# Do people think pedigree show breeders.....



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

........ make 'profit' on litters??

Just a thought that occured to me from comments on another thread, would like to hear people opinions etc on the matter.

I know people I meet in everyday life think I make a 'mint' having litters, lol! I despair at the amount of people who thought we were gonna have £6,500 sheer profit from the last litter - if only!!!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

I think the people who do are either those who don't know what costs are involved in good breeding practices and just add up the sale prices of x number of puppies and think that's all profit, or they are people that cut corners, don't spend anything when breeding and assume everyone else does the same or know someone who made a profit because they don't next to nothing and only do the bare minimum.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Of course, we all live in massive country houses, go on hoilday once a year, wear designer clothes, dont work - all comes from the dogs!  ohh no isnt that a puppy farmer! 


- Sarcasm aside, show breeder are just like any decent breeder.. - some litter there will be a profit made..Let that me £60 or £600 & I havent a problem with that, as long as money wasnt a factor in choosing to breed.
- when someone plans a litter, there is no idea of what will be spent out, or what will come in.
Mum never expected everything that possibly could go wrong with the last litter to do so, we had no idea we would have vet bills to pay for the dam, and pups, then to hand rear the two survivers and at 4 weeks have to have one PTS. - We had no idea that the dam would then have mastitis - we would have to have another bitch try and raise them, which failed.

Having spent around £900 plus on vet fees and stud fees. we was left with one pup, who went for £400, injected, micro chipped, first years insurance paid ect'..we was out of pocket big time, people wont believe it that so much can/is spent out but thats life..

..show breeders dont breed for money - if they did they wouldnt be show breeders, as wouldnt be spending so much travelling up and down the country to promote their lines and dogs, while having some fun.


----------



## Ditsy42 (Aug 13, 2010)

They can make a profit yes, dependant on the size of the litter, even after the outlay there is a profit left, nothing wrong with that, or admitting it as a breeder, as long as the litter are well cared for and their needs are met, then why worry, litters take alot of your time and energy as we know, can't put a price on that


----------



## BlackBess (Aug 21, 2011)

Of course they make a profit, they just don't like admitting it!  

Even the so called "proper" breeders make a profit


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

BlackBess said:


> Of course they make a profit, they just don't like admitting it!


To not want to admit it would suggest the breeder is ashamed and no decent breeder should feel ashamed.  - a profit can be made, but your not to know what final cost will amount too 



BlackBess said:


> Even the so called "proper" breeders make a profit


whats a proper breeder  - ANY breeder can make a profit, just like ANY breeder can make a loss - its pretty simply when selling something, a profit can be made, when spending out on the thing being sold out going costs might amount to more than incoming costs, basic math if you ask me.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

BlackBess said:


> Of course they make a profit, they just don't like admitting it!
> 
> Even the so called "proper" breeders make a profit


We have never broke even, never mind made a profit!!!!!


----------



## BlackBess (Aug 21, 2011)

Ceearott said:


> We have never broke even, never mind made a profit!!!!!


I find that surprising  Did your dog always have to have a c section?


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

BlackBess said:


> I find that surprising  Did your dog always have to have a c section?


Nope, never had to have had a C-section. Why do you find it surprising??


----------



## vizzy24 (Aug 31, 2008)

I dont think people realise the cost of showing, especially if you include travel, entry fees and some dogs have higher grooming costs. If you include that in your costings for a litter i wouldnt be suprised if you didnt break even. How many litters a year would you find acceptable, is it how they are raised or the amount produced. If everything is done "properly" and you have 6 or 7 dogs, would that be acceptable? Just curious as I have noticed a few breeders doing this, having 3 or 4 litters a year but they are raised well and have what seems to be a great after care package(for want of a better word) and waiting list. Not sure if its something I agree with but when its all done properly people say whats the difference


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

It would depend what was counted within costs.
If entry fees and deisel money to get to shows is included in costs then no, if each hour spent looking after the bitch and litter is charged then no.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Jenny Olley said:


> It would depend what was counted within costs.
> If entry fees and deisel money to get to shows is included in costs then no, if each hour spent looking after the bitch and litter is charged then no.


we have never included either, and on most litters still not even broke even. - I would be scare to include the above :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## vizzy24 (Aug 31, 2008)

Jenny Olley said:


> It would depend what was counted within costs.If entry fees and deisel money to get to shows is included in costs then no, if each hour spent looking after the bitch and litter is charged then no.


 blimey thats true if I added up all the hours I spent with our litter I would have been in major defecit(worth it though) They were worth every minute


----------



## SixStar (Dec 8, 2009)

Yes and no.

I know it costs an awful lot to go about breeding a litter in the right way - health tests, stud fees, then the cost of rearing the litter - vet checks, food (aswell as extra for the bitch), all the equipment, then worming and the cost of registering the litter. I'm sure there are plenty of other things I've missed out too. I know it's all very expensive.

But then - my Bernese for example - a pedigree pup bred by a 'show breeder' from health tested stock that have had great success in the show ring. I paid £1,000 for him (the going rate for a well bred BMD) - and he was from a litter of 9, all of which I presume were sold for the same amount, so that&#8217;s £9,000.

I know that nothing, thankfully, went wrong with the bitch or any of the pups during birth etc, so there were no emergency vet bills (which I know can occur), so I do believe the breeder made a ''profit'' from that particular litter. I know nothing about how much health tests cost, but I presume the total expense of raising that litter wasn't anywhere near nine grand.

I know this isn&#8217;t the case for all breeders though &#8211; some breeds don&#8217;t sell for quite as much, or litter sizes are smaller, or tragically something happens to either the bitch or pups that require huge vet bills. 

I&#8217;m not a breeder &#8211; never have been and never will be &#8211; so I&#8217;m very naïve in regards to the breeding world, there may well be plenty of expenses that I&#8217;ve forgotten!


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

I know someone who breeds 'show' cockers, eventhough she doesn't show.

She had three bitches in her house who had litters 1 week apart, assuming that each bitch had 5 pups and she sold them for £600 each that would've made her 9k. She has a male dog that she studs out. In one week he had three bitches, so that's what £200 or so stud fee per bitch?

I don't think she health tests her bitches but I could be wrong, but they are all KC registered and they have their pedigrees.

So yes I think this person did make a hell of a profit.


She always has a freezer full of Price Choice raw meat, and then they have the odd chicken bone (so obviously dont' think she's read up on how to feed properly as she told me Price Choice has bone in it when I don't think it actually does), so all puppies are weaned on that.

I think she has a total of 7 dogs in her house, all bitches, two are bitches from her previous litter she's kept to breed from.


----------



## BlackBess (Aug 21, 2011)

SixStar said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> But then - my Bernese for example - a pedigree pup bred by a 'show breeder' from health tested stock that have had great success in the show ring. I paid £1,000 for him (the going rate for a well bred BMD) - and he was from a litter of 9, all of which I presume were sold for the same amount, so thats £9,000.
> 
> I know that nothing, thankfully, went wrong with the bitch or any of the pups during birth etc, so there were no emergency vet bills (which I know can occur), so I do believe the breeder made a ''profit'' from that particular litter. I know nothing about how much health tests cost, but I presume the total expense of raising that litter wasn't anywhere near nine grand.


Exactly, a pretty penny can be made, even including out going costs.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

I think theres a difference between ethical show breeder, and the not so ethical - to me two litters are year is enough for any breeder, any more than that and I start to question them. - I only say two for in some cases. Like it became quite possible that we might have to have two this year depending on seasons, as one needs to have her first litter because of age - and hasnt had a season for a year, and one needs a last because of age - its not the best situation, one a year is normally more than enough for anyone.

Them breeding 3/4 litters a year wouldnt have time to show - and raise puppies to a suitable standard, without leaving pregnant dogs and young pups at home.


----------



## jo5 (Jun 22, 2011)

Ceearott said:


> ........ make 'profit' on litters??
> 
> Just a thought that occured to me from comments on another thread, would like to hear people opinions etc on the matter.
> 
> I know people I meet in everyday life think I make a 'mint' having litters, lol! I despair at the amount of people who thought we were gonna have £6,500 sheer profit from the last litter - if only!!!


To answer your question then , yes I think that people *believe* that Show breeders(or any breeder for that matter) make a profit.
My opinion is that breeding, when done properly is an expensive affair, if there is any money left over after the costs of raising a litter it would be plowed back into the expense of the upkeep of the dogs anyway. 
I think to say that no money is ever made would be untrue but its not the easy money making 'business' that a lot of the general public assume that it is.


----------



## SixStar (Dec 8, 2009)

BlackBess said:


> Exactly, a pretty penny *can* be made, even including out going costs.


CAN being the important word. Bernese have big litters and well bred ones are highly priced - and Harveys litter, fortunately, had nothing go wrong with any of the pups or the bitch that required any huge vet bills.

So with Harveys particular litter, she may have made a profit - but who is to say with her next litter (whenever that is, she only breeds yearly, if that), the bitch has an unusually small litter, and requires an emergency vet several times that runs fees into the thousands?

I don't begrudge good ethical breeders who make a little profit when breeding - it's a little something for all the hours upon hours of hard work that goes into raising the litter, and getting the bitch (and stud) healthy and successful enough to breed from in the first place.


----------



## BlackBess (Aug 21, 2011)

SixStar said:


> CAN being the important word. Bernese have big litters and well bred ones are highly priced - and Harveys litter, fortunately, had nothing go wrong with any of the pups or the bitch that required any huge vet bills.
> 
> So with Harveys particular litter, she may have made a profit - but who is to say with her next litter (whenever that is, she only breeds yearly, if that), the bitch has an unusually small litter, and requires an emergency vet several times that runs fees into the thousands?
> 
> I don't begrudge good ethical breeders who make a little profit when breeding - it's a little something for all the hours upon hours of hard work that goes into raising the litter, and getting the bitch (and stud) healthy and successful enough to breed from in the first place.


That's exactly why I used the word CAN. 

I realise if vets are required for c section, or other health problems arise (sick pups) a profit will probably not be made.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

BlackBess said:


> That's exactly why I used the word CAN.
> 
> I realise if vets are required for c section, or other health problems arise (sick pups) a profit will probably not be made.


If only life was so straightforward - a lot depends on the breed, the required health-tests, the selling price of pups and also how you raise them.

I've had three litters in 5 years, no c-Sections, although veterinary intervention on one litter - and overall I have made quite a significant loss - and that doesn't take into consideration 2 bitches I've health tested and won't be breeding (and a third I won't be the way things are going)

It doesn't consider my show costs or my time, or any costs associated with buying, breeding or raising the bitches.

IME - there are MUCH easier, less tiring and quicker ways of making money than having a litter - if it was all about money, I wouldn't own any dogs, because they are damn expensive - financially I might be poorer for it, but my life is a lot richer for having them.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

i think it should be done for the love of the animal and not for the money


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I know someone who breeds 'show' cockers, eventhough she doesn't show.
> 
> She had three bitches in her house who had litters 1 week apart, assuming that each bitch had 5 pups and she sold them for £600 each that would've made her 9k. She has a male dog that she studs out. In one week he had three bitches, so that's what £200 or so stud fee per bitch?
> 
> ...


Yes, because she comes into the category of breeding for profit, and not having the expenses that good breeders have.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Could you imagine if breeders charges just an amount to over the costs spent out! - Is this what some people suggest breeders should do instead of make a profit on some litters and a loss on others - to break even sometimes they will charge little if things go right, and more if things go wrong - doesnt then it become about the money? something we ALL agree isnt an important factor for a decent breeder.


----------



## BlackBess (Aug 21, 2011)

Why should showing costs be counted in? This is just nuts. It smacks of scrambling to add as much costs on as possible.

Showing has nothing to do with costs of bringing a litter into the world. 

I don't have a problem with making a small profit, as long as that is not the main driving force for breeding. But come on breeders, be honest. A profit is indeed made MOST of the time. It's the lies and excuses for breeding that I find more offensive, than the small profit made (if done properly).


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

some people include showing costs because they spend alot out to show, showing is a huge part of breeding for show breeders, their potential breeding dogs are being assessed. The reason for a litters is to continue the line, and hopefully bring new pups out into the ring.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

BlackBess said:


> Why should showing costs be counted in? This is just nuts. It smacks of scrambling to add as much costs on as possible.
> 
> Showing has nothing to do with costs of bringing a litter into the world.
> 
> I don't have a problem with making a small profit, as long as that is not the main driving force for breeding. But come on breeders, be honest. A profit is indeed made MOST of the time. It's the lies and excuses for breeding that I find more offensive, than the small profit made (if done properly).


DUH!!!! - I made the point that showing costs are NOT counted in - and if breeders did - for a serious exhibitor you could double, quite possible treble the cost of each pup.

I work to earn my money - I am just fortunate that my base is home enabling me to do both VERY occasionally and be around pretty much all the time - or someone else to be around if I can't be.

Maybe you should read the costs of breeding thread - it's a real eye opener - of genuine investment costs solely for breeding (*no unassociated or showing costs*) - all laid out before you even know whether your bitch is in whelp.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> A profit is indeed made MOST of the time. It's the lies and excuses for breeding that I find more offensive, than the small profit made (if done properly).


Are you a breeder? If so, it makes me wonder what sort of breeder you are - or what kind of breeder you know to hold such opinions!

While it may be possible to have a litter where the expenses incurred do not exceed the money taken from the sale of puppies, there would still not be any profit if taking into account the time spent with raising the litter. I'm self employed and lose money when I take time off for a litter. Even the small amount of profit I 'may' make if all things go smoothly will not cover the loss I make from not working so it is ridiculous to say that it is profit making. I would make more just working normally.

While there are plenty of people who make money out of breeding, good breeders don't tend to make much and nothing compared to the time and effort expended.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

NicoleW said:


> I know someone who breeds 'show' cockers, eventhough she doesn't show.
> 
> She had three bitches in her house who had litters 1 week apart, assuming that each bitch had 5 pups and she sold them for £600 each that would've made her 9k. She has a male dog that she studs out. In one week he had three bitches, so that's what £200 or so stud fee per bitch?
> 
> ...


Anyone can buy show lines, and unfortunately if the endorsements aren't in place they can breed, and use this as a selling point. Your friend is nothing but a small scale puppy farmer really, which sounds awful, but is how I'd class her. Good stud dog owners turn away more bitch owners than they allow through the doors, because they are honest, and won't allow their dogs to be used with bitches that wouldn't compliment them, and that don't have the required health tests in place. But then good stud dog owners are as rare as hens teeth.



Devil-Dogz said:


> *I think theres a difference between ethical show breeder, and the not so ethical* - to me two litters are year is enough for any breeder, any more than that and I start to question them. - I only say two for in some cases. Like it became quite possible that we might have to have two this year depending on seasons, as one needs to have her first litter because of age - and hasnt had a season for a year, and one needs a last because of age - its not the best situation, one a year is normally more than enough for anyone.
> 
> Them breeding 3/4 litters a year wouldnt have time to show - and raise puppies to a suitable standard, without leaving pregnant dogs and young pups at home.


Exactly DD, it comes back to that point every time when it comes to dog breeding. There are good and bad in all walks of life.



jo5 said:


> To answer your question then , yes I think that people *believe* that Show breeders(or any breeder for that matter) make a profit.
> My opinion is that breeding, when done properly is an expensive affair, if there is any money left over after the costs of raising a litter it would be plowed back into the expense of the upkeep of the dogs anyway.
> I think to say that no money is ever made would be untrue but its not the easy money making 'business' that a lot of the general public assume that it is.


Spot on, completely agree!



BlackBess said:


> Why should showing costs be counted in? This is just nuts. It smacks of scrambling to add as much costs on as possible.
> 
> Showing has nothing to do with costs of bringing a litter into the world.
> 
> I don't have a problem with making a small profit, as long as that is not the main driving force for breeding. But come on breeders, be honest. A profit is indeed made MOST of the time. It's the lies and excuses for breeding that I find more offensive, than the small profit made (if done properly).


I find this reply quite offensive actually, you're assuming people who say they don't make any profit must be lying. I suggest you go and read the information posted by Swarthy about the actual costs directly relating to a litter, which includes things like extra electricity required for heating lamps, and to wash bedding, extra detergent to wash bedding, extra food for mum and pups, any supplements etc. It doesn't take into account the down time from breeders, who spend time handling and socialising pups, so that they go to their new homes, happy, healthy and well balanced.


----------



## missmoomoo (Jul 23, 2011)

I have had 3 litters out of my bitch (she is now retired and a much loved pet.) We do not show our dobermanns as they are more working lines so are sold as this or to experienced pet homes. I charge a very reasonable £650 for each puppy. Yes my bitch had 10 pups on her first litter £6500 received from the sale of pups. BUT this isn't a profit! I have had to health test the bitch to start off with for VWD, DCM, PHPV and then Hips, these are the minimum tests needed.Then because we have working lines the ZTP and BH tests are added to this. After this I have spent a good 6 months trawling around to find a suitable stud, he just so happens to be in europe. So I have last minute bookings of ferry's as you can't predict when the bitch will be in season and book beforehand. Then accomodation, a vet in france to prescribe treatment needed to get back in the uk, all this is spent out before the bitch has even been found in whelp. Then the extra food, electricity , time (I work so have to take leave) I also pay for dew claw removal and vets checks on pups and mum. This is expensive without having any complications. I can see why people think that there is a profit to be made but it isn't always the case  our last litter was a nightmare the bitch ended up with a cesarian which cost in total £1600 (she was speyed at the same time) I then had to hand rear the pup and because he had a coat marking fault he was sold (with his papers) for just £400 so you can see how things can be unexpected and make us totally out of pocket


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

missmoomoo said:


> I have had 3 litters out of my bitch (she is now retired and a much loved pet.) We do not show our dobermanns as they are more working lines so are sold as this or to experienced pet homes. I charge a very reasonable £650 for each puppy. Yes my bitch had 10 pups on her first litter £6500 received from the sale of pups. BUT this isn't a profit! I have had to health test the bitch to start off with for VWD, DCM, PHPV and then Hips, these are the minimum tests needed.Then because we have working lines the ZTP and BH tests are added to this. After this I have spent a good 6 months trawling around to find a suitable stud, he just so happens to be in europe. So I have last minute bookings of ferry's as you can't predict when the bitch will be in season and book beforehand. Then accomodation, a vet in france to prescribe treatment needed to get back in the uk, all this is spent out before the bitch has even been found in whelp. Then the extra food, electricity , time (I work so have to take leave) I also pay for dew claw removal and vets checks on pups and mum. This is expensive without having any complications. I can see why people think that there is a profit to be made but it isn't always the case  our last litter was a nightmare the bitch ended up with a cesarian which cost in total £1600 (she was speyed at the same time) I then had to hand rear the pup and because he had a coat marking fault he was sold (with his papers) for just £400 so you can see how things can be unexpected and make us totally out of pocket


And I thought Labs were bad enough for health tests! I have had Tau's hips and elbows done, she's had one BVA eye cert, she's been tested for CNM, and I have to test her for PRA, she's cbp, but her sire's results aren't on the KC database, so if I wanted to take one litter, and have the paperwork correct, I need to have her tested despite knowing her status. Well I don't have to have her tested, but I believe it's the right way to go about things.


