# What is a BYB ??



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

oops
1234


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Somebody who breeds their dogs with no health tests and no thought for the puppies' wellbeing, just for the money. They may keep their dogs in the house, though I usually think of those people as hobby breeders, not nearly so bad. But mostly they are kept outside. They are a sort of miniature version of a puppy farmer and if they make a profit, they will soon be looking for more breeding stock and more space to become a puppy farmer.

The reasons why they are so bad - unhealthy pups, suffering bitches, and if you buy from them you are encouraging more unhealthy pups and suffering bitches.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm slightly more strict I think, a byb for me is someone who breeds indiscriminately, whether their dogs are kept inside or outside. Their dogs are usually family pets, and they may have knowledge of health tests but don't use them, often using the excuse for cross breeds that they don't need to as they are healthier than pedigrees. They may seem the nicest people in the world, and may be ignorant of what they're doing, but they are still back yard breeders.


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

Its a strange term. It smacks of negligence... Backyard = Cold and uncaring. Pups need warmth don't they ?


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

Health testing is a relatively new thing am I right ?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm slightly more strict I think, a byb for me is someone who breeds indiscriminately, whether their dogs are kept inside or outside. Their dogs are usually family pets, and they may have knowledge of health tests but don't use them, often using the excuse for cross breeds that they don't need to as they are healthier than pedigrees. They may seem the nicest people in the world, and may be ignorant of what they're doing, but they are still back yard breeders.


I think that's a bit harsh. My impression of a back yard breeder is someone who does it purely for the money, may even buy in a bitch and a dog for the purpose, not someone who wants a litter or two from their pet.

My little part time spaniel, Rascal, came from just such a person, one of 11 puppies borne to their pet bitch, and he has been amazing. Great little dog with no health problems whatsoever. My retriever came from a similar sort of set up, and I knew nothing about health tests back then. He lived to be fourteen and never had a day's illness till a testicular tumour at the age of 12.

I must have been very lucky I think.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Ebeneezer said:


> Health testing is a relatively new thing am I right ?


No, health testing has been around for quite a long time. Knowledge of it is lacking unfortunately.



newfiesmum said:


> I think that's a bit harsh. My impression of a back yard breeder is someone who does it purely for the money, may even buy in a bitch and a dog for the purpose, not someone who wants a litter or two from their pet.
> 
> My little part time spaniel, Rascal, came from just such a person, one of 11 puppies borne to their pet bitch, and he has been amazing. Great little dog with no health problems whatsoever. My retriever came from a similar sort of set up, and I knew nothing about health tests back then. He lived to be fourteen and never had a day's illness till a testicular tumour at the age of 12.
> 
> I must have been very lucky I think.


 In what way, I was simply pointing out that bringing up pups indoors does not make you a hobby breeder as opposed to a byb in my books?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Ebeneezer said:


> Health testing is a relatively new thing am I right ?


No eye testing and hip scoring have been about for decades


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

Isn't health testing just a new-fangled means of genetically engineering a more perfect pooch? (ie: less medical problems)


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Eye testing 30 years+ to stop dogs going blind

BVA - Eye Scheme

Hip scoring for almost 30 years to stop crippled dogs

The BVA/KC Hip Dysplasia Scheme - The Kennel Club


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

I kinda think that dog-breeders should have to be licensed. Or is this naive thinking? (Maybe only the decent breeders would comply and all the neglegent breeders would carry on regardless ...)


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

For me a back yard breeder is someone who breeds without full knowledge of the breed. They can even health test but will still just stick any 2 health tested dogs together without regard for having pedigrees checked for other conditions that can't be tested for (e.g epilepsy).

There is a GSD breeder that is very well known in the "old fashioned, straight backed long coat" circles who breeds from a dog who has an epileptic litter brother! They all use each others' dogs and the lines are just a mess. But people think they're good breeders because they hip score and are now starting to elbow score, dogs are raised indoor and the breeders care very much about their dogs, a lot are raw feeders etc.

Also they rarely check temperaments properly and consider a dog being "a good pet" a good enough temperament for breeding. They are breeding to supply a pet market, but in my view a dog should retain the ability to work, and if a GSD has shoddy nerves then it's not capable of working.
This goes for a lot of UK show kennels too, although a lot are at least using Schutzhund qualified studs.


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

But what about just producing a great all-round, family dog? Breed-standard is aesthetic


----------



## fluffybunny2001 (Feb 8, 2008)

to produce a great all round family dog,you stilll need health tests.I have a family dog,not health tested and he is very ill all the time.
if i could go back i would have done more research


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

I also think that temperaments are more often a result of environmental factors rather than genetic implicators


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Ebeneezer said:


> But what about just producing a great all-round, family dog? Breed-standard is aesthetic


Producing a great all round family dog is something good ethical breeders do too  They just do it with a lot more care and knowledge to ensure they are producing the best possible with regards to health, temperament and type.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> I think that's a bit harsh. My impression of a back yard breeder is someone who does it purely for the money, may even buy in a bitch and a dog for the purpose, not someone who wants a litter or two from their pet.
> 
> My little part time spaniel, Rascal, came from just such a person, one of 11 puppies borne to their pet bitch, and he has been amazing. Great little dog with no health problems whatsoever. My retriever came from a similar sort of set up, and I knew nothing about health tests back then. He lived to be fourteen and never had a day's illness till a testicular tumour at the age of 12.
> 
> I must have been very lucky I think.


I think I prefer how you think of it but so many people on here who have a one off litter from their pet bitch are denigrated as a byb that I think you and I are in the minority.



rona said:


> Eye testing 30 years+ to stop dogs going blind
> 
> BVA - Eye Scheme
> 
> ...


Rona, when I was working for a vet in 1973 we were sending xrays off to the BVA so it has been around a bit longer than 30 years though in those days they had more sense and it either passed or failed, it was not scored, as far as I can remember. I can remember a bitch that failed but the owner said it did not matter as the bitch could not pass on HD, it only came from the dog. I always wondered why they bothered with the x ray in the first place.

I had my first sheltie eye tested in about 1976 though no certificates were given out then. I remember a friend getting her collies eye tested in 1982 but they failed so she said it didnt matter!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Ebeneezer said:


> I also think that temperaments are more often a result of environmental factors rather than genetic implicators


They are the sum total of both, but the genetic inheritance plays a significant part so cannot be ignored.


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Ebeneezer said:


> But what about just producing a great all-round, family dog? Breed-standard is aesthetic


Where did I mention conformation? A great all round family dog should come from a breeder who knows the pedigree inside out, has thoroughly checked it for any epilepsy producers, has many generations on low hip scores etc.

I have talked about HEALTH and TEMPERAMENT - The 2 most important things for a pet. Have you seen what a nervous GSD can do? A dog with steady nerves is a great family dog. A nervous one is not.



Ebeneezer said:


> I also think that temperaments are more often a result of environmental factors rather than genetic implicators


No, nerves are genetic, but bad nerves can be covered up with good socialisation. The dog will still be a nervebag if you put it into a new situation (you can't socialise for every possible situation)


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

It really is a fine line isn't it, between ethical breeding and negligent breeding. Why don't we regulate it in this country?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Blitz said:


> Rona, when I was working for a vet in 1973 we were sending xrays off to the BVA so it has been around a bit longer than 30 years though in those days they had more sense and it either passed or failed, it was not scored, as far as I can remember. I can remember a bitch that failed but the owner said it did not matter as the bitch could not pass on HD, it only came from the dog. I always wondered why they bothered with the x ray in the first place.
> 
> I had my first sheltie eye tested in about 1976 though no certificates were given out then. I remember a friend getting her collies eye tested in 1982 but they failed so she said it didnt matter!


Oh yes I know that. My sister had Poodles in the 70s that had eye tests and my second Goldie had parents that had been tested. I just couldn't fid proof of it on the net and thought 30 years was long enough to make my point


----------



## Netpon (Feb 21, 2012)

To me a BYB is someone who breeds for money or because they think their pet is wonderful, they haven't researched the lines of either the dog or bitch, have no in depth knowledge of the breed and the breed standard. As for accidental matings, there is an injection you can have to stop the pregnancy so that's no excuse. 

People breeding without care or knowledge of the breed are changing the breeds. I'm a dog groomer and Shih Tzus and Lhasas are gradually becoming more and more like each other, Shihs that are too big and have long muzzles and Lhasas that are too small. This is just one example.


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

Netpon said:


> People breeding without care or knowledge of the breed are changing the breeds. I'm a dog groomer and Shih Tzus and Lhasas are gradually becoming more and more like each other, Shihs that are too big and have long muzzles and Lhasas that are too small. This is just one example.


I don't understand why changing the breed is a bad thing.... we created each breed in the first place


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Ebeneezer said:


> It really is a fine line isn't it, between ethical breeding and negligent breeding. Why don't we regulate it in this country?


Money.....


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

For me it's those who breed with no real thought put into it. Practically all the litters I've seen advertised in the community out here are what I'd consider to be byb litters. No health tests, just putting any male and female of the same breed together and then selling the pups to pretty much anyone who wants one. I don't care where they raise the pups, how much they love their dogs etc this is not the sort of breeder I'd want to buy a puppy from. Especially not considering they're selling them for roughly the same price as pups from reputable breeders.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Ebeneezer said:


> I don't understand why changing the breed is a bad thing.... we created each breed in the first place


Isn't that what created some of the monstrosities we see wandering around the show ring or down our streets these days.

A persons or group of peoples own slant on what a breed should look like, instead of sticking to the standard?


----------



## 3dogs2cats (Aug 15, 2012)

Sarah1983 said:


> selling the pups to pretty much anyone who wants one. [/QUOTE
> 
> Thats the bit that does it for me, sell them to anybody who rocks up with the money no questions asked, give us your money, take your puppy oh and don`t get bringing it back here when it falls ill or you realise that you have bought a totally unsuitable dog for your life style!
> 
> sorry don`t seem to have got the hang of quoting!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I love my pedigree breeds, and as closely related as they are, they are very different in nature. Why should I or anyone else who likes their breed type, feel bad for breeding to type, as long as all other considerations are in place. 

So how would you regulate breeding, would you choose a particular genetic test that needs to be clear, or at least carrier? Or would you focus on hips and the BMS, or elbows? 

The simple answer is there is no single way to spot a BYB or poor breeder, and there are a helluva lot I wouldn't touch with a very large barge pole. But the other very simple fact is the vast majority of the puppy buying public couldn't give two hoots.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Ebeneezer said:


> Health testing is a relatively new thing am I right ?


No you are very wrong - some health tests have been in existence for over 30 years and the growth of the internet, forums and social networking has in the last few years inevitably permitted the word to spread further.

The range of health-tests for some breeds is increasing - and some of those tests are relatively new - sometimes people will take a watching brief with new tests to monitor accuracy - purpose etc

Some BYB claim (and genuinely believe) they love their dogs, and maybe they do - but if the dog is not health-tested it MIGHT be healthy - but we should remember that some conditions can be asymptomatic - poor hips is a classic example, as are some eye conditions - as are recessive carrier status for a whole range of conditions.

If a bitch appears healthy but actually has bad hips with no symptoms - a litter and whelping could put untold pressure on her carrying all that extra weight and whelping that litter - similarly, if matched to an untested stud dog who could also have poor hips - significantly increasing the likelihood of some of the progeny developing health problems.

In my area, you can pick up KC reg Lab pups for between £120 and £250 - and if corners have been cut on health-testing, it raises the question where-else corners may have been cut.

It's not the breeders that pick up the tab, it's the owners who will face the emotional and financial heartache - not to mention the pain the pup may face for the sake of a few health-tests and good rearing.

Many will breed with no thought to the dogs conformation, strengths and weaknesses, and will have no interest in making an informed choice on which dog is best for them - they will simply use the most convenient (or cheapest) 

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

The purpose of health-testing is to make informed breeding decisions - for example, you know you have a PRA carrier bitch (recessive gene) - you would mate that dog with a clear.

Sometimes, results may dictate that a dog isn't bred from, other times, it may narrow the breeding options - but whichever way you look at it - with health-testing those decisions are informed, as will be the decisions of the prospective puppy owners.

In addition, responsible breeders will be as certain as they can be that the pups are going to good homes - BYB (and Puppy Farmers) will simply want to sell the pup.

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

My OH took a stud enquiry recently for one of my boys - the caller was interrogating the living daylights out of him - he tried several times to explain that she needed to talk to me.

I spoke to her later, asked about health-tests - oh - she's not had anything like that - she's not KC registered - sorry - but at that point, not worth continuing the conversation - because informing simply falls on deaf ears - been there too many times - but I have no doubt the caller will find a dog she can mate her bitch with - more than likely unhealth-tested and possibly also not KC registered.

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

For me - BYB breeders do fall into two categories - those that know what they should do, but have ready excuses for not doing it - and those who are ignorant through lack of research but proceed anyway - and will often fall back on the excuses given by the first category despite no doubt somewhere along the line being informed of the available health-tests - because of course, they cost money - and for some breeds a LOT of money


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

the same can be said of some KC breeders just because a dog has papers dosen't mean it was bred for the right reasons or with health tests or love.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> the same can be said of some KC breeders just because a dog has papers dosen't mean it was bred for the right reasons or with health tests or love.


Don't think anyone's said that have they?

Besides, just because a dog is registered doesn't mean they are KC breeders. In fact, there is no such thing as a KC breeder. There are KC Assured Breeders (and this has only been going a few years) and they do have to health test the dogs they use for breeding, but no such thing as a KC breeder.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> Don't think anyone's said that have they?
> 
> Besides, just because a dog is registered doesn't mean they are KC breeders. In fact, there is no such thing as a KC breeder. There are KC Assured Breeders (and this has only been going a few years) and they do have to health test the dogs they use for breeding, but no such thing as a KC breeder.


to me a kc breeder is someone who registers there pups with the KC. it wasn't meant in a derogatory manner I just think the term BYB is too heavily used.


----------



## jo5 (Jun 22, 2011)

This is purely out of interest but what is the term for a breeder that breeds for all the right reasons , health tests and ticks all the boxes as it were. You have licensed breeders which I would avoid with a bargepole as to be licensed means to me that you produce too many litters a year and you have puppy farms and so called BYB and Hobby breeders which both sound derogatory to me ???? So is there a term for the sort of breeder all puppy purchasers should buy from ???


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> to me a kc breeder is someone who registers there pups with the KC. it wasn't meant in a derogatory manner I just think the term BYB is too heavily used.


But there are many BYB and puppy farmers who register some litters but not others, so kc registration can only apply to a litter not a breeder unless an assured breeder in which case it is KC Assured breeder.


----------



## fluffybunny2001 (Feb 8, 2008)

my dog is kc regisered as a chocolate American cocker!!! i think form my pic of him he quite clearly isnt chocolate!
his his dad was his mums uncle,she was 1 year old,not health tested,dads side ahd cherry eye,his sister has cherry eye,and has been bred from multiple times.
Fudge is part albino,deaf from 2 TECAS,allergies,partially sighted,has dry eye,the list is endless.
his breeder is a byb and border line puppy farm.
she kc registers all her litters.
only in it for the money


----------



## Wildmoor (Oct 31, 2011)

Ebeneezer said:


> Health testing is a relatively new thing am I right ?


Hip Scoring in one form or another as been around since 1960 that is more than 50 years - so no excuses for dogs/bitches not having a full 5 generations of hip scored ancestry
Heamophillia A testing - 1991 - no excuses for not doing
Elbow Scoring - 1998 so again no excuses for not doing

some of the other test in my breed have only been around a few years such as pd testing


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

jo5 said:


> This is purely out of interest but what is the term for a breeder that breeds for all the right reasons , health tests and ticks all the boxes as it were. You have licensed breeders which I would avoid with a bargepole as to be licensed means to me that you produce too many litters a year and you have puppy farms and so called BYB and Hobby breeders which both sound derogatory to me ???? So is there a term for the sort of breeder all puppy purchasers should buy from ???


Not really - and I think there are grey areas even within those groups. I suppose the nearest terms I've heard are responsible or ethical breeders, but those terms probably have as many different interpretations as other 'breeder' labels.

Thinking of the common terms:

Commercial breeders - large scale commercial breeders who may or may not produce nice pet quality puppies.
Hobby breeders - those who breed as part of their 'hobby' that involves some sort of canine sport (showing, working, agility etc) and many of their puppies may go to pet homes.
Pet breeders - those who breed their pets for no other reasons than to produce puppies and aren't involved in the dog world, but do health test and do their best to produce nice pets.
BYB - My definition in previous post 
Puppy farms - self explanatory.


----------



## maisey (Oct 26, 2010)

I completely agree a KC breeder isn't necessarily a good breeder. 

My mums got one of her dogs from a well known woman in the showing industry, her dogs lines are deemed as good and well wanted but the dog we got from her was one of 14 and most of the puppies were put to sleep for being born blind, obviously we found this later on and apparently all the other puppies were sold when viewing. Secondly she has now sold most of her dogs she originally had due to poor reasoning but still is an apparent good breeder. 

I dabbled in the showing sides of things until I had had enough, most of the people were horrible and stuck up. They were quite happy to tell how rubbish your dog is. 
I know people who have won lots of best of breed shows (not crufts) but just because they know the right people, I have even seen a dog with a limp get 3rd in a show out of 11!!! Because theses people have the rosettes people deem them as good. They couldn't be further from the truth. 

It takes a lot more than health test and kc registered to be a good breeder. 

The fact that the kennel club had to change it's breed standards just shows that kc registered dog are not as good people might think.


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

My neighbour just had a first litter. Springers. Not KC. She tells me the demand has been phenominal. She says she knows and understands health testing but choose not to. Mum is also a nervous dog. But I'm told this is due to a bad start in life and not being properly socialised. My kids go round to play with pups every day and they are gorgeous and very well cared-for little things. No profit has been made, but plenty of enjoyment gained. Is this wrong? Every pup has a thoroughly-vetted new family to go to.


----------



## fluffybunny2001 (Feb 8, 2008)

IMO yes it is,mum is nervous,and not health tested,which could lead to nervous, ill puppies.


----------



## maisey (Oct 26, 2010)

Personally believe the dogs should have been health tested, with watching my old labradors suffering from arthritus from the age of 2 these things should be done. 
But tis nice to hear no prfit was made and they are being looked after properly :001_smile:


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

fluffybunny2001 said:


> IMO yes it is,mum is nervous,and not health tested,which could lead to nervous, ill puppies.


But it could also result in lovely pups. I've had friends who've bought health-tested, KC Reg dogs, but still lost them to horrible illnesses early on in life.


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

Can also confirm from first hand experience that pups are far from nervous ! lol


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Ebeneezer said:


> My neighbour just had a first litter. Springers. Not KC. She tells me the demand has been phenominal. She says she knows and understands health testing but choose not to. Mum is also a nervous dog. But I'm told this is due to a bad start in life and not being properly socialised. My kids go round to play with pups every day and they are gorgeous and very well cared-for little things. No profit has been made, but plenty of enjoyment gained. Is this wrong? Every pup has a thoroughly-vetted new family to go to.


Very wrong  The worst thing is breeding from a nervous dog. I've heard all sorts of excuses as to why a dog may have a poor temperament, and usually they are just excuses, but regardless, a dog with a poor temperament shouldn't be bred from.


----------



## fluffybunny2001 (Feb 8, 2008)

but breeding from a dog who has had a bad start in life is wrong imo.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Ebeneezer said:


> Can also confirm from first hand experience that pups are far from nervous ! lol


That's irrelevant. A young puppies temperament in the litter is no indication of what it's adult temperament will be like and most puppies are not nervous. You won't know until adulthood how it will develop.

Your next door neighbour is extremely irresponsible and a BYB.


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

BYB to me is an indiscriminate breeder who has no regard for their bitches, breeding as often as they can. 

No health testing and using a stud dog that's not necessarily the best specimen to reproduce puppies of a good standard. 

Sometimes, pups are not registered with the KC to allow the bitches to have more litters than is allowed by the KC.

Something very near to puppy farming except it isn't on such a large scale and possibly living conditions are not so poor.


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

Its def not something I would do. She's clearin up poo 24/7 ... takes a special certain someone 2 love a life of shi! lol


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

She is a good friend and it's hard to hear these things said when I know how much she cares ... she's keeping in touch with all new owners n wants back any pups if new owners hav a change in circumstance. It seems harsh to me, what you guys say. I know 4 a fact she's spent a fortune on vets


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Ebeneezer said:


> She is a good friend and it's hard to hear these things said when I know how much she cares ... she's keeping in touch with all new owners n wants back any pups if new owners hav a change in circumstance. It seems harsh to me, what you guys say. I know 4 a fact she's spent a fortune on vets


mmmm.... she's spent a fortune on vets but wouldn't get health tests done?

Unfortunately, caring and loving does not excuse poor breeding practices. It's good she will take the pups back but it still doesn't make her a good breeder.

Why was she not prepared to get health tests done when she knew about them?

And, even worse, why is she breeding from a nervous bitch (regardless of start in life) - in my mind that is unforgiveable.


