitches unless they were housed in fully enclosed air conditioned concrete floored sheds,  (whats so bad about that? well factor in our wonderful scorching summer heat, our well documented number of random blackouts and may as well lock them in a car, they will die just as quickly) forget the figures but think it was no breeding bitch should experience less than 16 C or over 30  C , turned out it had been lifted from a best practice for reptile keeping... I kid you not.

 

BUT it also included that any registered breeder was to be allowed only two options for their retired breeders.... rehome or euthanise !

 

DISGUSTING.  we were to be denied the rights to keep our pets when they were retired... fortunately the RNSWCC learned of their plans and a massive meeting convened and it was stopped from happening,  very happy day that one.

 

The government go on about preventing puppy farms then they treat us and our dogs like what?  puppy farms.

 

 

Edited by asal
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   
23 hours ago, Rebanne said:

I don't have a problem with providing pups for pet homes, not at all. But most breeders only have a couple of dogs to breed from. In your example above @tdierikx what happens to those 16 bitches after they have had their 3 litters? Sure some may be rehomed as adults but with limited room what happens to the ones that aren't moved on quickly. And the breeder would most likely keep replacement pups so how many dogs do they actually end up keeping at any one time? The 4 stud dogs could be kept if they were unrelated to each other and used over the other dogs daughters but even they would need to be moved on in the end. Yeah I think that's puppy farming, the dogs are seen like livestock not as pets.

 

Then you have the backyard breeder, the real one, people like me that have pets first, show and breeding dogs second. I have a 3 dog permit. I have a litter and keep a pup to run on. End of breeding until someone dies as my dogs stay with me for life. If I had a more popular breed, one that has plenty of enquiries, I might breed another litter for "orders" but as I love my dogs and breeding is risky I doubt I would risk them too often. Just wouldn't interest me. I'd actually be more likely to breed my unwanted breed to help keep the breed going then breed a popular one, my reasoning being there are usually plenty of other people keeping the popular breed going.

 

 

I notice you said "after they have had their 3 litters? "

 

Am I to understand that you believe that no bitch is allowed to be bred more than 3 times?

 

Anyone who is not an ANKC member and registered with their state with a Bin number or equalivant has NO limit on how many litters they may breed, or bred each season?  Back to back litters do not create the skeletal girls with dangling boobs the AR mob love to publish, that is the fact they were not fed, look at any well cared for bitch and they are as fat or fatter than before they whelped when their puppies are weaned.  But to point that out is seriously NOT POLITICALLY correct.  ( (   I'm 

so lucky you cant now shoot me though the computer screen arent I?  )

 

Until the ANKC DECIDED to pander to the animal rights nutters neither did the ANKC's.   You could breed however many you wanted.  

 

In actual fact the new rule first decided a maximum of 7 litters permitted then amended it to 6

.  ARE you aware of that?  You certainly have not mentioned it?

 

I appealed the stupidity of that decision at the time. On the grounds that many toy breeds only have from 1 to three pups.  Effectively signicificaly reducing the number of puppies you could breed to choose from.

 

They made the ban blanket to ALL breeds. so in the case of toy breeds many bitches would only produce max 7 to 14 pups in her lifetime. Yet a large breed bitch will produce that number ONE litter.

 

they also added you cant breed back to back litters, how on earth can one or two pups constitute a "litter"  or "drain" a bitch?  .But by embracing this stupid idea to pander to the AR nutters and the thought police effectively depressed how many toy breed puppies would be available for selection or pets.

 

As my vet at the time

 commented, this was obviously decided without any consultation with reproduction vets.   Dogs never evolved to go season after season unbred. if you not going to breed then desex them.

 

With the new rules preventing obesity between litters became a major problem. That in itself leads to difficulty getting her in pup next season. Particularly in chihuahuas.. one girl took 5 years to get in pup the second time and she too was a single puppy per litter girl.

 

In actual fact even an ankc bitch is allowed to produce 6 litters.

 

so where did you get the 3 figure from?  The thought police?

 

before the interference, the majority of bitches had produced from 4 to 5 litters by 4 or 5, and the breeders who did rehome had a very nice young desexed girl ready for her new home... now the average available for rehoming is 6 to 7 and pet people view that age as old.

 

We are being micromanaged to stupid level while the backyarders and puppy farmers are not.  Where is the sense in that? Well other than being able to say see im a better person?

 

Do you really think puppy people care a fig you are shooting yourself in the foot to seem superior/ethical.responsible?

 

yet well cared for bitches can and did produce perfectly fine and in excellent health and condition without the micromanage days.

 

charging the few who did not was once the course of action, instead of treating all as potential offenders...  why is a person with dogs automatically guilty, UNTIL proven innocent?   since when was having a dog automatic cancellation of that basic right?

 

 

Yes I have done an utterly terrible thing, questioning the politically correct verbiage.

 

 

Image may contain: people sittingImage may contain: dog, grass and outdoorNo photo description available.Image may contain: people sitting, cat and indoor

 

And she had three puppies.

 

Image may contain: 1 person, dog

 

 

 

 

This girl had 10   puppies and these two had not been picked up by their new homes yet. 

      Image may contain: dog

 

 

 

dreadfull photo, taken 2000, This is Bluey, she had 8 "litters" of one puppy each time. obviously that was before the rules came in so she could not have produced her only bitch puppy in

"Litter"number 8.   Just in case you do not understand that, she had 7 singleton boys and finally  her one girl puppy. and no she was not rehomed or euthanised when she was retired. we had her until she turned 17.

No photo description available.