----------



## missmoomoo (Jul 23, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> And I thought Labs were bad enough for health tests! I have had Tau's hips and elbows done, she's had one BVA eye cert, she's been tested for CNM, and I have to test her for PRA, she's cbp, but her sire's results aren't on the KC database, so if I wanted to take one litter, and have the paperwork correct, I need to have her tested despite knowing her status. Well I don't have to have her tested, but I believe it's the right way to go about things.


well the ZTP is to check the bitch/dog is suitable for breeding from, there is more info here if anyone interested 

The BH is a character test and allows a dog to participte in sport such as schutzhund.... These tests are personal choice and not essential in the UK


----------



## Tollisty (May 27, 2008)

I am planning my first litter. Bitch has been health tested, hips, elbows, PRA, annual eye test, haplotype tested. Then I have to buy everything, whelping box, puppy pens, vetbed, whelping kit, etc. I am keeping a puppy, giving a puppy to a friend and stud dog owner is having one. So it is very unlikely I will make a profit!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Tollisty said:


> I am planning my first litter. Bitch has been health tested, hips, elbows, PRA, annual eye test, haplotype tested. Then I have to buy everything, whelping box, puppy pens, vetbed, whelping kit, etc. I am keeping a puppy, giving a puppy to a friend and stud dog owner is having one. So it is very unlikely I will make a profit!


But this is just what people don't understand, I'd like to keep a pup, and it wouldn't make any difference to me, if there was only one pup, in fact it would make it easier for me, I wouldn't have the worry of finding homes for the rest!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But this is just what people don't understand, I'd like to keep a pup, and it wouldn't make any difference to me, if there was only one pup, in fact it would make it easier for me, I wouldn't have the worry of finding homes for the rest!


this is exactly the way a lot of good breeders feel, they'd rather have small litters because theyre not breeding to make money!, 2 of my friends in sibes have offered to give me pups because they know they'll have the very best home, i know quite a few who have kept not just one but several pups out of a litter, i kept 3 out of mine another friend kept 4 out of her only litter...selling just one puppy and only because she had been given the bitch herself on breeding terms, the breeder didnt want a puppy back but the price of one so she sold one...or she would have kept the whole litter..to run with their team.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

This has made interesting reading! 

I guess some folks will always think any kind of breeder makes money on litters, and most of them will never understand the hard work and research and other things we spend money and time and heartache on to simply breed for the love of the dog.


----------



## Kc Mac (Jul 26, 2011)

missmoomoo said:


> well the ZTP is to check the bitch/dog is suitable for breeding from, there is more info here if anyone interested
> 
> The BH is a character test and allows a dog to participte in sport such as schutzhund.... These tests are personal choice and not essential in the UK


Thanks for the link makes very interesting reading. Dobermanns are a breed I have been wanting forever and one day I will have one 

I now know why the abbreviations of ZTP and BH


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

I've recently read a couple of threads asking "Do breeders make a profit?"
and it never ceases to amaze me that if someone says it's possible to make a profit it's assumed they cut corners. 
I don't necessarily think it's so.... I think it's how different breeders calculate their outgoings, for example, they may not take into consideration the hidden costs e.g lighting, heating, washing etc. The more experienced know of these costs and calculate them in.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

actually alot of breeders, experienced or not dont include, heating and washing ect' - decent breeders can make a profit, these breeders dont cut corners so I dont think people do feel if a profits made corners are cut. - It depends on alot of things, mainly how the pregnancy and labour goes - if things go wrong in that area, thats where the costs start adding up into high figures.


----------



## Miss chief (Jun 24, 2011)

vizzy24 said:


> I dont think people realise the cost of showing, especially if you include travel, entry fees and some dogs have higher grooming costs. If you include that in your costings for a litter i wouldnt be suprised if you didnt break even. How many litters a year would you find acceptable, is it how they are raised or the amount produced. If everything is done "properly" and you have 6 or 7 dogs, would that be acceptable? Just curious as I have noticed a few breeders doing this, having 3 or 4 litters a year but they are raised well and have what seems to be a great after care package(for want of a better word) and waiting list. Not sure if its something I agree with but when its all done properly people say whats the difference


Surely people dont breed to support their show habit? My freind shows Rottweilers, a male at the moment, travels all around the UK, missing work days staying in accomodation etc and next year will be her first litter for 2 decades. I am starting to think I might like one  A Rotty pup that is.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Miss chief said:


> Surely people dont breed to support their show habit? My freind shows Rottweilers, a male at the moment, travels all around the UK, missing work days staying in accomodation etc and next year will be her first litter for 2 decades. I am starting to think I might like one  A Rotty pup that is.


I certainly don't, I work to fund my showing and for the occasional litter I breed - I guess if someone has a well used stud dog, this could generate revenue which would be put back against the showing - but yoiu would have to breed a fair few litters to get even a vain hope of getting any money back - during which time of course, unless you have someone at home to care for the pups, your opportunities to show are very few and far between.


----------



## Oenoke (Oct 17, 2009)

I've bred 1 litter, I spent #2100 (bitches health tests, stud fees, puppies health tests, etc) and sold 2 puppies for #450 each, so the puppy I kept effectively cost #1200 (the most expensive BC pups are #650)!


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Miss chief said:


> Surely people dont breed to support their show habit? ]
> I'm, sure alot do how else would they get to one end of the country to the other week in week out showing ? those of us that have the odd litter when we want a pup ourselves have to forsake other luxuries to do so.We can't afford to go to every show in the show calender.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Someshow breeders most certainly do! perhaps more so those that have dogs that produce larger litters!

I remember having a converstion with a pf member a while back regarding yogibear ( the vizzy that won crufts) Was amazed at the amount of times he had been studded out. OK! we are talking stud fee's her and NOT litters butdo thing that any breeder whose bitch produces nine ormore puppies must return profit on the law of averages (that is of course assuming that there are no addition medical expenses beyond those that are to be expected! That is NOT including taking into account other expenses like showing transport, feeding the bitch other then in pup of course ect etc! do I think show folk can live off their income from the odd litter ? DEFINATELY NOT! and as it happens I don't think there is any shame in making a small profit as it happens - just so long as you have not cut corners nor done it for the wrong reasons!

Then - on the other hand the a good friend of mine (NOT on the forum) whose bitch had two litters and produced two singletons- the first died she kept the second will not breed the dog again and I suspect is massively out of pocket BUT! she never did it for the profit anyway - purely to keep her line and because she wanted a pup herself - I know she had a waiting list of (I think 17 names) a lot of people were very dissapointed.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

some of the "big breeders" have 6 or 7 litters a year not bad plus stud fees .................


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

dexter said:


> some of the "big breeders" have 6 or 7 litters a year not bad plus stud fees .................


Indeed. I know people with 4/5 different breeds and take atleast one litter each breed a year - how they have time to get around showing each breed, and raise puppies I will never know.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

no wonder thay have big motorhomes lol


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

I think breeders make a small profit from breeding and I mean a small profit, nothing worth breeding for if they are dedicated breeders you often lose money it really depends on the litter as to how much a breeder will make. There are so many things that can eat away at the so called Profit


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

Chester's breeder certainly didn't he was a singleton puppy and mam had to have a cesarian...i could imagine they might have come out of it worse off


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

paddyjulie said:


> Chester's breeder certainly didn't he was a singleton puppy and mam had to have a cesarian...i could imagine they might have come out of it worse off


This is a brilliant example why breeding shouldn't be taken lightly.


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> This is a brilliant example why breeding shouldn't be taken lightly.


yes. if he had turned out to be a she..we would not have got him they would have kept the pup ...so in one way we were lucky


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Why shouldnt a breeder make money. What is wrong with making money. If you count everything from the moment you get the bitch (probably as a puppy) till the day she dies then probably, no, there is not a lot of profit. But most people have the dogs because they want them, they go to shows because they want to and they breed to help fund their hobby - and very often will make a lot of money and sometimes will end up in a huge loss situation.

No one breeding any animal can guarantee a profit from each animal. Cattle and sheep farmers rely heavily on subsidies and can have terrible years with huge amounts of losses and vets bills. Yet no one would say a farmer should not make a profit. Why should a dog breeder be any different.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Blitz said:


> Why shouldnt a breeder make money. What is wrong with making money. If you count everything from the moment you get the bitch (probably as a puppy) till the day she dies then probably, no, there is not a lot of profit. But most people have the dogs because they want them, they go to shows because they want to and they breed to help fund their hobby - and very often will make a lot of money and sometimes will end up in a huge loss situation.
> 
> No one breeding any animal can guarantee a profit from each animal. Cattle and sheep farmers rely heavily on subsidies and can have terrible years with huge amounts of losses and vets bills. Yet no one would say a farmer should not make a profit. *Why should a dog breeder be any different.*


I don't breed from every bitch I own and I don't eat them for a start 

If I showed my dogs, I wouldn't breed to help fund showing, it would be the other way around, I would breed because I felt I had something worth showing. Otherwise what's the point?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Ok ..I'm going to have a bit of a rant here ..... I have a problem with the title of this thread - why only ask if pedigree SHOW breeders make a profit - why not ask if ANY pedigree dog breeder does .?....the thing is that in my opinion there are really only 2 main groups of breeders - the first group's incentive is to improve their performance and success in whatever doggy activity they are involved in ( and this includes breeding for Schutzhund, gun dog work, racing, working trals , agility or indeed showing ) - the other main group of breeders breed only to make money - no-one breeds altruistically- it's incredibly tiring, messy, expensive and fraught with heart ache and responsibilities - there has to be a complelling incentive to do it .

Now if you're breeding for the first reason then your much more likely to breed for quality rather than quantity and way more likely to health test and breed for temperament, after all you are breeding to keep something back for yourself and so will have to live with the results of what you breed ! and if you make a loss but get the result you want ( i.e an improvement in the quality of your pups ) then your goal has been achieved.

if your reason is to make money then you'll do nothing to reduce your profit so you're more likely to use your own studs, less likely to spend money on testing and far more likely to maximise those profits by breeding often and getting rid of those that are a drain on your profits - 

The singling out of show breeders in the title of this thread smacks yet again of uninformed predjudice - we DON'T do it for money and if we make a profit of any kind it's all ploughed back into the dogs and the hobby.

I'm heartily sick of the side swipes at the show world - it does'n happen to those who take part in other canine activities and personally I refuse to wear a hair shirt and recite the ''mea culpea' simply because I breed dogs good enough to win in the show ring !! 

.....rant over !


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

I'm certainly not one to take a side swipe at the show world.. my swipe would be straight on 

I appreciate it's the generally held conception (on this forum at least) that breeding for your hobby (be it showing, agility etc) is legitimate in the eyes of those doing the breeding and that breeding for any other reason is not...but... would someone breeding for money not want to breed quality in all aspects including the most important (health). 

If you want to sell something and make money there two ways of doing it. You can pile it high and sell it cheap (a few quick bucks but a short career) or you can produce a quality product, sell it for a good price and rely on reputation and repeat custom.

I don't agree that either of these two methods is a legitimate reason for breeding (but then neither do I agree that showing is) but surely the second of the two practices is no worse than someone breeding for shows and far better than someone breeding to a breed standard that has no health testing?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I appreciate it's the generally held conception (on this forum at least) that breeding for your hobby (be it showing, agility etc) is legitimate in the eyes of those doing the breeding and that breeding for any other reason is not...but... would someone breeding for money not want to breed quality in all aspects including the most important (health).
> 
> If you want to sell something and make money there two ways of doing it. You can pile it high and sell it cheap (a few quick bucks but a short career) or you can produce a quality product, sell it for a good price and rely on reputation and repeat custom.


You are having a laugh aren't you? It's a contradiction in terms to imply that someone can breed responsibly and make money unless they do it very frequently using the same dogs.

Also - as dogs generally have quite an extended lifespan and many people will only own one at a time - the opportunities for potential repeat business can be from 8 to as much as 18 years apart - and even then, some have long intervals before getting a new pup - I've sold two pups (half brother and sister) to the same family from subsequent litters from someone wanting a third dog.



Elmo the Bear said:


> I don't agree that either of these two methods is a legitimate reason for breeding (but then neither do I agree that showing is) but surely the second of the two practices is no worse than someone breeding for shows and far better than someone breeding to a breed standard that has no health testing?


 part of breed standards would require a happy, healthy dog - I recognise there are a few breeds that have taken their interpretation of the standard to the extreme, but these remain in the minority - unhealthy or unhappy dogs won't do well in the showring and are unlikely to be able to do their job properly either.

A show or working breeder has much more to lose than your BYB or PF if they get it wrong.

==============================================

Believe me - without question, it is the BYB and PF who generally make the money in dog breeding - there are a few exceptions in larger scale commercial breeders who use all available health tests - but they are the exception rather than the rule.

If your theory was correct, most PF and BYB would be out of business by now - fat chance :cursing:


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> but... would someone breeding for money not want to breed quality in all aspects including the most important (health).


the two things are not compatible ....if your 'raison d'etre' is profit then why would you spend thousands of £'s importing new lines or use frozen semen to diversfy your gene pool - these are important health factors that are almost without exception ONLY done by those whose motivation is not money but quality first and foremost ....

..and how would you know you were breeding for "quality in all aspects" unless you had some kind of benchmark to assess what you are producing THAT'S why competition is so important - how else do you know you are breeding 'quality' working gun dogs or racing greyhounds or schutzhund dogs unless you pit them in competition agianst others ? ...the same goes when breeding dogs against their breed standard - how really can you tell that your dogs are of great quality unless you compare them to what other breeders are producing ?

...look at the health data banks of almost all breeds - (the single most important tool modern breeders have to inform their breeding programmes) the information given is almost exclusively from the first group of breeders -they are also the ones who are breed club members and actively work on and fund health research how many of those that breed only for profit do this ? in fact lets be honest here, how many of those who rely on their puppy sales to pay their mortgage actually bother testing at all ?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Just to add - looking back at who started this thread - they are a show-breeder themselves - I don't think the thread was targeted at show breeders - but more about the ongoing (and frequently incorrect) perception of them across the forum.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

To answer the original question.. Yes people think you make a mint, not realizing the costs involved in responsibly breeding, not just financially but emotionally. If someone does not breed responsibly I think they could and do make a lot money hence the number of BYB.

Saying that when you can buy a "generic" dog for 300 and the minimum price for a pedigree is, lets say 800, is it any wonder people think pedigree = make money. Just the pedigree paper is adding 500 to the price in the eyes of the general public.



swarthy said:


> part of breed standards would require a happy, healthy dog - I recognise there are a few breeds that have taken their interpretation of the standard to the extreme, but these remain in the minority - unhealthy or unhappy dogs won't do well in the showring and are unlikely to be able to do their job properly either.


Unfortunately it only takes something like Pedigree Dogs Exposed Full Movie - YouTube to actually show this minority in the worse light possible. I think many, even most, pedigree dog breeders are responsible and do actually care about health first and foremost. However until all pedigree breeders actually push the KC to fix all pedigree breeds, not just their own they will be tarred with the same brush in the eyes of the general public. It's not easy when the problems are often ignored, denied and hidden. In the information age this is not something than can be sustained. It's interesting that some progress was made after the program and some of the issues raised to the general public but how much progress would have been made without it and the backlash of public opinion? Vet's now have to give dogs health checks at the next crufts and my understanding is this is not concerned about breed standard but simply generic health. This is a major step forward in my mind and only one of the steps forward implemented. A lot more work still has to made, and fixes advertised before the public's perception can be repaired. To advertise the solution actually admitting the problem existed is needed.

Going back to the original post, I think there is also the feeling that looks = cost. Look at how glittery and showy crufts is. Looking at how well groomed all the dogs are crufts are, how well dressed everyone is and people associate it with money. They don't associate it with the people actually wearing their best clothes, possibly brought just for the occasion and going without in other areas.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

swarthy said:


> You are having a laugh aren't you? It's a contradiction in terms to imply that someone can breed responsibly and make money unless they do it very frequently using the same dogs.
> 
> Also - as dogs generally have quite an extended lifespan and many people will only own one at a time - the opportunities for potential repeat business can be from 8 to as much as 18 years apart - and even then, some have long intervals before getting a new pup - I've sold two pups (half brother and sister) to the same family from subsequent litters from someone wanting a third dog.
> 
> ...


It's an opinion to which I'm entitled as you are to yours - neither theory carries any proof with it. I do question, as the opinions offered on this subject are invariably offered without proof.

I can't see a standard that requires a "healthy" dog or how that is defined; how do you know a dog is happy?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Bijou said:


> the two things are not compatible ....if your 'raison d'etre' is profit then why would you spend thousands of £'s importing new lines or use frozen semen to diversfy your gene pool - these are important health factors that are almost without exception ONLY done by those whose motivation is not money but quality first and foremost ....
> 
> ..and how would you know you were breeding for "quality in all aspects" unless you had some kind of benchmark to assess what you are producing THAT'S why competition is so important - how else do you know you are breeding 'quality' working gun dogs or racing greyhounds or schutzhund dogs unless you pit them in competition agianst others ? ...the same goes when breeding dogs against their breed standard - how really can you tell that your dogs are of great quality unless you compare them to what other breeders are producing ?
> 
> ...look at the health data banks of almost all breeds - (the single most important tool modern breeders have to inform their breeding programmes) the information given is almost exclusively from the first group of breeders -they are also the ones who are breed club members and actively work on and fund health research how many of those that breed only for profit do this ? in fact lets be honest here, how many of those who rely on their puppy sales to pay their mortgage actually bother testing at all ?


The health data banks from breeders of KC dogs holds data on almost exclusive basis from breeders who breed KC breeds... well that's hardly a surprise is it?

Your initial point would mean that, in life, the only people who make profit are those who do not have quality as a baseline... anyone on here run a business on that basis?.... you'll be out of work pretty soon.

The quality benchmarks set by breed standards are, in the main, not aimed at health. Some have changed recently (in the last four year oddly enough) but few require health testing as a given.

Whilst your point about diversification of gene pools is good, it is, unfortunately, the same group who narrowed the gene pools in the first place, is it not - if it isn't (show breeders) then who did?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Goblin said:


> Vet's now have to give dogs health checks at the next crufts and my understanding is this is not concerned about breed standard but simply generic health. This is a major step forward in my mind and only one of the steps forward implemented. A lot more work still has to made, and fixes advertised before the public's perception can be repaired. To advertise the solution actually admitting the problem existed is needed.


I just wanted to point out - this is not for all breeds - but a selection that have been identified because of potential health problems.

You are right though, it does unfairly tar others with the same brush for some people 

The price differential between registered and unregistered dogs is often about much more than KC registration - it's about the thought process, effort, cost, health-testing and love - and invariably, some, and sometimes all of these factors do not figure in unregistered 'pedigrees' (although technically not a pedigree if unregistered).

I know so many people who have bought unregistered Labs, and then latterly realised their dog has a real potential for working or show - the number of people I know who buy their registered labs as pets and then latterly realise they want to dabble in the field / showring (and increasingly both) continues to rise at a surprising rate.

To the person with the unregistered dog, they often then find themselves buying a second registered dog, and while I always say it doesn't in any way undermine the velue of the unregistered dog in 'feeling' terms, the very fact that they've effectiively been 'replaced' with a dog capable of doing the things the owner now wants to do with their dogs brings quickly into focus the fact that the dog doesn't meet the requirements of what the owner wants for them.

It doesn't make them any less valued pets (although in some instances I know for a fact it has and they've been rehomed) - but it does give yet another reason why people should do their research properly beforehand when buying any type of pup.

Similarly, if you have two litters side by side, similar or same price - both parents health-tested, both owners fabulous breeders doing all the health-tests by the book etc etc - then it's truly a no-brainer going for the unregistered litter - and I've witnessed unregistered litters from health-tested bitches by health-tested dogs unsold and being reduced, reduced, reduced............... you get the picture - because they just don't sell.

I suspect for many, even if they haven't done their research - will know enough to question why, an unregistered litter that ticks all the right boxes in every other spectre of breeding hasn't / can't register the bitch - particularly when the owner themselves is disappointed that the bitch isn't registered because of her working aptitude, but is willing to put others in the same position


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Can I ask then (in reference to the above post) what benefits buying a registered dog gives me as a buyer over and above a non-registered dog.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Can I ask then (if reference to the above post) what benefits buying a registered dog gives me as a buyer over and above a non-registered dog.


Because often, there are people who decide they want to do something with their dogs such as showing, working etc and then discover they can't show at all and can only work them at a very basic level.