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

Why won't we bring in Regulation / legislation for dog breeding in this country ? Dogs are such a high-demand commodity that it warrants government control... ? Would this put the Kennel Club's nose out of joint ?!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Ebeneezer said:


> Why won't we bring in Regulation / legislation for dog breeding in this country ? Dogs are such a high-demand commodity that it warrants government control... ? Would this put the Kennel Club's nose out of joint ?!


Quite simply because it wouldn't work. How would it be policed? 
We have laws regarding commercial breeding (which are not policed enough as they are), but how on earth would those breeding from their pets (like your neighbour) be policed and checked?

Nothing to do with Kennel Club - as a large percentage of dogs are not registered anyway (as your neighbours aren't).


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> mmmm.... she's spent a fortune on vets but wouldn't get health tests done?
> 
> Unfortunately, caring and loving does not excuse poor breeding practices. It's good she will take the pups back but it still doesn't make her a good breeder.
> 
> ...


Awwww.... why ? I'm absolutely no expert, but from what I've heard Health Tests are an option for potential buyers who are prepared to pay more for thus said peace of mind ? Gem's made no profit on pups and all new puppy mums are fully aware that there are no genetic-health certainties


----------



## fluffybunny2001 (Feb 8, 2008)

but she still gave puppies with potentialy fatal genetic illness to people.and puppies who could end up with temperament problems.
very wrong.


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

Surely the Baddies are those who don't give a monkey's about the Bitches or the Pups ? (ie; those who puppy-farm?) My neighbour has done an amazing job - the pups are gorgeous and all have homes who can't wait to get their pups home and she's gone all out to build relations with each family. I'm a bit in awe of her because it sure isn't something I could do. Poop n pee all day long. No thanks lol


----------



## fluffybunny2001 (Feb 8, 2008)

but in breeding from a nervous,unhealth tested bitche shows that she doesn`t care imo,im sure the puppies are lovely,but she has gone about it the wrong way


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Ebeneezer said:


> Awwww.... why ? I'm absolutely no expert, but from what I've heard Health Tests are an option for potential buyers who are prepared to pay more for thus said peace of mind ? Gem's made no profit on pups and all new puppy mums are fully aware that there are no genetic-health certainties


But she could be creating pups to suffer


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

rona said:


> But she could be creating pups to suffer


Why would they suffer anymore than any other dog ? Sorry, confused ... I have a stinky old mongrel -who is about a million years old. He has no health issues apart from stinkiness, but I doubt that will cause him suffering. I'm the only one who suffers from that !!!!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Ebeneezer said:


> Awwww.... why ? I'm absolutely no expert, but from what I've heard Health Tests are an option for potential buyers who are prepared to pay more for thus said peace of mind ? Gem's made no profit on pups and all new puppy mums are fully aware that there are no genetic-health certainties


Firstly - having a litter from a bitch takes a lot out of them and requires a health dog in body and mind. Regardless of lack of health tests the worst thing she has done is breed a nervous bitch - it is unforgivable IMO.

If she isn't breeding for financial reasons then the I'm guessing she's doing it for her own satisfaction because it won't be in her bitch's best interests and given her lack of care towards the health, temperament and suitability for breeding, it won't be for future puppy owners.
To use a pet bitch to fulfill some kind of maternal urges is wrong IMO.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Ebeneezer said:


> Why would they suffer anymore than any other dog ? Sorry, confused ... I have a stinky old mongrel -who is about a million years old. He has no health issues apart from stinkiness, but I doubt that will cause him suffering. I'm the only one who suffers from that !!!!


If your dog has an injury and you know it's likely to get arthritis at a later stage in life, you'd do everything in your power to stop or at least put of the dreaded day wouldn't you?

If health tests are an option to at least minimize the chances of hereditary problems, then why wouldn't someone who professes to love their dog (and pups) want to take that option?


----------



## Summersky (Aug 11, 2012)

Ebeneezer -I wouldn't describe your friend as a back street breeder - to me that is someone who uses their dogs as breeding machines, cares lttle about socialising the pups, ships them out - sells them on, then does it all over again and again - all to make few bob, with little thought or regard for the lives involved.


----------



## Newfinch (Oct 27, 2012)

In my opinion a breeder should do all of the relevant health tests for their required breed and only mate their dog if the results are good enough. They must make themselves available at all times both day and night for the 8 weeks that their bitch has a litter of puppies. I personally sleep in the same room as my bitch and her puppies for at least 4 weeks from the time they are born and never leave a bitch and her puppies unattended at any time during the first few weeks of their lives. The breeder should make sure the stud dog has all of the relevant health tests done too and have got good enough results. Some tests also need to be repeated every so often to ensure no aspect of their health has deteriorated.
The breeder should always make sure that they find out as much as possible about all prospective puppy owners, doing a homecheck to ensure that the family and their home are suitable for one of their precious puppies. They should also let the prospective owners know all they can about the breed, the good points and the bad because the last thing they want s to find the puppy needs rehoming as the new owner did not realise what they were letting themselves in for. 
The breeder should make sure they get the new owners to complete a contract and a part of that contract should say that if for whatever reason the puppy needs to be re-homed it is to be returned to the breeder, who should be ultimately responsible for all of the dogs they have produced until the day they die.
Anyone who does not do all of these things as a minimum in my opinion is either a back yard breeder or puppy farmer.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

DKDREAM said:


> to me a kc breeder is someone who registers there pups with the KC. it wasn't meant in a derogatory manner I just think the term BYB is too heavily used.


In what way is too heavily used?

Sadly, there are very many Back yard Breeders around - as I said i my post - some genuinely believe through ignorance they are doing nothing wrong - others know what they should be doing but have "ready reasons" (which rarely stand up to those in the know) for why they haven't used the health-tests.

There are far too many conditions that are asymptomatic not to use the main schemes, in particular hipscoring and eye tests for my own breed

I have two dogs here who are testimony to the above statement- not to mention a PRA carrier bitch who if I hadn't tested her could risk the sight of future pups by using an untested sire.

These are the sort of things that BYB do without thinking about it - they sell their pups cheap because they often breed relatively frequently and manage to make more money than good breeders selling their pups for doube (or more) the price because the good breeders have done things by the book.

I don't agree that a being a licesnsed breeder necessarily makes them a BYB - not if they are doing things properly - using the health-tests, thinking about the matings (often travelling many miles to use the right sires) and their pups are well socialised. Unpalatable to some it might be - but it doesn't automatically make them bad breeders or bad people.

Some people are fortunate enough to have sufficient residual income and maybe even paid support to help them in what they are doing.

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

In contrast, if someone is registering many pups from unhealth-tested parents or breeding many unregistered litters rom unregistered parents (or as often happens with BY Licensed breeders a combination of both) - but don't breed as many litters to be classified as puppy farmers, what name would you give them? because I can't think of any appropriate ones.

They aren't responsible commercial breeders (please note I am NOT defending or criticising them simply stating facts) they aren't puppy farmers, they aren't responsible small scale licensed breeders and they are not hobby breeders

So what other name would you give them?


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

Ebeneezer said:


> Its a strange term. It smacks of negligence... Backyard = Cold and uncaring. Pups need warmth don't they ?


That's the point of the term, really.



Ebeneezer said:


> Isn't health testing just a new-fangled means of genetically engineering a more perfect pooch? (ie: less medical problems)


I wouldn't call it genetic engineering, as such, or new-fangled. As I understand it, it's more seeing what conditions the parents might be or are predisposed towards, and trying to get the best combination so the puppies are less likely to be ill later in life. If you knew both parents were likely to get, or had, a certain condition, why would you risk passing it on to more dogs? There are plenty of dogs around, so no shortage of pets, so no reason to risk it. Having fewer medical problems is a good thing! 



Ebeneezer said:


> But it could also result in lovely pups. I've had friends who've bought health-tested, KC Reg dogs, but still lost them to horrible illnesses early on in life.


Of course, they don't guarantee perfect health, but to have the tests is a better indicator than to not have them. And there will always be dogs who haven't been tested but still produce healthy pups!



Ebeneezer said:


> She is a good friend and it's hard to hear these things said when I know how much she cares ... she's keeping in touch with all new owners n wants back any pups if new owners hav a change in circumstance. It seems harsh to me, what you guys say. I know 4 a fact she's spent a fortune on vets


She does sound a lot better than what I'd truly term a backyard breeder, but perhaps hasn't done her research, spoken to many good breeders, or fully understood the importance of what she has learned. It is good that she wants to take the dogs back if necessary


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Ebeneezer said:


> Isn't health testing just a new-fangled means of genetically engineering a more perfect pooch? (ie: less medical problems)


Have a read of some of the owners experiences on the Lab health website - unless you have a heart of stone, I would keep the tissues to hand.

Labrador Health brings you the story of Charlie, the Bionic Pup

Labrador Health: Your stories

of COURSE it is to produce less health-problems - why would anyone deliberately want to produce pups with an increased possibility of hip dysplasia or early blindness because they don't health-test?

Some tests don't give a guarantee - but they do significantly reduce the risk - I liken it to jumping out of a plane without a back-up parachute - there is no guarantee you still won't die on the jump - but the risks are significantly decreased because of the back-up parachute, and the same can be said for the use of certain health-tests.

What also certainly seems to be the case is that where pups from ethical breeders go on to have poor hips - they frequently exhibit fewer (and often no symptoms), compared to those bought from Puppy farmers and BYB - who in addition to failing to use these health-schemes, also frequently cut corners in their care of the bitch and how they raise the pups - not to mention the advice good breeders give to new puppy owners on exercise and diet during the first 12 months of life.

In the instance of pups from good breeders - the probably often only comes to light when the dog has gone for hipscoring, or some other procedure in which a vet may detect a problem.

If a breeder doesn't have this information to start with, how can they advise new owners appropriately?


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

I'd like to mention that we'd be throwing every single breeder in full breeds under the bus as 'BYBs' if we were measuring by 'risk' of ill health in the pups they create. We all know that in some breeds risks of ailments are so high that the dogs involved can be health tested up to the eyeballs and the breeders who are producing pups from those dogs are still producing pups with higher risks to suffer (and no way of guaranteeing they won't) than the common mongrel.

Health testing CANNOT make-up for the risks that have been created in some breeds, and if THAT is the measure we are going to use to label and condemn breeders decisions on which dogs to pair we need to be careful . . .

I just cannot reason it that a breeder of a giant breed whose dog will most likely die at 7, but who fully tests, can get a bye, while a working stock dog breeder who is remiss in eye tests, when he's got 3 generations of knowledge there, would get labelled a 'BYB'. That makes no sense to me. I'd like to see the tests done but I'll weigh everything a breeder does and knows and usually reserve 'labels'.

I also think that it needs to be mentioned that although there have been some health tests around for a great length of time, that traditionally in many of the small breeds NONE have been used or required, even at top levels, by many breeders.

It is incredibly rare to find a line of dogs in a couple or more breeds that have been health tested (the full generation) back more than a generation or two . . . and I have looked and looked hard in a few breeds. Sometimes a dam's line has tests, but not the sire's past himself etc.

This is because in those breeds, although health testing was used by some, it was never a requirement. A lot of influential breeders skate on providing any proof of testing and claim they know their lines (and that claim might be true). Their word is taken less they be offended. Many small breeds have just started recommending testing in a manner that can be proven over the last decade.

Shih Tzus are one of these. Pugs and Chihuahuas are another. Cavaliers are again another.

I don't believe those that are winning Crufts and Westminster would appreciate the BYB label thrown at them, but often by the standard of 'generations of health research' that some people are holding many breeders to, they would be.

This does not mean I believe people should be skirting health testing. There are basic tests that I believe should be done for every pairing whether it be of mongrels or two dogs of the same breed,** however, the fact is many times they won't be.

I find the term BYB usually means 'someone who breeds in a way I disagree with'.

I've seen it levelled at breeders who do absolutely everything right, but maybe decide to match two untitled dogs together.

As an example of the ridiculousness in North America it is common to label Cavalier breeders as BYBs if they don't hip test, while in the UK hips are rarely if ever done! The same finger pointers and labellers here will then import UK line dogs with no hip testing and claim moral superiority because they test a single generation!?!?

I usually dismiss the term if I hear it used and try to get specifics and make my own mind up about whether or not I like a breeders practices.

**those would be, minimum, patellas, eyes and hearts for small dogs and as well hips, eyes and hearts for most large dogs (some medium breeds have an incredibly low rate of CHD and I understand the reasoning for not testing in those breeds). None of this can make up for HONEST generational knowledge on the dogs behind the litter which most often is what breeders at all levels struggle with getting.

CC


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I find the term BYB usually means 'someone who breeds in a way I disagree with'.


...and that's the problem - there are so many ways of interpreting ethical breeding with little consensus of opinion that perhaps we should all just do what we want and leave all parties to breed the way they think is right -

This would of course mean leaving those that use close line breeding to continue - those that breed at every season - those that produce dogs that are over exaggerated - those that produce 'designer cross breeds - those that sell to third parties and those that do no health testing to carry on regardless - no finger pointing, no blame just accepting that we all do it differently.

Should we all just get on with breeding ( and buying ) according to our own personal code of ethics and stop forcing our own viewpoint on others ?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Ebeneezer said:


> My neighbour just had a first litter. Springers. Not KC. She tells me the demand has been phenominal. She says she knows and understands health testing but choose not to. Mum is also a nervous dog. But I'm told this is due to a bad start in life and not being properly socialised. My kids go round to play with pups every day and they are gorgeous and very well cared-for little things. No profit has been made, but plenty of enjoyment gained. Is this wrong? Every pup has a thoroughly-vetted new family to go to.


Why does she choose not to? Is it the cost, or is she one of those people who think that if the dog is just for a pet it doesn't need health tests? Like it doesn't matter much if a pet dog and its owner suffer? That is unforgiveable.

And I have to say, if she has just had this litter she should not be letting anyone near them without proper hygiene precautions, and she should certainly not let anyone's kids maul them about. If they are not nervous now, they soon will be.



maisey said:


> Personally believe the dogs should have been health tested, with watching my old labradors suffering from arthritus from the age of 2 these things should be done.
> But tis nice to hear no prfit was made and they are being looked after properly :001_smile:


I know how you feel, but there is no testing for arthritis. My Joshua had it at 16 months, yet his parents had low hip and elbow scores and are still running around fit as a fiddle. The fact that none of the others in his litter had it also upsets me terribly, because I can't help wondering if it was something I caused.



Ebeneezer said:


> She is a good friend and it's hard to hear these things said when I know how much she cares ... she's keeping in touch with all new owners n wants back any pups if new owners hav a change in circumstance. It seems harsh to me, what you guys say. I know 4 a fact she's spent a fortune on vets


She may care, no one is disputing that, but she is obviously not familiar with the right way to do things.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

maisey said:


> I completely agree a KC breeder isn't necessarily a good breeder.
> 
> My mums got one of her dogs from a well known woman in the showing industry, her dogs lines are deemed as good and well wanted but the dog we got from her was one of 14 and most of the puppies were put to sleep for being born blind, obviously we found this later on and apparently all the other puppies were sold when viewing. Secondly she has now sold most of her dogs she originally had due to poor reasoning but still is an apparent good breeder.
> 
> ...


Whilst I agree with you whole heartedly that people within showing aren't all wonderful and have the best interests of their dogs at heart, that last statement is factually wrong. the breed standards have been amended for clarification, not because of any perception that pedigree breeds are good, better, worse in any way to other dogs.



Ebeneezer said:


> My neighbour just had a first litter. Springers. Not KC. She tells me the demand has been phenominal. She says she knows and understands health testing but choose not to. Mum is also a nervous dog. But I'm told this is due to a bad start in life and not being properly socialised. My kids go round to play with pups every day and they are gorgeous and very well cared-for little things. No profit has been made, but plenty of enjoyment gained. Is this wrong? Every pup has a thoroughly-vetted new family to go to.


I'm sorry but to breed from a bitch who has had a bad start in life, and who is nervous, is morally wrong and extremely irresponsible. 



Ebeneezer said:


> Surely the Baddies are those who
> don't give a monkey's about the Bitches or the Pups ? (ie; those who puppy-farm?) My neighbour has done an amazing job - the pups are gorgeous and all have homes who can't wait to get their pups home and she's gone all out to build relations with each family. I'm a bit in awe of her because it sure isn't something I could do. Poop n pee all day long. No thanks lol


Your friend doesn't give a monkies about her girl, or the pups, if she did, she wouldn't have risked putting her in whelp in the first place, or perhaps she's unaware of the very real risk of losing a bitch and pups? She also doesn't give a monkies about hereditary illnesses, otherwise she'd have tested her bitch. She may love and care for her bitch and the pups on the outside, but it's the hard decisions that prove how much you care for your dogs, lots of people care for their pets, but how many times do you see in the news about general ignorance ending up with pets suffering? A typical example are owners who treat their dogs so much that they become obese, they love and care for their dogs, but can't bring themselves to do what's right, why? Because it's actually self rewarding behaviour for the human, which is pretty selfish. No bitch asks to have a litter of pups, we choose to allow this to happen for our benefit. No backyard breeder has a tattoo across their head to confirm this, it's how they go about breeding that tells you this, and as has been proven in this thread, people have different lines, to me, your friend is a backyard breeder


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I'd like to mention that we'd be throwing every single breeder in full breeds under the bus as 'BYBs' if we were measuring by 'risk' of ill health in the pups they create.


CC, I don't think it is a measure of 'risk', but a measure of the efforts breeders put into their plans and breeding that aim to reduce that risk. And while that does include health tests, there are many other factors too. I would put temperament as important (of even more important) than health.

In general I do agree with your post. And couldn't agree more with this which is why it is next to impossible unless you are involved in some kind of canine activity to get that information (and even then you have to separate the rumour from the reality).



> None of this can make up for HONEST generational knowledge on the dogs behind the litter which most often is what breeders at all levels struggle with getting.





> I find the term BYB usually means 'someone who breeds in a way I disagree with'.


Ha ha - I think you have a point there 



> I've seen it levelled at breeders who do absolutely everything right, but maybe decide to match two untitled dogs together.


I think there may be a difference between the UK and your side of the pond here which can lead to confusion. I know it is often said that a dog should have achieved their title before breeding, but the vast difference between achieving a title here and in the US (for example) would make that impossible (and extremely stupid and risky) if that was applied here. I understand in the US that once a dog achieves their title, they no longer compete except in 'champion' classes making the way for other dogs to achieve their titles. This doesn't not happen in the UK so a very good dog may never achieve it's title if it is always going up against a titled dog that is preferred. The same with working titles which are extremely hard to achieve. FTCH compete alongside untitled dogs. If you are lucky enough to get a run (last trial there were nearly 100 entries for 12 places so the chances of getting your name pulled out of the hat not great) then you could find yourself up against the best.


----------



## chaka (Feb 19, 2012)

Blitz said:


> I think I prefer how you think of it but so many people on here who have a one off litter from their pet bitch are denigrated as a byb that I think you and I are in the minority.
> 
> Rona, when I was working for a vet in 1973 we were sending xrays off to the BVA so it has been around a bit longer than 30 years though in those days they had more sense and it either passed or failed, it was not scored, as far as I can remember. I can remember a bitch that failed but the owner said it did not matter as the bitch could not pass on HD, it only came from the dog. I always wondered why they bothered with the x ray in the first place.
> 
> I had my first sheltie eye tested in about 1976 though no certificates were given out then. I remember a friend getting her collies eye tested in 1982 but they failed so she said it didnt matter!


I am sorry if someone has already answered this, haven't read all the posts, but yes you are right. Prior to hip scoring hip x rays were still assessed by the BVA. You could either get a Certificate (equivalent to a low single figure score today I would say), Breeders Letter (under 15 maybe) or fail. I had a bitch who failed, and who I was told had the worst hips they had seen in a long time. She was actually the exception to the rule as she lived a long life and was never lame, I had her scored when scoring became available, she was probably around 7 years old, and she scored 98!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Just checked and their are five health tests available for ESS's, one of which tests for glaucoma, a very painful eye condition that can lead to blindness. Testing ensures pups won't inherit this condition, so tell me how your friend has done all she can to produce healthy pups, when she hasn't even had this basic eye test done, and probably has no idea whether her bitch or the dog used has the propensity to pass this on to progeny. She's gambling with health conditions that are painful and debilitating, yet are easily prevented from ever occurring with a simple test, is that right?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Hipscoring started in 1965 - the scheme has been updated twice since then, the last time in 1984.

Information on Hip Scoring for Labradors from Labrador Health by John Weller

I've got the actual scoring records for my breed with scores dating back to the late 1970s - although at that point - only dogs with scores below 8 (or a max of 4 on either side) were published.


----------



## holly1 (Aug 10, 2010)

Just want to tell you a little tale...
Some people we know,bought a KC bitch.They planned to let her go breed,with another KC dog,and have a litter,so they could make a couple of grand.
They sent her off to get pregnant,which she did.
The scan at the vets however,showed one pup. Which died,after birth.
Then they sent her out to breed again.
This time with a different dog,had another turn of events...
The owner of the dog,stole their bitch,when they left the bitch alone,with the dog and owner,for a few minutes
They met on facebook,and couldnt track them down again.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

holly1 said:


> Just want to tell you a little tale...
> Some people we know,bought a KC bitch.They planned to let her go breed,with another KC dog,and have a litter,so they could make a couple of grand.
> They sent her off to get pregnant,which she did.
> The scan at the vets however,showed one pup. Which died,after birth.
> ...


 sadly - the first tale is not unusual - happened to a friend of mine recently - the pup was born by c-section thrived and then sadly slid rapidly 

The second scenario most certainly wouldn't happen in the "reputable breeding market" - contrary to what some would have us believe - breeders DO have reputations which they want to quite rightly preserve and protect having frequently put many years of effort and hard work into developing their lines.