 

 

our longest resident was Fluffy. she lived to 36 before old age caught up with her recently

she and her rider were three

in this photo

Image may contain: 1 person, horse, sky, outdoor and nature

Edited by asal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rebanne   

Obvious you didn't read the original post Asal. Wasn't me who said 3 litters. I was responding to tdierikx's post. Maybe you should read things more carefully instead of just going off on another of your rants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tdierikx   

My bad about the 3 litters... I'd been led to believe that was the number mandated at some point...

 

T.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   
34 minutes ago, tdierikx said:

My bad about the 3 litters... I'd been led to believe that was the number mandated at some point...

 

T.

your not alone, so so so many think to have even bred more than one litter is to have puppy farmed their girl

 

Yet Bluey had 8 "litters" and lived to 17 in great health and arthritis free, well until she decided to help stringy take on a snake one day and was gone before we could get them to the vet.

 

lost track of how many have said to breed a second litter to the same sire is just puppy farming, completely ignorant to the fact that every puppy bred by the same parents is a different throw of the gene dice.

The best can turn up in the first litter or the last and no way of knowing until comparing the pups. to breed so few is te massively reduce selection for the gene pool. 

To even come close to getting a true sample of what a sire and dam can produce you need some 50 to 100 siblings to see a range of the combinations possible to select from, the breeders of old knew this, hence the large kennels with many dogs to select from.   

Today the ability to do so is already comprised by lack of finances to repeat that.

Without the fact that today laws are being constantly redrafted to prevent if at all possible.

 

Few understand that.

 

Go to the library and find the books on genetics and see the stats on the numbers needed for

option selection from for the next generation to maximise genetic diversity.

. To ignore that fact reduces  selection for genetic diversity every generation.

 

fact not fiction

 

 

Edited by asal
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   
7 hours ago, Rebanne said:

Obvious you didn't read the original post Asal. Wasn't me who said 3 litters. I was responding to tdierikx's post. Maybe you should read things more carefully instead of just going off on another of your rants

the reply was not to the oriigional post it was to

3 litter comment in case it needs explanation again.

 

I do understand your frustration . people who dont nod and agree are not welcome here.

 

look at the bright side, been silent on the subject for the previous 20 years

 

 

 

was just sent a photo of Lace, Dancer and Stringy by a friend., strings on the right

 

Image may contain: dog

 

Edited by asal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/07/2020 at 9:18 PM, Cosmolo said:

As someone who deals with lots of new puppy owners I think under supply of pedigree dogs is absolutely an issue. 
 

It’s hard to convince people who are genuinely ready for a puppy that they will need to wait 6-12 months for a pedigree puppy to become available. 
 

Many clients I have would be willing to wait 1-3 months but the wait times are often longer than that even when they’re flexible with location of the breeder etc. 

 

Also when was the last time the pedigree dog world did anything to promote pedigree dogs to the GENERAL public? They aren’t advertised in the many places people look for advice. In my 15 years as a dog trainer I have never received any information, positive promotion etc regarding pedigree dogs. That’s fine for me because I’ve done my own research. But plenty of industry professionals wouldn’t have and they’re being asked for advice regularly!

 

Totally agree with this post. I think pure breds have an image problem that has been exploited by cross breeders and byb. The pure breed community is too divided to present a united and clear alternative narrative to combat the inbred and elitist perception. 

As someone who is not an active part of the dog world, I see exactly 0 information outside of very specific internet searches and DOL. No info at the vets, pet stores etc about purebred dogs and breeders. Living in a regional rural area there is even less opportunity to find out more, no show displays or field days, I couldn't tell you if there were any ANKC breeders in my area for any breed. Maybe if I was in a dog sport or show club I might see something but as the average dog owner the purebred world may as well be on another planet. Simple things like printing out fact sheets and having them in a stand at the local vet and pet store would be a low cost high impact opportunity for the ANKC to promote pure bred dogs and local clubs and breeders. The latest trend for presentation posters is to create a QR code so people can scan it and it opens a page with more info. Again very cheap and easy to implement, just needs a coordinated effort to get them out and visible outside of these closed pure breed spaces. 

Once upon a time the pet store used to have little books you could buy, one for each breed with pics, info about the history, standard, health etc, those were great although a more expensive option and rare breeds were often harder to find so I think fact sheets are a more practical option for sure. 

Definitely the wait times are also an issue, I have been thinking of adding a dog and tossing up whether to go on a wait list but I don't like to stuff people around and a lot can happen in a year. It is tricky you don't want there to be an overproduction but if pure breeders don't meet that need then someone else will. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rebanne   
1 minute ago, WoofnHoof said:

 

. It is tricky you don't want there to be an overproduction but if pure breeders don't meet that need then someone else will. 

 

 

Of course a lot of registered breeders care deeply for their dogs and every time you breed your beloved bitch there is a risk to the bitches life. I might consider to breed a litter for the pet market once but only once. If I had a breed people wanted of course. My dogs are too precious to me to risk willy nilly. I could barely bring myself to breed to help continue the breed and get something to continue on with. I doubt the commercial puppy farmers worry to much about losing a bitch now and then. And I think the real BYBer's, the ones with one bitch that is so sweet and everyone wants a pup from her, even consider the risk to their beloved pet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rebanne said:

Of course a lot of registered breeders care deeply for their dogs and every time you breed your beloved bitch there is a risk to the bitches life. I might consider to breed a litter for the pet market once but only once. If I had a breed people wanted of course. My dogs are too precious to me to risk willy nilly. I could barely bring myself to breed to help continue the breed and get something to continue on with. I doubt the commercial puppy farmers worry to much about losing a bitch now and then. And I think the real BYBer's, the ones with one bitch that is so sweet and everyone wants a pup from her, even consider the risk to their beloved pet.

 

Absolutely it is a factor in considering whether to breed, everyone has their own reasons for breeding. I think the OP is really talking to those who limit their programs on the basis of the perception of "overbreeding" which has pervaded both the dog world and the wider public.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×