Secondly - you have an auditable pedigree and are able to verify the parents health records. Good breeders won't want to 'falsify' such records because they really do have their reputations at stake - plus we already have mandatory microchipping for health-testing - these can also be maintained on the KC database and the dogs KC paperwork - Mandatory DNA profiling has been trialled before in the early days of the ABS - whether it will come back I don't know - contrary to popular belief it's not horribly expensive and not uncomfortable or intrusive for the dog.

Thirdly - one of the oldest excuses in the book is "the parents are registered" and the pups aren't - this will seldom, if ever be for good reasons - it will be because:


The parents have endorsements which haven't been lifted because they haven't met the specified criteria
The bitch has been bred more often than permitted under a breeders license (i.e. no more than one litter in a 12 month period)
The bitch was too young or too old at the time of mating 
The bitch has already had the permitted number of C-sections from which pups can be registered with the KC
The bitch has already had more than the permitted number of litters that can be registered with the KC

NONE of the above are good reasons and raise questions about the breeders ethics -

If someone 'can' register a litter but choses not to unless an owner pays a few hundred pounds more for a pup - then it's reasonable to question just how many corners they have cut in breeding and raising that litter


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Thank you. I think that's the first time I've asked that question and got an answer instead of a load of grief 

But the flaw, as you identify, is that a breeder can just register a litter provided the parents are registered. They don't need to have health tested the parents, they don't need to have cared for the parents (over and above what would be considered cruelty) they don't have to ensure anything other than filling a form in?

I know that most breeders are (I'm told) ethical, but that belief could apply to both registered and unregistered litter could it not?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I know that most breeders are (I'm told) ethical, but that belief could apply to both registered and unregistered litter could it not?


Yes it could, and the reason why so many of us keeping telling people they must do their research - neither KC registration or health-testing (alone or together) make for a good breeder - but they are key elements of what makes a good breeder.

When prospective puppy owners visit - I always tell them, if they are not happy with any element of my setup, then they must walk away - just as if I was uncomfortable about them, I wouldn't sell them a pup.


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

Quote Elmo the Bear: "_I know that most breeders are (I'm told) ethical_"

I don't think "most" breeders are ethical at all - which is a very depressing thing to have to type as an occasional breeder myself!

Buyers have to take some responsibility and do some research about their chosen breed and make the effort to find a responsible breeder. Unfortunately, KC reg doesn't mean that the pups will be of good quality, but, to my mind, it is a starting point - for the reasons given very clearly in the post above by Swarthy.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Bijou said:


> ..and how would you know you were breeding for "quality in all aspects" unless you had some kind of benchmark to assess what you are producing THAT'S why competition is so important - how else do you know you are breeding 'quality' working gun dogs or racing greyhounds or schutzhund dogs unless you pit them in competition agianst others ? ...the same goes when breeding dogs against their breed standard - how really can you tell that your dogs are of great quality unless you compare them to what other breeders are producing ?


This bit doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Competition is not important, it's a hobby, no doubt an enjoyable one but a hobby none the less.

You assume that quality means compared to others and that the quality is on the basis of your chosen hobby. If you compare to others with a benchmark based on that hobby you do not get quality let alone "overall" quality because you have an assumed purpose against which to benchmark - you could, as an extreme, set your benchmark as the fastest dog able to jump the highest. Therefore, top of the tree would be the fastest highest dog - regardless of health or any other aspect. Using that quality model you end up judging the least worst, not the best. My dog runs faster and jumps higher... but suffer from 10 illness and has a lifespan of only 5 years !...surely nothing to do with quality and everything to do with the hobbiest's wishes.

My benchmark (first and foremost) is health. It's a sad fact that this is not the case with breed standards or competition/show standards. This is why I'm interested in the advantages of buying a registered puppy, does it give me any assurances over an unregistered dog. Competition is not important if you don't want to compete; my dogs are companions so I want a dog that will not suffer from avoidable health issues; I'd like something that gives me some assurances on that matter, registration does not and I simply think it should... that's not too much to ask, is it?

If the standards concentrated on health as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd priorities then there is room for the non essential (hobbiest requirements) later down the line but not at the expense of the first 3.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ridgielover said:


> Quote Elmo the Bear: "_I know that most breeders are (I'm told) ethical_"
> 
> I don't think "most" breeders are ethical at all - which is a very depressing thing to have to type as an occasional breeder myself!


TBH I don't either but if I type that then the minibus turns up with shouty people on it.


----------



## Kazastan (Sep 2, 2011)

Some show breeders obvoiusly make a lot of money, this may not always be from the volume of litters they have but they can command a good price for having spent 30 years plus producing consistanly good. *In reality we know there are all sorts in the show world, good and bad.*

We are not well of and all our money goes on good food for the dogs and showing

This year, after LKA I will have travelled to 32 shows, 26 of those Championship shows. I have travelled to Edingburgh twice [7 hour journey I haven't a clue how much fuel it cost!] Soon I will be back up to Darlington [5hour Journey] then Driffield the week after... we go everywhere

Then there is the cost of overnight accomodation, days lost from work etc etc

We show a male and he has not been used at Stud yet. I will be having a litter next year [the first in twenty years] I would like to have something to keep from a very successful line [my retired bitch who was to continue this line had to be speyed so I am using her niece, the daughter of my Ch dog who was used at Stud just 4 times producing to date, 1 CH male and 2 bitches with 2 CC's each and a RCC]

We are pondering doing the Scotish W&P champ' show as we haven't anything else going on in November lol SOME of us are just genuine show gypsies I s'pose one litter in a blue moon makes me a bad hobby breeder!!


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

I think it depends how you look at it really. Showing is a hobby all hobbies cost money, owning a dog is a pleasure it costs money, These points are the same whether you breed or not. Now if you breed you do the relevant health tests, puppy vaccinations, health checks etc. Then the time you invest with pups and mom i don't include cause as a mom I never included these when having kids. So you are capable of making a profit but not if you add all these basic expenses into the equation, there are of course other basic things too but i'm getting ready for work.

When i bred Shelties way back when i had litters with no profit and litters with profit but it all ends up back into your pets anyway whether it be food, showing, vet visits, new equipment.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

"


> The health data banks from breeders of KC dogs holds data on almost exclusive basis from breeders who breed KC breeds... well that's hardly a surprise is it?2


...nope - the data banks in my breed are world wide ones and are complied by those who both work and show ( most are from FCI countries )- test results are published for all breeders to see as is other information such as whether a dog is entire , what kind of dentition it has ,the test results of any offspring and any working or showing results - my point is that it is the first kind of breeder that will bother doing this kind of thing because they view their dogs as something more than mere cash cows !.



> My benchmark (first and foremost) is health


a comendable focus but one that does not require dogs to be separate breeds or to have a specific function - if we want to continue having the choice of over 200 breeds then we must breed for their individual traits as WELL as breeding for health after all the most mixed up Heinz 57 can have perfect health  - similarly with breeding for function - a gamekeeper's Springer may well have perfect hip score and clear eyes etc but is no use to him if i's not also bred to retain it's working ability - and what use is a perfectly healthy guide dog if it's has a lousy temperament - health is important but you cannot throw the baby out with the bath water !!

your health 'benchmark' is easily tested via BVA tests etc ( although nature often plays tricks on us and by concentraing on getting rid of one health problem we can leave the door open for others ) but how could you test conformation or working 'benchmarks ' if not by competeing against others ?

Yours is typical of a very black and white view of dog breeding - and the confused messages that are sent out - if you want individual dog breeds this means that breeders need to breed for health ALONGSIDE all the other things that make up their breed .


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Bijou said:


> "
> ...nope - the data banks in my breed are world wide ones and are complied by those who both work and show ( most are from FCI countries )- test results are published for all breeders to see as is other information such as whether a dog is entire , what kind of dentition it has ,the test results of any offspring and any working or showing results - my point is that it is the first kind of breeder that will bother doing this kind of thing because they view their dogs as something more than mere cash cows !.
> 
> a comendable focus but one that does not require dogs to be separate breeds or to have a specific function - if we want to continue having the choice of over 200 breeds then we must breed for their individual traits as WELL as breeding for health after all the most mixed up Heinz 57 can have perfect health  - similarly with breeding for function - a gamekeeper's Springer may well have perfect hip score and clear eyes etc but is no use to him if i's not also bred to retain it's working ability - and what use is a perfectly healthy guide dog if it's has a lousy temperament - health is important but you cannot throw the baby out with the bath water !!
> ...


My black and white view is because I want a healthy dog; the grey is caused by hobbiests "requiring" 200 breeds. So the problems have been caused by the wish for those who want to show etc.

You assume I want to test to conformation to a standard (that is based on a certain person/s subjective wishes). I simply want a dog that will have good health within the range of reasonable expectations and free from health issues that have been caused by deliberate human desire to try and design a dog for its needs.

If health is "easily tested by BVA" methods (another subject altogether) why don't breed clubs enforce minimum standard tests for all dogs? I see it all too often on here where people say my dog doesn't need any checks as it's a healthy breed.

I kinda like black and white.... its the grey that is the cause, not the solution.


----------



## Miss chief (Jun 24, 2011)

Elmo - AMEN!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Bijou said:


> a comendable focus but one that does not require dogs to be separate breeds or to have a specific function - if we want to continue having the choice of over 200 breeds then we must breed for their individual traits as WELL as breeding for health


I think this is where pedigree dogs fall down when it comes to the public perception. Individual traits should never come at the expense of health but, in some breeds this has undeniably happened.

German Shepherds, Work Vs Show Lines is one site which allows me to demonstrate an important point, at least in mind. When you have a breed of dog, such as the german shepherd the show standard should never compromise the breeds ability to perform the work intended. The only thing I would say is a bit more flexible would be with temperament. Unfortunately this is not the case here. The show version has been crippled to get traits (mainly looks) at the expense of health. Anyone person looking in from the outside will get the impression health is secondary to looks and looks are even more important than the task the breed is supposed to be being bred for. Once again tarnishing the "pedigree" label as a whole.

Let me just say, some of the pedigree breed clubs in the UK are a lot further forward than in other countries to deal with health issues. I recently read the following blog post Nein! German Kennel Club gets tough re Bulldogs where the German KC is having to step in to hopefully introduce health practices which are already in place in the UK.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> The health data banks from breeders of KC dogs holds data on almost exclusive basis from breeders who breed KC breeds... well that's hardly a surprise is it?
> 
> Your initial point would mean that, in life, the only people who make profit are those who do not have quality as a baseline... anyone on here run a business on that basis?.... you'll be out of work pretty soon.
> 
> ...


Actually, the breed standard does focus on health, but not in the obvious way that some see it. A dog has to have a healthy conformation to be fit to do what it was meant to, even as a companion breed. This is an old argument that comes up every time showing is discussed, and it goes back to the interpretation of the breed standard. They were never written to encourage exaggeration, but as a description of the breed to set that particular breed type apart from others. Conformation matters very much in that if an incorrect conformation is allowed to be reproduced, it leads to health problems. This is obvious in a small minority of breeds where it has actually been bred for for the show ring, such as bassets and bulldogs, but not so obvious in other breeds, where conformation issues frequently lead to injury because of the strain put on joints and the daily wear and tear.

Show breeders haven't narrowed the gene pool as such, time has done that, show breeders have striven to keep breeds *alive*. Two world wars also didn't help, and there have been cases where gene pools have been so diminished, other breed types have been used to help widen the gene pool again, or breed types have pretty much been recreated. So that's another misunderstanding really 



Elmo the Bear said:


> Thank you. I think that's the first time I've asked that question and got an answer instead of a load of grief
> 
> But the flaw, as you identify, is that a breeder can just register a litter provided the parents are registered. They don't need to have health tested the parents, they don't need to have cared for the parents (over and above what would be considered cruelty) they don't have to ensure anything other than filling a form in?
> 
> I know that most breeders are (I'm told) ethical, but that belief could apply to both registered and unregistered litter could it not?


I've told you before why health testing can't possibly be mandatory, nor can results, it just isn't workable. What is needed is educating puppy buyers, so they can see who is doing what, and who's trying their best to do it right. Health test results are not the be all and end all, they are part of the information used towards any breeding decision. Other things to consider are temperament, conformation and ability, health test results make up just one part of the equation.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

I know you've "told me"... but I think you are wrong. The other poster gave an opinion, not a lecture based on their opinion.

The other poster did not say that health testing could not be mandatory.

Health testing makes up one part of the equation you want for your hobby and your breed standard. Your hobby is not of interest to me, I'm solely interested in a healthy dog. Once you get a healthy dog, then you can try to train it for your hobby, not the other way round.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I don't breed from every bitch I own and I don't eat them for a start
> 
> If I showed my dogs, I wouldn't breed to help fund showing, it would be the other way around, I would breed because I felt I had something worth showing. Otherwise what's the point?


But you dont show your dogs and I am sure you have said in the past you dont breed either, so what is the relevance. And of course you do not eat them, dogs in this country are not bred for food. I dont understand the relevance of that either.



Kazastan said:


> Some show breeders obvoiusly make a lot of money, this may not always be from the volume of litters they have but they can command a good price for having spent 30 years plus producing consistanly good. *In reality we know there are all sorts in the show world, good and bad.*
> 
> We are not well of and all our money goes on good food for the dogs and showing
> 
> ...


What has the costs of your hobby got to do with breeding. You have been showing but have not bred a litter for 20 years - so your showing costs have no relevance do they.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> My black and white view is because I want a healthy dog; the grey is caused by hobbiests "requiring" 200 breeds


what just the hobbyiests ? no-one else 'requires' individual pedigree dogs to exist then?- I take it by your answer that you do not own a pedigree dog - or have any interest in their continuation - yours is ( I'm glad to say) a minority view - most people rejoice in the wonderful variety that dogs come in -and the demand for pedigree dogs remains as strong as ever

What a sad grey world it would be without the glorious grace of the Borzoi , the breathtaking beauty of the Afghan , or the intelligence and trainability of the Border Collie, GSD and BSD , you may be happy with a 'one size fits all' generic dog but most people would not - and if we want that choice to remain then it must be bred for .....and that means breeding not just for health but for breed specific conformation and temperament.

Do I think that health tests should be mandatory ?..well yes because I think that knowledge is the greatest asset a breeder can have, but test results are only a part of the picture when breeding - realistically breeders canot afford to narrow gene pools by eliminating all dogs with imperfect test results -

Elmo do you breed ? - you come across as very naive - it is impossible to guarantee the health of ANY living organism - after all, humans with all their scientific advances ( and lack of inbreeding ! ) are the species with the most genetic problems - think of your own families - how many wear glasses, have heart problems or are affected by cancer ? - it's deeply insulting to try and suggest that breeders such as myself are willing to sacrifice heath for wins in the show ring - the reality is that we must take ALL aspects into account if our individual breeds are to reamain viable.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Bijou said:


> what just the hobbyiests ? no-one else 'requires' individual pedigree dogs to exist then?- I take it by your answer that you do not own a pedigree dog - or have any interest in their continuation - yours is ( I'm glad to say) a minority view - most people rejoice in the wonderful variety that dogs come in -and the demand for pedigree dogs remains as strong as ever
> 
> What a sad grey world it would be without the glorious grace of the Borzoi , the breathting beauty of the Afghan , or the intelligence and trainability of the Border Collie, GSD and BSD , you may be happy with a 'one size fits all' generic dog but most people would not - and if we want that choice to remain then it must be bred for .


You do rush to a view a little too quickly. I love all dogs and all breeds, it is not the dogs I have an issue with but those who purport to have their best interst at heart (when it is their own interests that actually come first); I wish none of them ill, but would not condone their continuation (or indeed their inception) when health is only a consideration and not *the* consideration.

You assume mine is a minority view, but you also assumed what my view was.

So we have a glorious colourful KC ,choice filled world and what's a little pain and discomfort amongst all that glory?

BTW - we do own a pedigree dog.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> ou assume mine is a minority view, but you also assumed what my view was


.

no assumption ...stating that only hobbeists require separate breeds surely menas that YOU see no need for them !



> BTW - we do own a pedigree dog


..and just how do you think your pedigree dog's unique breed specific characteristics exist ?.....I'll tell you how ...it's because his breeder bred for them ...and if you enjoy having him in your life you should be grateful that she did so ..and stop being so hypocritical !


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Bijou said:


> .
> 
> no assumption ...stating that only hobbeists require separate breeds surely menas that YOU see no need for them !
> 
> ..and just how do you think your pedigree dog's unique breed specific characteristics exist ?.....I'll tell you how ...it's because his breeder bred for them ...and if you enjoy having him in your life you should be grateful that she did so ..and stop being so hypocritical !


Try to look at what I said - you used the word "require". No one requires 200 breeds, they "want" them. I do not see a "need" for 200 breeds as there is no "need", simply a wish. I am happy for people to "want" separate breeds provided health ist the number 1 criteria.

I am incredibly grateful... he is a fantastic dog. But neither he or I are grateful to the breeder and I'm not grateful for the raft of allergies he has, nor the Cushings Disease, nor the luxating patella/s, nor the eye conditions he suffers from.

I see no "need" for breeds that do not have health at the top of their list of traits. If you are not focussed on breeding for health then you should not be allowed to breed.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> You assume I want to test to conformation to a standard (that is based on a certain person/s subjective wishes). I simply want a dog that will have good health within the range of reasonable expectations and free from health issues that have been caused by deliberate human desire to try and design a dog for its needs.
> .


Two questions:

1. How are you going to achieve this without first of all having a list of a range of reasonable expectations - ie a "standard" for that breed?

2. How did you ensure the dogs you bought were bought from breeders who achieved the above range you mentioned?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I know you've "told me"... but I think you are wrong. The other poster gave an opinion, not a lecture based on their opinion.
> 
> The other poster did not say that health testing could not be mandatory.
> 
> Health testing makes up one part of the equation you want for your hobby and your breed standard. Your hobby is not of interest to me, I'm solely interested in a healthy dog. Once you get a healthy dog, then you can try to train it for your hobby, not the other way round.


You obviously didn't read my post that well, and to be quite honest, I've explained it umpteen times why health tests and health test results can't be made mandatory. That to me is the lazy way of approaching dog breeding. It needs to be a combination of both, puppy buyers need to research more, and dog breeders need to do more to ensure they are producing happy healthy puppies that are a good example.

You can try and put my posts down as much as you like, you know very well this argument has been gone through time and time again, and yet you always side step the questions you get asked. There's no way you can impose a bench mark for a hip score result, just as an example, because it works on a breed 'mean' standard, so there isn't a cut off point. The point is, puppy buyers need to be educated to use breeders who hip score when appropriate, and use appropriate breeding stock. How difficult is that? But to suggest there *should* be hip scoring for breeds where it isn't a problem, and that a mandatory result should be imposed is just naieve tbh.

I've gone through the dna tests before as well, but you still just don't seem to see that even if tested, dogs can be bred clear from. There's no point in excluding good dogs from a gene pool, even as large as the Labrador breed, when we don't need to. There's no such thing as a perfect dog without any health problems, so by excluding good material based on being carrier or affected for a condition that isn't debilitating or life threatening, then you possibly risk constricting the gene pool for other conditions, which is a bit hypocritical really, since that's what you accuse show breeders of doing in the first place!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Thanks again for the lecture but, as you say, we've been through this many times. I don't side step anything, I'm not a vet nor a qualified geneticist, so I don't have the answer but neither do you; the difference is I don't pretend to have the solution, just that health must come first and therefore testing for health must come first.

Your way (the status quo, the 'establishment line') has caused the problems. You simply keep making excuses for not making health tests mandatory. And then say "I've told" you as if your opinion is the be all end all. Your arguing against yourself on the DNA issue, not something I argued I'm afraid so please don't invent something else to lecture me on.