I can only assume if your friends thought they "were going to make a couple of grand" that they either had a very rare and therefore expensive breed with few health-tests or a middle of the road price breed with no health-tests used 

I can understand ostensibly why people looking at a litter with say 7 pups for sale at £500 each would think it as easy money - but they will have no concept of what has gone before in terms of health-testing, stud fees, lost earnings and raising the litter if everything has been done properly - and that's before considering things such as a c-section - and I am reliably informed that for a very large breed dog through the most common out of hours vets service, you won't get any change from *£2,000 *on a c-section.

Sometimes with a large enough litter and everything going smoothly - a good breeder may make a small profit which will more often than not go back into a "slush fund" that contributes towards health tests, show entry fees etc

Even then - the only people who will really make any money are those owning well used stud dogs, and even then - few will see the hard work and effort that goes on behind the scenes by these stud dog owners - it's not just a case of getting two matings and leaving the owners to it.

ETA - I would almost be inclined to suggest that your post appears as a single post thread sticky within the breeding section - as it is part the stark reality for more than a few and part testimony to not doing the research properly when looking for a stud dog -that probably "bargain basement" stud dog turned out to be very expensive.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

As much as we all champion ethical breeding 'in the open' on here, there are some who actively encourage BYBs 'privately'. When I announced that I was waiting for a RR pup I received several PMs from members who could get me a RR and one who had a family member who bred a certain breed but 'did ridgies on the side' if I wanted one.

It is all very well debating what constitutes a BYB, asking questions of all those who breed and asking them to reconsider but we all have to practise what we preach and stop supporting them either by buying from them or encouraging others to.

I am NOT suggesting that many members have double standards by any stretch; the vast, vast majority on here I believe to be honest folk who would stand by their principles no matter what and I respect their views (whether I agree with them or not) but whilst we still have folk on PF actively promoting BYBs 'behind the scenes' I feel like it's almost a losing battle in trying to encourage the general public to look more carefully at where they get their dog or whether or not they use their dog for breeding.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Dogless said:


> I feel like it's almost a losing battle in trying to encourage the general public to look more carefully at where they get their dog or whether or not they use their dog for breeding.


Sadly you are spot on - words such as "head" and "wall" frustratingly come to mind far more regularly than I would like - that's not aimed at anyone in particular but a general observation from talking to people, reading online and from both some of the puppy and in particular stud enquiries I get


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

rona said:


> If your dog has an injury and you know it's likely to get arthritis at a later stage in life, you'd do everything in your power to stop or at least put of the dreaded day wouldn't you?
> 
> If health tests are an option to at least minimize the chances of hereditary problems, then why wouldn't someone who professes to love their dog (and pups) want to take that option?





Bijou said:


> ...and that's the problem - there are so many ways of interpreting ethical breeding with little consensus of opinion that perhaps we should all just do what we want and leave all parties to breed the way they think is right -
> 
> This would of course mean leaving those that use close line breeding to continue - those that breed at every season - those that produce dogs that are over exaggerated - those that produce 'designer cross breeds - those that sell to third parties and those that do no health testing to carry on regardless - no finger pointing, no blame just accepting that we all do it differently.
> 
> Should we all just get on with breeding ( and buying ) according to our own personal code of ethics and stop forcing our own viewpoint on others ?


Well YES, that is what we should do. You cannot FORCE your viewpoint on others, all it will do is make them more determined to carry on in the way they think is correct.

It is the minority that health tests - there would not be many litters if only health tested dogs were bred from.


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

When the time comes and we loose our Scamp, I just know I will want another pup and I won't look to the expensive, KC Reg, Health-Tested to the hilt, perfect pedigree pup that will cost me £600. I will go to a breeder who is concientious and caring. BUT down to earth and not snooty - Someone who will be more than happy to be on the end of the phone 5 years down the line, when I need to talk about my boy/girl ... 

What's wrong with giving buyers the choice?? If you want to pay more, for health-guarantees then all well and good. But if you're happy to take pot-luck at a lower cost, what's so wrong about that ?


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Ebeneezer said:


> When the time comes and we loose our Scamp, I just know I will want another pup and I won't look to the expensive, KC Reg, Health-Tested to the hilt, perfect pedigree pup that will cost me £600. I will go to a breeder who is concientious and caring. BUT down to earth and not snooty - Someone who will be more than happy to be on the end of the phone 5 years down the line, when I need to talk about my boy/girl ...
> 
> What's wrong with giving buyers the choice?? If you want to pay more, for health-guarantees then all well and good. But if you're happy to take pot-luck at a lower cost, what's so wrong about that ?


It is possible to get a pup from health tested parents and KC reg bred by down to earth folk who still very much care about what happens to their pups. There are no health guarantees obviously but why not give the pup the best chance possible?

Buying cheaper is all well and good; I know someone who bought a RR pup for £750 less than I paid for my dog. All fine apart from the health problems he suffers from - he is just coming up to about 10 or 11 months old and has cost twice the purchase price of my pup at least so far due to a congenital abnormality and a few other problems.


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

£750?! and that was cheaper than you paid? What did you pay???? OMG, what about normal families, who want a dog but don't have a spare grand laying around


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Ebeneezer said:


> £750?! and that was cheaper than you paid? What did you pay???? OMG, what about normal families, who want a dog but don't have a spare grand laying around


They paid £750 less, not £750. We are normal. Rather than have money lying around I earnt it fair and square by doing a tour in Afghanistan. We had also been on a waiting list for a year so time to save.

Over the liftetime of the dog a grand isn't much - and compared to vet bills within the first year of two or three times that I know which I'd prefer to do.


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

Fair play to you, but you still can't guarantee for "Un-Testable" illnesses. What I don't understand is the attitudes toward breeding on a lower-cost scale. Breeders can still be responsible (sometimes more-so!). My friend and neighbour couldn't do anymore for her pups - the whole health testing thing, she chose to opt out of, to be able to offer pups to families who can't afford to buy Show-standard dogs - and wouldn't want to anyway ! Surely, it's the attitude that counts. She's the perfect breeder in my eyes - has scrupulously vetted each new home and will not let pups go without the promise to keep in touch. Surely, it's the Puppy-Farmers and abusive/ negligent breeders that should be the focus of ppls venom ?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Dogless said:


> They paid £750 less, not £750. We are normal. Rather than have money lying around I earnt it fair and square by doing a tour in Afghanistan. We had also been on a waiting list for a year so time to save.
> 
> Over the liftetime of the dog a grand isn't much - and compared to vet bills within the first year of two or three times that I know which I'd prefer to do.


I think you should pay whatever you feel comfortable with for the dog of your choice from the breeder of your choice.
But health testing does not mean you will not still have huge vets bills in the first year or two. There are only limited things that are tested for and some of those tests, such as for HD, are not very much of a guarantee.

I was a bit shocked when someone who breeds from non health tested, unshown, unregistered and not great conformation bitches and her own dog (all lovely dogs with great temperaments and where Toffee came from) asked me if I thought Candy had the problems she has because she was inbred (not even sure what that really means, but no I would not have thought she was). It would not matter how many health tests her parents had had or whether she was a good old mongrel , she would still have the same problems and there are many more conditions, even without accidents, that can give big vets bills.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Ebeneezer said:


> When the time comes and we loose our Scamp, I just know I will want another pup and I won't look to the expensive, KC Reg, Health-Tested to the hilt, perfect pedigree pup that will cost me £600. I will go to a breeder who is concientious and caring. BUT down to earth and not snooty - Someone who will be more than happy to be on the end of the phone 5 years down the line, when I need to talk about my boy/girl ...
> 
> *What's wrong with giving buyers the choice??* If you want to pay more, for health-guarantees then all well and good. But if you're happy to take pot-luck at a lower cost, what's so wrong about that ?


It's _dogs_ being discussed here, not a new sofa, carpet or fridge
If you want to take 'pot luck' about a living being, at least give a rescue a home rather than lining some unethical breeder's pockets


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Ebeneezer said:


> When the time comes and we loose our Scamp, I just know I will want another pup and I won't look to the expensive, KC Reg, Health-Tested to the hilt, perfect pedigree pup that will cost me £600. I will go to a breeder who is concientious and caring. BUT down to earth and not snooty - Someone who will be more than happy to be on the end of the phone 5 years down the line, when I need to talk about my boy/girl ...
> 
> What's wrong with giving buyers the choice?? If you want to pay more, for health-guarantees then all well and good. But if you're happy to take pot-luck at a lower cost, what's so wrong about that ?


Well that's all well and good that YOU'RE happy to watch a beloved family member suffer, but what about the dog! Do you think the dog would choose to suffer??


----------



## Newfinch (Oct 27, 2012)

I know someone with a dog who has major hip displasia. Someone approached him asking if he would allow his dog to be used at stud. He agreed. Luckily, he could not do the deed due to his bad hips. We asked him why he would use his dog at stud when he has such terrible hip displasia which could be passed on to his offspring. His reply - it doesn't matter, the pups will only go to pet homes, not for showing.
Just because the pups would only go to pet homes is no excuse for using the boy at stud. The health of the pups should be paramount. Why should they suffer for the whole of their lives just to give the owners of the parents the satisfaction of having a litter and the possibility of 'making a quick buck'


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Ebeneezer said:


> Fair play to you, but you still can't guarantee for "Un-Testable" illnesses. What I don't understand is the attitudes toward breeding on a lower-cost scale. Breeders can still be responsible (sometimes more-so!). My friend and neighbour couldn't do anymore for her pups - the whole health testing thing, she chose to opt out of, to be able to offer pups to families who can't afford to buy Show-standard dogs - and wouldn't want to anyway ! Surely, it's the attitude that counts. She's the perfect breeder in my eyes - has scrupulously vetted each new home and will not let pups go without the promise to keep in touch. Surely, it's the Puppy-Farmers and abusive/ negligent breeders that should be the focus of ppls venom ?


But health testing isn't about show - standard dogs; it is about health. There seems to be an idea that only dogs that are shown are vulnerable to disease? ! I agree that you cannot test for all illnesses; but for those that you can test for then why on earth not test for them? I know that if I bred a litter (never will!) and chose not to health test and then had to deal with phone calls from distraught puppy buyers at some point down the line because their dogs had developed a disease that health testing could have prevented by stopping the mating that I wouldn't forgive myself.

Being caring and having a good attitude unfortunately just isn't enough for me; I would go so far as to say that not health testing is negligent - even nice people can be negligent.

Not sure if the venom comment is aimed my way; but I don't think I have been venomous on this thread!


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Blitz said:


> I think you should pay whatever you feel comfortable with for the dog of your choice from the breeder of your choice.
> But health testing does not mean you will not still have huge vets bills in the first year or two. There are only limited things that are tested for and some of those tests, such as for HD, are not very much of a guarantee.
> 
> I was a bit shocked when someone who breeds from non health tested, unshown, unregistered and not great conformation bitches and her own dog (all lovely dogs with great temperaments and where Toffee came from) asked me if I thought Candy had the problems she has because she was inbred (not even sure what that really means, but no I would not have thought she was). It would not matter how many health tests her parents had had or whether she was a good old mongrel , she would still have the same problems and there are many more conditions, even without accidents, that can give big vets bills.


Absolutely Blitz - I was more referring back to the example I'd given in my previous post.


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

Not sure if the venom comment is aimed my way; but I don't think I have been venomous on this thread![/QUOTE]

No, not aimed at you personsally ...  Bedtime now .. Night xx


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Ebeneezer said:


> No, not aimed at you personsally ...  Bedtime now .. Night xx


Just in time to ignore my reply!


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Shrap said:


> Just in time to ignore my reply!


Mine too!!!


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

Shrap said:


> Just in time to ignore my reply!


Oh? Me ? Sorry,I'm not gone yet ...


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Ebeneezer said:


> Oh? Me ? Sorry,I'm not gone yet ...


Yes my reply is on the previous page. I would appreciate a response.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Ebeneezer said:


> When the time comes and we loose our Scamp, I just know I will want another pup and I won't look to the expensive, KC Reg, Health-Tested to the hilt, perfect pedigree pup that will cost me £600. I will go to a breeder who is concientious and caring. BUT down to earth and not snooty - Someone who will be more than happy to be on the end of the phone 5 years down the line, when I need to talk about my boy/girl ...
> 
> What's wrong with giving buyers the choice?? If you want to pay more, for health-guarantees then all well and good. But if you're happy to take pot-luck at a lower cost, what's so wrong about that ?


  please explain exactly HOW breeders using health-tests are snooty? your comments are bordering on slanderous 

Any pup owner I sell to, any visiting bitch that comes to me I am there for them - whatever it takes and is needed at any time of the day or night (including paying visits to the bitches who have visited when they live 5 hours away)

there's NOTHING wrong with giving buyers the choice - there is something wrong with buyers who are willing to buy pups with an increased likelihood of developing a range of health-problems that can subject them to a lifetime of pain and discomfort, heart-ache for the owners and quite possibly premature death for the dog 

Now I am going to be snooty - I suggest you do some serious research - because contrary to your sheer ignorance - breeders can use health tests, show and work their dogs and STILL be there at any time regardless of the dogs age for their puppy buyers

How sad that you believe it has to be either or - the breeders of my dogs have ALWAYS been there for me, as have the owners of the stud dogs I've used - despite in some instance breeding more champions than I could ever dream of - not an element of snootiness amongst them and it saddens me that you fail to realise the two are inextricably linked.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> When the time comes and we loose our Scamp, I just know I will want another pup and I won't look to the expensive, KC Reg, Health-Tested to the hilt, perfect pedigree pup that will cost me £600. I will go to a breeder who is concientious and caring. BUT down to earth and not snooty - Someone who will be more than happy to be on the end of the phone 5 years down the line, when I need to talk about my boy/girl ...
> 
> What's wrong with giving buyers the choice?? If you want to pay more, for health-guarantees then all well and good. But if you're happy to take pot-luck at a lower cost, what's so wrong about that ?


I just give up ...do you not think that ALL pups should be bred to the highest possible standards ...and if not why ? ...is it seriously just about saving money ?

taking 'pot luck' with the health of a dog and refusing to pay extra for a pup that comes form health tested parents is just shocking


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Ebeneezer said:


> Fair play to you, but you still can't guarantee for "Un-Testable" illnesses. What I don't understand is the attitudes toward breeding on a lower-cost scale. Breeders can still be responsible (sometimes more-so!). My friend and neighbour couldn't do anymore for her pups - the whole health testing thing, she chose to opt out of, to be able to offer pups to families who can't afford to buy Show-standard dogs - and wouldn't want to anyway ! Surely, it's the attitude that counts. She's the perfect breeder in my eyes - has scrupulously vetted each new home and will not let pups go without the promise to keep in touch. Surely, it's the Puppy-Farmers and abusive/ negligent breeders that should be the focus of ppls venom ?


I put this on another thread but it applies to this one just as much

I know an excellent breeder of Labradors who has never shown or worked her dogs.
She knows all the pedigrees of her chosen dogs and goes into such detail that she actually neutered a dog rather than breed because of epilepsy 4 generations back. The dog she chose to breed was scrutinized to the same standard, as are stud dogs.
She has now bred 3 generations of very healthy, perfectly sound and reasonably good looking Labs.

This person breeds for the pet trade. Her dogs would never win a show but with luck, every single pup will make it to old age as a happy healthy dog.
They have far more chance of achieving this than a dog with no health checks.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Ebeneezer said:


> When the time comes and we loose our Scamp, I just know I will want another pup and I won't look to the expensive, KC Reg, Health-Tested to the hilt, perfect pedigree pup that will cost me £600. I will go to a breeder who is concientious and caring. BUT down to earth and not snooty - Someone who will be more than happy to be on the end of the phone 5 years down the line, when I need to talk about my boy/girl ...
> 
> What's wrong with giving buyers the choice?? If you want to pay more, for health-guarantees then all well and good. But if you're happy to take pot-luck at a lower cost, what's so wrong about that ?


£600? Seems rather low to me. It all depends on the breed as to how much you should be paying for a health tested pup with a good pedigree. My newfies cost £1500 as puppies, and guess what? The breeders are still there at the other end of the phone or email if needed.

If you are so uncaring as to think about the money before the health of the dog, then perhaps you should not think about having one at all. I for one do not want to take the chance of watching another dog suffer, limping and in pain and unable to play like a puppy because of a disease that can be tested for, when I have already gone through that for a disease that can't be tested for.


----------



## ballybee (Aug 25, 2010)

Not everyone who shows and uses health tests are snooty, Dans breeder is such a lovely, down to earth person!!!

Some breeds have some horrific diseases which can be health tested for, Spinones can get an extremely destructive disease called Cerebral Ataxia which affects the nerves, muscles and brains....any pup born with CA won't live past 2 years as they degenerate so quickly. There is a test available and i wouldn't dream of buying a pup from untested parents.

Your comment about people paying more for a health tested pup so they have peace of mind is exactly right, i have a mutt who i love more than anything but i wouldn't buy another unhealth tested dog knowing how debilitating some of these conditions are and how easily available the tests are.

There's no legitimate reason for dogs to bred with being tested first as the tests are widely available. Quite frankly if you're not willing to health test a dog you plan on breeding from you shouldn't be breeding.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

£600 is not expensive for a well bred dog from health tested parents, if you can't afford that feel free to rescue but don't line the pockets of a byb because you can't afford to support someone who does things as well as possible. 

To break even on the one litter of pups I've had so far, I would have had to sell pups for £1,200, they were sold for the average price for a well bred pup of that breed which is £600. I'm just about to start the health tests for the flatcoat, the first of which is funnily enough, the bva eye test including gonioscopy, which tests for glaucoma (one of the tests your friend could easily have done on her bitch). If she passes her eye test this time round, *if* I decide I will breed from her, I will redo her eye test so it's current (she's too young yet, it will be at least another two years in Spring), and there are also hips, elbows that I would do. Both her parents are clear for glaucoma, but I will test her nonetheless, as errors can creep in. Elbow grading isn't a recommended test either, but I feel it's important to start to collate data about existing breeding stock, and some breeders are now elbow grading, unfortunately a small minority atm. I personally couldn't bring myself to do less than that and gamble with bringing new pups into the world without having done as much as possible to try and prevent them inheriting conditions we know we can avoid with our current tests, or at least do our best to avoid. If there was a genetic test for gPRA I would use that as well, because Labradors were used to help broaden the gene pool after the second world war, and it's entirely possible it could have been introduced, sadly it only exists as part of the bva current clear eye cert at the moment for flatcoats. 

I'm not thinking I'll make vast profits on that litter either! And if I breed on from the pup I kept back from Tau, I will retest genetic conditions, again, to confirm her status rather than rely on tests where someone could have made an error. No, it's not all about health testing, but they are a very basic minimum that anyone can have done, the problem is they cost money, so people aren't willing to do them, they'd rather stick their heads in the sand.


----------



## Netpon (Feb 21, 2012)

You'll actually find that its the 'proper' breeders who are the ones that will be on the end of the phone 5 years down the line and that will take a dog back at any stage of its life. The people breeding for money/the "pet trade" would probably not have the facilities/space/time/interest to take back a dog say 5 years down the line


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

Been in my neighbour's this eve and take my hat off to her. I certainly wouldn't have the patience to deal with a rabble of ASBO toddler dogs. It's flippin chaos in there and she doesn't sit down !


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

Having read all the responses, I have concluded that a back yard breeder is an umberella-term used by Show-Breeder to create ill-feeling and a perceived lesser-status towards all other breeders that don't conform to the same breeding practices as they do. Regardless of thier intention.

I think this is completely unfair. It's basically discrimonation against those less well-off, who choose to purchase thier much-loved dog from a less-expensive source.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Ebeneezer said:


> Having read all the responses, I have concluded that a back yard breeder is an umberella-term used by Show-Breeder to create ill-feeling and a perceived lesser-status towards all other breeders that don't conform to the same breeding practices as they do. Regardless of thier intention.
> 
> I think this is completely unfair. It's basically discrimonation against those less well-off, who choose to purchase thier much-loved dog from a less-expensive source.


What a load of rubbish, show breeder? I upset the show world with every post I make by saying Labs are too fat, flatcoats are too showy, and that there are show people who are in it to win it at any cost.

So come on then, you admire your friend, how much will you admire her if one of those pups develops glaucoma, a VERY painful condition. Will you admire her watching a pup/young dog panting and whining in pain? What about hip dysplasia, if one of the pups goes on to develop that? Will you admire the fact that she loved those pups such a lot when she looked after them? Or Fuco, or any of the other conditions she could have tested for?

She bred from a nervous, unhealth tested, unregistered bitch, who had a bad start in life apparently, what is there to be proud about there? If you can't afford to health test, if you can't afford the cost of an emergency c-section, or to treat pups/bitch if needed, you shouldn't be breeding in the first place. And yes, that does exclude a lot of people but so what, unless you just think dogs are a commodity and we should all churn out litters for the sake of it?