I'm not trying to convince you, you clearly have a view that is immovable and this (in my opinion) is part of the problem with breeding in general. Despite having failed the animals by ensuring their health is the number 1 priority, the current dog/show world still tries to convince people *it* is the solution, when it is the problem.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> a gamekeeper's Springer may well have perfect hip score and clear eyes etc but is no use to him if i's not also bred to retain it's working ability


A gamekeeper's springer may well have been bred to retain its working ability, but it is of no use to him, or anyone else, if it can't walk or see. 

Health should be Number 1 priority imo too. If that means careful out-crossing to improve health, or eradicate a genetic disorder, or the end of a sick breed that can barely walk, breathe, see or breed without assistance, so be it.

I do not accuse all show breeders of breeding for form over function, but I think we could agree that many of them do and it's about time they didn't.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Blitz said:


> Why shouldnt a breeder make money. What is wrong with making money. If you count everything from the moment you get the bitch (probably as a puppy) till the day she dies then probably, no, there is not a lot of profit. But most people have the dogs because they want them, they go to shows because they want to and they breed to help fund their hobby - and very often will make a lot of money and sometimes will end up in a huge loss situation.
> 
> No one breeding any animal can guarantee a profit from each animal. Cattle and sheep farmers rely heavily on subsidies and can have terrible years with huge amounts of losses and vets bills. Yet no one would say a farmer should not make a profit. Why should a dog breeder be any different.





Blitz said:


> But you dont show your dogs and I am sure you have said in the past you dont breed either, so what is the relevance. And of course you do not eat them, dogs in this country are not bred for food. I dont understand the relevance of that either.


You likened dog breeding to breeding of agricultural livestock, I don't think it's anything like similar. The amount of closely related livestock involved with the farming industry is much higher I'm led to believe, than in the dog world. There's one breed of cattle that can't mate or reproduce naturally any longer, but it's deemed acceptable to keep the breed alive by AI, that is frowned upon in the dog world, and rightly so I think. Just one difference 

PS I might not yet be a breeder, but as it's something I may possibly become involved with in the future, I think it's only right to do as much research as possible.



Elmo the Bear said:


> Thanks again for the lecture but, as you say, we've been through this many times. I don't side step anything, I'm not a vet nor a qualified geneticist, so I don't have the answer but neither do you; the difference is I don't pretend to have the solution, just that health must come first and therefore testing for health must come first.
> 
> Your way (the status quo, the 'establishment line') has caused the problems. You simply keep making excuses for not making health tests mandatory. And then say "I've told" you as if your opinion is the be all end all. Your arguing against yourself on the DNA issue, not something I argued I'm afraid so please don't invent something else to lecture me on.
> 
> I'm not trying to convince you, you clearly have a view that is immovable and this (in my opinion) is part of the problem with breeding in general. Despite having failed the animals by ensuring their health is the number 1 priority, the current dog/show world still tries to convince people *it* is the solution, when it is the problem.


You don't even know what 'my way' is, so I'm not sure how you feel qualified to comment on it.

You keep coming up with these catch phrases about mandatory health testing, and yet you fail to come up with one suggestion about how they would work, is that because they can't? 'I've *explained*' in as simple a way as possible, why it won't work, and yet all I get is sarcastic comments and no explanation of how you think mandatory health testing should work. Great debating skills there 

There is no such thing as a 100% genetically clear and healthy dog for every condition they could suffer from, and there never will be, they're animals, the same as us. There's a name for the type of breeding you're suggesting, eugenics, look where that got us in the past. If that's how you suggest we breed any animal then I really don't have the same opinion or anything close to you, and I'm very glad I don't!

PS you forgot to respond to my point about narrowing the gene pool by excluding dogs that aren't genetically perfect


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would put anything above the health of their dogs, be it a pet, a show dog or the breeding of pups.
Nothing but nothing is as important as this


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

JennyClifford said:


> I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would put anything above the health of their dogs, be it a pet, a show dog or the breeding of pups.
> Nothing but nothing is as important as this


Temperament? You could have the healthiest dog in the world, but if it wanted to eat anything and everything that moved, what's the point?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> My benchmark (first and foremost) is health. It's a sad fact that this is not the case with breed standards or competition/show standards. This is why I'm interested in the advantages of buying a registered puppy, does it give me any assurances over an unregistered dog. Competition is not important if you don't want to compete; my dogs are companions so I want a dog that will not suffer from avoidable health issues; I'd like something that gives me some assurances on that matter, registration does not and I simply think it should... that's not too much to ask, is it?


The point is - breeders producing unregistered litters very seldom health-test - therefore the risks of you getting a puppy who isn't healthy are higher than buying from a a breeder who does health-test *and* registers their litter with the KC - yes, sometimes things do go wrong - sometimes because a condition cannot be tested for, and additionally, there are many conditions for which environment plays more than a small contribution to certain health conditions, yet people will still be quick enough to blame the breeder 

If, as the breeder you have thought through the health-tests, the choice of stud dog, and raised that litter properly - then it's a bit of a no-brainer not to then register the litter - and if the breeder is unable to register the litter, there is frequently bad reasons behind it as outlined in one of my previous posts 

The fact remains that for *most* breeds you have a hgher chance of getting a healthy pup from an ethical breeder who works and / or shows their dogs.

In my own breed, there are some good pet breeders who use the full complement of health-tests and do their utmost to produce healthy pups - inline with this, they mate their dogs to established show / working dogs dependent on their dog's type and go to great lengths to ensure that everything is 'right' - personally, whilst I may not understand, I don't have a major issue with it - better this than people buying from BYB and PF.

========================================

Everyone keeps talking about the number 1 priority being health - and I acknowledge there are some breeds out there that have some bad health issues - but contrary to popular belief, they are in the minority.

I don't condone it, but I also can't claim to have done enough research to be able to comment on it, and I would be surprised if many others here have unless it is a breed they are personally involved in - sadly, people are often too quick to exploit and re-iterate negative media reporting - which rarely gives a balanced view, because if they did, no-one would buy papers or watch controversial documentaries.

===========================================

There are THREE factors to take into consideration when breeding - health, temperament and conformation - there's no point in having a dog with perfect health results that can move like the wind if it is an anti-social g*t with other animals and humans alike.

There's little point in having a working bred dog that isn't fit enough to do it's job (by fit I mean in health terms - things such as stamina to do certain jobs come through training, just as they do for a human running a marathon) - there's little point in taking an unhealthy dog in the showring, because in the majority of breeds it would walk.

None of these factors, health, temperament and conformation are mutually exclusive - and they never should be

You don't have to 'only breed from the best' because the best doesn't produce the best - but you should have an understanding of the breeds conformation to enable you to correct any faults on the dog by using the most appropriate stud - whether that stud happens to be in your own living room or 500 miles away.

There is absolutely NO benefit in most breeds of producing dogs that have a working role but no inherent instincts which can be worked on (if desired),

There's no benefit to breeders in producing dogs who aren't going to enjoy long healthy lives for their owners -

There's no point in having a dog that can' t be in the company of other dogs or people for fear of how it might react - temperament is a key issue in many breeds and deviations from those temperaments should be, and are treated as a major fault.

The Labrador Breed Standard for what it is worth, was written many years ago by predominantly working folk - and has only received only minor amendments in the intervening years.

Anyone who believes that health, temperament, conformation (and where appropriate working instinct) are mutually exclusive doesn't have a true appreciation of what good breeders are aiming for - they are, and IMO should remain inextricably linked.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You likened dog breeding to breeding of agricultural livestock, I don't think it's anything like similar. The amount of closely related livestock involved with the farming industry is much higher I'm led to believe, than in the dog world. There's one breed of cattle that can't mate or reproduce naturally any longer, but it's deemed acceptable to keep the breed alive by AI, that is frowned upon in the dog world, and rightly so I think. Just one difference
> 
> PS I might not yet be a breeder, but as it's something I may possibly become involved with in the future, I think it's only right to do as much research as possible.
> 
> ...


You're making up your own arguments again. If you want to do that fine; you've lectured me that I should simply take your opinion as fact so many times now "I've told you".

You do not understand eugenics if that's what you think it is. It is not the practice of breeding for health, it is the practice of creating something that fits exactly with the subjective view of the person "creating".. the 'master race' was not based on the race for the healthiest man but on the ideal of the designer - a breed standard you could say.

Breeding with health as the first priority is not eugenics.

I did not mention 100% clear DNA - you did.

Your suggestion is to continue the process as it is, the process that has caused the problem in the first place because it concentrates on the desire to create an animal that replicates as perfectly as possible the wishes of the "designer" (eugenics) and the process has failed miserably.

I am merely suggesting that the first priority should be health and you are continually making excuses as to why that cannot be the case (in your opinion).

So we disagree, but no matter how many times you try and patronise me by saying "I've explained it to you", it doesn't change the fact that the method and organisation you so vehemently defend doesn't work in the best interests of the dog, it operates in the best interest of the breed standard which is a subjective piece of paper written by the designer of the breed and which is some cases (far from promoting the health of a dog) it is directly responsible for its poor health.

Just as an aside - if you make up things I've said and then say I fail to explain them, that is not a deficiency in my debating skills, more of a memory issue on your part. I've "told you" (there I go again) how you make health testing mandatory - you make it mandatory... not complicated - no test - no breed.

I didn't respond to your point about excluding dogs that were not genetically perfect because I didn't say you should, you did, so you'd best answer your own question. Genetically perfect compared to what anyway?... your breed standard perhaps?... very Galton.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> Temperament? You could have the healthiest dog in the world, but if it wanted to eat anything and everything that moved, what's the point?


I don't quite get this?

Pick from the healthy dogs to breed from, when you've narrowed it down to healthy ones only, start to look at which would be best for the job and which would have the best temperament. Just start with health and what effect your plan is likely to have on the health of your breed. Health should be a priority imo, but that doesn't mean to the exclusion of everything else.


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

I think health, temperament and type/working ability are all equally important. If you haven't got all three then why breed? I want to breed a litter of healthy, long lived pups, with sound temperaments, that look like their breed. If I don't think I can do that, I won't breed.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I've had one litter of Mals - all be it not my doing eight pups, one which I kept. Health tests on parents, food for eight pups, extra for mum, washing machine working endlessly on bedding, fans on day and night for ten weeks as it was summer and Mals get hot, one pup spayed and one neutered at 6 & 7 months old before being homed, all pups vaccinated, the older ones fully, all microchipped, advertising costs and training for the two remaining plus the one I kept. Add to that six months lost wages of over £6,000 as I couldn't leave five Mals and two small dogs alone for seven hours a day, yet still had to pay all my bills - thank heaven for my four kids who supported me :001_tt1:
My one litter cost me a fortune and the money I got when I sold each one went straight on bills that were not paid when they should have been.

It's a full time job requiring masses of energy if you want to give pups you've brought into this world the best start, it's emmotionally draining too and a responsibility for each pup that you hold for the next ten years or more as I have already found by taking two back to rehome.

Make money??? It cost me a small fortune!


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Pick from the healthy dogs to breed from, when you've narrowed it down to healthy ones only, start to look at which would be best for the job and which would have the best temperament. Just start with health and what effect your plan is likely to have on the health of your breed. Health should be a priority imo, but that doesn't mean to the exclusion of everything else.
> Like


...can you IMAGINE the narrowing of the gene pool that this would lead to !

the naivity of this is just breathtaking - your first criteria in itself is fraught with problems - what health criteria would you prioritise - only those that can be tested for ?...just because something has a test does not mean that it is the most important health issue in a breed - we simply cannot afford to constrict gene pools in this way - and if you did manage to find a stud dog with perfect hips , eyes, , temperament, working ability and conformation you can bet your bottom dollar that everyone else would be using him too - therby flooding the breed with his genes and leaving no where to go if he then turns out to pass on conditions such as late onset epilepsy ......we're breeding living things here not creating car components - there will never be a totally healthy dog, cat, horse of indeed human.



> ...I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would put anything above the health of their dogs, be it a pet, a show dog or the breeding of pups.
> Nothing but nothing is as important as this


....ermm see my point above - would you scarifice diversity of gene pools in your pursuit for perfect health ?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> You assume mine is a minority view, but you also assumed what my view was.


I don't think you can accuse anyone on here of not knowing your views. You expound them with such regularity - same old, same old - thread after thread after thread - that even the newest of the newbies will be aware of them. Your choice and your perogative to do that of course - but to then accuse anyone of not knowing your views is just plain silly.


----------



## mamf (Jun 26, 2011)

Bijou said:


> ...can you IMAGINE the narrowing of the gene pool that this would lead to !
> 
> the naivity of this is just breathtaking - your first criteria in itself is fraught with problems - what health criteria would you prioritise - only those that can be tested for ?...just because something has a test does not mean that it is the most important health issue in a breed - we simply cannot afford to constrict gene pools in this way - and if you did manage to find a stud dog with perfect hips , eyes, , temperament, working ability and conformation you can bet your bottom dollar that everyone else would be using him too - therby flooding the breed with his genes and leaving no where to go if he then turns out to pass on conditions such as late onset epilepsy ......we're breeding living things here not creating car components - there will never be a totally healthy dog, cat, horse of indeed human.
> 
> ....ermm see my point above - would you scarifice diversity of gene pools in your pursuit for perfect health ?


I agree with bijou here, I was reading this thread with interest and heres the input from my Oh, (he has been a research scientist and has his degree and PHD in organic chemistry and biology he said that-

Genes simply do not work that way things can be switched on or off from a multitude of generations ago, through incredibly complex factors. it would be nearly impossible with existing technology and knowledge on genetics to guarantee health in any complex organism. Narrowing genepools can have catastrophic results if new diseases evolve and the animal has limited immunity. Mutation would also mean that a previously sound specimen could produce a raft of conditions any way and selecting for all round effectiveness and maintaining diversity are good principles scientifically speaking.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

It's clear that I'm likely to get the same answers I always get. 

I've got the very special weaver on ignore but I guess it will say something like... "yes but what tests?" and "you don't know anything" and the like. ... because that's what it always says.

I haven't got a solution that is 100% because I'm not (and unlike many) don't pretend ot be an expert on vetrinary care and genetics. What I do know is many dog's have issues because of the breed stabdards and being v=bred "to type" as opposed ot health.

My view, which has never changed but oft been misrepresented, is that health has to come first (and 2nd and 3rd) and the same gang (and I'm so, so glad it's only ever about 5 or 6 (the same 5 or 6) who come on and patronise, insult and try to twist this point.

I do think it's sad though that, because of the onslaught that any view that doesn't support the status quo gets, that other posters can't add to these threads in support of dog's health and in support of a different way - 

- the current approach does not work, something has to change and that same old group can call me what ever they like (and its ranged from the silly to the downright offensive) but their way does not and has not worked.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Bijou said:


> ...can you IMAGINE the narrowing of the gene pool that this would lead to !
> 
> the naivity of this is just breathtaking - your first criteria in itself is fraught with problems - what health criteria would you prioritise - only those that can be tested for ?...just because something has a test does not mean that it is the most important health issue in a breed - we simply cannot afford to constrict gene pools in this way - and if you did manage to find a stud dog with perfect hips , eyes, , temperament, working ability and conformation you can bet your bottom dollar that everyone else would be using him too - therby flooding the breed with his genes and leaving no where to go if he then turns out to pass on conditions such as late onset epilepsy ......we're breeding living things here not creating car components - there will never be a totally healthy dog, cat, horse of indeed human.
> 
> ....ermm see my point above - would you scarifice diversity of gene pools in your pursuit for perfect health ?


Diversity is a key I agree - but at the moment, health is sacrificed for another trait in order to meet the breed standard.

What has to happen is that practice has to stop; health has to be number one but not the only one.... diversity is not something I've said shouldn't happen (the restriction of diversity for traits is the underlying basis of eugenics or 'breeding to type'). My point is you should not breed in traits (deliberately) that affect health as if health is your number 1 priority, you look to ensure that as much as possible.


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Diversity is a key I agree - but at the moment, health is sacrificed for another trait in order to meet the breed standard.
> What has to happen is that practice has to stop; health has to be number one but not the only one.... diversity is not something I've said shouldn't happen (the restriction of diversity for traits is the underlying basis of eugenics or 'breeding to type'). My point is you should not breed in traits (deliberately) that affect health as if health is your number 1 priority, you look to ensure that as much as possible.


A VERY sweeping statement!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ridgielover said:


> A VERY sweeping statement!


And all cross breeders are unethical... 

You may say "sweeping" but having read a large number of breed standards to look for the phrases like "must ensure health is not compromised by xxxx" or "xxxx must not affect the ability to breathe naturally / breed naturally" etc etc I can't find one.

I always get rubbished by the same group on here so I've kind of given up trying to please 

... if I was, I'd may be edit to "there is nothing that stops health being sacrificed to meet the breed standard"


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Diversity is a key I agree - but at the moment, health is sacrificed for another trait in order to meet the breed standard.


Explain HOW - you are making a very generic statement - you have such an intricate knowledge of ALL breeds, their health requirements and the breed standards and can make this statement with 100% certainty? I suspect not.

Taking Labradors as an example - hipscoring, elbow scoring, eye testing, DNA Testing for PRA and CNM - ALL important (some crucial, some not so crucial) to breeding a healthy dog capable of being shown, worked, assistance dogs and loving family pets - not one of these is out of synch with the breed standard or needs to be ommitted to produce dogs meeting it.

I am not an authority on the other 249 or so breeds - numerically being a mile + ahead of any other breed - Labradors are by and large a very healthy breed with a large percentage of those who go on to develop debilitating health problems being from BYB and PF where their parents have not been health-tested; these dogs are seldom from responsible ethical, show, working and pet breeders.

Running one of the most successful Labrador health websites, and being a member of the globally successful Labrador Forums - the evidence is all around us and borne out by various research in the UK and US and analysis of the health results database.

It's interesting to also note that, re-enforced by other Lab people - where pups go on to develop health-problems - there is frequently a divide in the severity, with the impact on well bred dogs often being much less - is this due to good exercise and dietary advice from the breeder? quite possibly and yet another component of what contributes to being a good breeder.

------------------------------

There are also breeds smaller in numbers, but equally as, and sometimes healthier than Labs

There are below 5% of all registered breeds who have been identified as having sufficient issues that a new scheme will test their health in the biggest dog show in the world, and may well be spun out to other CH shows for all we know.

Whilst I agree it's not accpetable to sacrifice health in pursuit of achievement - the breeding world is littered with anomalies over which mother nature has far more control than any breeder - frequently having the last laugh

A significant gene pool reduction could make some of these breeds implode creating MORE health problems not less.

--------------------------------------------------

I would almost go as far as to say temperament should be the first consideration when breeding - THEN - if the health test results are acceptable and the breeder has an understanding of how they can improve their dog without sacrificing health and temperament, then comes the green light for breeding.

You do NOT have to sacrifice health or temperament in the pursuit of a conformationally superior dog - and for the large majority of breeds, it isn't.

What a shame that such a small percentage of breeds can give an inaccurate and misinformed perception of the wider pedigree dog world


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

I cant believe this thread is still going!! hmy:

I think I'vesaid something similar somewhere else, it might even be this thread, but I will try and say it again, those that think 'show' breeders are breeding for beauty alone are sadly disillusioned (probably by _that TV program) I breed rottweilers (or attempt to!) that are built and look the way they do so they are fit for purpose - trotting all day!! If people learnt more and the anatomy and phsyiology of the canine and its different breeds they might actually learn this!

The other comments make good reading though, lol! :wink:_


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

swarthy said:


> Explain HOW - you are making a very generic statement - you have such an intricate knowledge of ALL breeds, their health requirements and the breed standards and can make this statement with 100% certainty? I suspect not.


Err..I explained above - I did not say 100%... why did you feel the need to say that? - I did not say I had an intricate knowledge, just that I'd read a lot of the breed standards (they're not very long) and couldn't find one. Please don't join in the little group that accuse me of saying things I didn't say then getting upset about it.

- I still can't find one (I'd really like to think there is at least one)... how about a statement from the KC to override the breed standard and say something like "but none of this should be at the expense of the dog's health"?


----------



## dumfriesdoods (Sep 2, 2011)

I think what people sometimes forget is that if you are breeding a litter of pups it takes a lot of your time and expense, re health test, then there the feeding, vaccs and microchipping of pups.

I am a "hobby" breeder, it takes a lot of time and energy to look after them and make sure mum and pups get the best care possible.

I've only bred 3 litters so far but i know that the 1st was extremely labour intensive, i worried myself sick about mum and babies for the 1st 4 weeks, now i'm more confident it's a little easier.

Touch wood i've not had any excessive medical bills for any of our pups or dogs. There is a profit but not as much as people would like to think, if you were to add up the time spent over the 8 weeks looking after them and times that even by the minimum wage then there's not much left afterwards.

Our dogs and pups live in the house, for the 1st 2 weeks minimum i sleep on the couch and devote 90% of my time to them and mum, i buy extra food for mum, pay for scans, get her checked at the vet at least once before pups are born and then after they are I supplement their early feeds with formula to give mum a break.

I'm not a show breeder and in this litter we had 7 pups 3 gold 4 black, i have homes for 4/5 which means that potentially i will break even or lose money if the other 2 don't go for the price they are meant to.

Or i may just have to keep them :001_tt1::001_tt1:not such a bad thing as they are yummy!!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Call me thick but isn't it a case for some breeds that the genetic pool has already shrunk past a maintainable level but due to "standards" breeders refuse to outcross as it would "destroy the breed traits". Compromises in some cases need to be done to ensure health for some breeds for future generations.

I know you can use certain breeds to highlight where things have worked for the moment but the name "pedigree" isn't just those breeds.. When talking about pedigree as a whole and the prices charged, if health isn't seen as being the primary drive what will be ?



> What a shame that such a small percentage of breeds can give an inaccurate and misinformed perception of the wider pedigree dog world


It is only natural when "pedigree" is touted as the be all and end all that the failures of the system are highlighted. I think there is, on this forum, a lot of common ground in terms of thinking but this is often hidden behind a veneer of defensiveness for whichever perceived "side" you are on.


----------



## dumfriesdoods (Sep 2, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Call me thick but isn't it a case for some breeds that the genetic pool has already shrunk past a maintainable level but due to "standards" breeders refuse to outcross as it would "destroy the breed traits". Compromises in some cases need to be done to ensure health for some breeds for future generations.
> 
> I know you can use certain breeds to highlight where things have worked for moment but the name "pedigree" isn't just those breeds.. When talking about pedigree as a whole and the prices charged, if health isn't seen as being the primary drive what will be ?
> 
> It is only natural when "pedigree" is touted as the be all and end all that the failures of the system are highlighted. I think there is, on this forum, a lot of common ground in terms of thinking but this is often hidden behind a veneer of defensiveness for whichever perceived "side" you are on.


I've nothing to add really other than what you've just said seems to me to make loads of sense. We are all meant to love our animals unconditionally, surely they should be the priority here???


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Err..I explained above - I did not say 100%... why did you feel the need to say that? - I did not say I had an intricate knowledge, just that I'd read a lot of the breed standards (they're not very long) and couldn't find one. Please don't join in the little group that accuse me of saying things I didn't say then getting upset about it.
> 
> - I still can't find one (I'd really like to think there is at least one)... how about a statement from the KC to override the breed standard and say something like "but none of this should be at the expense of the dog's health"?





Elmo the Bear said:


> Diversity is a key I agree - but at the moment, health is sacrificed for another trait in order to meet the breed standard.
> 
> What has to happen is that practice has to stop; health has to be number one but not the only one.... diversity is not something I've said shouldn't happen (the restriction of diversity for traits is the underlying basis of eugenics or 'breeding to type'). My point is you should not breed in traits (deliberately) that affect health as if health is your number 1 priority, you look to ensure that as much as possible.


So you didn't actually say this then?   where in there does it say - NOT ALL? 

Breed Standards - taken from the KC website and above EVERY breed standard listed

_*A Breed Standard is the guideline which describes the ideal characteristics, temperament and appearance of a breed and ensures that the breed is fit for function. Absolute soundness is essential. *

*Breeders and judges should at all times be careful to avoid obvious conditions or exaggerations which would be detrimental in any way to the health, welfare or soundness of this breed.* From time to time certain conditions or exaggerations may be considered to have the potential to affect dogs in some breeds adversely, and judges and breeders are requested to refer to the Kennel Club website for details of any such current issues. If a feature or quality is desirable it should only be present in the right measure._

Labrador - general appearance

Strongly built, short-coupled, *very active*; broad in skull; broad and deep through chest and ribs; broad and strong over loins and hindquarters.

"Very active" and "joint problems" don't exactly correlate - so no sacrifice there for starters

Characteristics
Good-tempered, very agile (which precludes excessive body weight or excessive substance). Excellent nose, soft mouth; keen love of water. Adaptable, devoted companion.

Oooh - excess weight shouldn't be a factor - another factor directly related to health

*Temperament*
Intelligent, keen and biddable, with a strong will to please. Kindly nature, with no trace of aggression or undue shyness

PARAMOUNT - without question and should be considered first and foremost.

Body
Chest of good width and depth, with well sprung barrel ribs - this effect not to be produced by carrying excessive weight. Level topline. Loins wide, short-coupled and strong.

Ooops - body again and that ol chestnut about weight - but of course, not health related at all

*Gait/Movement*
Free, covering adequate ground; straight and true in front and rear.

If the dog has exagerations or is unfit - then they won't be able to do this - but of course, not related to health at all 

*Coat*
Distinctive feature, short dense without wave or feathering, giving fairly hard feel to the touch; weather-resistant undercoat.

Again - relevant to health - because without it - they could struggle to do the job for which they were bred - or could suffer adverse health effects as a result of doing it

*Note*
Male animals should have two apparently normal testicles fully descended into the scrotum.

Not related to health at all is it - as I understand the reasoning behind most testicular failure to descend is genetic 

*Faults*
_Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog, and on the dogs ability to perform its traditional work._

=======================================

Just because it doesn't say you must test your breeding dogs annually to ensure they are not suffering sight impairments doesn't mean the breed standard doesn't refer to it - if they are sight impaired - then they will be incapable of doing the job for which they were bred.

It doesn't say they should be hipscored - but the still need to be fit for function and the best way to ensure this is to hipscore them.

The ABS covers the health tests required for a breed - which in labs are eye certificates and hips with strong recommendations around elbows and PRA testing - that doesn't mean that is the minimum you should do though - and many ABS and Non ABS members use all the tests and more.

===================================

GSD Breed standard - SAME Statement at top

*Characteristics*
Versatile working dog, balanced and free from exaggeration. Attentive, alert, resilient and tireless with keen scenting ability.

This is a breed around which there has been much controversy - and believe me when I say both the breed clubs, breeders and KC have been to hell and back along the way around the issues of retaining CC status for the breed from next year -

This will inevitably see a shift in the breed which, contrary to popular belief doesn't appear to have a major problem with hips and elbows - therefore the problem clearly arises from different elements of a dogs physiology affecting their gait which with my limited knowledge of a breed I once knew the ins and outs of, I would put down to the roached shape of their back - a feature which I personally find aesthetically displeasing - and one of the many (but not only) reasons I opted for a different breed when we got our oldest after a gap of some 18 years without a dog.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

swarthy said:


> So you didn't actually say this then?   where in there does it say - NOT ALL?


Pedantry? So I have to caveat everything now - you're right, I didn't say not all (although I'm not 100% sure to which you are referring) but then I didn't say "all".

But I guess it's another diversion from the point 

And then you quote from a breed standard and caveat by saying "just because it doesn't say you have to ..." You're right, it doesn't say you have to and infers that judges have some gift to be able to spot illness. Why not just say on the breed standard "nothing within this standard should in anyway have a detrimental effect on the dog's health"

"Health tests required"?... fantastic... so you can't register a litter without the tests... that's one of the keys. I am genuinely pleased they've finally changed it.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Goblin said:


> It is only natural when "pedigree" is touted as the be all and end all that the failures of the system are highlighted. I think there is, on this forum, a lot of common ground in terms of thinking but this is often hidden behind a veneer of defensiveness for whichever perceived "side" you are on.


I don't think there are many on here (talking pedigree breeds now - not cross breeds) who herald KC registration as the be all and the end all.

It is however one of the KEY elements that contributes towards being a good breeder - along with consideration of health, temperament, conformation and having the instincts (where applicable) to show potential for the job for which they were bred.

If you aim for the remaining points, particularly if the dog is KC registered itself - what possible motive could there be for not registering the pups - sadly predominantly negative ones 

No-one is hiding behind a veneer of defensiveness, a comment which I personally find quite offensive - I have NEVER undermined the value of any dog to it's owner, pedigree, cross breed, ethically bred or otherwise - I may question the ethics of the people producing these dogs, and the lack of research that leads these owners to buy them in the first place - but never the dog itself - which once here has as much right to a long and healthy life in a loving forever home just as much as the next potential Crufts BIS and everything inbetween.

Few of us are denying there are a HANDFUL of ethical cross-breeders - we may not understand the motives or logic of what they are doing - but we recognise they do exist but are difficult to find.

Few of us deny there are pedigree breeds with issues - we know there is - and in some instances, great strides have been taken to try and work through these issues - this however will take time, during which, a moratorium on breeding is not going to be the answer.

YES - there are gene pools in trouble, and there is a scheme now whereby if unregistered dogs go through a VERY stringent process which includes two CH show judges, they may be registered - this will be shown on their records for three generations of progeny - but may be able to help some breeds from becoming extinct.

YES - in a small number of incidences, there has been an agreement to allow 'type' crosses to be registered with the KC where there is a proven belief that it could prevent or erode a genetic condition.

Neither of the above guarantee however that we won't see new genetic problems emerging as a result, just as those who herald the hybrid vigour theory for first generation crosses - when in fact - this is only true where there is no commonality of conditions between the two breeds, and where genes are recessive for those conditions where they are not.

I think in the main, the ethical and potential ethical breeder members on this site do have a more open mind and recognition that the pedigree dog world isn't without it's issues - regardless of what anyone believes, breed specific problems are in the minority -

Interestingly, I am led to understand that some breeds with very small gene pools suffer less health problems than some of the larger gene pools - work that one out as it contradicts all the spouted theories of tight line-breeding.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Pedantry? So I have to caveat everything now - you're right, I didn't say not all (although I'm not 100% sure to which you are referring) but then I didn't say "all".
> 
> But I guess it's another diversion from the point
> 
> And then you quote from a breed standard and caveat by saying "just because it doesn't say you have to ..." You're right, it doesn't say you have to and infers that judges have some gift to be able to spot illness. Why not just say on the breed standard "nothing within this standard should in anyway have a detrimental effect on the dog's health"


It's nothing to do with being a pedant - it's the interpretation of the written word - the ommission of 'some' translates in the written word to imply 'ALL' - it may not do in a face to face conversation where you one can interpret body language to support what someone is saying - but the written word doesn't have that luxury, therefore what you write is, for the majority, how it will be interpreted.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

swarthy said:


> It's nothing to do with being a pedant - it's the interpretation of the written word - the ommission of 'some' translates in the written word to imply 'ALL' - it may not do in a face to face conversation where you one can interpret body language to support what someone is saying - but the written word doesn't have that luxury, therefore what you write is, for the majority, how it will be interpreted.


So a breeder sees your breed standard and interprets it completely different to you as it does not specifically state health requirements, simply hints at them.

Incidentally, the omission of 'some' does not imply 'all'; in the absence of a statement of fact conclusions drawn can vary to suit the reader.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> It's clear that I'm likely to get the same answers I always get.


Have you never thought that it may be because people are trying to tell you the truth?



Elmo the Bear said:


> I've got the very special weaver on ignore


No you haven't or you wouldn't know I had posted 



Elmo the Bear said:


> Err..I explained above - I did not say 100%... why did you feel the need to say that? - I did not say I had an intricate knowledge, just that I'd read a lot of the breed standards (they're not very long) and couldn't find one.





Elmo the Bear said:


> I still can't find one (I'd really like to think there is at least one)... how about a statement from the KC to override the breed standard and say something like "but none of this should be at the expense of the dog's health"?


How very strange that with all your self-proclaimed knowledge you are not able to find this in any breed standard - because as this link Breed Information Centre from the Kennel Club shows, at the beginning of EACH AND EVERY breed standard is the following statement from the KC:

_Breed Standard
Last updated March 1994

A Breed Standard is the guideline which describes the ideal characteristics, temperament and appearance of a breed and ensures that the breed is fit for function. Absolute soundness is essential. Breeders and judges should at all times be careful to avoid obvious conditions or exaggerations which would be detrimental in any way to the health, welfare or soundness of this breed. From time to time certain conditions or exaggerations may be considered to have the potential to affect dogs in some breeds adversely, and judges and breeders are requested to refer to the Breed Watch section of the Kennel Club website here The Kennel Club for details of any such current issues. If a feature or quality is desirable it should only be present in the right measure. _

This particular one is from the border collie breed standard, but just type in any breed, click on the link, choose "breed standard" from the box on the right hand side, and there it is every time.

Perhaps, Elmo, if you actually listened to what people with more knowledge than yourself told you, you may actually learn something.

You wrote this on another thread:



Elmo the Bear said:


> I agree, if people don't like someone's opinion then they are free to disagree or ignore; but when that opinion is stated as a fact with the intention of deliberately misleading, there is a clear problem.


This business about wanting the KC to put a statement on the breed standards is a perferct illustration of your mastery of doing exactly what you stated. Perhaps, if you practised what you preached, people may take a little more notice of you.

And will someone please copy this post and comment on it otherwise, in an attempt to avoid answering why he was so wrong, Elmo will pretend he hasn't seen it because he's got me on ignore.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Have you never thought that it may be because people are trying to tell you the truth?
> 
> No you haven't or you wouldn't know I had posted
> 
> ...


Copied!!!!!:wink::wink:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Fantastic and thank you - its a shame it hasn't worked though.

Soundness and obvious conditions are not health requirements and judges are not qualified to make that decision anyway. I really don't care if basketweaver doesn't agree with me...and if she wants to criticize me for caring about the health of dogs is not an issue.... my only worry is if too many people agree with her the health of dogs will continue to decline... 

... your method hasn't worked... time for a change (but I'm sure you'll cling on as long as you can)


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Oks, I havent been back and read every single post on here but I get the gist of whats goin on now - I think, lol!

In my own simple wording - Breed Standards are a BASIC outline of what a breed should look like, move like and an outline of temperament. A BASIC BLUEPRINT is what I would call them. For myself, owning the breed I do, I choose to attend Rottweiler Breed Seminars and read up on the breed from excellent books written by experts in the breed to further and deepen my knowledge on my breed. This is what the KC hope people who want to show/breed will do. 

A breed seminar includes a talk about the breed standard, which will be dissected and discussed in closer detail, about how to interpret the wording of it and how to apply this in the real world. For instance, I know the breed standard calls for a 'well-laid back shoulder', but until I looked up in an Anatomy book and then asked my mentor to explain and show me on examples of dogs, I couldnt begin to tell you what it was - so therefore how could I know whether my own dog - destined for breeding from - had the correct conformation? I also had to learn why the rottweiler needs a well laid back shoulder and to what purpose it served re the main thing its bred for - to be an 'endurance trotter' - a solid working dog. 

Thats just one example, there are all the points of a dog to consider, across the breeds, never mind bring the temperament and character into it - which are just as important in my eyes.

There will never be a complete blanket of 'perfect' KC/Show?Working breeders, unless extremyl stringent LAWS are brought in which to me, would take all the fun out of dog ownership/breeding as it would like a Communist society and I believe in 'Freedom Of Choice'.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> This particular one is from the border collie breed standard


Yet there is an hereditary disease that is only showing up in show collies.



> Neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (NCL) is a rare but serious disease that is limited to show Border Collies. NCL results in severe neurological impairment and early death; afflicted dogs rarely survive beyond two years of age. The mutation causing the form of the disease found in Border Collies was identified by Scott Melville in the laboratory of Dr. Alan Wilton of the School of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, University of New South Wales.[22] There is no treatment or cure, but a DNA test is now available to detect carriers as well as affected dogs.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> There will never be a complete blanket of 'perfect' KC/Show?Working breeders, unless extremyl stringent LAWS are brought in which to me, would take all the fun out of dog ownership/breeding as it would like a Communist society and I believe in 'Freedom Of Choice'.


It's kind of like saying to the owner of a pet dog whose friend has a pet bitch, please don't breed them. There's too many dogs already and yours may have health and temperament problems and they'll probably end up in rescue.

I'd be saying to the pedigree owners, please don't breed unhealthy dogs, there's too many of them already and the dogs suffer.

Dismissing health because of gene pools and that you can't guarantee it 100% anyway I think is cruel to the sick dogs that are being bred deliberately and you'll never convince me otherwise. 

Anyway Ceearott, I read you saying somewhere else that you wouldn't breed an extreme just to please the judges, so you're on my Christmas card list.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Fantastic and thank you - its a shame it hasn't worked though.
> 
> Soundness and obvious conditions are not health requirements and judges are not qualified to make that decision anyway. I really don't care if basketweaver doesn't agree with me...and if she wants to criticize me for caring about the health of dogs is not an issue.... my only worry is if too many people agree with her the health of dogs will continue to decline...
> 
> ... your method hasn't worked... time for a change (but I'm sure you'll cling on as long as you can)


Soundness how?? soundness of temperament? soundness of movement?? soundness of character???

If a dog has HD or ED it will not move correctly, meaning it is not conformed correctly, therefore would not be in the showring nor used for breeding anyway in a decent owners home anyway.

You'd be surprised at just how many judges can and do know what healthy dogs look like mate - I can tell from 100 yards away whether a rottie is well-bred or not and if it has HD/ED problems - it aint rocket science!!


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Elles said:


> It's kind of like saying to the owner of a pet dog whose friend has a pet bitch, please don't breed them. There's too many dogs already and yours may have health and temperament problems and they'll probably end up in rescue.
> 
> I'd be saying to the pedigree owners, please don't breed unhealthy dogs, there's too many of them already and the dogs suffer.
> 
> ...




No, I fecking wouldnt, lol!! I am lucky though, in that my breed is relatively healthy and sound compared to some. We have our problems though, I aint denying that, and many are working hard to do something about it, as many have in the past and many more will continue to do in the future - I hope!!


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Could someone post a break down of the cost of having a litter please?

As someone who knows feck all about breeding I am struggling to see how profit is not made (complications etc aside).


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Fantastic and thank you - its a shame it hasn't worked though.


Only in your opinion - which once again you are trying to present as fact.



Elmo the Bear said:


> I really don't care if basketweaver doesn't agree with me...


:lol: :lol: :lol: Typical - resorting to name calling because you have been proved wrong yet again and so have no other form of redress. How pathetic :lol: :lol: :lol:

The fact is you pretended you had read a lot of breed standards and that there was no statement from the KC about health. You presented this as a fact. You were wrong. It was untrue. The exact opposite was true. You have shown your true colours to everyone on the forum.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> Yet there is an hereditary disease that is only showing up in show collies.


I'm not sure what you are trying to say here - your tone makes it sound as if you think this is a problem linked to the breed standards? 

These diseases have always been there; it's just that no-one knew what they were. The owners of border collies unfortunate enough to suffer from them would have been saying things like, "don't know what it was, and the vet did all the tests but couldn't find out what it was". The fact that as technology is advancing we are finding out about these diseases and developing new DNA tests to combat them is good, surely? And as they are found out, and tests become available, they will be added to the tests ethical border collie breeders do to ensure their stock is safe. Surely all that is good?