I've seen some utter chod posted in my time but I honestly think you're just trolling now because no-one agrees with your viewpoint about your friend's litter.


----------



## Netpon (Feb 21, 2012)

Ebeneezer said:


> Having read all the responses, I have concluded that a back yard breeder is an umberella-term used by Show-Breeder to create ill-feeling and a perceived lesser-status towards all other breeders that don't conform to the same breeding practices as they do. Regardless of thier intention.
> 
> I think this is completely unfair. It's basically discrimonation against those less well-off, who choose to purchase thier much-loved dog from a less-expensive source.


I'm not a breeder and don't show, all my dogs are pets (and rescues at that)but I know what a BYB is! Just within my breed (Rotties) I see dogs with hip and elbow problems and entropian, dogs that look nothing like a rott should, and rescues full of dogs that should be returned to their breeder, only the breeder has no interest or is nowhere to be found. All the above are as a result of people breeding dogs without researching lines, doing health tests or providing lifetime backup - BYBs!!!


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Ebeneezer said:


> Having read all the responses, I have concluded that a back yard breeder is an umberella-term used by Show-Breeder to create ill-feeling and a perceived lesser-status towards all other breeders that don't conform to the same breeding practices as they do. Regardless of thier intention.
> 
> I think this is completely unfair. It's basically discrimonation against those less well-off, who choose to purchase thier much-loved dog from a less-expensive source.


Having read all the responses it's hard to believe that you still think that. It's basically despair that people still line the pockets of those who put money before health.


----------



## fluffybunny2001 (Feb 8, 2008)

im not a show breeder,but your friend is a back yard breeder,she is awre of the tests,but chooses not to have them done,that is highly irresponsible


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

Ebeneezer said:


> Having read all the responses, I have concluded that a back yard breeder is an umberella-term used by Show-Breeder to create ill-feeling and a perceived lesser-status towards all other breeders that don't conform to the same breeding practices as they do. Regardless of thier intention.
> 
> I think this is completely unfair. It's basically discrimonation against those less well-off, who choose to purchase thier much-loved dog from a less-expensive source.


Back yard breeders don't care about their dogs, they breed for money full stop! It dosent matter who you are...as a human being animal welfare should be priority when buying a pet.

A back yard breeder.... YouTube

If your happy to buy from someone like this you are just as bad as them! No health tests?! Purely in it for the cash!


----------



## Ebeneezer (Oct 8, 2012)

She hasn't made any cash. She's done it as a "hobby-breeder" (your term, not mine).

It's clear that the pretentious crowd can't bear the Mongrel population - but there are plenty of us who love our Heinz 57 Varieties; the majority of whom have alot less health problems than your freaky beasts


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Ebeneezer said:


> Having read all the responses, I have concluded that a back yard breeder is an umberella-term used by Show-Breeder to create ill-feeling and a perceived lesser-status towards all other breeders that don't conform to the same breeding practices as they do. Regardless of thier intention.
> 
> I think this is completely unfair. It's basically discrimonation against those less well-off, who choose to purchase thier much-loved dog from a less-expensive source.


What a load of nonsense!



Ebeneezer said:


> She hasn't made any cash. She's done it as a "hobby-breeder" (your term, not mine).
> 
> It's clear that the pretentious crowd can't bear the Mongrel population - but there are plenty of us who love our Heinz 57 Varieties; the majority of whom have alot less health problems than your freaky beasts


Plenty of Heinz 57 in rescues, why breed more? All 3 of mine are rescue dogs but if I go for a pup of my chosen breed I will go to an ethical breeder, not some BYB who bred for the hell of it. Oh & personal insults about other peoples' pedigree dogs makes you look like you're clutching at straws

I actually find it funny that I'm considered 'snobby' now *walks off shaking head* :lol:


----------



## ballybee (Aug 25, 2010)

Well you clearly missed where i said i have a mongrel. He's more than likely from a BYB(i don't know as i got him at 10 weeks old) and is my world.










And i also said i have a " Freaky Beast"










He is an Italian Spinone, a very old, very much unchanged breed, He is from health tested parents, from a very lovely, very responsible breeder(she helps run the scottish spinone rescue and is vice chairperson for the scottish breed club so knows her stuff when it comes to spinones) who only breeds when she is looking for another pup to keep lines going and has a massive waiting list(there were over 20 on the list for Dans litter) to ensure all pups go to good homes. She does keep in touch, she made everyone who took a pup sign a contract that stated if they needed to rehome their spinone she would be the first person to know so she could assisst with rehoming and is more than happy to take a pup back if needed.

That to me is a responsible breeder....she knows where every spinone pup she's ever bred is and is in regular contact with the majority of the owners. To me that worth a good deal.

BTW - I do know we're not to feed trolls but i love having an excuse to put up pictures of my pooches


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Closing to look at this.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Re-opened but can I direct *all* posters to the sticky at the top of dog chat
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/36419-important-rule-regarding-crossbreeds.html


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

Ballybee, i do love Dan but i do have to say that Tummel is a very proud,handsome beast.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Ebeneezer said:


> Having read all the responses, I have concluded that a back yard breeder is an umberella-term used by Show-Breeder to create ill-feeling and a perceived lesser-status towards all other breeders that don't conform to the same breeding practices as they do. Regardless of thier intention.
> 
> I think this is completely unfair. It's basically discrimonation against those less well-off, who choose to purchase thier much-loved dog from a less-expensive source.


I think it would be useful for you to reread the posts as the posts do not fit with your conclusion.

Perhaps you are feeling defensive as your neighbour (who is also a friend) is using poor breeding practices and would tend to be classified as a back yard breeder.

There is no discrimination at all. Nor is it unfair, except to the puppies that a byb produces without care. Unfortunately, it is true that intention is of far less importance when breeding. IMO it would be better that someone breeds for money but does it properly than someone who does it for the 'love' of their pet but doesn't do it properly.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

lymorelynn said:


> Re-opened but can I direct *all* posters to the sticky at the top of dog chat
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/36419-important-rule-regarding-crossbreeds.html


Thought you might have meant this one 
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/113293-remember-me-ode-irresponsible-breeder.html


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

lymorelynn said:


> Re-opened but can I direct *all* posters to the sticky at the top of dog chat
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/36419-important-rule-regarding-crossbreeds.html


Nothing wrong with post 109 though huh?


----------



## ballybee (Aug 25, 2010)

Bjt said:


> Ballybee, i do love Dan but i do have to say that Tummel is a very proud,handsome beast.


Thank you  Tummel has a very powerful physique and is a great subject for photography....i have some fantastic pictures of Tummel looking all majestic


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

rona said:


> Nothing wrong with post 30 though huh?


Can't get 'em all sometimes - apologies if I missed one.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

lymorelynn said:


> Can't get 'em all sometimes - apologies if I missed one.


Sorry it was post 109.

Read their post count


----------



## Netpon (Feb 21, 2012)

There has been no crossbreed bashing here from what I've read, just talk of people breeding dogs of any breed or cross without proper knowledge, thought or preparation.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Netpon said:


> There has been no crossbreed bashing here from what I've read, just talk of people breeding dogs of any breed or cross without proper knowledge, thought or preparation.


No it was just the OP that bought it up by pedigree and pedigree breeder bashing in post 109


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Ebeneezer said:


> Having read all the responses, I have concluded that a back yard breeder is an umberella-term used by Show-Breeder to create ill-feeling and a perceived lesser-status towards all other breeders that don't conform to the same breeding practices as they do. Regardless of thier intention.
> 
> I think this is completely unfair. It's basically discrimonation against those less well-off, who choose to purchase thier much-loved dog from a less-expensive source.


what a complete load of rubbish - you've read the bits you want to read rather than the facts.

It is NOT discrimination to have a desire that all pups born will have the best possible chance of a long and healthy life - if you think it is - then you have a very strange view of the overarching picture.

It's not about "conforming" it's about doing your damndest to ensure that the pups you breed have the best possible chance of a healthy life - and for that - for a large number of breeds - that requires health-testing to stop issues such as


Pups going blind
Stop them developing the horrific condition Syringomyelia
To minimise the risk of hip and elbow dysplasia
To avoid pups dying before they get to 8 weeks from preventable conditions
to stop them developing / produding haemophillia
to stop them developing / producing Degenerative Myelopathy
to stop them developing / producing Hyperuricosuria
To prevent deafness
To minimise the risk of pups developing luxating patella

The list goes on cross many breeds (AND cross-breeds who are just as susceptible to these conditions)

If you think ANY of the above are about "conforming" then you really sadly don't understand at all and will continue to think it's OK to breed and buy pups who could face such hardship in life, when so much could be, with many of the current tests available, be avoided and without excluding worthy dogs from the gene pool.



rocco33 said:


> There is no discrimination at all. Nor is it unfair, except to the puppies that a byb produces without care. Unfortunately, it is true that intention is of far less importance when breeding. IMO it would be better that someone breeds for money but does it properly than someone who does it for the 'love' of their pet but doesn't do it properly.


I agree, hence my earlier point disagreeing that a licensed breeder shouldn't be automatically be pushed into the BYB category.


----------



## Luz (Jul 28, 2012)

Don't KC pedigree breeders sell puppies destined to be pets cheaper than Show quality pups? Both my pups are from registered health tested breeders (not KC as they are imports). One could be shown or bred from (but she can't be shown in the UK as it's a breed not recognised by the KC) the other boy is too small for show -but fine for breeding. I do know that pups too small or large or wrong colour get sold as pets only with an understanding that they shouldn't be bred from and can cost as little as £100. Does that not happen in this country?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Luz said:


> Don't KC pedigree breeders sell puppies destined to be pets cheaper than Show quality pups? Both my pups are from registered health tested breeders (not KC as they are imports). One could be shown or bred from (but she can't be shown in the UK as it's a breed not recognised by the KC) the other boy is too small for show -but fine for breeding. I do know that pups too small or large or wrong colour get sold as pets only with an understanding that they shouldn't be bred from and can cost as little as £100. Does that not happen in this country?


I don't show, but my understanding is that generally, no, the same price is applied to all puppies in the litter. Besides, all you have in a puppy is show potential.

My dogs are working dogs and the same price applies whether sold as a working puppy or a pet, regardless.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Luz said:


> Don't KC pedigree breeders sell puppies destined to be pets cheaper than Show quality pups? Both my pups are from registered health tested breeders (not KC as they are imports). One could be shown or bred from (but she can't be shown in the UK as it's a breed not recognised by the KC) the other boy is too small for show -but fine for breeding. I do know that pups too small or large or wrong colour get sold as pets only with an understanding that they shouldn't be bred from and can cost as little as £100. Does that not happen in this country?


My Flatcoat pup will cost the same as all the other pups in the litter, even if I want to work or show him and the next family doesn't.
I would personally be very confused if a breeder had different prices for different people. Surely, the same amount of effort has gone into all the pups.


----------



## Luz (Jul 28, 2012)

terencesmum said:


> My Flatcoat pup will cost the same as all the other pups in the litter, even if I want to work or show him and the next family doesn't.
> I would personally be very confused if a breeder had different prices for different people. Surely, the same amount of effort has gone into all the pups.


No I mean those that will not be suitable for show. Obviously a pup with show potential would cost the same whether it was going to be shown or not. For example white boxers used to be cheaper because they couldn't be shown.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Luz said:


> No I mean those that will not be suitable for show. Obviously a pup with show potential would cost the same whether it was going to be shown or not. For example white boxers used to be cheaper because they couldn't be shown.


The breeder would not know how the pup turned out. If I go to my breeder, and tell her I want to show, then she might be able to advise me which one to pick (though she will pick a dog for me, in our case), but she cannot guarantee he'll turn out well. 
Again, if there was a yellow in the litter (which there won't be), it would still cost the same. Heather would have spent exactly the same amount of time, effort and love to raise that pup than the liver or black ones, and the health tests etc would still cost the same.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Luz said:


> Don't KC pedigree breeders sell puppies destined to be pets cheaper than Show quality pups? Both my pups are from registered health tested breeders (not KC as they are imports). One could be shown or bred from (but she can't be shown in the UK as it's a breed not recognised by the KC) the other boy is too small for show -but fine for breeding. I do know that pups too small or large or wrong colour get sold as pets only with an understanding that they shouldn't be bred from and can cost as little as £100. Does that not happen in this country?


There is simply no way to guarantee that a pup will go on to be show quality - this is a risk everyone takes when they buy a prospective show pup.

Yes, a breeder will know their lines and become adept at picking which pups are most likely to succeed - but there are no guarantees.

Two of my dogs come from a renowned kennel producing many champions home and abroad - everyone paid the same price for the pups.

All pups in a litter should be sold at the same price irrespective of gender or colour / markings

Prospective owners should be made fully aware of any endorsements and what is required in for them to be lifted for breeding.

You can pick a prospective show pup - but things can and do go wrong -

Absolutely NO pup can be deemed suitable to breed from at 8 weeks old - and often breeders will place endorsements on their pups with a documented minimum criteria for them being lifted.

I know some things are done differently across the pond, and I am sure there will be breeds where things are maybe done differently with less chance of something going awry - but in the main - pups are sold as pups - I do know of a few that charge extra for "show potential" - but as far as I am aware, these are the exception to the rule.

Four of mine are shown, some more often than the others - they are all hip and elbow scored, and all but one DNA tested (simply because I haven't got around to doing the necessary DNA tests with lots of other things gong on) - all those I might consider breeding from have their eyes tested.

I lay down a minimum criteria for visiting bitches and won't consider a bitch that doesn't meet that criteria - that's not because I am snooty - but because I want to ensure that the pups have the best possible start in life.

Although I haven't had a litter for three years - when I do, apart from my "keeper(s)" they are sold as pets - if any of them develop well and the owners want to try their hand in the showring, good luck to them - I will give them as much help and support as I can.

But generally, if someone comes to me after a pup they can potentially show, I direct them on to more established breeders.

Ultimately, ALL my dogs are pets first and foremost - and all currently laying around my living sprawled across the settees and trying to bump me out of my seat.


----------



## Luz (Jul 28, 2012)

Thanks, I was just wondering.
I haven't done much research into breeders in this country but did lots of research into my breed and ploughed through Breeders websites and the Breed's Club Website and it seemed common for them to advertise 'pet only' or 'pet and breeding' or champion potential. (And I know champion potential isn't a guarantee!)


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Luz said:


> Don't KC pedigree breeders sell puppies destined to be pets cheaper than Show quality pups? Both my pups are from registered health tested breeders (not KC as they are imports). One could be shown or bred from (but she can't be shown in the UK as it's a breed not recognised by the KC) the other boy is too small for show -but fine for breeding. I do know that pups too small or large or wrong colour get sold as pets only with an understanding that they shouldn't be bred from and can cost as little as £100. Does that not happen in this country?


What happens mostly with the top show breeders, the ones with really well known dogs in the puppies' pedigree like mine, is that they put breeding restrictions on the puppies so that if you breed from them you cannot register the puppies. They do this to keep the lines up to a standard. So, in order to get them to lift the restriction, they will want to approve whatever dog the pups are going to be mated with.

When I bought Ferdie I agreed that he would not be bred from because he had suffered a hernia and that can be hereditary, so no way would they lift those restrictions even if I asked.

Breeders like this don't usually have pups that are the wrong colour, but beware because the ones that do will try to sell them for more money as being a "rare" colour. The average price for a very well bred newfie pup is about £1500. I saw some advertised as "rare landseers" brown and white for £1800. Landseers are black and white and brown and white is not recognised by the Kennel Club.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Ebeneezer said:


> She hasn't made any cash. She's done it as a "hobby-breeder" (your term, not mine).
> 
> It's clear that the pretentious crowd can't bear the Mongrel population - but there are plenty of us who love our Heinz 57 Varieties; the majority of whom have alot less health problems than your freaky beasts


So you fail to answer any questions regarding the pups and how you'd feel if they developed an illness that could have been prevented through testing; your friend has bred to type, so she is still breeding within a closed gene pool and pups can inherit the same diseases as KC registered breed types, but KC registered breed types are freaky beasts because people bother to health test them? And your logic left by which back door? The same one as your impartiality I'd warrant, since you can't be bothered to take on board the posts as they are meant, and have tried to turn it into a cross breed/pedigree slanging match because you have no argument. It's a shame isn't it that no-one's actually bashed any dogs, just a byb, you're the only one to actually insult anyone's dogs, as Rona says, and as quoted above, post 109 is simply childish and would be insulting if I actually gave a [email protected] about your opinion :dita:


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Ebeneezer said:


> Isn't health testing just a new-fangled means of genetically engineering a more perfect pooch? (ie: less medical problems)


Even though the wording is designed to be inflammatory, in this ^^^ post on the first page of this thread you make the link between health testing aiming to reduce medical issues within breeds. The fact that you see the reduction of health issues as a bad thing is strange, but you do at least acknowledge the link between the two.

Then you make the post below (quote won't work):

*It's clear that the pretentious crowd can't bear the Mongrel population - but there are plenty of us who love our Heinz 57 Varieties; the majority of whom have alot less health problems than your freaky beasts *

This thread as SL says is nothing to do with mongrel v purebred dogs - you have suddenly brought it up for some reason. We are talking about your friend also breeding freaky beasts as she is breeding purebreds, she is just doing it as cheaply as she possibly can. So potentially unhealthy freaky beasts.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Ebeneezer said:


> She hasn't made any cash. She's done it as a "hobby-breeder" (your term, not mine).
> 
> It's clear that the pretentious crowd can't bear the Mongrel population - but there are plenty of us who love our Heinz 57 Varieties; the majority of whom have alot less health problems than your freaky beasts


I will agree that there are some members who do not agree with cross breeding or any breeding if not for show or working, thats there prerogative we all have different principles. I do think you are just out to upset people though, have been in some strong debates on here about crosses but no one has ever called my dog a freaky beast.

Obviously I do not disagree with crosses, I have one, but I have to say I would not buy a dog from your friend a nervous mum and no health tests to save money not good really. My dogs parents had hips & eye tests etc and no he wasn't cheap at all


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

I have followed this thread, as it has run its course over the last couple of days. Seeing that is has now polarised a bit, I would like to add my little thoughts, such as they are.
To start off, and as a direct answer to the OP, there is no such thing, technically, as a BYB - there are just breeders. If you breed any puppies at all then you are a breeder. Everybody, unless specifically disqualified by law, has the _right_ to breed dogs. It is in the exercising of this right that things get blurry.
BYB is a pejorative term, used by one section of those that do breed to denigrate another, much the same as snooty. These terms are essentially meaningless, as they are subjective and vary from one person to another, based solely on personal opinions - even if they are strongly held ones.
Given the above, it is no surprise that there are so many differing points of view, or that they should cause such heated debates - all human life is here.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> I will agree that there are *some members who do not agree with cross breeding or any breeding if not for show or working,* thats there prerogative we all have different principles. I do think you are just out to upset people though, have been in some strong debates on here about crosses but no one has ever called my dog a freaky beast.
> 
> Obviously I do not disagree with crosses, I have one, but I have to say I would not buy a dog from your friend a nervous mum and no health tests to save money not good really. My dogs parents had hips & eye tests etc and no he wasn't cheap at all


So no one is allowed to have a purebred dog just as a pet then? I have never noticed that attitude on here, so I am quite intrigued. I suppose those people are the ones who keep telling me I shouldn't buy a puppy, I should rescue instead? Just seems an odd idea to me.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> So no one is allowed to have a purebred dog just as a pet then? I have never noticed that attitude on here, so I am quite intrigued. I suppose those people are the ones who keep telling me I shouldn't buy a puppy, I should rescue instead? Just seems an odd idea to me.


I do struggle to understand it a little - believe the idea is should only breed for a "purpose" ie you want to keep one to show or work and the rest can go to pet homes as though to breed just for pet homes is not right. If all the pet homes dried up then surely this idea would fall flat as they would have to keep the whole litter :blink:


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> I do struggle to understand it a little - believe the idea is should only breed for a "purpose" ie you want to keep one to show or work and the rest can go to pet homes as though to breed just for pet homes is not right. If all the pet homes dried up then surely this idea would fall flat as they would have to keep the whole litter :blink:


That's as good as saying that no one should have the right to choose their breed and to research the breed traits of that breed, just to keep him or her as a family dog. What a very arrogant notion!


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

miljar said:


> I have followed this thread, as it has run its course over the last couple of days. Seeing that is has now polarised a bit, I would like to add my little thoughts, such as they are.
> To start off, and as a direct answer to the OP, there is no such thing, technically, as a BYB - there are just breeders. If you breed any puppies at all then you are a breeder. Everybody, unless specifically disqualified by law, has the _right_ to breed dogs. It is in the exercising of this right that things get blurry.
> *BYB is a pejorative term, used by one section of those that do breed to denigrate another, much the same as snooty.* These terms are essentially meaningless, as they are subjective and vary from one person to another, based solely on personal opinions - even if they are strongly held ones.
> Given the above, it is no surprise that there are so many differing points of view, or that they should cause such heated debates - all human life is here.


I disagree, plenty of us on here don't breed & still know what a BYB is, yes, we'll possibly differ on what defines one, but we don't deny they don't exist  the reality is there are too many dogs being born, not enough homes for them to go to so rescues are bursting at the seams, & it's down to the unethical & ill thought out breeding of dogs. These are the BYBs.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> I do struggle to understand it a little - believe the idea is should only breed for a "purpose" ie you want to keep one to show or work and the rest can go to pet homes as though to breed just for pet homes is not right. If all the pet homes dried up then surely this idea would fall flat as they would have to keep the whole litter :blink:


If you look around the site, I think you will find that virtually every individual who has this notion isn't a breeder - there are very few breeders good, bad or otherwise who actually think breeding shouldn't happen.

All too often I see posts saying things like "leave breeding to the professionals" (by far the most popular)

Most good breeders are not professionals, they are ethical breeders that over time have developed a reputation for the show, working or pet quality of the pups they produce.

It would be a travesty if breeding was left to the experienced, because where will all that knowledge go? it MUST be imparted onto younger generations so they can learn and develop and become the "experts" of tomorrow.

It is no secret I don't agree with deliberate cross-breeding without a specific purpose, but I'm not naive enough to believe it is ever going to go away.

Therefore if people are adamant they want to buy a cross-breed pup, then exactly the same principles should apply to prospective puppy owners as if the pup was bred from two top champions, that the parents should be health-tested with good temperaments, and the breeder care about what they are producing.

Many show bred pups will go to pet homes, some working dogs will go to pet homes (some more established working breeders who know their lines inside out may well seek working home for pups from very driven lines) and contrary to popular belief by some, there are some very good ethical and responsible pet breeders out there - I've never understood the concept of breeding solely for the pet market, but openly acknowledge that it is very much needed.

Someone said there are too many pups being born, and too many ended up in rescue - yes - sadly, on both fronts - these pups are predominantly from BYB and PF.

I've had people contacting me looking for responsibly bred Labs - and quite often I've struggled to find the colour / gender they want - because breeders are breeding less and those determined to be responsible are waiting longer for what they want - so often, waiting lists fill up quickly.

Different regions also have different "colour" demands - couple this with those not prepared to travel for what they want, and you get to understand why sometimes there may be pups left from a well bred litter at 9/10 weeks - but they are usually found good homes by the time they hit 12 weeks or are kept by the breeder.

I was all set to keep a lovely black boy from my first litter along with my chocolate bitch and the black on shared ownership, then out of the blue, I had about 6 enquiries for him in one day


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> I disagree, plenty of us on here don't breed & still know what a BYB is, yes, we'll possibly differ on what defines one, but we don't deny they don't exist  the reality is there are too many dogs being born, not enough homes for them to go to so rescues are bursting at the seams, & it's down to the unethical & ill thought out breeding of dogs. These are the BYBs.


 So, plenty of you know what a BYB is, but would differ on what defines one. Doesn't that just prove my point?

Further to this, I would argue that ANY pup being born, whatever the personal reason of the breeder involved, serves to increase the dog population.
The "ethical" term gets used a lot on threads like this - is there actually some code of ethics written down somewhere, or is it, again, an expression of personal opinion?
Again, the "ill thought out" label should surely be prefaced by "in my opinion". Any deliberate mating has, by definition, been thought out. The fact that whoever did the thinking reached a different conclusion to yourself does not make it wrong - just different.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

miljar said:


> So, plenty of you know what a BYB is, but would differ on what defines one. Doesn't that just prove my point?
> 
> Further to this, I would argue that ANY pup being born, whatever the personal reason of the breeder involved, serves to increase the dog population.
> The "ethical" term gets used a lot on threads like this - is there actually some code of ethics written down somewhere, or is it, again, an expression of personal opinion?
> Again, the "ill thought out" label should surely be prefaced by "in my opinion". Any deliberate mating has, by definition, been thought out. The fact that whoever did the thinking reached a different conclusion to yourself does not make it wrong - just different.




Absolutely disagree, whether you can use navy colours or not for your text.

Any mating is thought out whether or not people have done research, what a load of rubbish, thought out how, check for winky, check for vulva, four legs, waggy tail, wet nose well let's just breed some puppies then!! That's about as thought out as a lot of byb's get!!

There is a code of ethics for every pedigree breed, *good* breeders exceed those requirements, unfortunately they are in a minority.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

miljar said:


> So, plenty of you know what a BYB is, but would differ on what defines one. Doesn't that just prove my point?
> 
> Further to this, I would argue that ANY pup being born, whatever the personal reason of the breeder involved, serves to increase the dog population.
> The "ethical" term gets used a lot on threads like this - is there actually some code of ethics written down somewhere, or is it, again, an expression of personal opinion?
> Again, the "ill thought out" label should surely be prefaced by "in my opinion". Any deliberate mating has, by definition, been thought out. The fact that whoever did the thinking reached a different conclusion to yourself does not make it wrong - just different.




While I can agree with the majority of this post, the last sentence is just not true.
To not do as much as possible to safeguard the health of puppies from any "thought out" mating has got to be classed as wrong surely?


----------



## Wildmoor (Oct 31, 2011)

to me a BYB is one who breeds regardless of what hidden genetic conditions are in the dogs ancestory or in this case doesnt know doesnt care - these are people who do not health screen, dont general have follow up veterinary care for dam and pups, ignorant uneducated people or ones that breed for money not for health


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Absolutely disagree, whether you can use navy colours or not for your text.
> 
> Any mating is thought out whether or not people have done research, what a load of rubbish, thought out how, check for winky, check for vulva, four legs, waggy tail, wet nose well let's just breed some puppies then!! That's about as thought out as a lot of byb's get!!
> 
> There is a code of ethics for every pedigree breed, *good* breeders exceed those requirements, unfortunately they are in a minority.


OK, so I will add "voluntary" to "opinion", if it will help. Neither are anything other than personal though.
When the DDA came out, with the catch-all "type" added to the end, everybody protested that this was poor legislation and that the use of the expression "type" was too vague and could be used to demonise perfectly innocent dogs. Isn't that what the blanket BYB expression does to breeders?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

miljar said:


> Further to this, I would argue that ANY pup being born, whatever the personal reason of the breeder involved, serves to increase the dog population.




This much is true, but we're not talking about the general dog population, we are talking about the ones who end up in rescue. Good breeders take their pups back if the owners can't look after them any more, rubbish (IMO BYB) breeders wash their hands of them, passing the buck onto the already over burdened rescues


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

miljar said:


> OK, so I will add "voluntary" to "opinion", if it will help. Neither are anything other than personal though.
> When the DDA came out, with the catch-all "type" added to the end, everybody protested that this was poor legislation and that the use of the expression "type" was too vague and could be used to demonise perfectly innocent dogs. Isn't that what the blanket BYB expression does to breeders?


Not really, byb's aren't breeding specific dog types, what they breed varies tremendously, depending on how they plan, ie can't be bothered to keep an eye on a bitch in season so it's a whatever litter, to the people who think as far as producing a breed type or cross breed of varying lineage.

DDA relates to a few specific breed types, as far as I'm concerned it's bad breeding, possibly through those pesky byb's and bad ownership that actually contributes towards dangerous dogs, no matter what breed type


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Not really, byb's aren't breeding specific dog types, what they breed varies tremendously, depending on how they plan, ie can't be bothered to keep an eye on a bitch in season so it's a whatever litter, to the people who think as far as producing a breed type or cross breed of varying lineage.
> 
> DDA relates to a few specific breed types, as far as I'm concerned it's bad breeding, possibly through those pesky byb's and bad ownership that actually contributes towards dangerous dogs, no matter what breed type


I quite agree on the bad ownership thing, but that would be another thread entirely.
My reason for posting on this thread has only been to point out that there is no actual definition of a BYB.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

miljar said:


> My reason for posting on this thread has only been to point out that there is no actual definition of a BYB.


There is. 
Backyard Breeder Law & Legal Definition


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

miljar said:


> I quite agree on the bad ownership thing, but that would be another thread entirely.
> My reason for posting on this thread has only been to point out that there is no actual definition of a BYB.


That's your perception, which obviously differs from the perception of others on this forum. I have a very clear definition of what is a byb, and what sets apart a good breeder from a poor breeder. I also have a very clear definition of who is a supposedly good breeder who I wouldn't touch with a barge pole, commercial breeders, puppy farmers, hobby breeders etc, etc. Most importantly I know who I would support breeding 

Edited to add, since you're so keen on definitions, without resorting to copying the breed standard, what is your definition of a Labrador? Because I can bet your bottom dollar, your definition would differ from everyone elses, whose is the right definition?


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

terencesmum said:


> There is.
> Backyard Breeder Law & Legal Definition


Backyard Breeder is a term used for breeders of dogs in a largely pejorative sense by the Animal Welfare community, ASPCA, larger established breeders and dog club. It is used to refer to one of the groups usually deemed not to be a Reputable Breeder.

It implies either or both of careless home breeding for non-commercial reasons or a small commercial operation that does not adhere to good breeding, care and sale practises. In contrast, larger commercial operations of a similar type are usually termed a puppy mill (especially in North America) or puppy farm.

According to Animal Welfare organizations, Backyard Breeding may be for breeding of dogs for illegitimate reasons, such as for the usually illegal sports of baiting and dog fighting or to defend venues of criminal activity. Dog fanciers generally believe that such ill-bred dogs are the reason for the bad reputation of some breeds in the public perception, and the resulting breed-specific legislation.

No, there is not. Certainly not this - I suggest that you read it properly.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

miljar said:


> Backyard Breeder is a term used for breeders of dogs in a largely pejorative sense by the Animal Welfare community, ASPCA, larger established breeders and dog club. It is used to refer to one of the groups usually deemed not to be a Reputable Breeder.
> 
> It implies either or both of careless home breeding for non-commercial reasons or a small commercial operation that does not adhere to good breeding, care and sale practises. In contrast, larger commercial operations of a similar type are usually termed a puppy mill (especially in North America) or puppy farm.
> 
> ...


I have. 
But I can see that if things don't fit in with your view of the world, you just choose to ignore.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> That's your perception, which obviously differs from the perception of others on this forum. I have a very clear definition of what is a byb, and what sets apart a good breeder from a poor breeder. I also have a very clear definition of who is a supposedly good breeder who I wouldn't touch with a barge pole, commercial breeders, puppy farmers, hobby breeders etc, etc. Most importantly I know who I would support breeding
> 
> Edited to add, since you're so keen on definitions, without resorting to copying the breed standard, what is your definition of a Labrador? Because I can bet your bottom dollar, your definition would differ from everyone elses, whose is the right definition?


Where are you going with this? I stand by the point that I made, namely that BYB is not a defined term. I have no axe to grind here .
As to Labradors - I don't really know much about them. Chocolate ones are ALL loopy, they are great dogs after they get past 6 years of age, they don't mind a bit of dirt and they are very food orientated. That is about it, I am afraid.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

miljar said:


> Where are you going with this? I stand by the point that I made, namely that BYB is not a defined term. I have no axe to grind here .
> As to Labradors - I don't really know much about them. *Chocolate ones are ALL loopy*, they are great dogs after they get past 6 years of age, they don't mind a bit of dirt and they are very food orientated. That is about it, I am afraid.


Well that one sweeping generalisation shows just how your point about byb's is pretty pointless. Chocolate Labradors are not all loopy, I have three, none of them are loopy, one has worked out on a shoot, the other one would (according to my trainers) have done ok at working trials, unfortunately due to injury I couldn't compete with her. I have a daughter from one of my non-loopy chocolate Labradors, I hope to compete/work her, as well as show her. The only loopy one here is possibly me, just shows how wrong you can be


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Well that one sweeping generalisation shows just how your point about byb's is pretty pointless. Chocolate Labradors are not all loopy, I have three, none of them are loopy, one has worked out on a shoot, the other one would (according to my trainers) have done ok at working trials, unfortunately due to injury I couldn't compete with her. I have a daughter from one of my non-loopy chocolate Labradors, I hope to compete/work her, as well as show her. * The only loopy one here is possibly me, just shows how wrong you can be *


:lol: Don't forget about that Flatcoat of yours. :lol:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

terencesmum said:


> :lol: Don't forget about that Flatcoat of yours. :lol:


Just you wait until I tell Heather, loopy!!


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Well that one sweeping generalisation shows just how your point about byb's is pretty pointless. Chocolate Labradors are not all loopy, I have three, none of them are loopy, one has worked out on a shoot, the other one would (according to my trainers) have done ok at working trials, unfortunately due to injury I couldn't compete with her. I have a daughter from one of my non-loopy chocolate Labradors, I hope to compete/work her, as well as show her. The only loopy one here is possibly me, just shows how wrong you can be


Really?
I know nothing about Labradors and so my point about BYB's is obviously wrong.

Of course!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

miljar said:


> Really?
> I know nothing about Labradors and so my point about BYB's is obviously wrong.
> 
> Of course!


No, but it goes to prove the point that different experiences result in different perceptions. 

The point is, that those who have experienced Labradors, or byb's will most likely have common recurring themes, the sad fact is you have very likely come across chocolate Labs from people who don't breed for temperament/ability, I'd probably stick them in the byb bucket, or possibly worse, those who seem to be ethical, and breed knowing that temperament/ability isn't good enough.


----------



## Leam1307 (Feb 12, 2010)

Hmm im seeing this going round in circles here and could go on for many many more pages, from reading (most) of the posts peoples deffination of a byb depends on each individual and really until some sort of legislation or such is set out which states that unless a breeder has 1,2,3 in place they are deemed byb/irresponsible etc.

Unless you already know about health testing or happen to come across it on the net, how are people meant to know that they should get done. Try applying the same logic to humans.. does this mean 2 people who need glasses shouldnt have kids as their kids are more likely to require glasses. people who have parents with altsimers (sp) etc shouldnt have kids because of the same???

Im not getting into arguements here i just find it strange how peopple can be so passionate about the health of their dogs/cats but not of their children (if they were to apply the same standards) 

Also i note a few people talking about who the pups go to, that they should be homechecked etc. What else is required from a prospective owner to get a pup from an "ethical" breeder. the rescue centres are the same, it either has to be someone with lots of money who can afford a dogwalker, a retired person who doesnt leave their dogs more than 4 hrs or a jobless person who again is in all day. Oh and no kids under the age of 10. IF it all went like that then only certain classes of people would breed/own dogs. that is why people still buy unhealth tested dogs from byb. They dont cost the earth to buy and you may or may not have large vets bills, same can be said for health tested dogs.. it dont mean they wont still have these problems in future. Sorry for the long i just dont understand some of the comments on here


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Leam1307 said:


> Unless you already know about health testing or happen to come across it on the net, how are people meant to know that they should get done. *Try applying the same logic to humans*.. does this mean 2 people who need glasses shouldnt have kids as their kids are more likely to require glasses. people who have parents with altsimers (sp) etc shouldnt have kids because of the same???
> 
> Im not getting into arguements here i just find it strange how peopple can be so passionate about the health of their dogs/cats but not of their children (if they were to apply the same standards)


It is; Huntingtons is one disease that springs to mind that can be tested for prenatally. Sickle Cell Trait is another that prospective parents may opt to be tested for to avoid having a child with Sickle Cell Disease. There are plenty more - so, yes, health testing in human reproduction does happen.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Dogless said:


> It is; Huntingtons is one disease that springs to mind that can be tested for prenatally. *Sickle Cell Trait is another that prospective parents may opt to be tested for to avoid having a child with Sickle Cell Disease.* There are plenty more - so, yes, health testing in human reproduction does happen.


Very true, 2 of my cousins have Trait (my uncle, my mum's brother was negative) & I was tested this year but was thankfully found to be negative. My mum can't have the test as she is no longer with us. My children may have to be tested as well if they choose to have children, just to be on the safe side. A bit complicated but if it prevents suffering then I think it's very important


----------



## Leam1307 (Feb 12, 2010)

Dogless said:


> It is; Huntingtons is one disease that springs to mind that can be tested for prenatally. Sickle Cell Trait is another that prospective parents may opt to be tested for to avoid having a child with Sickle Cell Disease. There are plenty more - so, yes, health testing in human reproduction does happen.


I was only making the point that no matter what the scores of any tests are it doesnt rule out that condition, it also doesnt mean the dog will not have it either. conditions can skip generations etc, the history may not be known of the dog but all tests on this one dog ome back fine, does that mean it shouldnt be bred from as you dont know the generations health tests.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Leam1307 said:


> I was only making the point that no matter what the scores of any tests are it doesnt rule out that condition, it also doesnt mean the dog will not have it either. conditions can skip generations etc, the history may not be known of the dog but all tests on this one dog ome back fine, does that mean it shouldnt be bred from as you dont know the generations health tests.


It can stop a mating happening so not producing any dogs with that condition in some cases. If a breeder didn't know the history of the sire or dam then I would not purchase a dog from her / him in a million years; to me it absolutely means that that dog shouldn't be bred from - I would only purchase a dog where the pedigree is known and the breeder is aware of problems in their lines (or in the lines of stud dogs that they use) that can both be tested for or those that cannot be tested for but have occurred.


----------



## Wildmoor (Oct 31, 2011)

Leam1307 said:


> I was only making the point that no matter what the scores of any tests are it doesnt rule out that condition, it also doesnt mean the dog will not have it either. conditions can skip generations etc, the history may not be known of the dog but all tests on this one dog ome back fine, does that mean it shouldnt be bred from as you dont know the generations health tests.


if the genetic history of the dog isnt known it shouldnt be bred


----------



## Newfinch (Oct 27, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> What happens mostly with the top show breeders, the ones with really well known dogs in the puppies' pedigree like mine, is that they put breeding restrictions on the puppies so that if you breed from them you cannot register the puppies. They do this to keep the lines up to a standard. So, in order to get them to lift the restriction, they will want to approve whatever dog the pups are going to be mated with.
> 
> When I bought Ferdie I agreed that he would not be bred from because he had suffered a hernia and that can be hereditary, so no way would they lift those restrictions even if I asked.
> 
> Breeders like this don't usually have pups that are the wrong colour, but beware because the ones that do will try to sell them for more money as being a "rare" colour. The average price for a very well bred newfie pup is about £1500. I saw some advertised as "rare landseers" brown and white for £1800. Landseers are black and white and brown and white is not recognised by the Kennel Club.


Genuine Landseers are in fact not newfoundlands at all but a different breed on the continent. What we refer to as a landseer here is a white newfoundland with black markings


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Leam1307 said:


> Hmm im seeing this going round in circles here and could go on for many many more pages, from reading (most) of the posts peoples deffination of a byb depends on each individual and really until some sort of legislation or such is set out which states that unless a breeder has 1,2,3 in place they are deemed byb/irresponsible etc.
> 
> Unless you already know about health testing or happen to come across it on the net, how are people meant to know that they should get done. Try applying the same logic to humans.. does this mean 2 people who need glasses shouldnt have kids as their kids are more likely to require glasses. people who have parents with altsimers (sp) etc shouldnt have kids because of the same???
> 
> ...


First off, if you buy a puppy from unhealth tested parents, you may well find yourself after getting close to the dog, even loving him dearly, that you have to have him put to sleep because of the massive vet bills you can't afford. That is one result of buying a cheap puppy.

As to the homechecks, especially with rescues, there are reasons, though I agree some are over the top. Firstly, the poor dog has already been shunted about; the rescue want to make quite sure this doesn't happen again. As to the child problem the rescue have no real way of knowing if the dog will be ok with young children and they don't want to take the chance either of getting sued or of the dog being brought back again.

In the US it is common practice for a couple to have blood tests before marriage to ensure no hereditary diseases, so it is not unheard of.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Newfinch said:


> Genuine Landseers are in fact not newfoundlands at all but a different breed on the continent. What we refer to as a landseer here is a white newfoundland with black markings


Yes, and your point is? In some countries they are recognised as a different breed, I know, though they are in fact newfoundlands who got the name Landseer from the artist, Sir Edwin Landseer, who had a fancy for painting the white and black newfoundland.

But they are white and black, not white and brown.


----------



## Newfinch (Oct 27, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> Yes, and your point is? In some countries they are recognised as a different breed, I know, though they are in fact newfoundlands who got the name Landseer from the artist, Sir Edwin Landseer, who had a fancy for painting the white and black newfoundland.
> 
> But they are white and black, not white and brown.


My point is that we have a lot of foreign friends on here and I wanted to make them aware that we are not talking about the ETC landseer which is not a newfoundland 
I agree that the UK kennel club recognises the white and black newfoundland but does not recognise the white and brown or the black and white aka the irish spotted


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Leam1307 said:


> . . . Unless you already know about health testing or happen to come across it on the net, how are people meant to know that they should get done. Try applying the same logic to humans.. does this mean 2 people who need glasses shouldnt have kids as their kids are more likely to require glasses. people who have parents with altsimers (sp) etc shouldnt have kids because of the same???.





Dogless said:


> It can stop a mating happening so not producing any dogs with that condition in some cases. If a breeder didn't know the history of the sire or dam then I would not purchase a dog from her / him in a million years; to me it absolutely means that that dog shouldn't be bred from - I would only purchase a dog where the pedigree is known and the breeder is aware of problems in their lines (or in the lines of stud dogs that they use) that can both be tested for or those that cannot be tested for but have occurred.