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Could someone post a break down of the cost of having a litter please?
> 
> As someone who knows feck all about breeding I am struggling to see how profit is not made (complications etc aside).


Well I for one am not prepared to share my financial information, lol!!

But I will say, I had a litter of 10 pups and am actually out of pocket, and anyway, if you include the cost of campaigning a bitch in the show ring to see if she is good enough to breed from, no 'hobby' breeder like myself will ever hit the profit margin. Its not about the money for me, its about a deep love I have for the breed, a longing to breed a good enough example to be made up to Champion.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> Yet there is an hereditary disease that is only showing up in show collies.


Yet there is an hereditary disease that is only showing up in show collies.



> Neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (NCL) is a rare but serious disease that is limited to show Border Collies. NCL results in severe neurological impairment and early death; afflicted dogs rarely survive beyond two years of age. The mutation causing the form of the disease found in Border Collies was identified by Scott Melville in the laboratory of Dr. Alan Wilton of the School of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, University of New South Wales.[22] There is no treatment or cure, but a DNA test is now available to detect carriers as well as affected dogs.


Could you give a lnk to the above quote please, because the quote is incorrect. This disease is not limited to show border collies. Here is a more accurate link:

http://www.caninegeneticdiseases.net/CL_site/mainCL.htm


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Ceearott said:


> Well I for one am not prepared to share my financial information, lol!!
> 
> But I will say, I had a litter of 10 pups and am actually out of pocket.


Ok so is it safe to say costs are

Stud fees
vets fees (scanning? etc)
Food/general care for mother/pups
Do breeders tend to vaccinate the pups prior to rehoming? 
Puppy packs?
short term pup insurance?

anything else? like I said I know naff all


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Border Collie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I typed Border Collie into google and the first link (that's not a paid for ad) comes up with wiki, scroll down to the health bit and there it is. 

Border Collie breed standard was used as the quote, yet the first thing about the health of show collies is an hereditary disease that's apparently only in show collies. 

Tbh, when I read it, I thought that maybe it's only showing in show collies because if a pet or working collie died from it they wouldn't know what it was, but I posted it as I thought it was ironic given the thread.

I've given myself a slapped wrist.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Ok so is it safe to say costs are
> 
> Stud fees
> vets fees (scanning? etc)
> ...


pup insurance is usually first 4 weeks free, activated on day of sale

I dont vaccinate unless pup is still with me beyond 12 weeks of age

I dont have any vet fees either as I dont scan and have never needed a vets intervention since the first litter we bred (touches wood)

extra heating/washing/tumble dryer if its a winter litter

travel costs to stud dog

for one litter, loss of wages for me as I took leave of absence for 2 weeks


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> You're making up your own arguments again. If you want to do that fine; you've lectured me that I should simply take your opinion as fact so many times now "I've told you".
> 
> You do not understand eugenics if that's what you think it is. It is not the practice of breeding for health, it is the practice of creating something that fits exactly with the subjective view of the person "creating".. the 'master race' was not based on the race for the healthiest man but on the ideal of the designer - a breed standard you could say.
> 
> ...


You have still neatly avoided answering any of the queries, make health testing mandatory to register a litter you say? So, how will that work, this is the list of tests for Labradors, including the list of tests being developed:

Current recommended tests for breeding:

Hip and Elbow x-rays and scoring by BVA panelist
BVA- Eye certificate (can only be carried out by a BVA panelist)
Prcd-GPRA DNA test also known as Optigen-PRA (Progressive Retinal Atrophy)- blood or swab test
CNM DNA test (Centronuclear Myopathy) - Swab test

Other DNA tests:

EIC (Exercise Induced Collapse) - Blood test or swab
NARC (Narcolepsy - sleeping disorder) - Blood test or swab
DM (Canine Degenerative Myelopathy - Progessive disease of the spinal cord in older dogs) - Blood or Swab
Cystinuria (also know as bladder stones)
Hyperuricosuria (Uric Acid)
MDR1 (Multidrug Resistance in Cancer)
RD/OSD (Retinal Dysplasia - Oculo Skeletal Dysplasia)
Malignant Hyperthermia (inherited disorder of skeletal muscle) - Blood or swab

DNA tests being developed:

Atypical Collapse
A second form of dwarfism
2 types of Epilepsy
Canine Epitoidal Cramping syndrome
3 types of tumours
HC
ED
A second form of GPRA

Knock yourself out, tell me how I'm supposed to use those tests and what should be mandatory 



Elles said:


> I don't quite get this?
> 
> Pick from the healthy dogs to breed from, when you've narrowed it down to healthy ones only, start to look at which would be best for the job and which would have the best temperament. Just start with health and what effect your plan is likely to have on the health of your breed. Health should be a priority imo, but that doesn't mean to the exclusion of everything else.


Can you not see how that would completely put a stranglehold on gene pools? What about the condition we discover tomorrow, and the one after that? When you say healthy, do you mean genetically clear, or carriers etc, bearing in mind some conditions are debilitating, others not so much.



Elmo the Bear said:


> *And all cross breeders are unethical... *
> 
> You may say "sweeping" but having read a large number of breed standards to look for the phrases like "must ensure health is not compromised by xxxx" or "xxxx must not affect the ability to breathe naturally / breed naturally" etc etc I can't find one.
> 
> ...


Boy that is one HUGE chip on your shoulder!



Lexiedhb said:


> Could someone post a break down of the cost of having a litter please?
> 
> As someone who knows feck all about breeding I am struggling to see how profit is not made (complications etc aside).


Swarthy posted a comprehensive list which included extra heating costs etc as (of course) you use more electricity/fuel heating and washing when you've got a litter on the ground. The costs are actually quite scary when you see them all listed! I'm rubbish at searching but hopefully Swarthy will remember or someone else will search and find it


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Ok so is it safe to say costs are
> 
> Stud fees
> vets fees (scanning? etc)
> ...


Health testing bitch before going to stud. (hip scores, DNA test and eye exam to name but a few).
Premate and herpes vaccine for the bitch before mating.
Whelping box.
(For myself) breeders insurance which is £50 a month, you have to have it for 2months before stud).
Whelping kit.
Stud fee's.
Scan.
KC reg fee's for the pups.
Chipping cost for pups.
Health test for pups (£47 each pup in my breed).
Food for pups and mum.
Puppy packs.
Vet checks on the pups once born and before they leave.

That's all I can remember off the top of my head.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> Border Collie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I typed Border Collie into google and the first link (that's not a paid for ad) comes up with wiki, scroll down to the health bit and there it is.
> 
> ...


Never believe anything you read on Wiki  - anyone can and does write anything on there - crikey, some of the rubbish spouted on here and presented as facts by certain posters could even be written there! Have a look at the link I posted for the truth about NCL

this link is excellent:

Untitled Document


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> When you say healthy, do you mean genetically clear, or carriers etc, bearing in mind some conditions are debilitating, others not so much.


I mean if the dog is subject to a possibility of hereditary disease that can be tested for, he should be tested for it and if there's any trace that may show up in the pups or further down the line he shouldn't be bred. So if he has something that putting him to a bitch that doesn't, means it's gone forever? Fine. If putting him to a bitch that doesn't have it means a pup might be a carrier and if the pup is bred without care might mean he's put to a carrier and up it pops again, he shouldn't be bred. That's that bit.

Next, all these awful dogs that are deformed, can't breathe properly, or walk properly, or suffer horrible pain in their heads because their of the shape that's been bred into them. Gone. All of them. Never bred ever. I don't care if it means the end of a breed, total annihilation. It might sound terribly strong, but I do feel strongly about it.

I like a particular breed, it's cute and cuddly and friendly and I would like one, but when I read of the horrible suffering it might be subjected to because of the way it was bred, I bought a happy, hairy, border collie instead. She may not be healthy all her life, something may come up, but I couldn't buy a puppy and be constantly looking for signs that it has some horrible disorder that is in the breed and can't be tested for. 

I really don't see why there can't be more out-crossing and less purity if that would mean healthier dogs. Hey ho. :smile5:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elles said:


> I mean if the dog is subject to a possibility of hereditary disease that can be tested for, he should be tested for it and if there's any trace that may show up in the pups or further down the line he shouldn't be bred. So if he has something that putting him to a bitch that doesn't, means it's gone forever? Fine. If putting him to a bitch that doesn't have it means a pup might be a carrier and if the pup is bred without care might mean he's put to a carrier and up it pops again, he shouldn't be bred. That's that bit.
> 
> Next, all these awful dogs that are deformed, can't breathe properly, or walk properly, or suffer horrible pain in their heads because their of the shape that's been bred into them. Gone. All of them. Never bred ever. I don't care if it means the end of a breed, total annihilation. It might sound terribly strong, but I do feel strongly about it.
> 
> ...


Ok, if you look at the list of health tests I posted for Labs, quite a lot of those problems are not only hereditary, but they are problems within a number of breeds. Take hereditary cateracts as an example, listed as HC, this is believed to be quite a widespread condition within Labs, and the mode of inheritence is apparently difficult to breed clear from. I have to read and re-read the mode of inheritance bumpf every time because that sort of info just doesn't stick in my head I'm afraid, but basically, unlike PRA (progressive retinal atrophy, another eye condition) which is easy to breed clear from, HC is a little bit more complicated, I hope someone else will explain because I have to read it all again myself!!

So, taking that list into account, look at all the things that are missing on there. There are only tests for elbows and hips, nothing for any other part of the skeleton. There are other forms of cancer that aren't listed. There are other illnesses like Cushings, that aren't listed (I think from memory).

As much as it's a lovely thought, it just isn't possible to have a dog that isn't prone to illness. Like with humans, it is just a matter of time, and as good a management as we can undertake to try and breed clear from debilitating illnesses, but we may have to accept that isn't always possible.

For example, PRA affected dogs, rarely develop blindness within their lifetime, and yet it's still accepted practise to breed clear of this condition, because it's simply easy to. However, since the test came out, dogs have been discarded because of their carrier status (ie they will never develop the condition and used with appropriate bitches will never produce affected offspring) which is, imo a great shame as some of these dogs are cracking examples of the breed in every other way. So, already, the gene pool is being diminished, and with 24 health tests some of which are still in development, I can't honestly see how it is going to be possible to breed clear for every single one of those conditions. So do we simply stop breeding?


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

And many of these so-called genetic diseases are much more complicated than simple genetics................................................:wink:


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Enviroment, vaccinations, nutrition, exercise all play a part.

for instance who would guess that HD occured more in a litter born in the winter than in the summer - it was mooted that this could be related to the sunshine vitamin D.


----------



## Kazastan (Sep 2, 2011)

Blitz said:


> But you dont show your dogs and I am sure you have said in the past you dont breed either, so what is the relevance. And of course you do not eat them, dogs in this country are not bred for food. I dont understand the relevance of that either.
> 
> What has the costs of your hobby got to do with breeding. You have been showing but have not bred a litter for 20 years - so your showing costs have no relevance do they.


Wind your neck in and stop being so rude to people

The Thread title is 'Do show breeders make profit on litters'

I answered the question in my first paragraph.

_Some show breeders obvoiusly make a lot of money, this may not always be from the volume of litters they have but they can command a good price for having spent 30 years plus producing consistanly good. In reality we know there are all sorts in the show world, good and bad._

There are a lot of replies not relevant per se

By post 10 the cost of showing was mentioned, post 11 the cost of fuel was mentioned

The fact I have not bred a litter for so long is a point to prove that not everybody who shows and breeds feels the need to breed excessivley/unnecessarily to support a show habit.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Kazastan said:


> Wind your neck in and stop being so rude to people
> 
> The Thread title is 'Do show breeders make profit on litters'
> 
> ...


You wasting ya time their hun, Blitz only posts to be deliberately obtuse and refuses to listen to reason - save ya fingers!! LOL!!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> Enviroment, vaccinations, nutrition, exercise all play a part.
> 
> for instance who would guess that HD occured more in a litter born in the winter than in the summer - it was mooted that this could be related to the sunshine vitamin D.


Exactly, as far as I'm concerned it just can't be black and white, there are so many different facets to breeding and health testing is just one part of that. The way health tests work is just so complicated, it can't simply be a 'test' for everything approach, certainly not looking at the list for Labs, where there are some tests that are more than a little contentious. Mix that with the fact that tests aren't reliant 100% on inheritability, and could be exacerbated by environmental factors and it really starts to get confusing!! 

And that's without looking at the other sides, temperament, ability, conformation!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Okay, to the OP, now I've had my uneducated, pet owner rant, from somewhere in Utopia.  

No, I don't think most of them do it for the money. I think they would do it to hope to get a pup from an amazing bitch that can become top dog, for the prestige and that they enjoy showing. If they do manage to make a couple of bob too, that's just a bonus.

I think evil people who have a ton of dogs in kennels and breed continuously do it for the money and make a lot of money from it too and some of those might even show a couple of their dogs, despite the state of the rest. 

I think if you do manage to breed a top dog, can stand him at stud and gain sponsorship from pet food people etc., you can probably give up work and concentrate on dogs, but I wouldn't think that's all that common.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elles said:


> Okay, to the OP, now I've had my uneducated, pet owner rant, from somewhere in Utopia.
> 
> No, I don't think most of them do it for the money. I think they would do it to hope to get a pup from an amazing bitch that can become top dog, for the prestige and that they enjoy showing. If they do manage to make a couple of bob too, that's just a bonus.
> 
> ...


Do you know, I've really enjoyed your posts, and I don't care if you think you're posting from Utopia, it's actually a pretty wideheld belief that we should be ONLY breeding 100% healthy dogs, the same as the belief that cross breeds are guaranteed to be healthier. So it's great to be able to respond and debate the reasons why that isn't always the case, but it is also good to see that people really care about the health side of things, makes a refreshing change tbh


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Elles said:


> Okay, to the OP, now I've had my uneducated, pet owner rant, from somewhere in Utopia.
> 
> No, I don't think most of them do it for the money. I think they would do it to hope to get a pup from an amazing bitch that can become top dog, for the prestige and that they enjoy showing. If they do manage to make a couple of bob too, that's just a bonus.
> 
> ...




You see, thats anothe myth hun!! Top dogs dont get sponsored at all, simply recieve free advertsiing from the food manafacturers as in photos on the dog press etc, thats all, and maybe a free sack of food, fleece jacket or two, show bag, car stickers etc, but that about it. The UK has yet to catch up with the US in that respect - and TBH I hope we never do, lol!


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Ceearott said:


> pup insurance is usually first 4 weeks free, activated on day of sale
> 
> I dont vaccinate unless pup is still with me beyond 12 weeks of age
> 
> ...


I started writing out a whole lengthy post on this - but am fast losing the will to live TBH - some people simply have no idea and even when they hear or see it, many choose to ignore it  I am called a pedant by a pedant  so much for a lazy peaceful Sunday 

Can't one of the mods make one of the breeding cost threads a sticky so it can easily be referred to (apologies if there is one already)

All in all - you are looking in the region of around £1,500 to £2,000 to get a Lab bitch into whelp if you have done all the required and recommended health tests (and no, this *doesn't *include day to day costs, showing or insurance costs)

Then of course she may not catch, in which case, whilst you are unlikely to incur an additional stud fee, you still have the costs of revisiting.

There are so many hidden costs as well -

First stud dog 14 hours away, usually two visits, but I was lucky to be able to stay over on that occasion, otherwise it would have meant external accommodation - my third stud dog was a good 8 round trip - TWICE.

My second stud dog was local - just a 4 hour round trip, twice  (even that is around £60 in fuel - and I actually go to this location to get my dogs hips and elbows done)

Including fuel - an 800 mile round trip and often accommodation is far from cheap with diesel sitting at around £6 a gallon 

============================

At this point, you don't even know whether your bitch is in whelp or not - we worked out we spend not far off £100 a week raising a litter of 6 to 8 pups, plus an uplift of £700 on my quarterly gas & electric bills for constant heating, heat lamps and the washing machine and tumble dryer 24x7.

That's around £1500 for an average litter.

All this is without registration, worming, microchipping - vaccinations if the pups are here after 8 weeks - on my last litter nothing 'went wrong' per se - but I still encountered around £700 in vets bills directly related to mum and the pups.

This is without loss of earnings - although working from home, twice I've whelped a litter, showered and been back at my desk within an hour of finishing - with the litter very neatly in front of me where I can keep a discrete eye on them.

=================================

Bear in mind - puppy prices are usually set long before the babies are a twinkle in daddy's eye - and remain the same whether the bitch has 12 pups or 2 (I say two - because often if there is one, it will often be a keeper and therefore no pups sold).

Food costs will be relative to the size of the litter as will registration, worming and microchipping - but pretty much the same amount of heating and washing is required regardless of whether this is one or 10 pups.

======================================

If someone is fortunate enough to own a rare breed whereby demand is high and supply low - and the breed has no health test requirements, then yes, of course there will be money to be made - but in most mainstream breeds - no there won't - and don't forget - I am talking about Labs - there will be many smaller breeds where health testing costs are high, and stud fees even higher - and average litter sizes much smaller.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

swarthy said:


> I started writing out a whole lengthy post on this - but am fast losing the will to live TBH - some people simply have no idea and even when they hear or see it, many choose to ignore it  I am called a pedant by a pedant  so much for a lazy peaceful Sunday
> 
> Can't one of the mods make one of the breeding cost threads a sticky so it can easily be referred to (apologies if there is one already is)
> 
> ...


O lost the will to continue further too, lol!! You are right in the above post though, its an expensive hobby we lot have, thats for sure


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Ah, I always thought the old 'top breeders recommend it' with flashing lights and the Crufts winner, meant they were paid for it. I would also expect top breeders to be paid for wearing logos. 

So instead it was unpaid advertising for unethical, money grabbing, pet food manufacturers, who nowadays sit on their high horse, condemning show breeders, as though they're the ethical ones? 

Blimey.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Elles said:


> Ah, I always thought the old 'top breeders recommend it' with flashing lights and the Crufts winner, meant they were paid for it. I would also expect top breeders to be paid for wearing logos.
> 
> So instead it was unpaid advertising for unethical, money grabbing, pet food manufacturers, who nowadays sit on their high horse, condemning show breeders, as though they're the ethical ones?
> 
> Blimey.


Correctomundo!!

Even Best In Show at Crufts only wins £100. - I am right in saying that arent I??


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Elles said:


> Ah, I always thought the old 'top breeders recommend it' with flashing lights and the Crufts winner, meant they were paid for it. I would also expect top breeders to be paid for wearing logos.
> 
> So instead it was unpaid advertising for unethical, money grabbing, pet food manufacturers, who nowadays sit on their high horse, condemning show breeders, as though they're the ethical ones?
> 
> Blimey.


LMAO - invariably - those logo tops are BOUGHT.

Sometimes, a food manufacturer will sponsor a show - this seems to happen quite often at Breed club, Limit and Companion shows (seldom to my knowledge General CH shows) - which means the class winners get a free bag of food - but that's often breed specific food and good marketing for the company - at a breed club show for Labs could mean around 1 in every 20 dogs gets a bag.

Often you can pick up discounted offers at shows for food and canine supplements (and many such as Dorwest and Yumega have discount clubs which *anyone* can join),

Many dog food companies have breeder schemes - where food is cheaper (and usually minimum order quantities are high) - so there is a small benefit there - but of course, we are a captive audience and generally tend to have more dogs.

SOME food manufacturers still provide a free bag of food for mum and the pups and a free bag for each new owner, in return for the new owners contact details - but even this is declining with many companies now charging for the food and sending money off vouchers to the new owners instead.

The KC Insurance do give the breeder the cost of the registration fee back if an owner takes out KC insurance after the free period has expired but you have to actively CLAIM the money back - it's not automatic - in three litters it's happened to me twice, and TBH - I've not bothered.