Breeders can only ever know a TINY, TINY amount of information on any dog, even if they have a computer full of knowledge on its history. The dog genome holds about 20,000 genes and pedigree info and testing covers a miniscule amount of knowledge.

I don't glean the same comfort from the tiny amount of knowledge as many do. I remain fully aware of the gamble in each pairing and want to remind people of that as it is important that we know each pairing is mostly a gamble with just a few 'knowns' sorted through. Still . . . I understand you are suggesting that you would rather that than the prospect of even less from a dog of unknown heritage.



Leam1307 said:


> I was only making the point that no matter what the scores of any tests are it doesnt rule out that condition, it also doesnt mean the dog will not have it either. conditions can skip generations etc, the history may not be known of the dog but all tests on this one dog ome back fine, does that mean it shouldnt be bred from as you dont know the generations health tests.





Wildmoor said:


> if the genetic history of the dog isnt known it shouldnt be bred


There is no dog in this world where the 'genetic history' can be known. We do not have access to that kind of information yet. We can't know any dog's (or person's for that matter) full genetic history, so what are you trying to say here?

I'll add that I pass on a good risk of ADHD, OCD, Tourettes Syndrome, Ehlers Danlos syndrome and Parkinson's disease. Unfortunately we did not find this out until after the kids were born. None of these conditions are in the family's history, although, after the fact, there were some accountings of a great grandmother that had 'shaker's palsy' which indicates a possibility of old age Parkinsons (my mom and brother got it prior to the age of 40 though). Genetic 'knowledge' is just in its infancy even in humans and there are still not tests for any of these conditions.

Genetic testing will never be the cure-all that some breeders seem to be looking for as many, many conditions are threshold polygenetic conditions (formed from the wrong combination of 3 to possibly 20 or more genes) and those will not ever be 'testable' for with any kind of conclusive genetic testing.

Not all genes are 'good' and 'bad'. Some are 'partially good' and 'partially bad' dependent upon what else they are matched with.

CC


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> Breeders can only every know a TINY, TINY amount of information on any dog, even if they have a computer full of knowledge on its history. The dog genome holds about 20,000 genes and pedigree info and testing covers a miniscule amount of knowledge.
> 
> I don't glean the same comfort from the tiny amount of knowledge as many do. I remain fully aware of the gamble in each pairing and want to remind people of that as it is important that we know each pairing is mostly a gamble with just a few 'knowns' sorted through. *Still . . . I understand you are suggesting that you would rather that than the prospect of even less from a dog of unknown heritage.*
> 
> ...


That is what I was trying to say, put much, much better than I did.


----------



## Wildmoor (Oct 31, 2011)

I am not sure what breed you have
When I say full genetic history I am refering to the familial history of those particular lines, take epilepsy I am aware that not all seizures are genetic and there are other causes but when it is known that within certain lines there are multiple sires/dams who are producers of epileptic progeny - the same names crop up very frequently in affected dogs pedigrees - some of the breeders of these lines are very aware but continue to breed regardless. other conditions can be screened some we may never know in our lifetime - but this is where the familial health history is important and to know what is producing what in your particular breed is very important when making breeding decissions - but to breed regardless or without that knowledge is irresponsible 
In the GSD in the UK there is a lot of acrued data on health to not use this knowledge in your breeding plans apart from being irresponsible and uncaring about the future health and welfare of the breed it is unethical - not knowing is no excuse breeders can contact the Breed Health co-ordinator for advise.


----------



## ceretrea (Jan 24, 2011)

I realise this is the dog forum, but don't forget BYB's aren't just a doggy problem.

For small animals, BYB's account for many that turn up in rescue due to aggression or health issues, poor sexing, no home checking etc. Next to pet shops they are the next biggest bane.

A breeder should breed because doing so will enhance or improve upon a species/breed's health and temperament. They may wish to breed to show (in many species) but should never do so at the risk of health or to produce poor temperaments.
A responsible breeder will also always remain responsible for the entire life of the animals they produce. Lifetime back up if you will. Alot of good breeders practise this and it means their animals do not end up in rescue, and they have to curb the numbers they breed so they can cope with any that come back.

A BYB will breed with no thought to their offspring or any consequence of their actions, often for the money...or just because.

In terms of dogs, there are so many of certain breeds popping up online on preloved and gumtree that owners try and sell. Cross it with something and make twice as much. Its not needed, and not thought out at all. Some breeds need careful planning in order to minimise congenital health issues, such as screening and scoring.


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

Wow that was epic.......

Ok few points that I can take from my own experineces:

Lexi is a 3.5 year old staffie, we bought her (stupidly) from a 'breeder' at 8 weeks, nice family owned mum and dad third litter, seemed to know what they were doing, no health tests not KC reg but cheap pups.
Lexi is a very nervous dog despite extensive socialisation, she has horrible horrible allergies to everything from cereals to grass, out of 5 in her litter there are only 3 left alive. And I have heard from the breeder once since i brought her home to tell me her brother had been killed in a dog fight and her sister was put down due to allergies and if we wanted Lexi put down they would pay for it.

Nala is an almost 6 month old chocolate lab. Her parents and her grandparents are all health tested and she is genetically clear for everything you can test a lab from. Her breeder is still in touch, she is KC reg and we ahve a puppy buyers contract in place, not only that but I am in regular contact with her dads owner as well. The difference in the actual pup as well is unreal she is a dream, really calm, easy in the house (not a loopy lab) and everyone from my vet to my dog walker has commented on her good conformation and her wonderfully steady personality.

Now I am hoping to work and show Nala and have already started looking at lines, her litter was a total outcross so if i was to ever breed from her I would like to bring back in an element of line breeding.
However should i ever breed she would need to be shown and worked to a good level, she would need to be hip scored, elbow scored, eyes tested etc etc before her breeder would lift her endorsments.
And if anyone of her tests came back as unacceptable then well the breeding idea would be shelved.

Can I also say she is 5 months old I am perfectly aware she will change ALOT so the whole breeding thing is something i have mulled over on those nights where you lay in bed and can't sleep, its not something I am giving a lot of time and thought to.

To me for someone to breed they have to want to be adding something to the breed, have a dog that is a good example of that breed whether it be working, showing or both, its breeders breeding willy nilly the reason we are getting all these dogs that look nothing like the breed should.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

LexiLou2 said:


> To me for someone to breed they have to want to be adding something to the breed, have a dog that is a good example of that breed whether it be working, showing or both, its breeders breeding willy nilly the reason we are getting all these dogs that look nothing like the breed should.


Not in all breeds it's not


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Wildmoor said:


> I am not sure what breed you have


I don't have a breed. I have deliberately purchased mutts from a carefully selected breeder who is going forward on a line she started many generations ago (from mutts). I have a couple rehomes and a rescue as well (officially my adult sons but he lives here). I was raised with a farm collie breeder (my mom) who carried on her father's line . . . Mom ending her line (due to her own ill health) 70 years from when her father started it prior to WWI.

I mentored (starting 30 years ago) in American Cockers. Life threw curve balls and got in the way. A decade or so ago I started studying Cavaliers and getting involved and backed away. I won't touch the breed as it is, frankly. I would gladly participate in an outcross project if there was a will to do so within the breed, and if animal MRIs were available here (6 hours away is the closest, and they limit those to animals that are ill, not breeding animals).

Living here there is no possible way I could get involved in Cavaliers at this point.



Wildmoor said:


> When I say full genetic history I am refering to the familial history of those particular lines, .


Stating that this is a 'genetic' history is grossly misleading. Some of us read 'genetic' history and expect that that really is what is meant.



Wildmoor said:


> but this is where the familial health history is important and to know what is producing what in your particular breed is very important when making breeding decissions - but to breed regardless or without that knowledge is irresponsible . . .


To breed a dog of a breed where there is a known risk that should be tested, without doing so, I believe is careless. To breed purebred dogs together where risks are known within that breed, and to ignore the use of health history, I believe is careless. MORE information is better than less.

And while I agree with the general idea of what you are saying I have to throw out a few cautions with regard to the use of that "irresponsible" idea being extrapolated to all circumstances.

Condemning breeders by 'risk' as irresponsible is a thought process that I won't champion. All breeders take risks. That is WHAT breeders do. If we start to throw breeders under the bus by 'risk' of what they are producing we will lose full breeds.

Keep in mind AR groups have already been using this kind of thought process to call for the end of mutt pairings, even in places like Northern Alberta where we don't have the purebred gene pool to carry dogs on from. We also now have AR groups calling for the end of some health challenged breeds.

In many, many areas of this world registries and breed clubs have barely touched the dog population. I grew up in Northern Alberta where that is the case. People still need and utilise dogs, and breeders still need to produce those dogs. Living where ranch stock dogs and Alaskan Huskies are bred I find that I have to caution about the idea often put forward that these breeders are breeding 'less responsibly' as they often have less knowledge. Even with little family history behind, the pups produced will have better risk ODDS than that of pups produced within a few breeds. The breeders of these dogs are not breeding less responsibly. They are simply breeding with different risk factors, gambling in one way (less history) but less so in others (open gene pools allow genetic drift and diversity, both advantageous for health risk).



Wildmoor said:


> In the GSD in the UK there is a lot of acrued data on health to not use this knowledge in your breeding plans apart from being irresponsible and uncaring about the future health and welfare of the breed it is unethical - not knowing is no excuse breeders can contact the Breed Health co-ordinator for advise.


I agree. Small problems can quickly get magnified within closed breeds as the gene pool can't help but constantly dwindle. I believe when you are working with an established breed it is your responsiblity (to that breed and pups produced in its future generations) to utilise as much accrued data as possible. It is truly the only way to continue in these breeds.

CC


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

why only in an established breed ? - is not *more* knowledge always a good thing irrespective of whether you are breeding pedigree or mongrels ?


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

rona said:


> Not in all breeds it's not


No I agree, I should have probably put in most breeds or a lot of breeds. Staffies are one that spring to mind to be bred bigger and bigger and a lot more muscular and again some labs you see now have the head a mastiff or a rottie would be proud of. For some reason people seem to pride themselves on taking dogs to an extreme, a staffie weighing in at near on 30kg, a lab with the head of a rottie and a pug with such a squashed face it can't breathe. Not all BYB I agree but breeders I would avoid with a 10 foot bargepole.
I would rather go to a breeder that had won nothing in the show ring but was breeding to better the breed (health tests temprements etc) than a breeder who had won lots in the show ring but had such an exagerated example of the breed it raaised questions on health.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

LexiLou2 said:


> No I agree, I should have probably put in most breeds or a lot of breeds. Staffies are one that spring to mind to be bred bigger and bigger and a lot more muscular and again some labs you see now have the head a mastiff or a rottie would be proud of. For some reason people seem to pride themselves on taking dogs to an extreme, a staffie weighing in at near on 30kg, a lab with the head of a rottie and a pug with such a squashed face it can't breathe. Not all BYB I agree but breeders I would avoid with a 10 foot bargepole.
> I would rather go to a breeder that had won nothing in the show ring but was breeding to better the breed (health tests temprements etc) than a breeder who had won lots in the show ring but had such an exagerated example of the breed it raaised questions on health.


I have a feeling you and I will be battling between the last two places in that show ring


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I have a feeling you and I will be battling between the last two places in that show ring


I'll take last place....means my dog is 'less substantial' than yours . Plus mine stands like a duck.  :cryin:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

LexiLou2 said:


> I'll take last place....means my dog is 'less substantial' than yours . Plus mine stands like a duck.  :cryin:


Hey, you're talking to the proud owner of the winner of Junior Bitch at the URC (ok, ok, so only we turned up for that particular class). It would only take a bit of scuppering and I could have got BOB!! But I'm afraid my heart's just not in it, I'm not competetive enough


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> . . I agree. Small problems can quickly get magnified within closed breeds as the gene pool can't help but constantly dwindle. I believe when you are working with an established breed it is your responsiblity (to that breed and pups produced in its future generations) to utilise as much accrued data as possible. It is truly the only way to continue in these breeds.
> 
> CC





Bijou said:


> why only in an established breed ? - is not *more* knowledge always a good thing irrespective of whether you are breeding pedigree or mongrels ?


Yes. I should have worded that better. Working with as much accrued data as possible is best with any pairing. I was thnking with closed gene pools in mind as when working within a closed gene pool the breeders have a high responsibility to the future dogs in that breed, as a single dog can make a huge contribution to a closed gene pool and results magnified. Outside of a closed gene pool this is less a consideration.

What I am suggesting as a side note, however, for those that like to make 'absolutes' from that idea is that the limits of that knowledge or even the limits of collecting that data which are faced by many breeders all over the world do not make them 'less responsible'. Their choice to favor one type of risk over another does not make them 'less responsible'.

We don't have canine opthamologist in Northern Alberta, as an example. The closest can be found at a once yearly clinic - sometimes cancelled - in the Edmonton area. A cardiologist just began in Edmonton two years ago. There is no MRI capability They are restricted for human use only. (I know a vet that pushed this for an SM diagnosis on a Cavalier and got into trouble). The Northern areas of our provinces - which stretch at least a seven hour drive farther North - are not serviced, nor are our Territories.

The AR groups extrapolate from these ideas and attempt, through legislation, to limit breeders. They are working toward regulations and pushing spay/neuter ordinances and heightened license fees, as per the promotion of the idea that there are only very limited ways to breed 'responsibly'. They have achieved these already in at least one of our provinces. All of these favor the risks involved in closed populations, with a good amount of history and testing, over the risks of breeding in an open population with less confirmable history and testing.

Because of this ideology I know breeders in the Northern parts of our province that face slander from our online community regularly as they cannot eye test pups or have yet to be able to arrange a cardiologist in. Without these breeders ALL we would have would be ferally bred reserve dogs and import rescue dogs yet these breeders are being condemned.

I will continue to contest the proliferation of that ideology.

Breeding is about risk management. No 'check list' can be used to determine whether or not a breeder is 'responsible'. There are too many nuances to do this.

CC


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> Yes. I should have worded that better. Working with as much accrued data as possible is best with any pairing. What I am suggesting, however, is that the limits of that knowledge or even collecting that data which are faced by many breeders all over the world does not make them 'less responsible'. Their choice to favor one type of risk over another does not make them 'less responsible'.
> 
> (We don't have canine opthamologist in Northern Alberta, as an example. The closest can be found at a once yearly clinic - sometimes cancelled - in the Edmonton area. A cardiologist just began in Edmonton two years ago. There is no MRI capability (they are restricted for human use only, and I know a vet that pushed this for an SM diagnosis on a Cavalier and got into trouble). The Northern areas of our provinces - which stretch at least a seven hour drive farther North - are not serviced, nor are our Territories).
> 
> ...


That all seems rather bizarre from this side of the pond, where health clinics/specialists/tests are far easier to access for dogs/animals than the human equivalent.


----------



## Luz (Jul 28, 2012)

Well I asked about patellar luxation testing for my dog and my vet - with 25 years experience - had never heard of the test!


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

rona said:


> That all seems rather bizarre from this side of the pond, where health clinics/specialists/tests are far easier to access for dogs/animals than the human equivalent.


I know that it does.

Believe me, I was blown away when I came online and found out that on your side of the pond these capabilities were so accessible. I have YET to speak with anyone involved in dogs here who has knowledge of a 'sheep scanner' (I'm still trying to figure that one out myself, actually.)

Unfortunately those who make it their duty to condemn and limit the choices of breeders in every and any way possible do not take location, the tradition (or non) of club breeding, and access to specialists into account.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> I know that it does.
> 
> Believe me, I was blown away when I came online and found out that on your side of the pond these capabilities were so accessible.
> 
> CC


I must get round to getting organised with Rhuna, but all I have to do for her eye test which will include gonioscopy, is phone the vets which are about 20 miles away from us, and I can book her in any time I want. Same with hips and elbows and any other test we need.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Vets here do patellas and hips. Hips are x-rayed by vets but to be rated they need to be sent off (they are rated here as fail, borderline, good, or excellent - no scores). They will check eyes and hearts and bile acid test and blood work etc. as well if you push them.

In many breeds though eyes and hearts have to be done through a specialist to be considered as 'done' - and if a vet does these the breeders are accused of 'just having vet checks'. Cavaliers, Cockers and Shih Tzus are included here as needing that. As usual I only know about the testing required on the small ones.

I've not ever met a vet that will do gonioscopy (just looked up what it is). I have a friend in Shih Tzus whose vet will not certify clear for 'distichiasis' as 'he is not an opthomologist', so I know that vets will draw the line when it comes to paperwork declarations of tests when they are working out of their area.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I wouldn't have a clue about hearts etc, since they don't apply to my breeds, but I'm fairly sure they would be just as easy. I've used the same vet for eye tests since I first had Indie tested about six and a half years ago, as he's geographically the closest. We do 20/20 clinics here as well, which you can join to get a discount for certain tests.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

A heart auscultation is quickly and easily done, but not considered 'reliable' unless it is done by a specialist.

For larger breeds and hearts often cardiac halter monitors are needed. 

Are all the Labrador tests done through just a vet?


CC


----------



## Wildmoor (Oct 31, 2011)

Things are very different over in the UK, I can travel 40 mile to an excellent vet who xrays under sedation for plates of hips/elbows to be submitted to BVA, less than 10 mile away we have a cardiologist, opthalmologist etc we have numerous Labs that can conduct various tests, we also have access to other Labs/Unis in Europe.
The UK KC doesnt care so it is up to the breeders to committ themselves to the future Health & WElfare of their breeds.

My other breed the plates are submited to the Breed club in Czech - they dont have other health issues so no other tests are done - but the Breed Club decide if a particular mating can go ahead - if they so No then none of the progeny can be registered


----------



## Nightmare (Aug 26, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> A heart auscultation is quickly and easily done, but not considered 'reliable' unless it is done by a specialist.
> 
> For larger breeds and hearts often cardiac halter monitors are needed.
> 
> CC


I have a 'heart' breed, Salukis. They have DCM, and mitral valve disease is common in older dogs. Many breeders use an echo and declare a normal result 'clear' even though Salukis have weird hearts and often show what appears to be a pathology with no loss of function and the dog never develops heart disease. There is an ongoing study in Finland to establish baseline normals for echo for Salukis, look for a genetic connection for DCM, and determine whether arrhythmias on Holter monitoring (24 hour ecg) is predictive for DCM like it is in Dobes. So far that is very promising.

I own a Holter, I bought it after reading about studies in Dobes showing that arrhythmias are predictive for development of DCM (before the Finnish study started.) I own two Salukis, both male, that have had two first degree relatives die of DCM (needless to say neither of these dogs will be bred.) It costs me $30 to have a tech read the Holter data, $60 for a cardiac specialist.

It's not an echo that's filed with OFA, though. Even though there is no cardiologist anywhere within a days drive of me and echos are very, very iffy in regards to Saluki hearts. (Salukis breeders are all over the map in regards to what they do about hearts.)

Hip dysplasia is practically unknown in Salukis. I don't do hips. But because Salukis are a large breed, and large breeds are known for hip problems, I am not responsible. In Afghans, hips are really only done in the US (many breeders don't), the rest of the world has determined that the risk is too low to bother with it. I don't do hips on my Afghans, either.

Eye problems are almost completely unknown in Salukis. Afghans have a very small problem with juvenile cataracts, which is a recessive with no DNA test. My own vet is competent to look at eyes and diagnose incipient cataracts. There is no opthamologist anywhere nearby, I have to go to another state to get my dogs CERFED. I don't bother. Not responsible.

Both breeds can have thyroid problems. I do fT4, tgaa, and tsh.

I am lucky in that my vet is also the ortho guy for the area. We've had some broken legs and thankfully didn't have to travel to fix that.

The dog community has decided that 'responsible' has something to do with titles. In the US, this is OFA and CERF certs. In some breeds this makes sense but in others, no. But you still get those wonderful lists stating that ALL RESPONSIBLE BREEDERS OFA HIPS and whatever, therefore, if you don't, even if these are not problems in your breed, you are irresponsible. It doesn't pay to talk in generalities because dog breeds are not 'general.' Some problems are very breed specific, as evidenced by the plethora of DNA tests in some breeds.

OFA now offers a cert. for your dog having the correct number of teeth. Your vet counts the teeth, fills out the form, and sends it in. Is this actually the direction that we're going in? This is confusing for the puppy buyer who is trying to be educated and make good decisions. Am I a bad breeder because I haven't had my dogs teeth counted?

There are, unfortunately, no certifications for 'good immune system,' 'doesn't have allergies,' 'lots of relatives died of cancer', 'lots of bloat in the lines,' 'being honest with yourself,' or 'common sense.' One has to trust the breeder on that, and there are plenty of breeders out there who will readily lie to buyers, because they are already lying to themselves. Example: your Saluki drops dead while lure-coursing, and gross necropsy shows nothing wrong with the heart. You don't send a chunk of heart to the pathologist, and declare that "of course the dog _didn't_ die of DCM! There was nothing on the necropsy!"

Is is any wonder puppy buyers get confused?

Jess Ruffner-Booth


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> A heart auscultation is quickly and easily done, but not considered 'reliable' unless it is done by a specialist.
> 
> For larger breeds and hearts often cardiac halter monitors are needed.
> 
> ...


Most dogs are for the main part, although not always your own vet. For the BVA eye cert, which includes different elements depending on breed, this has to be done by an approved specialist, the BVA have a list on their website and you can just phone up the surgery and make an appointment there and then. For bloods you get your vet to draw the blood and label it up, they are now asking for dogs to be scanned for their microchip number before completing paperwork, which I agree with although I'd prefer dna profiling so that the bloods themselves, or saliva swab, could be checked and verified. What's to stop someone with two dogs switching them over after they've been scanned? For some DNA tests you swab your dog at home and send the sample in to be processed, which is open to abuse.

Hips and elbows you can have done at any vet practice, but experienced breeders tend to use vets who they trust to take accurate plates, and there are private recommendations for different vets throughout the country. I am tempted to use one of these recommended vets for Rhuna, In the past I have just used my own vets who I trusted, naievely in some cases and got bitten with Indie's elbow plates which I will never know if they were/are a good representation of her actual elbows. She came back as a 2:1 but the first set were rejected as they were poor quality, I had no idea about the appeals process at that point, and by the time I did know it was too late.

It doesn't surprise me that vets have little/no knowledge of individual health schemes, I know more than two of the vets at the branch of the practice I use about the health schemes for Labradors and flatcoats, and more about their breed history, but then neither are canine specialists although one of those is my preferred vet. Another vet at my practice actually breeds Labradors, he's my second preferred vet. I'm extremely lucky in that they are all very willing to listen to you as a customer, which we don't get here, there is a wide variety in how vets perceive customers and how much information they give them and how they treat them. But we don't have the same culture of sueing someone if it goes wrong here, I'm sure things would change if someone did actually sue their vet for lack of advice or wrong advice.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> There are, unfortunately, no certifications for 'good immune system,' 'doesn't have allergies,' 'lots of relatives died of cancer', 'lots of bloat in the lines,


..and that's why it's so important to buy from breeders who know their lines ....as you have pointed out simply because a condition has a test does not mean it is the one that is most problematic within a breed - my own breed does not generally have a problem with either hips or eyes ( yet we routinely test for these 'because we can' ) but it does have a problem with epilepsy - only breeder knowledge can avoid passing this problem on ( and of course breeder honesty ! )



> The dog community has decided that 'responsible' has something to do with titles.


I don't think this is true - surely it's all about breeding with as much knowledge as possible ?-does it matter if I eye test yearly even though my breed is seldom affected by PRA ? - it may seem like a bit of overkill but it adds to the pool of knowledge I know about my breeding line - it makes sense to me to use those tests that are available and then make informed breeding decisions based on ALL the knowledge gained rather than not ?

...showing a puppy buyer the paperwork from established tests will never guarantee that a pup will be free from un testable conditions but it surely shows that the breeder is committed to doing everything possible to produce healthy pups ?


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

It is largely breed specific what makes someone a BYB, things like lines, colours, tests and prices suggests how much they care .


----------



## Nightmare (Aug 26, 2010)

Bijou said:


> I don't think this is true - surely it's all about breeding with as much knowledge as possible ?-does it matter if I eye test yearly even though my breed is seldom affected by PRA ? - it may seem like a bit of overkill but it adds to the pool of knowledge I know about my breeding line - it makes sense to me to use those tests that are available and then make informed breeding decisions based on ALL the knowledge gained rather than not ?


Generally I don't think there is anything that is any really 'useless' information, but there is a limit. I could certainly drag my dogs on a long trip to the opthamologist and stay two nights away in a hotel and spend lots of money to have them checked for diseases that haven't been diagnosed in the breeds, but does that really tell me anything other than, "yep, clear?" If there's a DNA test for a condition, and your dogs test clear and their offspring are clear by descent, do you continue to test them, just to get that little certificate that says 'clear?'



Bijou said:


> ...showing a puppy buyer the paperwork from established tests will never guarantee that a pup will be free from un testable conditions but it surely shows that the breeder is committed to doing everything possible to produce healthy pups ?


Maybe things work a little differently across the pond, but here there are breeders that will test for everything under the sun just to be able to say their dogs have an OFA certification for this or that. That is title chasing no matter which way you twist it. And it also puts breeders who do not have ready, cheap access to tests that are really not necessary in their breeds in a bind. To the untutored buyer, the breeder that lives near a vet school or a large city with lots of specialists and easy access will look more 'responsible' than the one that lives in the middle of nowhere and depends on their local vet and common sense for most things.

This is just the same as all of those really helpful  :::sarcasm::: articles on 'how to spot a responsible breeder' that include 'genetic testing.' There are plenty of breeds which do not have ANY DNA tests. Explain that to buyer who has been drilled that 'good breeders DNA test.' Or that all large breeds must have their hips done.

There have been communities here in the US that have tried to pass dog breeding laws that state which tests the breeder must do, with no regard to breed differences or really hard to understand things like clear by descent  :::sarcasm::: Making it illegal to keep dogs intact unless they are being shown is also _very_ popular, because we all know that 'responsible' breeder show their dogs and those greedy backyard breeders don't. Who pushes these laws? Well-meaning pet people who have read some article on the internet about 'responsible breeders' and wants to stop all those EVUL BACKYARD GREEDERS.

Jess Ruffner-Booth


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> If there's a DNA test for a condition, and your dogs test clear and their offspring are clear by descent, do you continue to test them, just to get that little certificate that says 'clear?'


Er no.... why would you continue to test a dna tested clear dog?  Personally, I think there may be some validity in testing dna clear by parentage dogs some generations down the line, but it would have nothing to do with getting a certificate, but to ensure that mutations or errors have not taken place.




> Maybe things work a little differently across the pond, but here there are breeders that will test for everything under the sun just to be able to say their dogs have an OFA certification for this or that. That is title chasing no matter which way you twist it


A title is an award given to a dog, not a health certificate so cannot see your point 



> And it also puts breeders who do not have ready, cheap access to tests that are really not necessary in their breeds in a bind. To the untutored buyer, the breeder that lives near a vet school or a large city with lots of specialists and easy access will look more 'responsible' than the one that lives in the middle of nowhere and depends on their local vet and common sense for most things.


I don't know where you're from, but in the UK there is no distance that would disadvantage any breeder or prevent them from doing these tests. There is plenty of information available from breed clubs and on the internet which would fill in any gaps in a vets knowledge (of which there is often plenty).


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> I don't know where you're from, but in the UK there is no distance that would disadvantage any breeder or prevent them from doing these tests. There is plenty of information available from breed clubs and on the internet which would fill in any gaps in a vets knowledge (of which there is often plenty).


I am not sure where in the UK you live but I am certainly disadvantaged where I live. It would cost me a couple of hundred pounds plus two nights away from home so possibly another £150 if I wanted to take my dogs to a specialist for anything. Obviously they could have xrays taken locally and sent away.


----------



## Nightmare (Aug 26, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> A title is an award given to a dog, not a health certificate so cannot see your point


You may continue to tell yourself that. When breeders display OFA seals on their web sites and OFA scores go on their pedigrees, these are titles. They are 'awarded' on the basis of 'health.'

When a breeder does every test under the sun, including testing for issues extremely rare or non-existent in their breed, just so that they can say they 'tested for this, that, and the other thing,' that is _title chasing_. It is also extremely confusing to the buyer, because _'responsible breeders' test_, therefore the ones who test the most must be the most 'responsible', right?



rocco33 said:


> I don't know where you're from, but in the UK there is no distance that would disadvantage any breeder or prevent them from doing these tests. There is plenty of information available from breed clubs and on the internet which would fill in any gaps in a vets knowledge (of which there is often plenty).


I live in the US. And don't quote mine me. What I actually said was:

_"I could certainly drag my dogs on a long trip to the opthamologist and stay two nights away in a hotel and spend lots of money to have them checked for diseases that *haven't been diagnosed* in the breeds, but does that really tell me anything other than, "yep, clear?""

"Maybe things work a little differently across the pond, but *here there are breeders that will test for everything under the sun just to be able to say their dogs have an OFA certification for this or that*. That is title chasing no matter which way you twist it. *And it also puts breeders who do not have ready, cheap access to tests that are really not necessary in their breeds in a bind.* *To the untutored buyer, the breeder that lives near a vet school or a large city with lots of specialists and easy access will look more 'responsible' than the one that lives in the middle of nowhere and depends on their local vet and common sense for most things.*"
_

The second paragraph very clearly references the first, which is concerning _testing for problems not inherent in the breed_ just so that the breeder can say, "Look at all these tests I do! Aren't I a _wonderful_ breeder?"



rocco33 said:


> I don't know where you're from, but in the UK there is no distance that would disadvantage any breeder or prevent them from doing these tests.


Oh, please. I won't make a day long drive to another state with a two night hotel stay to test for diseases which are rare to non-existent in the breed, IOW, an unnecessary test, and you question my dedication? BAD BREEDER! BAD BREEDER! GET THE TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS!

Do you know where this kind of thinking gets you? It gets you people who tell you that you should be testing for Von Willebrands, because George Padgett, in Control of Canine Genetic Diseases, says Salukis get Von Willebrands based on a _single case study_ from decades ago, and when you patiently explain that this is not a problem in the breed, that there are no bleeding problems in general in the breed, and there is no DNA test for it anyways, they call you a _bad breeder_, because all _good breeders_ would of course be testing for everything _that has ever occurred_ in the breed no matter how uncommon! Yes, this actually happened to me, and _that_ is why I _really_ wish there was a _common sense_ and _use your brain_ test.

Jess Ruffner-Booth


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> Er no.... why would you continue to test a dna tested clear dog?  Personally, I think there may be some validity in testing dna clear by parentage dogs some generations down the line, but it would have nothing to do with getting a certificate, but to ensure that mutations or errors have not taken place.


The idea being related here is that some breeders are testing for nothing . . . just to declare they have tested and in hopes of providing 'proof' of responsibility in a world where breeders have been so maligned they feel cornered into doing so. A long list of tests 'looks' nice to the uneducated even though it might mean very little.

Some tests are obviously necessary in some breeds. Others are up for breeder's discretion in my opinion as they are costly, sometimes confer a risk to have done (like flying your dogs to a specialist) and give little to no information back.

There is a point where cost-effectiveness HAS to be a consideration. I do not expect every Papillon or Pomeranian or Chihuahua or Yorkshire Terrier (etc.) breeder to MRI their dogs, even though we know that SM is in EVERY one of these breeds (some at champion levels). That is because it would not be cost effective and the HOPE is that the rare occurances are a one off and will get lost with a keen eye on the affected lines and genetic drift. I would hope those that find it in their lines MRI the family around these dogs, however.



rocco33 said:


> > here there are breeders that will test for everything under the sun just to be able to say their dogs have an OFA certification for this or that. That is title chasing no matter which way you twist it
> 
> 
> A title is an award given to a dog, not a health certificate so cannot see your point


Language barrier here. Jess is from the USA - sand desert area. I am from Northern Alberta - snow desert area  (we have 4 inches of snow on the ground today).

We often say 'health titles' here when referring to those breeders who chase a list of health 'titles' so they can be declared and put on display, often along with the accomplishment titles. Some refer to them as certificates.



rocco33 said:


> I don't know where you're from, but in the UK there is no distance that would disadvantage any breeder or prevent them from doing these tests. There is plenty of information available from breed clubs and on the internet which would fill in any gaps in a vets knowledge (of which there is often plenty).


Most of the world has vast, vast rural spaces where we do not have the same, even remotely. I have relatives in places where the closest vet is a three hour drive. In these areas a vet will do a 'round' a few times a year (like a clinic) to a list of locations for those that want to schedule a vet visit. Heck, I have relatives in places where the human medical care works the same way. - http://www.nadc.gov.ab.ca/Docs/Health-Recommendations.pdf 

We want to be able to have dogs . . . without flying them in from thousands of miles away. There is nothing so wrong with our stock that it all needs to be spayed and neutered so we can bring in only registered animals. I am saddened by the loss of some lines I have seen in my lifetime due to this push.

AR is often using the criteria put out by those that are well meaning to draft legislation and slander the breeders here who cannot possibly achieve what is expected by the 'responsible' breeder lists that are produced as we do not have the systems in place to do so - breed clubs, venues (sport or show), or even veterinary specialists.

We need to relate some common sense about these criteria. Again, there are no lists that can define a responsible breeder. There are too many considerations.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nightmare said:


> Generally I don't think there is anything that is any really 'useless' information, but there is a limit. I could certainly drag my dogs on a long trip to the opthamologist and stay two nights away in a hotel and spend lots of money to have them checked for diseases that haven't been diagnosed in the breeds, but does that really tell me anything other than, "yep, clear?" If there's a DNA test for a condition, and your dogs test clear and their offspring are clear by descent, do you continue to test them, just to get that little certificate that says 'clear?'
> 
> Maybe things work a little differently across the pond, but here there are breeders that will test for everything under the sun just to be able to say their dogs have an OFA certification for this or that. That is title chasing no matter which way you twist it. And it also puts breeders who do not have ready, cheap access to tests that are really not necessary in their breeds in a bind. To the untutored buyer, the breeder that lives near a vet school or a large city with lots of specialists and easy access will look more 'responsible' than the one that lives in the middle of nowhere and depends on their local vet and common sense for most things.
> 
> ...


I'm actually of a different opinion to rocco33 as regards DNA testing, because I don't think it's a good idea to rely on cbp status as too many errors are creeping in. So I will test each generation for DNA tests, and will ensure I use the best Laboratories to do so.

I only have to drive 20 miles to use the relevant BVA approved ophalmologist, but having lived in vast countries, people are willing to travel if they need to. What's the problem if you have to drive to get to them, or couldn't you arrange for specialists to travel and do 20/20 clinics similar to what we have here in the UK?

Just because there are no recommended tests for a breed, doesn't mean that there may not be an underlying problem. I've been speaking to someone recently experienced with flatcoats, about eye testing, there is the BVA eye test which includes the gonioscopy, and I will be asking them to look for any evidence of gPRA as well. This is not a requirement, nor is there any DNA test for flatcoats for this condition, but given that Labradors were used to broaden the gene pool following WWII, and that they have gPRA present in a number of lines, surely its just pragmatic to look into what could possibly be an introduced health problem, I'm not making it up for the sake of it.

I don't agree with dog breeding laws, or benchmark health test results, what I do believe in is healthy discussion and education, which seems to be a victim on this thread from certain points of view.



Ebeneezer said:


> Right. I'm going to get a bitch. And breed from her. Soon. As soon as. I'm desperate for cash. She'll be fine, nature will deal with it all. They can all stay in the garage so I dont have to clear up ****. Mother nature will sort it. Im hoping for a litter of 10+, can charge £500+ (from a registered bitch!) Bring on the cash ... easy money.
> 
> That's a BYB !


That's your definition of a byb, my definition is different, other peoples' definitions are different, you asked for opinions, and you will get different opinions. What you won't get is everyone agreeing to your definition, or any other one definition, you will just get a few similarities. If you don't want to know other people's opinions, the simple way is not to ask.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I live in the US.


Well that's explain the differences.



> Oh, please. I won't make a day long drive to another state with a two night hotel stay to test for diseases which are rare to non-existent in the breed, IOW, an unnecessary test, *and you question my dedication*? BAD BREEDER! BAD BREEDER! GET THE TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS!


Err.... please could you show me anywhere why have questioned your dedication - or anything else for that matter?! 



> Language barrier here. Jess is from the USA. We often say 'health titles' here. She is referring to those breeders who chase a list of health 'titles' so they can be declared and put on display, often along with the accomplishment titles. I don't know what you would call them in the UK.


I've never heard them referred to as health titles here - we call them health tests lol



> Most of the world has vast, vast rural spaces where we do not have the same, even remotely. I have relatives in places where the closest vet is a three hour drive. In these areas a vet will do a 'round' a few times a year (like a clinic) to a list of locations for those that want to schedule a vet visit. Heck, I have relatives in places where the human medical care works the same way.


I do appreciate that which was why I said here in the UK.



> Some tests are obviously necessary in some breeds. Others are up for breeder's discretion in my opinion as they are costly, sometimes confer a risk to have done (like flying your dogs to a specialist) and give little to no information back.


I agree and could apply that to myself. In my breed there are now many dna tests (the cynic in me says that at least part of that is because it is such numerically high breed that purely due to numbers they are more likely to earn well from doing the tests), and I don't do them ALL. Obviously the health tests that are required or desirable will vary from breed to breed.

In the UK the BVA (British Veterinary Assoc) along with the KC administrate these tests. Records are submitted to the KC (regardless of whether the owner wants them submitted or not) and records are held. The KC along with the breed clubs determines those tests that are required or recommended depending on breed. With the eye testing there are two lists - Schedule A where inheritied conditions are known to be inherited in the breed and Schedule B where conditions are suspected to be inherited in the breed.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> . . . I only have to drive 20 miles to use the relevant BVA approved ophalmologist, but having lived in vast countries, people are willing to travel if they need to. What's the problem if you have to drive to get to them, or couldn't you arrange for specialists to travel and do 20/20 clinics similar to what we have here in the UK? . . .


I was just re-reading this and I believe maybe the distances are not being understood.

For my OH's Aunt who lives in Ft. Vermillion and breeds rarely, the trip to Calgary for her to get a CERF certificate is 12 hours each way. (She does have a vet that checks eyes as best as he is qualified to do . . . but he is not an opthamologist and cannot issue a CERF certificate).

She would have to take a day or two off of work, unpaid unless she want to use up some of the 15 holiday days she has allotted yearly. She usually saves these for whelping and raising her occasional litters (she is semi-retired but is still expected to put hours in every day to hold her job).

The dogs would have to sit in a vehicle for 12 hours each way. (I know I won't plan a trip for mine with over 6 hours of confinement as* I *can't do that.) The cost of gas is going to run around $200 even in a fuel efficient car, then there will be the accomodation cost and food etc.

. . . and the question is 'what's wrong if you have to drive to them?'

Really?

And the answer to the question about arranging specialists to come in . . . the answer is we don't HAVE the specialists here to bring in to clinics. They don't have the time (nor probably the interest) to do the travelling. They have a living to make. We have 10 veterinary cardiac specialists for ALL of Canada which is comparable in size to the full continent of Europe (two are West of Ontario). We have seven veterinary opthamologists - six in Southern Ontario and east of there (so more than 3500 km away), and ONE is in B.C. who is the one kind enough to fly in to a clinic held in Edmonton annually. One from Ontario also flies into Calgary once a month for appointments. http://www.blinddogs.com/eyevet.htm - http://www.acvim.org/websites/acvim/index.php?p=228

This is the reality of what breeders face here.

My Aunt will remain a BYB in the eyes of some, according to the politically correct 'lists', as her dog's eyes are 'only' checked by a vet and she is not about to make the trip for a CERF certificate. I will never slate her with that label.

CC


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> If there's a DNA test for a condition, and your dogs test clear and their offspring are clear by descent, do you continue to test them, just to get that little certificate that says 'clear?'


surely it's not 'just' to get some meaningless certificate but to have a greater understanding of what you are breeding from ?

how will you Know they are 'clear by descent' unless you test ?-it's easy to say "well mum and dad had good eye test results so I won't bother to test the daughter I'm intending to breed from " but we all know that problems can skip generations and manifest themselves later on within a breeding line -

..and DNA testing is surely worthwhile in order to add to a breeds health data base ? ( one of the MOST useful tools breeders now have ) I'm really puzzled why you think this is all a waste of time -? - I do understand that you might baulk at the distances involved or the cost but this excuse could also be used to only use your own or very local stud dogs and avoid the cost and time of going abroad or importing dogs from different lines - good breeding is not always the cheap or easiest option !


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> I was just re-reading this and I believe maybe the distances are not being understood.
> 
> For my OH's Aunt who lives in Ft. Vermillion and breeds rarely, the trip to Calgary for her to get a CERF certificate is 12 hours each way. (She does have a vet that checks eyes as best as he is qualified to do . . . but he is not an opthamologist and cannot issue a CERF certificate).
> 
> ...


No, I do understand the differences in distance, I've lived in countries where there are huge distances to travel to get anywhere and it would take a half a day to get to the doctors, if there was someone travelling out that way or you could manage to squeeze onto one of the combi buses.

I've never said health testing is the be all and end all in fact I've said the very opposite in lots of instances. In the bad old days before we had health tests, breeders knew their lines, and often knew if a line was associated with poor movement/hips, poor eyes, bad temperament, to a greater degree than those who health test these days, and simply look at the dog in front of them and their health test results. I've also argued in the past about using dogs that aren't perfect health wise, because I don't believe health testing should be about a clear tick list. But given the amount of people breeding these days, it's far easier to say get your dog health tested than to suggest they research without the aid of health tests what their dogs heritage is like in all respects. It is far easier to say health test, and also look at the parents health test results etc, on the KC database.

I have no idea what dogs your Aunt has, but I'm fairly sure they will have a lot more knowledge of their breed(s) than the OP's example, and will be aware of the health of their dogs and if they've had any problems in their lines. So I personally wouldn't necessarily say your aunt was a BYB at all, not that (I'm sure) she needs mine or anyone elses endorsement.