=====================================

ETA I've been showing for around 7 years now, and won around £100 in total for a few Best Puppy, Reserve best puppy and Best bitch in show - all of which I've paid to enter and the winnings have never covered the entry fees - the rest has been won in stakes classes, again which I've paid to enter.

My friend and I entered a CH Show in Scotland with three dogs, all in all it cost us several hundred pounds to enter between us - for a piece of card and a possible crufts qualification.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

swarthy said:


> LMAO - invariably - those logo tops are BOUGHT.
> 
> Sometimes, a food manufacturer will sponsor a show - this seems to happen quite often at Breed club, Limit and Companion shows (seldom to my knowledge General CH shows) - which means the class winners get a free bag of food - but that's often breed specific food and good marketing for the company - at a breed club show for Labs could mean around 1 in every 20 dogs gets a bag.
> 
> ...


Swarthy - how do you claim it back - I did this insurance and wonder how I can find out who has continued it and how to claim??


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Ceearott said:


> Swarthy - how do you claim it back - I did this insurance and wonder how I can find out who has continued it and how to claim??


Oooh heck - I've got a letter here somewhere - will try and dig it out for you - I remember thinking ooooh - that's nice and then putting it to one side and had genuinely forgotten all about it until the recent points around sponsorship arose on this thread - as the pups are TWO this month and the other THREE the month after - do you think I've missed the boat on reclaiming my £24  :lol:


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

swarthy said:


> Oooh heck - I've got a letter here somewhere - will try and dig it out for you - I remember thinking ooooh - that's nice and then putting it to one side and had genuinely forgotten all about it until the recent points around sponsorship arose on this thread - as the pups are TWO this month and the other THREE the month after - do you think I've missed the boat on reclaiming my £24  :lol:


cheers!! LOL ! yeah, bet there is a time limit, lol!!


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2011)

Think there seems to be a mis-conception out there that show breeders are loaded...up until 2 years ago I thought so too until I went to Blackpool dog show and got talking to many breeders there who all said that they were skint after travel costs, entry costs and even car park costs. It soon became apparent that ALL money was spent on going to shows and making their car/van dog-compatible. 

Got chatting to a few folk yesterday at the champ show who all brought their own lunch because the cost of eating at shows is just ridiculous. 

Seen so many breeders/show folk with some 3-6 dogs entered at champ shows, the cost in entry fee's alone would be enough to make any non-dog folk cry.

But tbh to see how happy the dogs are at shows, how much they enjoy it and enjoy the attention is reward enough imo.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Seen so many breeders/show folk with some 3-6 dogs entered at champ shows, the cost in entry fee's alone would be enough to make any non-dog folk cry.
> 
> But tbh to see how happy the dogs are at shows, how much they enjoy it and enjoy the attention is reward enough imo.


The entry costs are ridiculous - and you end up having to make difficult decisions on which dog(s) you should enter - and then invariably - bitches come into season, either sex can drop their coat etc etc - and then so often you get there and realise you've picked the wrong class or the wrong judge

Paignton cost me £100 for 3 dogs, 2 in 2 classes and 1 in one - not to mention the fuel costs (around £50 for us) plus of course the hidden wear and tear on a car that's already got 172K miles on the clock 

We tend to resort more and more to car sharing for long distance shows, or taking friends dogs to have enough dogs to justify the costs and obviously it helps share the travel costs

The diminishing entry numbers across many of the CH shows are indicative of how people are cutting back - typical Lab entries in some shows have *dropped* by around 100 to 150 dogs - with only really the breed club shows pretty much holding their numbers 

When I started showing, it wasn't unusual to be in classes of 30 to 40 dogs at CH shows - with a few exceptions, numbers now tend to be in the 10s and 20's and sometimes less than that 

Birmingham had a good entry for Labs today (still waiting for results) - I am sure the central location was a key factor in that because it's a reasonable distance travel for the majority wherever they live in the UK


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

If you want a hobby thats going to bring in a defo profit, showing/breeding is not the way forward.
Often money is on offer for top placings. I mean come on I won £2 for a first at the club show :lol: - but you will find that most donate that money back to any rescue stands around


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> If you want a hobby thats going to bring in a defo profit, showing/breeding is not the way forward.
> Often money is on offer for top placings. I mean come on I won £2 for a first at the club show :lol: - but you will find that most donate that money back to any rescue stands around


now I hope you didnt waste that and spent it on a sensible purchase!!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

We don't do anywhere near as many shows as we used to - just can't afford it  We're campaigning three dogs at the moment, so that's around £75.00 per show before you even start to think about stakes classes, handling classes, travelling, feeding yourself when you can be out of the house from stupid-o-clock until nearly midnight, overnight stays for the odd show that is just too far away - the list just goes on. I reckon it costs us around £200 per show - some will be a little cheaper, some will be a little more expensive, depending on how far away they are. We are trying to limit ourselves to 1 show a month - but that's nearly 2.5K (even if we could stick to it!)

And all this to win £100 IF you win Best in Show at Crufts - ok, I admit it. We are mad, us show folk, aren't we?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Temperament? You could have the healthiest dog in the world, but if it wanted to eat anything and everything that moved, what's the point?


Though temperament is very important it would be devastating if you had a beautiful sweet natured dog that had health problems.
That's any health problems not just those that are able to be tested for.
So no, temperament does not come above health in my opinion


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> now I hope you didnt waste that and spent it on a sensible purchase!!


Brought a bag of dog treats from the rescue stand..   - clearly that was a bad purchase, could have gone abroad for a week


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

JennyClifford said:


> Though temperament is very important it would be devastating if you had a beautiful sweet natured dog that had health problems.
> That's any health problems not just those that are able to be tested for.
> So no, temperament does not come above health in my opinion


I find that offensive TBH - so you would rather see red-zone rottie males walking the streets and because they are 'healthy' that makes it ok?? because thats how I read what your are saying!!

Heres a tagline from my US breeder - says it all for me -

*bred for soundness of mind and body

Decent breeders do not seperate the two - if I had a beautiful speciman of a rottie that had no health issues but a dodgy temperament I would consider it very remmiss of me to breed from that dog!!*


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Brought a bag of dog treats from the rescue stand..   - clearly that was a bad purchase, could have gone abroad for a week


You could have - Hilton Hotel and all!!!:lol:


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> You could have - Hilton Hotel and all!!!:lol:


:lol: :lol: - I shall have to keep it in mind for next time! never know get two first at the same show, thats £4 Ill go for two weeks - you can come too :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Elles said:


> I don't quite get this?
> 
> Pick from the healthy dogs to breed from, when you've narrowed it down to healthy ones only, start to look at which would be best for the job and which would have the best temperament. Just start with health and what effect your plan is likely to have on the health of your breed. Health should be a priority imo, but that doesn't mean to the exclusion of everything else.


Agreed.
The only reason to go against this in any way is if the gene pool is so low that you have to choose from some with less than perfect heath.
You only have to look back at the Irish Setter and the Clumber Spaniel (working) to see what improvements can be made to breeds if there is a concerted effort by breeders and breed club


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Ceearott said:


> I find that offensive TBH - so you would rather see red-zone rottie males walking the streets and because they are 'healthy' that makes it ok?? because thats how I read what your are saying!!
> 
> Heres a tagline from my US breeder - says it all for me -
> 
> ...


*

Don't be silly. You are totally twisting my words*


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

JennyClifford said:


> Though temperament is very important it would be devastating if you had a beautiful sweet natured dog that had health problems.
> That's any health problems not just those that are able to be tested for.
> So no, temperament does not come above health in my opinion


I've never said that one comes above the other tbh, but I think it's naieve to think that health comes above anything, it's one consideration amongst others, because I don't think there's anything such as a 100% healthy dog. You can do all the health tests and believe your dog is healthy, breed, and then what happens when your dog fails it's eye test later on down the line, or develops epilepsy, or Cushings, or cancer of some kind? Or even after years of soundness and despite having good hip scores, suddenly develops lameness? So no, health isn't above other considerations for me, it's one consideration to make with full knowledge of health test results considered appropriate for the breed, but also acknowledging your dog has faults, and some of those faults will most likely be related to health issues possibly yet to develop.



JennyClifford said:


> Agreed.
> The only reason to go against this in any way is if the gene pool is so low that you have to choose from some with less than perfect heath.
> You only have to look back at the Irish Setter and the Clumber Spaniel (working) to see what improvements can be made to breeds if there is a concerted effort by breeders and breed club


Sorry I feel like I'm picking on you  but what do you mean by less than perfect health? Would you count a carrier for PRA as being less than healthy?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

JennyClifford said:


> Though temperament is very important it would be devastating if you had a beautiful sweet natured dog that had health problems.
> That's any health problems not just those that are able to be tested for.
> So no, temperament does not come above health in my opinion


Temperament DOES come above health - in the simplest of terms - because if you don't have temperament, you don't breed - SIMPLES

What a ridiculous thing to say - the large majority of dogs bred go to PET HOMES - temperament is paramount - without it - you wouldn't even bother health testing, never mind breeding


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2011)

Well I have just got into showing with my boy. Our first show was an open show however even that was sky high...

£5 entry for his class....£40 in fuel to get to the show.
I got in free with him but my OH and his dad who drove us all that way had to pay £15 each to get in. 
£5-£8 just to eat at the show or to get drinks. 
£4 for a schedule. 

£70 right there for an open show. 

Our first champ show was yesterday....

£27 on entry fee's. The car park was free thank god because I know at Blackpool is £10 a car.

My little brother tagged along and wanted to get some food he spent £10 on food for himself! A burger, a drink and an ice cream! I brought my own food and did pack food for him but he wanted to try van food.

£50 in fuel. £5 schedule. = £82 and thats just for 1 dog.
So entry, fuel and a schedule. 

One of my friends usually shows 4-5 of her dogs but since moneys been tight she's started bringing only 1 or 2 and switching over at different shows as to which she takes. 

It certainly isnt cheap for a "hobby".


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

swarthy said:


> Temperament DOES come above health - in the simplest of terms - because if you don't have temperament, you don't breed - SIMPLES
> 
> What a ridiculous thing to say - the large majority of dogs bred go to PET HOMES - temperament is paramount - without it - you wouldn't even bother health testing, never mind breeding


Well you can flip that around and also get the right answer


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

JennyClifford said:


> Well you can flip that around and also get the right answer


excuse me? please explain how? 

Certain health-tests cannot be done until the dog is AT LEAST 12 months old - by which time, you would have a good measure of the dogs temperament.

If you didn't feel it was suitable for breeding - you wouldn't spend an inordinate amount of money on conducting the health tests.

====================================

I am truly speechless that any pet owners now believe that health tests over-ride a dog's temperament - god help us - we wonder why dogs get such a bad press when something goes wrong and a dog attacks a child or another dog  :cursing: :cursing: because clearly some people are allowing it to happen.

You simply cannot show or work a dog who hasn't got a good temperament, and you certainly wouldn't want it living with your children - therefore is there is any risk of a behavioural issue which it was believed could be transferred to the progeny - you wouldn't waste your money going as far as health-testing.

I am at a loss to understand why someone thinks that that can be turned around the over way .


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Likewise if a dog has an iffy tempermant you wont show, or do poorly in the ring - so arent likely to go on to test, and breed


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

swarthy said:


> You simply cannot show or work a dog who hasn't got a good temperament, and you certainly wouldn't want it living with your children - therefore is there is any risk of a behavioural issue which it was believed could be transferred to the progeny - you wouldn't waste your money going as far as health-testing.


^^ That! (beat me to it!)


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2011)

Although health is one of the most important things imo its a mixture of temperament, health and ability which is the most important. 

You can have the healthiest dog in the world but its no good if it tries to attack you while your trying to put its lead on. 

I fully health test all my dogs because health is so important however temperament is everything. A faulty temperament could cost your dog its life. Or worse....your childs life.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

I wouldnt pick whats important because health, tempermant and conformation is ALL important to me! I dont want a dog thats good in one area, I want an overall good dog.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I thought temperament was mostly down to training and socialisation and some breeds of dogs are bred regardless of not being renowned for a friendly temperament? Anyway, an unhealthy dog can be aggressive because it's uncomfortable. A dog with poor conformation, will probably also be unhealthy, suffering joint problems etc.

If you're not going to breed a dog with a bad temperament, then as far as the dog is concerned its own health is very important, so its own parents should have been healthy at least. 

The dog should come first, hence breeding for health should be a priority.  Not to the exclusion of all else, but unhealthy dogs shouldn't be being bred deliberately and we all know they are. soooorrry. 

From a pet owners point of view, I want a dog that is friendly, happy and healthy, I wouldn't even look at a breed of dog that was being deliberately bred with health issues as standard, regardless of how friendly it was supposed to be, or if it had breed standard conformation. So to me, health first, then I'll look at the rest. YMMV

Someone once said, what would you choose? Health, wealth or happiness? I said 'happiness', because I wouldn't be happy if I wasn't also wealthy and healthy.  So maybe I should say don't breed dogs unless they'll be happy. :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elles said:


> I thought temperament was mostly down to training and socialisation and some breeds of dogs are bred regardless of not being renowned for a friendly temperament? Anyway, an unhealthy dog can be aggressive because it's uncomfortable. A dog with poor conformation, will probably also be unhealthy, suffering joint problems etc.
> 
> If you're not going to breed a dog with a bad temperament, then as far as the dog is concerned its own health is very important, so its own parents should have been healthy at least.
> 
> ...


Temperament issues can very much be genetic, which is why it's part of the Breed Standard, and, as has been said, any pup growing up that isn't of the right temperament, shouldn't even be considered for health testing, so you would hope they're screened out even before that point! Yes, socialisation can play a big part, but then good breeders also ensure their dogs are well socialised, poor breeders don't


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Temperament issues can very much be genetic, which is why it's part of the Breed Standard, and, as has been said, any pup growing up that isn't of the right temperament, shouldn't even be considered for health testing, so you would hope they're screened out even before that point! Yes, socialisation can play a big part, but then good breeders also ensure their dogs are well socialised, poor breeders don't


I was gonna answer, but you know what? I cant be ar$ed any more today, lol!

I will add though temperament means a lot to me and my breed, the reputation they have means I feel I have extra responsibilty to ensure my breeding stock is of solid temperament and the right homes are found for progeny, the natrual character/temperament rotties ahve does mean they are not a breed for everyone.


----------



## EmCHammer (Dec 28, 2009)

There was a programme on ages ago where they did an experiment with foxes.. 

They kept one lot of foxes with regular human contact and kindness and they became very well socialised and friendly to people etc. One lot of foxes they kept totally wild with minimal human contact and they were aggressive towards the people.

Can't remember how they did it but they swapped the fertilised eggs into the other mother, i.e the wild fox embryos were put into the tame and socialised foxes. When they were born they were exposed to humans and nurtured in the same way as the other fox cubs naturally born into the socialised group and of course would not have learnt the fear behaviour from their parents.

The socialised groups own genetic babies always turned out to have the same kind tempraments; the wild fox cubs with the same upbringing turned feral and wild and aggressive when they reached a certain age; just like their 'natural' parents.

Was a really good example of exactly how much temprament can be genetic too I was suprised at how little the nuturing environment made to them


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I thought temperament was mostly down to training and socialisation and some breeds of dogs are bred regardless of not being renowned for a friendly temperament?


No, not at all. Temperament is inherited 100%. Socialisation and training will influence how the temperament of a dog develops, but the root of it is in the breeding. All dogs have a point at which they are reactive. Socialisation and training will go some way - for instance, a dog bred from parents with poor temperaments can, with training and socialisation go on to be far less reactive and may never display the poor temperament that it's parents had, but, take the same dog and put it in a home where little training and socialisation has taken place and it's a ticking time bomb. Equally, some dogs with good temperament can have little socialisation and training and still be good tempered regardless. We often make excuses with our dogs - "they were attacked/badly treated and that's why they have a problem with men/children/other dogs etc", but equally, there are dogs of good temperament that can have all sorts of things thrown at them but still display the good temperament they were born with. I would also add that the average pet usually lives a life of familiarity and their environment rarely puts them into the situation where their levels of reactivity can be judged.

Health is important, but so is temperament - a good breeder will take both into account equally.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

EmCHammer said:


> There was a programme on ages ago where they did an experiment with foxes..
> 
> They kept one lot of foxes with regular human contact and kindness and they became very well socialised and friendly to people etc. One lot of foxes they kept totally wild with minimal human contact and they were aggressive towards the people.
> 
> ...


I've written an essay on this  but in the meantime, you've summarised it beautifully - I saw it as well, was very interesting - and a perfect example of what is inherent within the genes - and no doubt - as with anything, if the experiment was conducted over time, there would be a small number deviating from the norm - but in most instances, the status quo will remain.

As SL and others have said - temperament is in breed standards (I cannot say with confidence it is in all of them - but am guessing it probably is) - however, it certainly is for Labs - and any deviation away from that temperament is regarded as a fault.

=====================================

I do have to however include this part of my 'essay' 



Elles said:


> I A dog with poor conformation, will probably also be unhealthy, suffering joint problems etc.


 not sure where this comes from 

Whilst I believe people should breed to improve conformation, poor conformation might mean a dog is unable to correctly do the job for which it was bred - it doesn't mean it won't make a lovely family pet or that it will be unhealthy. There are some dogs very close to the breed standard, but others will have varying faults, which good breeders will work to improve in their next generation.

A cross breed cannot have a conformation - because there is no standard to measure it against.

Because a lot of cross-breeds are bred by poor breeders who don't routinely health-test their breeding dogs, the risks of health problems will be higher, it doesn't mean because they don't have a specified shape and standard that they will automatically be unhealthy

Regrettably, just as health tests such as hips and elbows are not a guarantee all progeny won't have difficulties y will be healthy - but the risks of problems are significantly reduced if the breeder has done their homework and health-tested their dogs before breeding, and gives their puppy buyers good advice on diet and exercise - just as the risk of any temperament issues will be considerably lower if both parents have good temperaments.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> I thought temperament was mostly down to training and socialisation and some breeds of dogs are bred regardless of not being renowned for a friendly temperament? Anyway, an unhealthy dog can be aggressive because it's uncomfortable. A dog with poor conformation, will probably also be unhealthy, suffering joint problems etc.
> 
> If you're not going to breed a dog with a bad temperament, then as far as the dog is concerned its own health is very important, so its own parents should have been healthy at least.
> 
> ...


And they ain't gonna be happy if they don't have a good temperament; and they aint gonna be happy if their conformation is all to post and they can't walk properly, just as they ain't gonna be happy if they are not healthy. So all three are equally important! :thumbup:


----------



## Tollisty (May 27, 2008)

Temperament and behaviours have to be genetic. It's how dogs were bred to do a job, it's why retrievers will naturally want to hold things, why collies will heard and why beagles will follow a scent!

A retriever that won't retrieve is no good to a gamekeeper, even if it has 'perfect' conformation and health test results.


----------



## Kazastan (Sep 2, 2011)

Ceearott said:


> Decent breeders do not seperate the two - if I had a beautiful speciman of a rottie that had no health issues but a dodgy temperament I would consider it very remmiss of me to breed from that dog!!


With a breed like ours people on the outside looking in make judgements.

Take my Ollie he can fire off when around certain other dogs lol I have been told that Ollies presence kicks a competitors male off too but most people in our ring are aware of which dogs are not to be crowded. High drive boys will be boys. Especially in our breed.

He has NEVER gone for a judge though and neither has either of his parents, whos temperaments are both lovely 

Bitches tend to get away with a lot more regarding behaviour, would you not agree?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Tempermant to me comes down from lines, but also from the up brining.


----------



## Kazastan (Sep 2, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Tempermant to me comes down from lines, but also from the up brining.


Even with the soundest of temperaments there, one day, may be a 'trigger' it just hasn't been found.

My eldest male Rott has one of the soundest temperaments going and has been handled in the ring by lots of different people, even a nine year old girl , however we accidentally found a trigger that changes him into a different dog.