There are instances I can think of in the UK where people take a day off work to take X amount of dogs to have their eyes done, or hips/elbows done at the same time, so it isn't unheard of in the UK, but we do get a lot more annual leave than you guys.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Bijou said:


> I do understand that you might baulk at the distances involved or the cost but this excuse could also be used to only use your own or very local stud dogs and avoid the cost and time of going abroad or importing dogs from different lines - good breeding is not always the cheap or easiest option !


This is an interesting subject and one that does surprise me that registration bodies don't facilitate the presence of testers at reasonable locations recognising the need for the testing of certain conditions.

Having said that - I do agree that we in the UK probably have no concept of the distances involved - I have a friend in France who was explaining to me the distances travelled to attend shows - but until you actually do it..............

I'd visited her by flying, but in the summer, we opted to drive - from where we are in the UK, it was nearly 900 miles each way - nearly 700 of it in France - a country that still pales by comparison to Australia, the States or Canada.

We have breeders in many mainland European countries (Particularly some of the former Eastern block countries) that travel across several countries to both mate and show their dogs but even these distances pale by comparison compared to travelling in North America and Australia.

Having said all that - there are certainly dogs in my own breed in the US who have had just about every health test going - like Rocco - I don't associate that with "title chasing" which means something completely different here - i.e. synonymous with chasing show or field trial titles (or both).

Distance certainly isn't a barrier to DNA testing for anyone. In the UK we have to send our blood samples or swabs for PRA to the States, my colour coat tests and EIC tests were also sent to the US. Blood tests can be done by pretty much any vet, and owners can do their own Swab tests.

With regards to stud dogs (happy to be corrected) - I understand that AI is much more of an accepted practice in some overseas countries.

The UK KC have significantly relaxed their AI restrictions in the UK - however, this does not apply to studs domiciled in the UK unless they are dead (Irish Wolfhounds over 8.5 years excepted) or have become sterile simply due to general degeneration and over 12 years old (8.5 for IW)


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, I do understand the differences in distance, I've lived in countries where there are huge distances to travel to get anywhere and it would take a half a day to get to the doctors, if there was someone travelling out that way or you could manage to squeeze onto one of the combi buses.
> 
> I've never said health testing is the be all and end all in fact I've said the very opposite in lots of instances. In the bad old days before we had health tests, breeders knew their lines, and often knew if a line was associated with poor movement/hips, poor eyes, bad temperament, to a greater degree than those who health test these days, and simply look at the dog in front of them and their health test results. I've also argued in the past about using dogs that aren't perfect health wise, because I don't believe health testing should be about a clear tick list. But given the amount of people breeding these days, it's far easier to say get your dog health tested than to suggest they research without the aid of health tests what their dogs heritage is like in all respects. It is far easier to say health test, and also look at the parents health test results etc, on the KC database. . .


It is easier to recommend the tests, and best if the results are available, and that is one of the reasons I believe there is benefit to a club and registry system.

In conversations with this topic, however, I believe the knowledge has to be put forward that the system is not established or supported in many, many places in this world and the breeders there are still working in the ways of 'the bad old days', which up to and includes breeding from dogs with little known history and taking that gamble as the dog in front is an excellent dog for the job. These are not irresponsible uncaring and sloppy breeders as many who throw around labels like 'byb' like to accuse them of being.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> It is easier to recommend the tests, and best if the results are available, and that is one of the reasons I believe there is benefit to a club and registry system.
> 
> In conversations with this topic, however, I believe the knowledge has to be put forward that the system is not established or supported in many, many places in this world and the breeders there are still working in the ways of 'the bad old days', which up to and includes breeding from dogs with little known history and taking that gamble as the dog in front is an excellent dog for the job. These are not irresponsible uncaring and sloppy breeders as many who throw around labels like 'byb' like to accuse them of being.
> 
> CC


True (posting and dashing) but in this instance, this thread and the example given by the OP live (unless I'm mistaken) in the UK, where all thei information about breeding, health tests, etc, etc is easily available, so why should we accept that it's ok to bung together two breed types with no health tests or knowledge, and then accept accusations that our closed gene pool breed types are freaky and unhealthy? In this instance it was just a case that the OP didn't get what they wanted to hear, which is a fairly common occurrence unfortunately.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

> True (posting and dashing) but in this instance, this thread and the example given by the OP live (unless I'm mistaken) in the UK, where all thei information about breeding, health tests, etc, etc is easily available, so why should we accept that it's ok to bung together two breed types with no health tests or knowledge, and then accept accusations that our closed gene pool breed types are freaky and unhealthy? In this instance it was just a case that the OP didn't get what they wanted to hear, which is a fairly common occurrence unfortunately.


With regard to the specific example, I didn't ask anyone to do that. I don't believe anyone reading along could follow this conversation and believe that is what is being asked, either. Some people, of course, will continue set in their beliefs (can be said all around about every topic).

Some of us are continuing to speak to the larger topic (as per the title) and not the specific example.

The original conversation about 'distances' was amidst the larger topic - page 19. - http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/269908-what-byb-20.html#post1062399638

CC


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> It is easier to recommend the tests, and best if the results are available, and that is one of the reasons I believe there is benefit to a club and registry system.
> 
> In conversations with this topic, however, I believe the knowledge has to be put forward that the system is not established or supported in many, many places in this world and the breeders there are still working in the ways of 'the bad old days', which up to and includes breeding from dogs with little known history and taking that gamble as the dog in front is an excellent dog for the job. These are not irresponsible uncaring and sloppy breeders as many who throw around labels like 'byb' like to accuse them of being.
> CC


Certainly, things will vary around the world depending on location and can quite appreciate your difficulties in getting official tests done. I suspect where you are there are still breeders around like the old working breeders of the past here who knew their dogs and lines inside out, the type of dogs that are commonly bred will also influence the outcome, types rather than breeds with much wider gene pools. And I would suspect that due to this, your general vets are probably far more aware than ours are, with such a dense pet owning population, very few vets in the UK know anything other than the basics they learnt at vet school. Many may never have a client that has a litter.



> My Aunt will remain a BYB in the eyes of some, according to the politically correct 'lists', as her dog's eyes are 'only' checked by a vet and she is not about to make the trip for a CERF certificate. I will never slate her with that label.


Well, not necessarily. Here, if in the UK, yes I suspect she would (although she may well make use of the freely available testing). So you are right to point out regional differences. However, I cannot imagine many would travel abroad for their pet - goodness, most don't seem to want to travel more than an hour to buy a puppy here


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Rural Canadians tend to be online shoppers I guess.

I have 5 within my own family (brothers/sisters/nieces/nephews) that have imported from the USA - a Silver Labrador, two Papillons, a Shih Tzu and a Bichon all from breeders that they'll never meet and facilities they'll never see. None can answer questions about the lines. None are aware of the health challenges in their breeds (they are all healthy breeds so they say - trusted the breeders would sort that out). 

I have a vet that imported a Labrador from North Eastern USA, and a neighbor that imported a GSP - all for pets and not for breeding.

In the small dog meet up group I frequent - 3/4 of the dogs are not born in Canada. Many are imported rescues but we have a good number of imports as well. Intact dogs are not allowed . . . unless they are registered.  There and at the dog park I have now met Italian Greyhounds, Chinese Cresteds, my first Border Terriers, Manchester Terriers, Fox Terriers, real 'Siberian' Huskies (the registered kind) and a few more Cavaliers. I mention the Sibes as they so deviated (coat type) from what I have always known as a husky I had to ask what they were.

I can't say whether or not these breeders are better or worse than the ones an hour away that breed unregistered dogs (don't have enough info), but the importing owners think they've done 'the right thing' and many speak down to the mutt owners (has happened to me from an ignorant person that went on to rehome their import as he was too much dog for their situation) and deride the breeders we have an hour away as being 'byb's'. They don't tick the boxes properly I guess, and the buyers believe it really is that simple.

CC


----------



## Hanlou (Oct 29, 2012)

I've found this discussion really interesting. 

I don't breed and never will. My dog is a Pedigree but she is also a rescue dog who we adopted a year ago at 7 1/2 years old. We were looking for a calm dog who would be a relatively easy 'first dog' and who would be ok with our small pets. We would have been just as happy with a cross-breed. It just so happened that our perfect rescue dog also happened to be a Pedigree.

But despite my lack of experience with breeders I still have my own fully formed opinion on an ethical breeder and an unethical one (or a BYB, if you prefer). Everyone's ethics are personal so in many ways everyone's definition of a 'BYB' and an 'ethical breeder' will be vastly different.

I have just recently been researching breeds for our second dog and couldn't help but just have a nosey on 'Preloved' and 'Pets4homes' and *wow* so many untested 'Pedigree' dogs! And in most cases they certainly are not any cheaper than dogs bred by a breeder who health tests etc!! And the descriptions! Wow again! Border collies - 'lovely intelligent dogs who will make lovely pets, easy to train' - no mention of the mental and physical exercise they will need! Tons of the strangest crosses you could imagine with wild claims of having 'amazing temperaments'.... and so I could go on.

Yes in some countries, in some places there may be valid excuses for not health testing etc. But not here in the UK. There is no excuse. A breeder that does not do the breed specific health tests is irresponsible in my opinion. I simply can't see any justification to not health test. Who suffers when breeders don't health test? The breeder? No. The pups and the people who take them on - who may find themselves faced with sorrow and anguish watching their beloved pet suffer from bad hips, eye problems and goodness knows what else. 

I firmly and strongly believe that people should think very long, and very hard before bringing new lives into the world by putting a male and a female of any species together. Breeders are responsible for those little lives and why _shouldn't_ they do everything possible to make those lives as long and pain and disease free as possible??

I'm now on a waiting list for a Papillon puppy. Long emails have been exchanged with the breeder and the contrast between her and the Preloved sellers is beyond description. Am I rich and snobby for wanting a health dog?? No!! I will have to save up for my puppy. But I think it will be well worth waiting for and saving up for. More important in some ways than the knowledge that my breeder has done all she can to ensure the health of my pup' is the knowledge that she will be at the end of a phone line throughout my dogs' life.

Of course; if I had wanted Papillon now and with 'no questions asked' I could have got one from Preloved. And that 'instant puppy' and 'no questions asked' scenario is why BYB's will unfortunately continue to thrive.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Fabulous post Hanlou :thumbup: - and so good to read of someone determined to do it right !!


----------



## Hanlou (Oct 29, 2012)

Bijou said:


> Fabulous post Hanlou :thumbup: - and so good to read of someone determined to do it right !!


Thank you!  xx

It was funny; when I first emailed the breeder my husband was tutting at me for putting so much detailed information in it - and I have to admit - it was rather long! But the first thing the breeder said in their reply was 'thank you for telling me so much!' lol. And their replies have been just as long.

With all the information out there now on the internet to me it is easier than ever to find an ethical breeder. So no excuse for buyers either, really.


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2012)

Have read through this whole thread with interest having jumped over from the cat section. Have been a (pedigree) dog owner in the past though.

I have a really short definition of what I personally think a back yard breeder is. Someone who cuts corners.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

Australia has been mentioned in this context so I thought I'd throw my two bob's worth into the mix. Australia is two countries.

If you spoke to an honest breeder in a big city like Melbourne (where I live) I suspect you'd get answers along the lines of the UK folks' answers. Some regard non-pedigree breeders as bybs; some regard "show breeders who only want ribbons" as bybs and cite ignoring health issues to win/breed as evidence of their depravity; some regard those who do not health test as bybs etc.

If you asked an honest breeder in outback Oz what a bad breeder was they'd probably damn people who bred "silly poofy city dogs". Good breeders would be people who bred working dogs ie kelpies and heelers. Their take on health testing would be to shoot anything that couldn't/wouldn't work.

I've always wondered what outback dogs are like, genetically. Kelpies and heelers are originally cross-breeds of a multitude of herding/local dogs including dingo. They're not the city pedigree kelpies and heelers. They breed more or less true to type but vary over a distance. They're as tough as an iron bar. A good dog will work all day over shocking terrain and in extreme heat. As selective breeding it combines extreme culling with close breeding. A bit like cheetahs perhaps?

"Health testing" of dogs in the outback would be seen as a huge joke. If a bloke breeding - say heelers - lived in Newham (WA) and drove his dog to Perth (nearest facilities) a distance of 1197km (12 and 1/2 hours' drive, roughly) he'd be regarded as more than a little nuts. Why bother when you can just work the dog and see how it goes?


----------



## flosskins (Jan 27, 2010)

I've been reading all of this with interest and it appears that there are many common factors that make up the definition of the BYB, but there will always be other factors that people will differ on depending on their ethics, beliefs and morals. Health tests are important, as well as the detailed knowledge of the past generations as described by the working community. But I think there are other issues of the BYB that are almost as important - feeding the bitch and puppies for example. I recently met a 'breeder' who raised all of their litters on the cheap version of weetabix, and left it to the new owners to wean onto dog food! Other factors would be vaccinations - is the bitch up to date? Has she and the pups been wormed? Health testing is very important but there are other important factors as well that will show the quality of the breeder and impact the lives of their puppies, and the new owners purchasing them.
I agree with the short definition of a BYB breeder cuts corners!


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Thankyou Ozrex for that perspective of the 'outback'. I believe there is a VAST difference on opinions on this matter dependent upon your location. It speaks to the rural vs urban culture divide in most large countries.

CC


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

Interesting to see that this has been bumped - I had a dabble at it when it first came around.
You know how it is when you walk away from something and then think "I wish I had said...",
The point I was trying to make earlier was about the lack of definition of what a BYB actually is - well, here are some questions that you can answer yourselves and try and see if there is some sort of consensus on the subject.

1) Health testing - All available, common problems, just healthy parents or nothing at all.
2) Genetic Lines - Are these important? Does this mean that only Pedigree (KC?) dogs should be bred from - even if it is to produce crossbreeds. Would that mean that all crossbreeds are to be F1 type.
3) Welfare - should anyone intending to breed have some welfare checking done on the conditions and housing available to mum and pups. Would this be an extension of the council licensing to single litter breeding.
4) Reason - should there be a list of defined reasons to actually breed a litter of pups. I typed this and then got a bit blown away when I though of what the hell this would mean - and how it could be ascertained anyway. I left it in though. I suppose that it started out to mean money, breed standard or I love my dog and wanted to make some more - sort of. I hope you get the idea.
5) Selling - should a breeder be expected to carry out any checking on a prospective buyer of their pups, other that the normal talking to them that usually goes on.

I am sure that there are many, many more relevant questions - this is just off the top of my head. Please feel free to add.
The idea here is to answer in such a way that anybody who breeds a litter, but falls below the standard set in any one of your answers, could be categorized as a BYB.

Please take your time over these, and consider the consequences of where you pitch your answers. I realise that this is just a Forum, and that these do not actually mean anything, but what would the Pets4Homes site look like if your choices were seen through?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

miljar said:


> Interesting to see that this has been bumped - I had a dabble at it when it first came around.
> You know how it is when you walk away from something and then think "I wish I had said...",
> The point I was trying to make earlier was about the lack of definition of what a BYB actually is - well, here are some questions that you can answer yourselves and try and see if there is some sort of consensus on the subject.
> 
> ...


I'm just going to quickly respond to your 4 & 5, the reason to breed for me, is to produce a dog that is as good as, or an improvement on the dog you have. Now with a pedigree breed, you can judge this, with a cross breed, not so easy. So for example with Tau, I've used a dog with conformation points to try to improve with her daughter, and I have definitely made some improvements there. I also was aware of the type of ability and temperament of the dog, so hoped to make improvements there, and yes I have. So there are definitely good reasons for a particular litter to happen, according to the individual breeder.

I had a lot of enquiries in the end for pups, and couldnt have hoped to fulfil the demand. As far as I'm concerned, I'm responsible for those pups for a life time, and stay in touch with the owners. I help out where I can, and have met one owner with their pup at a show recently, and am arranging a get together for the new year where I hope to see a few more pups and owners.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

miljar said:


> . . . Please take your time over these, and consider the consequences of where you pitch your answers. I realise that this is just a Forum, and that these do not actually mean anything, but what would the Pets4Homes site look like if your choices were seen through?[/COLOR]


Can you please explain what you mean here?

How would my individual answers or opinions affect the Pets4Homes site?

CC


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

As I consider location important I'm going to state out front that I grew up in Northern Alberta where vets often could not be found - my Mom actually held a store of prescription animal medications (she was a nurse) that she could divy out upon phone permission and that was allowed as there were NO vets within three hours.

1) Health testing - All available, common problems, just healthy parents or nothing at all.

Healthy and well structured parents a must. Checks for common problems - clear eyes, good knees and good hearts in small dogs minimally, but DEPENDENT on availability I also want specialized checks on breed specific problems. I'm not going to ask a breeder in Yellowknife to have CERF eye checks or specialist heart checks when that is an impossibility for them.

_2) Genetic Lines - Are these important? Does this mean that only Pedigree (KC?) dogs should be bred from - even if it is to produce crossbreeds. Would that mean that all crossbreeds are to be F1 type._

90% of our dogs are unregistered. I live where mutts are bred and adore some landraces (mutt lines). Genetic lines are important but it can be argued that what you 'know' in the lines of pure breeds doesn't diminish risks more than the system in which they are bred (popular sire, closed stud book) increases the likelihood of risks. You are comparing 6 of one and half dozen of another with regard to results even if the effort on one side is often greater.

I can't see favoring pedigrees or F1 crosses. I believe a breeder HAS to have, however, a well thought out aim with regard to what they are doing and has to take into consideration and gather as much info on the lines behind the dogs he/she is putting together come from and as well put a good effort into assessing the dog in front. Any breeder should be able to spout off as much about their dog's faults as its good traits.

_3) Welfare - should anyone intending to breed have some welfare checking done on the conditions and housing available to mum and pups. Would this be an extension of the council licensing to single litter breeding._

Obviously a U.K. concern here. I don't even know what a 'council' is. We live over too vast a land area to have every breeder inspected. I believe buyers should be educated to make sure they look into the conditions that breeding animals are kept in.

_4) Reason - should there be a list of defined reasons to actually breed a litter of pups. I typed this and then got a bit blown away when I though of what the hell this would mean - and how it could be ascertained anyway. I left it in though. I suppose that it started out to mean money, breed standard or I love my dog and wanted to make some more - sort of. I hope you get the idea._

I don't think anyone can define a list of 'reasons' for breeding that are all encompassing. Each breeder will have their own nuanced reasons. I purchased dogs from a breeder that was carrying forward a line. They are mutts. I believe in their goal, in what they want to produce and feel lucky to have gained from it.

_5) Selling - should a breeder be expected to carry out any checking on a prospective buyer of their pups, other that the normal talking to them that usually goes on._

Yes. I believe there is some responsibility to be taken on by the seller to clarify where their pups are going to and to follow up. I believe, however, the largest part of the responsibility is on the part of the purchaser and we need to educate toward that thought - you are not buying a puppy -- you are buying a dog that WILL be a PITA for at least some portion of its life and as a buyer, making a decision to buy, you need to own up to that responsibility.

CC


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

comfortcreature said:


> Can you please explain what you mean here?
> 
> How would my individual answers or opinions affect the Pets4Homes site?
> 
> CC


The reason, or one of them, that BYB is mentioned is the amount of puppies being bred. The idea was that, if whatever answers you gave could be enforced, then how that would address this situation. The Pets4Homes is just being used as a guide to the number of dogs being advertised.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Ah I see. 

I believe simplifying the focus to 'diminishing the number of pups bred' by looking at regulating breeders is wrong headed.

You diminish the number of pups bred AND the number of dogs relinquished by educating the consumers. You will never stop all the idjit consumers or breeders BUT you can make the numbers low enough that they are manageable. I've worked with lots of foster kids in my life . . . the fact that we can't make all human stupidity come to an end has always been blindly obvious. We'll always be dealing with catch systems to help out the victims created by ill thought out choices (human and animal).

IMHO to have a population of people you can educate you need a population accustomed to making their own decisions and who will rise to the expectation of making smart decisions . . . not lead by the nose. Unfortunately everywhere I look it seems we are going in the opposite direction with regard to the expectation of taking responsibility for ones own decisions.

CC


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Ebeneezer said:


> When the time comes and we loose our Scamp, I just know I will want another pup and I won't look to the expensive, KC Reg, Health-Tested to the hilt, perfect pedigree pup that will cost me £600. I will go to a breeder who is concientious and caring. BUT down to earth and not snooty - Someone who will be more than happy to be on the end of the phone 5 years down the line, when I need to talk about my boy/girl ...


My breeder was all those things: caring, conscientious, down to earth, and was always there when I needed advice.

Oh, and my dog is a pedigree who comes from health tested lines, so I can be more sure he won't drop dead of DCM at 3, or get hip dysplasia at a young age.

Why do you think that a pedigree health tested dog/breeder can't be all these things?


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

comfortcreature said:


> Ah I see.
> 
> I believe simplifying the focus to 'diminishing the number of pups bred' by looking at regulating breeders is wrong headed.
> 
> ...


Jesus! When the question was just about dogs it was confusing enough. If you try to factor in a well-informed, confident and responsible human element then that would put it in another league of problem.
You are right, of course, and it all comes down to people in the end.


----------