No matter how well a dog may be brought up, something can happen that may have an effect on a dog in certain situations


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

I agree, and havent said different - just simply I feel a dogs tempermant can be affected by upbringing, and come down through lines.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

So am I reading this right it costs approx £2000 to have a litter? (I think Lab was mentioned) Things like health tests surely have to be divided over the amount of litters you have or do they have to be done before every litter?
Some chose to scan some dont, some chose a stud far away some dont, AI?

So the average cost of a pedigree pup is what? £500,??? so all you need to do is have more than 4 for a profit to be made no?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Lexiedhb said:


> So am I reading this right it costs approx £2000 to have a litter? (I think Lab was mentioned) Things like health tests surely have to be divided over the amount of litters you have or do they have to be done before every litter?
> Some chose to scan some dont, some chose a stud far away some dont, AI?
> 
> So the average cost of a pedigree pup is what? £500,??? so all you need to do is have more than 4 for a profit to be made no?


??? no - you clearly haven't read it all - there are plenty of threads on the costs of producing a litter.

- the investment in the health testing and stud dog is all done before you even get sight of a pup - and even then - they may fail at any hurdle or not get in whelp.

For my last litter I spent well over another £2K whelping and raising the pups with feeding and other associated costs and vets bills (and no C-section required).

You do the maths if you think there is a profit there on selling 5 pups - it would have been MUCH cheaper to go out a buy a pup, which is what I did last year.

Some breeds have more health tests and quite often smaller litters - some breeds don't and with big litters and no unexpected costs, then yes, they could make a profit.

Plus - pup prices don't change whether you have 1 pup or 12, associated costs such as food, microchipping, worming, KC registration will all be relative - but there's not much difference in washing and heating required which are pretty much the same regardless of litter size.

None of the above takes into consideration one off and ongoing costs around whelping kits.

I've had three litters over 5 years - and not broken even - as I've said many times, if I want money, I work, if I want a pup to run on, I have a litter - working predominantly from home, I am fortunate enough to be able to combine the two and have a partner who will support me if I need to be away for business.

If someone wants to use an oveseas dog, you can add anything up to a couple of thousand onto the cost of trying to get your bitch in whelp.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

swarthy said:


> A cross breed cannot have a conformation - because there is no standard to measure it against.


Again coming at this as an outsider.. A general good conformation surely isn't dependent upon a distinct measurement unless all you are doing is looking at a breed standard. There must be something which says good confirmation is dependent upon the basic skeletal structure, the ability to breath etc. If not, why isn't there "generic dog" conformation standard? Whilst some crossbreeds do not have this, I feel many can. A lot depends on which breeds are being bred together. There are really bad examples out there of crossbreeds which, even to my untrained eye aren't good, even terrible, however there are more than enough good examples. This is one of the reasons I feel lessons in conformation should be available, not just in terms of specific breeds but also generically. Would all crossbreeders be interested.. certainly not but some may be. Teaching what makes a good generic conformation may mean less crossbreeds which simply don't work or require C-section births. It could also be used as a baseline from which other breed specific standards could be judged against. I'm not saying you couldn't have wide variety, just a baseline which all dogs could be judged against.

As to temperament I do feel a lot is genetic. There's a reason some breeds have a certain reputation due to temperament. A Hovawart is a case in point which I know about. For crossbreeds once again it's likely to be a range between the two parents and it's very much a case in this instance of buyer beware. It doesn't mean that training and socialization can't influence the temperament and this is why, no matter what the breed, training and socialization is so important.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Again coming at this as an outsider.. A general good conformation surely isn't dependent upon a distinct measurement unless all you are doing is looking at a breed standard. There must be something which says good confirmation is dependent upon the basic skeletal structure, the ability to breath etc. If not, why isn't there "generic dog" conformation standard? Whilst some crossbreeds do not have this, I feel many can. A lot depends on which breeds are being bred together. There are really bad examples out there of crossbreeds which, even to my untrained eye aren't good, even terrible, however there are more than enough good examples. This is one of the reasons I feel lessons in conformation should be available, not just in terms of specific breeds but also generically. Would all crossbreeders be interested.. certainly not but some may be. Teaching what makes a good generic conformation may mean less crossbreeds which simply don't work or require C-section births. It could also be used as a baseline from which other breed specific standards could be judged against. I'm not saying you couldn't have wide variety, just a baseline which all dogs could be judged against.
> 
> As to temperament I do feel a lot is genetic. There's a reason some breeds have a certain reputation due to temperament. A Hovawart is a case in point which I know about. For crossbreeds once again it's likely to be a range between the two parents and it's very much a case in this instance of buyer beware. It doesn't mean that training and socialization can't influence the temperament and this is why, no matter what the breed, training and socialization is so important.


Yes, there are measurements, they're just not quoted in the breed standard, but the way a dog is built is gone into at greater level at breed clubs, who hold seminars to discuss conformation and health.

Take Labradors for example, I've never gone to a seminar, and yet I know roughly from speaking to people within the breed how the construction works. You are given a measurement from the BS for the height from the floor to shoulders, and then from the breed seminars, you can look at how a dog is built, and judge it against the standard with a good idea of the dimensionss that make up a healthy conformation. If you take a look at Swarthy's avatar, you can see straight away one of the main faults of poorly bred Labs is an upright knee, look at that Lab, and you'll see a correctly turned stifle, or knee joint, which leaves the dog less prone to knee injuries.

My bitch, Indie, had an injury to her cruciate, which was we think down to an unfortunate twist, rather than the conformation of her knee joint as much. She hasn't injured the other knee, which would also point towards this being the case. Whilst taking her to see the specialist to have her assessed, I picked his brains constantly about diet, health, conformation etc, and was surprised to find one of the most commonly injured breeds was Labradors, and specifically chocolate Labradors. Why? Because they are churned out by puppy farmers and byb's in great numbers for the pet market, and because they don't care about things like conformation, these dogs have a more upright stifle, leaving them more prone to the injury, and statistically because of the sheer volume of these dogs being bred, there are more of them injured than other breeds and even colours of the breed 

I'm not saying that the interpretation of the BS works across the board, it obviously doesn't, because some breeds have become exaggerated. But that's a small minority that people tend to jump on to try and prove that breed standards don't work and that all pedigrees are unhealthy partly because of following these guides, when that really isn't the case at all.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

swarthy said:


> ??? no - you clearly haven't read it all - there are plenty of threads on the costs of producing a litter.
> 
> - the investment in the health testing and stud dog is all done before you even get sight of a pup - and even then - they may fail at any hurdle or not get in whelp.
> 
> ...


I am not knocking anyone, - I asked for a break down, no one seems willing to give me one- to be educated -I have searched "cost of litters" I can not find posts with this info in them.

Ho hum.... this is why joe bloggs thinks people have pups for profit.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Lexiedhb said:


> I am not knocking anyone, - I asked for a break down, no one seems willing to give me one- to be educated -I have searched "cost of litters" I can not find posts with this info in them.
> 
> Ho hum.... this is why joe bloggs thinks people have pups for profit.


I know this is a topic that comes up frequently, and also, coming from Wales, the heart of puppy farming land, Swarthy regularly gets asked to justify if you like, why her pups cost 'x' amount in comparison to the breeder down the road. 

I'm [email protected] at searching for stuff too, and I can't for the life of me find the thread where all the costs were listed clearly, but it does show just how much goes into a litter. Things you don't think about, such as the increase in food for the bitch, if you want to cut corners, you feed a crap quality diet, just increase the amounts, where as good breeders not only have their dogs on a good diet, but the costs increase drastically in comparison to those who don't bother to feed a good quality food in the first place, not just for the bitch, but also when the pups are weaned. All those costs add up. Again, I've seen people advertising as commercial breeders, keep their bitches and litters on bark chippings. It's just not good enough really, that type of bedding can carry all sorts of bacteria, and I know parvo can remain in the ground for up to 3 years, and even if the pups survive and the infection is put down to a bout of diarrhoea, parvo can affect the growing joints, and sadly cause an enlarged heart, that can be fatal. But that type of bedding is cheaper (vet bed needs washing which costs money for detergent, electricity and if you're on a water meter, can also hike the costs up for that), and disposable, so cutting corners in every way 

Edited out my 'arse' as well, to reflect the OP's comments


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

swarthy said:


> The reason I haven't given a breakdown is because there are no less than about 3 threads on this forum where I have - and where breeders of many other breeds have as well - - finding it however is like a needle in a haystack - and one of the reasons in one of my posts yesterday I asked if there was any way such a thread could be made a 'sticky' so we are able to have something to refer to.


Ok will try and have another look today..... do you know if they were on thread you started or not?

Edited out the arsey comment- as was not called for.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Lexiedhb said:


> I am not knocking anyone, - I asked for a break down, no one seems willing to give me one- to be educated -I have searched "cost of litters" I can not find posts with this info in them.
> 
> Ho hum.... this is why joe bloggs thinks people have pups for profit.


why are you obsessed with what people do or don't make on a litter? if you worked (maybe you do ) would you be happy if i asked you what your wage is ??

for your info there are loads of posts about costs of litter Swarthy did an excellent one, so i suggest you search and stop wasting peoples time.

if you want me dto do a breakdown of my last litter that i had 3 years ago i will, although tbo it has nothing to do with you.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

dexter said:


> why are you obsessed with what people do or don't make on a litter? if you worked (maybe you do ) would you be happy if i asked you what your wage is ??
> 
> for your info there are loads of posts about costs of litter Swarthy did an excellent one, so i suggest you search and stop wasting peoples time.
> 
> if you want me dto do a breakdown of my last litter that i had 3 years ago i will, although tbo it has nothing to do with you.


Of course I work- I earn £30k a year...... does not bother me for total strangers to know this, do not understand the secrecy - am not obsessed- just wanted to be educated- I have searched- I am NOT wasting anyones time- they do not have to reply-so yes a break down would be lovely thank you


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Lexiedhb said:


> I am not knocking anyone, - I asked for a break down, no one seems willing to give me one- to be educated -I have searched "cost of litters" I can not find posts with this info in them.
> 
> Ho hum.... this is why joe bloggs thinks people have pups for profit.


OK - finally found one I did earlier and updated to reflect recent charge increases - it really would be a great help if the Mods could make one of these threads a 'sticky' as the question arises time and again, and there is one particular thread which contains a wealth of information across a whole host of breeds.

----------------------------------------------------

Why is it one gets a sense of 'deja vu' when these threads arrive.

I can only speak for my own breed in terms of costs - but it's not just vet costs - its all the health testing that goes with it, stud fees, heating bills, washing bills, food when I have a litter is an extortionate cost running into well over £100 a week and I can guarantee you normally, I don't spend any near that feeding 7 adult dogs.


Hip and Elbow Scoring - £250 to £500 (plus the BVA fee now £90 for hips and elbows) - the reason for the price variation is some vets use sedation, others use GA - I do a 4 hour round trip to get my dogs hip and elbow scored.
Annual Eye tests - around £50 + depending on which specialist you use and where you are based - this test cannot be done by a standard vet - you have to use one of around 30 panellists across the UK
Optigen - £140 + the blood test (c £20) and postage to the states costs - if you use a 20/20 clinic - if you don't add around another 25% to that plus postage
CNM - £50
Colour coat testing (not always done but sometimes necessary to avoid certain 'faults' in certain colour pairings) - £50

You've now spent around £800 - these are all BEFORE you even consider mating your bitch - things can and DO go wrong - it's happened to me twice - and you are back to the drawing board because you can't breed from that bitch

=============================

Premate - you usually have to buy a pack as it is a vets non stock item - around £120 + around £20 per test including drawing blood

Stud fees - around £400 to £500 (plus travel and accommodation costs) - my first stud dog was an 18 hour round trip - so I stayed - and was lucky to stay with the stud owners - my last stud dog was an 8 hour round trip x 2)

I am also self employed - so if I my bitch isn't kind enough to be ready for mating on a weekend, I don't get paid.

=====================================

That's your expenses up to £1,500 and I don't even know if my bitch is pregnant yet.


Scan to confirm pregnancy - around £70
Whelping box (usually one off expense) - £200
Vet bed - around £60 with each litter
Heat Pads and or Lamps - £30

============================================
We are now at nearly £1,800 and still don't have a litter

Whelping kit odds and ends - probably around £40

Food for the bitch and then pups - around £100 a week for 8 weeks (and no that isn't a wind up - my bitches and pups dine like kings while we often eat like paupers)

Litter Worming - around £60 
Litter Registration - £13 a pup
Microchipping (soon to become mandatory in Wales) - around £20 to £25 per pup

================================

I've now spent £2.7K - add to this - you have a washing machine going pretty much 24x7 for 8 weeks - my last winter litter added £700 to my quarterly bill

I had just 5 pups to sell - net income considerably less than I paid out - but if money had been at the root of my desire to breed - I wouldn't have done so .

On my last litter I also had around £400 worth of bills which didn't include a C-Section

Total income from puppies sold - £2.7K - total expenditure £3.5K - price of a puppy - LESS than the differential of keeping a pup

Last year - I didn't breed and bought in instead - much cheaper. 
------------------------------------------

I am self employed - so any time I am not working - I am not getting paid (and believe me there are MUCH easier ways to make money than having a litter) - in addition to this - twice I've whelped litters and been back at my desk an hour later after a shower - with mum and babies safely in view.

None of the above even considers

A C-Section - could be as much as £1K plus (bitches don't tend to honour business hours when they get into difficulty)

The loss of your entire litter - outlay massive - income zero

The loss of your beloved bitch - outlay massive - loss immeasurable both emotionally and financially

A singleton

Try sitting up 24 x 7 with a pup in your arms feeding it 2 hourly only for it to die 7 days later screaming intolerably 

===========================================

None of the above takes into account buying or breeding the initial bitch - campaigning her in the ring / field / agility or other speciality for a few years before she has a litter.

===========================================

9 weeks of not seeing your bed and very little sleep, severely chapped hands and often great strain on relationships - not to mention spending a fortune on scented candles and air fresheners.

===========================================

If a breeder is fortunate enough to make money when they are breeding right for the right reasons, good luck to them (but the tax man will also take his two pennence worth of that) - but most good breeders don't set out to make money - if it happens, it happens - but believe me - over time - done properly. for many breeds there is little or no money to be made out of it.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Thank you.... it is a really interesting read!!!


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

thanks Swarthy. 

(lost count of how many times you've posted it now!)


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Lexiedhb said:


> Thank you.... it is a really interesting read!!!


The above also doesn't take account of AI and the use of overseas dogs, increasingly popular in the dog breeding world, and coupled with the relaxation of quarantine laws, I suspect something you will see a lot more of.

The last person I know who used an overseas dog, straight off, add around £2K to the price of getting the bitch into whelp.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Well done Swarthy - I do have an idea of how much I spend (and have records somewhere), but cannot bring myself to go through what I spend it and see it in black and white  

Lexiedhb
If you were to compare to a typical byb or even breeders that many think are 'good' breeders because they 'love their dogs' and they appear well looked after! 

So, take away the cost of health tests, take away the stud fee (having used mates dog or any one on offer for £100 or so) take away the cost of premate tests (cos they don't need them if they're using the dog down the road - they can just let them keep going at it and hope for the best!), take away the one off costs of whelping kit - they may have the basics, but will probably make do with old blankets/towels etc. Take away the costs of feeding a quality food (obviously this will also vary depending on the size of the breed), take away the cost of litter registration and/or microchipping and yes, I can see how people think having a litter will make you a profit.

But, good breeders don't make these shortcuts - sadly, to many puppy buyers either aren't aware or don't care and keep these poor breeders breeding.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> Well done Swarthy - I do have an idea of how much I spend (and have records somewhere), but cannot bring myself to go through what I spend it and see it in black and white
> 
> Lexiedhb
> If you were to compare to a typical byb or even breeders that many think are 'good' breeders because they 'love their dogs' and they appear well looked after!
> ...


yes- i can see that entirely...... and poor old joe bloggs gets lumbered with a pup who may suffer health issues throughout its life. There really needs to be more education on this- but how I do not know.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Lexiedhb said:


> yes- i can see that entirely...... and poor old joe bloggs gets lumbered with a pup who may suffer health issues throughout its life. There really needs to be more education on this- but how I do not know.


imo there's plenty of education about , Surely most people saw THAT programme on the tele. Having put a friend on to a reputable AB for a westie they chose to go to the local puppy farmer and bought a pup for far less money, It now has mega problems!.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

dexter said:


> imo there's plenty of education about , Surely most people saw THAT programme on the tele. Having put a friend on to a reputable AB for a westie they chose to go to the local puppy farmer and bought a pup for far less money, It now has mega problems!.


Yes money speaks louder than wisdom.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

dexter said:


> imo there's plenty of education about , Surely most people saw THAT programme on the tele. Having put a friend on to a reputable AB for a westie they chose to go to the local puppy farmer and bought a pup for far less money, It now has mega problems!.


I thought "THAT" programme gave most the impression that a x breed from a BYB would probably be healthier than a pedigree!!!!
Even those fully health tested pedigrees


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

EmCHammer said:


> There was a programme on ages ago where they did an experiment with foxes..
> 
> They kept one lot of foxes with regular human contact and kindness and they became very well socialised and friendly to people etc. One lot of foxes they kept totally wild with minimal human contact and they were aggressive towards the people.
> 
> ...


Domesticated silver fox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I thought "THAT" programme gave most the impression that a x breed from a BYB would probably be healthier than a pedigree!!!!
> Even those fully health tested pedigrees


'THAT' programme did give that impression overall LOL however, it was a TV programme that was designed to a) get viewers and b) raise awareness of some problems. To do that it showed only the extremes and not the reality, nor what good breeders do. Jemima (the producer) herself has admitted that.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

JennyClifford said:


> I thought "THAT" programme gave most the impression that a x breed from a BYB would probably be healthier than a pedigree!!!!
> Even those fully health tested pedigrees


Unfortunately you're right, it did, and the myth still perpetuates, I dread to think what Ms Harrison is going to follow up with as I believe there's a sequel in the pipeline


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Lexiedhb said:


> yes- i can see that entirely...... and poor old joe bloggs gets lumbered with a pup who may suffer health issues throughout its life. There really needs to be more education on this- but how I do not know.


It's an uphill battle - I live in the heart of puppy farming world - my OH frequently gets approached by locals asking about our dogs and whether we breed - the minute he starts talking about what we do, their eyes just glaze over - as they know they can get a pup down the road for often under £200 - and unfortunately, until they, or someone they know, has a bad experience, then they won't change their buying habits 

For the number of pups I breed, it makes no real difference to me either way - but when people want a pup NOW on their doorstep - it doesn't take a genius to work out what's going to happen 

Out of the three litters I've bred, apart from my own three, only a couple are in Wales, the remainder being as far North as Yorkshire and as far south as the French / Spanish border and a few locations inbetween. The dog in France is on shared ownership, so no money changed hands, and I drove to Dover and stayed over to meet up with her new owners (who are friends of mine).

I lost money on my first litter - I did make a small amount on my second litter from the same bitch - enough to buy in a dog from breeding I had sought for a long time - but of course the taxman wouldn't recognise that - so still took a third - and I lost a significant amount on my third litter - the daughter of my first litter - it's highly unlikely I will be taking a second litter from her as although she was an OK mum, she really didn't enjoy the experience at all 

Her sister is fully health tested and passed everything with flying colours - so - time will tell if we take a litter from her (timing has to be right) - but she's three next month - so time is running out there for a first litter as well  - which then means I am back to the drawing board and buying in another bitch 

It's an expensive hobby - a CH show costs me around £100 to enter plus travelling costs - in the height of summer, there can often be three a week - and you have to make tough choices these days 

Open shows are more affordable and that's what we tend to do between September and February until we are back into the spring and summer shows again


----------

